================= 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]