Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
According to the FT:

this ancillary flexibility was a side-effect of a law that was otherwise erroneously based on the "lump of labour" fallacy

Just as the Financial Times and the Economist have made it their mission to propagate the bogus lump-of-labour claim about the 35-hour law, the Sandwichman has made it his mission to answer the old canard about shorter work time being based on a fallacious belief that there is "only so much work to go round." See the lump of labor stops here for a compendium of counter thrusts.

Sandwichman

by Sandwichman on Tue Jun 6th, 2006 at 11:27:15 AM EST
Meanwhile, at Yahoo! Finance today there's yet another instance of the lump-of-labor boilerplate, this time by Charles Wheelen, the "Naked Economist", who writes:
I promised that in this column, I would debunk one of the most pernicious economic ideas of the left. I've chosen the "lump of labor" fallacy, which is the mistaken notion that the world has a fixed number of jobs and that therefore the best way to make workers better off is by protecting those jobs. The French are not the only people who subscribe to this erroneous view of a modern economy, but they seem to cling to it more tenaciously than most.

As is his custom (duty?), the Sandwichman recycled some of his own anti-boilerplate boilerplate at MaxSpeak.

Sandwichman

by Sandwichman on Wed Jun 7th, 2006 at 06:12:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series