Lump of Labor
= the theory that there is a certain fixed amount of work to be done
- derivative debate 1: that technology destroys jobs and leads to unemployment
- derivative debate 2: "The notion that there is a fixed amount of work to be shared out, so that shorter hours for all must mean more jobs, is widely derided by economists as the 'lump of labour' fallacy." [1]
URL = http://www.lump-of-labor.org/
History
1. Tom Walker:
"traced the critique of the central notion of that theory, "that there is a certain fixed amount of work to be done" to an 1871 article by John Wilson, "Economic Fallacies and Labour Utopias," in which he berated the "Unionist reading of the Wage-fund theory" for its enforcement of restrictions "with the avowed object of securing that the work to be done shall be divided among as many (Unionist) hands as possible." (http://www.lump-of-labor.org/)
Discussion
Impact of Shorter Working Hours
Tom Walker's Lump of Labor website shows that shorter working hours have had historically beneficial effects on productivity and welfare, irrespective of the lump of labor fallacy debate.
Tom Walker:
"The long-term historical picture has been that over the past 150 years, the reduction of the hours of work has been an integral part of the introduction of progressive changes in technology and work organization. Frederick Winslow Taylor was explicit about the contribution of adequate rest periods to increased productivity. Schloss, who was very much a contemporary and professional peer of Taylor’s, stated just a few lines after his lump-of-labor remarks that he was entirely in favour of shortening the working day -- at a time when most employers were dogmatically opposed.
But undoubtedly the most remarkable testimony to the positive role played by reduction of the hours of work was contained in Sir Sydney Chapman’s 1909 presidential address to the Section on Economic Science and Statistics of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. Alfred Marshall, Lionel Robbins, John Hicks and Arthur Pigou all referred to Professor Chapman’s theory as authoritative. Hicks called it the “classical statement of the theory of ‘hours’ in a free market.” To make a long story short, Chapman argued that competitive pressures would tend to set the working day at a longer than optimal length. He also referred to a preponderance of empirical evidence showing productivity improvements subsequent to the introduction of shorter working hours." (http://www.lump-of-labor.org/)