Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Fri Mar 31 17:18:19 2006 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
================= HES POSTING =================
The earliest reference to the lump-of-labour fallacy that I can find is by
David F. Schloss in 1891 and in his own words the argument had "nothing to
do with the length of the working day."
This would seem to be confirmed by the absence of the term in discussions
on
the eight-hours day by Schloss's notable contemporaries, such as John Rae,
Alfred Marshall, Sidney Webb, Harold Cox and Sidney Chapman. The
lump-of-labour fallacy accusation appears to have been grafted on to the
hours of work question not by economists, but by anti-trade union
polemicists.
For many years, Paul Samuelson has presented the lump-of-labour fallacy
(without attribution) as an argument against "spreading the work around"
in his introductory textbook, _Economics_.
Is anyone aware of a usage of lump-of-labour fallacy prior to Schloss's or
of any "definitive" subsequent statement of the fallacy that links it to
the
hours of work. I am aware of the long history of complaints by employers
about the withholding of work effort by workers, but I am specifically
interested in the "lump-of-labour" fallacy and its linkage to the hours of
work.
regards,
Tom Walker
http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/covenant.htm
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]
|
|
|