But wait! There’s more. The fallacy of the fallacy claim was demonstrated by an ECONOMIST, Charles Beardsley, back in 1895 (“The Effect of an Eight Hours’ Day on Wages and the Unemployed,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 9 (4) 450-459). Beardsley was refuting the claims of John Rae, a JOURNALIST. In fact, the earliest instance of a lump-of-labor type claim I can discover was by a New York Times Correspondent, “F.H. J.” on October 6, 1871, writing about the Newcastle Engineers’ strike for a nine-hour day.

“Their theory is that the amount of work to be done is a fixed quantity, and that in the interest of the operatives, it is necessary to spread it thin in order to make it go far.”

A little context is in order. The Times’ London correspondent is here editorializing on what HE thinks is the “real question at issue” after conceding the plausibility of the workers’ own arguments. He is saying, in effect, that the workers would have a good case, if they actually were sincere about what they said were their motives and objectives. “But I find it very difficult to take this view,” he says. He suspects they have ULTERIOR motives and it is those undisclosed, ulterior motives that are based on the alleged theory (and fallacy).

Fortunately, we also have available an indirect “reply” to the Times report/editorial in the form of a comprehensive 77-page pamphlet documenting the strike by the leader of the Nine Hour League, John Burnett. In that pamphlet, Burnett comes across as an articulate,moderate, conciliatory and skilled politician and negotiator. He also exhaustively documents the positions of the workers, the employers, mediators and the press. The title of this primary source is “NIne Hour Movement. A History of the Engineers’ Strike in Newcastle and Gateshead,” and it is available through JSTOR ttp://www.jstor.org/stable/60203519

Unless anyone can come up with a bona fide prior source for the “fixed amount of work” fallacy claim, consider it BOGUS and anyone who propagates the bogus claim as either ignorant or a cynical propagandist.

http://www.oblomov.fr/?p=1938&lang=en

Speaking of mathematical explanations, what does the longer working time means to pension funds? That side of the coin has left in deep shade while we are arguing about crisis, deficits (where they were with calculations/estimations before – what really caused it) and so on.

Sarkozy’s policy obviously inclines toward American interpretation of free market idea, which oppose the continental European tradition.

There are very few individuals willing to become PTs. (Perpetual travelers, that “three-flag” and live their lives to the greatest possible extent in this world, free!) Education is by far, only of real value if it teaches the antithesis of the state, tribal indoctrination, religion, citizenship etc. I, on occasion do stumble in to other PTs when I travel. Monaco has a fair number of PTs. These are some of the wealthiest value-producing individuals worldwide. They would agree that essentially ALL governments ultimately “grow” and like a boa constrictor, then squeeze and stifle the life of free enterprise. Again, the rara avis, and believe me they are rare, individuals that not only talk the talk … but also walk the walk, become PTs! PTs, as a group refuse to surrender freedom, liberty and privacy. The “collective,” (France, et al.) destroys individualism, only to become a ward of the state, by degree. Tax slaves submitting to the master’s lash and yoke, those choosing to live in subjugation. I can’t think of anything worse than to spend the only life you will ever have … a slave to/of the collective democracy! Oy! I shudder to even think such poppycock!

It can be done. The price is high. I only wish I had become a PT much earlier in life. There’s NOTHING quite like it!

Again Joe, take care and the very best to you.

*********
About ALL government(s):

To trust is to bust,
To bust is hell.
No trust, no bust, no hell.

To France and other world collectives: welcome to hell.

Regards,

Capt. A.
Principaute de Monaco
UTC +2:00 CET

We have a similar situation in Finland currently. (Even though no-one is rioting here!)

The (former)prime minister of Finland was taking steps forward to raise the pension age and people furiously attacked towards his aims. So, the result was that raising the pension age was cancelled and (former) prime ministers popularity plunged. People were so angry about the reform.

But no-one here was thinking about younger people to get work more quickly – no. It was more like taking away something that elder generation was achieved and should belong to younger people as well! It seems that younger generation don’t seem work itself as achievement. Why would they? Pays are below EU average, taxes are above EU average, prices are above EU average. Social benefits are high, like in many european (scandinavian?) countries. The people think that’s a achieved benefit – I mean the social benefits. They don’t want those to be touched.

The idea of raising the pension age is great – atleast in theory. But you lost your job when you are in your 50′s, who would hire you? Not to mention the situation when you are near the pension age! You can’t get anyone to hire you more willingly if you tell them that the state has raised the pension age – NO. That’s for sure.

