3 ms·

It really is the broken window fallacy, but in reverse; that working harder could decrease aggregate employment implies that working less hard (or more counter-

It really is the broken window fallacy, but in reverse; that working harder could decrease aggregate employment implies that working less hard (or more counter-productively) could increase aggregate employment. This is even more hare-brained than the suggestion that we should all work less to allow more people to be employed. Increases in productivity (e.g. working harder) can only be harmful in a closed economy with very fixed consumption practices. Pretty much any country or region, however, cannot be said to exist in isolation, nor does it have fixed consumption. When either world interest rates go to 0% or people become miraculously content with everything they have, let me know so I can slack off, but until then I'm gonna keep working.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
fburnaby 17y ago
>It really is the broken window fallacy, but in reverse; that working harder could decrease aggregate employment implies that working less hard (or more counter-productively) could increase aggregate employment. Not all system responses are reversible. I can start working really hard, making it feasible for my company to lay someone else off. I could later stop working so hard, but there's no reason to expect that job to come back. > This is even more hare-brained than the suggestion that we should all work less Did the article make a suggestion? I think it was more of a scientific statement that this would happen. Of course in a global competitive market it's irrational for any single individual to start working less. That in no way refutes the claim being made. Depoliticize for a second and consider the claims being made. Your stance is right, but you have no need to defend it here.