>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. 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.