I'm looking for the 'locus classicus' of the "lump-of-labour fallacy" and would welcome any suggestions for sources. I'm trying to track down the first use of the term "lump-of-labour" and any sources that actually analyze the logical construction of a so-called "fallacy". The four volume Palgrove Dictionary of Economics doesn't mention the lump, nor do several other economics terminology references including the Economist's dictionary of economic terms (ironic since the Economist magazine regularly uses the term to sneer at work sharing proposals). The definitions I have found aren't consistent. Some contrast the "mistaken belief that there is only a fixed amount of work" to the historical record of economic growth (basically the Samuelson usage). The Oxford Dictionary of economic terms seems to come closer to what I believe is the classical argument: that restricting the hours of work will force employers to employ people under sub-optimal (for the employers) cost conditions and this will lead to a drop in demand for labour. I suspect that the classical discussion may be Alfred Marshall in his Principles of Economics, but he doesn't use the term lump-of-labour or refer to a logical fallacy. To the contrary, Marshall cautions that "The relations between industrial efficiency and the hours of labour are complex." If anyone knows of any pre-Samuelson citations of the lump, please let me know. Regards, Tom Walker ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ #408 1035 Pacific St. Vancouver, B.C. V6E 4G7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 669-3286 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
