At 06:24 PM 5/27/99 +0100, Suggestions wrote: >Thanks for your message. We don't have any immediate plans for a Forum, but we shall probably have one on the site next year some time. >In the meanwhile, I have forwarded your message to our Economics Editor. >Yours, >Anthony Gottlieb > >Anthony Gottlieb >Executive Editor >THE ECONOMIST > >>>> Tom Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 5/26/99 8:27:14 pm >>> >In your recent mailing announcing new features at the economist site, I >didn't notice any mention of a public discussion forum, such as some >magazine sites have. I have a specific issue with the Economist's analysis >that I would like to raise in a public forum. Frequently in the past, the >Economist has readily referred to the "lump-of-labour fallacy" as a kind of >one size fits all rebuttal to calls for reduced worktime (at last count, the >Economist has made the LoL reference 8 times since 1993). > >The fallacy of the "Theory of the Lump of Labour" actually has "nothing to >do with the length of the working day" according to its original critic, >David F. Schloss in his 1891 article on "Why Working Men Dislike >Piece-Rates". The transference of the Lump-of-Labour fallacy to the turn of >the century issue of the Eight-Hours Day occured some ten years later in >connection with a vile piece of anti-trade union propaganda run in the >London Times under the heading of "The Crisis in British Industry" and >purportedly based on information supplied by the publicist for a scab labour >contractor. > >In other words, the current usage of the "lump-of-labour fallacy" has all >the scholarly respectibility of Piltdown Man or Cyril Burt's I.Q. studies of >twins. At least you are in good company. For 50 years in his introductory >textbook, Paul Samuelson has ritually referred to the lump-of-labour fallacy >in rebuttal to demands for a shorter work week. He can't give exact sources, >either. > >regards, > >Tom Walker >http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/covenant.htm regards, Tom Walker http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/covenant.htm