In Finland, they are thinking about options 1,2,3 and 4. (again 5th is out of the question because the financial crises, that didn’t hit Finland that hard – by the way)
1. They will do it, but does it help?
2. They don’t want to do it, but eventually they have to
3. Raise taxes.. The current government don’t necessarily want to do it, but they will, and they have tried this already..more to come! (I just can’t wait!)
4. They have trying to do this aswell. The problem is that there isn’t that many people with eductaion willing to come to work in Finland. It’s just not that simple. They are taking refugees from Africa, thinking that they will fill in the gap when the elder generation are rushed on pension… These people mostly don’t even speak english, nor finnish of course. They are more for the social benefits than work. So, I don’t think that this is going to work at all. Besides of my thoughts, more and more people are against “social benefit immigration”, so there’s going to be very interesting elections coming in 2011!

That’s why, I believe, that they should try to lower the taxes, reduce the social benefits. Reduce the immigration(for social benefits!) Just take a look carefully were they want to spend the tax payers money and what social benefits are really needed. But I don’t think this will happen.
What comes to work – I do believe that my possibilities (I’m 31) are much better to get work than they are today, since there might be a certain lack of employees here in the future. (after the post-IIWW generation is out of the working scene)

They are after my pay check!

Thoughts from Finland

Here’s how you use that approach to describe electric motors:-

- Pretend that the mechanical side is steady, i.e. a constant angular velocity, even though you know perfectly well that it isn’t.

- Work out what current would flow from that, using resistances, input voltages and frequency, reactive volt-amps, etc.

- Work out how much mechanical power is being developed.

- Use the inertia, friction, etc. to work out what the angular acceleration is after all, as a function of the electrical inputs.

- Solve for the mechanical behaviour in terms of the electrical behaviour, which you now have as a function of the inputs and of the mechanical behaviour.

This mathematical trick works for the motor because the electrical changes happen on a much shorter time scale than the mechanical ones, so you can safely make the simplifying assumption of steady mechanical behaviour during the intermediate stages on the way to the full description. And you can do the same in economics, using the lump-of-labour concept. To see where Francois Melese is being led astray by the lump-of-labour fallacy fallacy, consider the following:-

At first glance, students’ fears also seem warranted. If an older worker is forced to work an extra couple of years, it seems obvious this would delay a young person’s entry into the labor force. If we assume there are a fixed number of jobs, the net effect would be to crush employment opportunities for young people. With youth unemployment already absurdly high — over 20 percent — it’s no wonder students spilled out onto the streets to protest.

But this is a pretty accurate description of what would happen, over the brief period just after the policy change. Sure, after that it wouldn’t be – but, with that 20% plus level of unemployment for the young, it matters for this lot of young people getting a start on their careers in this particular brief period. Later, they have to compete with a later lot of even younger people with even more recent education, so for this lot even a brief setback would have much more enduring effects (the early 1990s recession in Australia had an enduring cost like that for the job and career prospects of young people and recent immigrants).

As a result of the French government’s decision not to raise taxes and instead to postpone retirement, young people face lower future taxes than they otherwise would. This also ensures they will enjoy greater job opportunities since businesses also benefit from no new taxes.

No, it doesn’t. Because of the poor labour market policies he previously mentioned, that doesn’t flow through to greater job opportunities (it would if the suggested tax cuts were linked to employee levels – but they aren’t). And we know perfectly well that the government wouldn’t actually cut the taxes anyway; they never do.

GSF from Paris

Bravo!
Sir,
No need to use words to compliment you.
Please keep up the good work. Even if just a few of your countrymen see the light ( and possibly some other Europeans young men) it will be a net gain for all.
Sincerely

You are a person after my own independence!
**********
France, as with so many, many other nation-states (America included) is merely a continuing example of what happens when you sacrifice your freedom, liberty, privacy (both personal and financial), private property and freedom of/to contract without state interference. Shunning personal responsibility … seemingly a thing of the past will usher in more human tragedy. You can count on it. There can be no happy ending for those involved in collectivism. The end-price is ALWAYS dear and tragic to the Voting booboisie—excluding the elite that jump ship and flee, with your wealth in hand. The rest? Well … they get screwed … big time!

People relying on the State will not get exactly what they want or what they think they want or are bargaining for. In the end they will get exactly what they deserve … because, sacrificing, selling, and voting away their souls and independence, it only leaves self-sacrifice at or on the altar of the State. So, what’s new? Do you want truth? I just gave it to you.

The State is the problem … not the solution.

C’est la guerre,

Capt. A.
Principaute de Monaco
UTC +2:00 CET

It seems to somehow be an Image d’Epinal that “privatization” means less jobs. Thus “nationalization” can only mean “more jobs” (il faut que l’Etat fasse quelque chose). Where will the money for this come from? Well, it is commonly assumed that as long as there are “rich people” then there are resources that the state can grab to pay the workers and institute make-work schemes. The inference being that if the pension age is heightened, then the state refuses to grab these resources and people are being unjustly exploited.