The Lump of Labor

This crude stop-action video is meant as a place holder until the full dramatic videos can be produced starring Big Shot economists who parrot the lump of labor fallacy claim. See also the earlier Kruglump narration:

Those who make the fallacy claim fail to offer specific evidence of the supposed belief in a fixed amount of work.

Those who make the fallacy claim neglect to offer specific evidence of the supposed belief in a fixed amount of work.

A lump-of-labour fallacy claimant responds to my criticism of the lack of evidence for the assumption that current hours are optimal: "Of course I don't provide evidence. It is self-evident. Suppose I work for you for 30 hours per week. Suppose you then find out that it would be much more effective to hire 2 people working for 15 hours each instead. Say, because marginal productivity declines very fast. Or because of complementary skills. Or whatever. Either way, what would you do? -You would split the job, of course. Why on earth would you need a government bureaucrat telling you to do you what is good for you? How likely is it that you don't know how to achieve a productivity gain in your business, while some distant bureaucrat does know?" Evidence? Of course I don't provide evidence. Why on earth would we need evidence? It is self-evident. I don't have to show you any stinkin' evidence! Sir Sydney J. Chapman: "The reforming employer would run

1. The proposition accused of being false Every day many strangers came to town, and among them one day came two swindlers. They let it be known they were weavers, and they said they could weave the most magnificent fabrics imaginable. Not only were their colors and patterns uncommonly fine, but clothes made of this cloth had a wonderful way of becoming invisible to anyone who was unfit for his office, or who was unusually stupid… One of the more peculiar and puzzling responses to the New Economics Foundation's 21 Hours report was the charge that the authors committed a " lump-of-labour fallacy " – that their policy proposals were based on the assumption that the amount of work to be done is a fixed quantity. This complaint needs to be taken seriously, not because it has substance – it doesn't – but because of the extraordinary resilience of the fallacy myth despite its anachronism and incoherence. The case for shorter working time is based on a cluster of core pr

2. The fallacy claim  An example of the fallacy claim appeared in an opinion piece by Kristian Niemietz, "When Paternalism Meets Bogus Economics: The New Economics Foundation's 21 Hours Report," published by the Institute of Economic Affairs, which bills itself as "the U.K.'s original free-market think-tank." According to Niemietz: This is not ‘new economics’, but a rephrasing of the old lump-of-labour fallacy, the idea that the amount of work which is ‘required’ in an economy is somehow fixed and can be redistributed ‘justly’… The case for work-sharing rests on a number of assumptions. Demand for working hours must be largely fixed; work must be easily divisible; and the work of one person must be a close substitute for the work of another person. When these conditions hold, an employer will be indifferent between employing A for 40 hours, or employing A and B for 20 hours each. But when the conditions are violated, then work-sharing imposes addition