Re: Lump of Labour Fallacy

[Sandwichman <lumpoflabor@xxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, they do have it ass-backward but that suits them just fine.
They've been pedaling the line since at least 1993 (where my full text
searching stops). I did an Economist parody on MRzine last summer,
called "Only so much work to go round" made up completely of their
lump-of-labour rhetoric. 
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/walker040805.html

Also, the first sentence is plagiarized from Reginald Dale in the
International Herald Tribune.
http://maxspeak.org/mt/archives/001826.html But that's noting new
because the whole lump-of-labour saga is one long episode of plagiarism.

The one part they got right was about D.F. Schloss originating the
phrase. As far as I know I'm the one who traced the _expression_ back to
Schloss, so there's kind of an unspoken acknowledgement there at least.

On 5/27/06, paul phillips <phillipsp@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Tom,

The _Economist_'s A-Z on labour defines the lump of labour fallacy as:

LUMP OF LABOUR FALLACY

One of the best-known fallacies in ECONOMICS is the notion that there is a fixed amount of work to be done – a lump of LABOUR – which can be shared

snip
 

Correct me, if I am wrong, but haven't they got it ass-backward?

-- 
Sandwichman