3 ms·

You've alerted us to the existence of a fallacy, but you make no effort to explain what the fallacy is or how the argument you are refuting has committed this f

by geebee 12y ago

You've alerted us to the existence of a fallacy, but you make no effort to explain what the fallacy is or how the argument you are refuting has committed this fallacy. You did this in a previous discussion with me as well https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8691296 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8691296 Of course, you are absolutely free to do this if you wish. But I did take the time to explain why I felt you had misdiagnosed the situation, and explained how the position I held was not undermined by the lump of labor fallacy. Just my own opinion, but if you're going to cite this fallacy, I do think you should be explain how you feel it relates to the current discussion and be prepared to engage in a debate about whether it is relevant.

IndianAstronaut 12y ago
Fair enough. The main reason why there is a lump of labor fallacy is that it rests on the fact that there is just a fixed quantity of jobs in the economy. A fixed amount of jobs means that thers is only a fixed amount of goods and services people desire. But this is wrong because human wants and desires are unlimited. This is the basic condition in economics. So in theory there is an infinite amount of jobs to be done to cater to our infinite wants. Now, there are structural reasons for why there isn't universal employment. These can range from government policies, to technological reasons. If people want multistoried houses, and builders can build them, they will have jobs but if the government has policies which block those houses, the builders will not have those jobs. Another thing people want is to travel into space, say a visit to alpha centauri. There may be tourism operator jobs who can do that but technology does not exist which can take us there. The main focus of government policies to promote and encourage job growth should be on building technology to promote new job creating industries, promoting skills growth to manage these industries, and removing or modifying policies which hinder job growth. If trade or immigration caused a loss of jobs, the 90s would have been a time of high unemployment. It wasn't because a new industry came up to generate jobs and other jobs were created to service those workers. The same goes for policies to shorten hours or promote early retirement.
- geebee 12y ago
  Yes, that's more or less the lump of labor fallacy. I'm still not sure why it's relevant here. Here's the full quote from the nytimes article: "Some countries have developed policies that encourage older people to leave the labor force, so they do not “crowd out” younger workers. But studies across countries and time suggest that crowding-out may not actually be a problem. Economies do not appear to have a fixed number of jobs. When more older people are working, they are earning money that they will then spend in ways that may create more jobs for young people, for example." So in this case, I don't disagree with you, but it seems that the times article identifies the lump of labor fallacy immediately after the quote you provided.
  - IndianAstronaut 12y ago
    >still not sure why it's relevant here. I think it is important to point out because so few people still know about it. If few people know about it, they are likely to support harmful policies that they think will help the economy or job creation, but will not.
    - geebee 12y ago
      Oh, I agree, I'm just not sure why you felt it was necessary to point it out when the article had already done just that. I don't really see what your comment ads. Were you worried that people had only read the first sentence in the middle of the article and stopped there, not reading the next sentence? In the other case - our previous discussion, I explained how I though you had misapplied the lump of labor fallacy. You claimed that notion that H1B workers could displace local workers commits the lump of labor fallacy. I made an argument that very specific, targeted immigration programs designed to increase workforce in a narrow sector of the economy can in fact cause market distortions that lead to displacement and deterrence. This is a pretty common objection to these sorts of visas. Many people who support free markets and free immigration see a real problem when the government starts creating programs where a worker is allowed to come to the US only under certain employment conditions (in this case, related to working as an employee to a high tech company). Even Milton Friedman chimed in: "There is no doubt," he says, "that the [H-1B] program is a benefit to their employers, enabling them to get workers at a lower wage, and to that extent, it is a subsidy." I assure you that Milton Friedman was aware of the lump of labor fallacy. It's a bit more complicated than just citing a fallacy.

by geebee 12y ago

IndianAstronaut 12y ago

Fair enough. The main reason why there is a lump of labor fallacy is that it rests on the fact that there is just a fixed quantity of jobs in the economy. A fixed amount of jobs means that thers is only a fixed amount of goods and services people desire. But this is wrong because human wants and desires are unlimited. This is the basic condition in economics. So in theory there is an infinite amount of jobs to be done to cater to our infinite wants. Now, there are structural reasons for why there isn't universal employment. These can range from government policies, to technological reasons. If people want multistoried houses, and builders can build them, they will have jobs but if the government has policies which block those houses, the builders will not have those jobs. Another thing people want is to travel into space, say a visit to alpha centauri. There may be tourism operator jobs who can do that but technology does not exist which can take us there. The main focus of government policies to promote and encourage job growth should be on building technology to promote new job creating industries, promoting skills growth to manage these industries, and removing or modifying policies which hinder job growth. If trade or immigration caused a loss of jobs, the 90s would have been a time of high unemployment. It wasn't because a new industry came up to generate jobs and other jobs were created to service those workers. The same goes for policies to shorten hours or promote early retirement.

geebee 12y ago
Yes, that's more or less the lump of labor fallacy. I'm still not sure why it's relevant here. Here's the full quote from the nytimes article: "Some countries have developed policies that encourage older people to leave the labor force, so they do not “crowd out” younger workers. But studies across countries and time suggest that crowding-out may not actually be a problem. Economies do not appear to have a fixed number of jobs. When more older people are working, they are earning money that they will then spend in ways that may create more jobs for young people, for example." So in this case, I don't disagree with you, but it seems that the times article identifies the lump of labor fallacy immediately after the quote you provided.
- IndianAstronaut 12y ago
  >still not sure why it's relevant here. I think it is important to point out because so few people still know about it. If few people know about it, they are likely to support harmful policies that they think will help the economy or job creation, but will not.
  - geebee 12y ago
    Oh, I agree, I'm just not sure why you felt it was necessary to point it out when the article had already done just that. I don't really see what your comment ads. Were you worried that people had only read the first sentence in the middle of the article and stopped there, not reading the next sentence? In the other case - our previous discussion, I explained how I though you had misapplied the lump of labor fallacy. You claimed that notion that H1B workers could displace local workers commits the lump of labor fallacy. I made an argument that very specific, targeted immigration programs designed to increase workforce in a narrow sector of the economy can in fact cause market distortions that lead to displacement and deterrence. This is a pretty common objection to these sorts of visas. Many people who support free markets and free immigration see a real problem when the government starts creating programs where a worker is allowed to come to the US only under certain employment conditions (in this case, related to working as an employee to a high tech company). Even Milton Friedman chimed in: "There is no doubt," he says, "that the [H-1B] program is a benefit to their employers, enabling them to get workers at a lower wage, and to that extent, it is a subsidy." I assure you that Milton Friedman was aware of the lump of labor fallacy. It's a bit more complicated than just citing a fallacy.