5 ms·

This is called the lump of labor fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy

danbruc 13y ago
I call the fallacy a fallacy - it seems way to simplistic to me. There is obviously a fluctuation in work demand, for example all the seasonal work, but this fluctuation is not arbitrarily large. Take it to the extreme, 20 instead of 40 working hours per week - how would this not require twice as many employees, maybe even a few more because of reduced efficiency, to yield the same output? In essence this is nothing more than more equal distribution of available work.
- mseebach 13y ago
  It's hard to put this very politely, but you're making a fool out of yourself now. Lump of Labour fallacy isn't crazy voodoo economics, it's incredibly well established. Read the Wikipedia article, then look through some of the references. Your concerns are amply addressed.
  - phaemon 13y ago
    No he isn't. I suspect he's starting to correctly identify that Economics has about as much scientific validity as Astrology: they both have the trappings of science, but frankly, they're both full of unverifiable and unfalsifiable nonsense. I suspect the only reason most people accept it is that they learned it at school so it must be true.
    - kumbasha 13y ago
      My friend, if you do not consult the mystical Tomes of Economycs on Wikipedia, then the ghostly Vapours will consume you with the aspyct of Mercury.
- mattlutze 13y ago
  A few thoughts: 1. Not all jobs are created equal, and not all unemployed persons are qualified or capable of performing all jobs. There would still be a mismatch in positions available and workers to fill those positions; without "perfect" alignment a community productivity deficit would continue, moving the costs around instead of eliminating them. 2. It'd become politically desirable to disproportionately point these efforts at industries where it'd be easier to integrate the unemployed ranks (lower skill set barriers to entry). This would have an effect of reducing profit margins in those sectors given the increased overhead of a larger workforce for an unpredictable amount of productivity change. One expects if the total labor hours are the same, economic output of an individual entity in that economy would be equal while personnel costs would increase. 3. There will always be a small portion of the working populace out of work for legitimate reasons. And, please do a little Googling on seasonal work. In the US, for example, millions of jobs fluctuate between seasons depending on buying and production trends. That's not small peas, so to speak.

danbruc 13y ago

I call the fallacy a fallacy - it seems way to simplistic to me. There is obviously a fluctuation in work demand, for example all the seasonal work, but this fluctuation is not arbitrarily large. Take it to the extreme, 20 instead of 40 working hours per week - how would this not require twice as many employees, maybe even a few more because of reduced efficiency, to yield the same output? In essence this is nothing more than more equal distribution of available work.

mseebach 13y ago
It's hard to put this very politely, but you're making a fool out of yourself now. Lump of Labour fallacy isn't crazy voodoo economics, it's incredibly well established. Read the Wikipedia article, then look through some of the references. Your concerns are amply addressed.
- phaemon 13y ago
  No he isn't. I suspect he's starting to correctly identify that Economics has about as much scientific validity as Astrology: they both have the trappings of science, but frankly, they're both full of unverifiable and unfalsifiable nonsense. I suspect the only reason most people accept it is that they learned it at school so it must be true.
  - kumbasha 13y ago
    My friend, if you do not consult the mystical Tomes of Economycs on Wikipedia, then the ghostly Vapours will consume you with the aspyct of Mercury.
mattlutze 13y ago
A few thoughts: 1. Not all jobs are created equal, and not all unemployed persons are qualified or capable of performing all jobs. There would still be a mismatch in positions available and workers to fill those positions; without "perfect" alignment a community productivity deficit would continue, moving the costs around instead of eliminating them. 2. It'd become politically desirable to disproportionately point these efforts at industries where it'd be easier to integrate the unemployed ranks (lower skill set barriers to entry). This would have an effect of reducing profit margins in those sectors given the increased overhead of a larger workforce for an unpredictable amount of productivity change. One expects if the total labor hours are the same, economic output of an individual entity in that economy would be equal while personnel costs would increase. 3. There will always be a small portion of the working populace out of work for legitimate reasons. And, please do a little Googling on seasonal work. In the US, for example, millions of jobs fluctuate between seasons depending on buying and production trends. That's not small peas, so to speak.