Leading economists from Paul Samuelson to Paul Krugman have labored to allay the fear that technological advances may reduce overall employment, causing mass unemployment as workers are displaced by machines. This ‘lump of labor fallacy’—positing that there is a fixed amount of work to be done so that increased labor productivity reduces employment —is intuitively appealing and demonstrably false. Technological improvements create new products and services, shifting workers from older to newer activities. Higher productivity raises incomes, increasing demand for labor throughout the economy. Hence, in the long run technological progress affects the composition of jobs not the number of jobs.
First of all, Samuelson and Krugman didn't "labor to allay the fear." They spouted canned nonsense that was disavowed by "leading economists" nearly a century ago. Back in May I wrote Professor Krugman an open letter (hard copy sent by mail) detailing the discrepancies in the lump of labor fallacy claim and asking him to at least respond to the evidence I presented. Krugman did not reply.
I will, of course, forward copies of that open letter to Professors Autor and Katz -- with no great expectations.
sammich
ReplyDeletelast comment didn't take. probably this one won't either. some peculiarity of blogs that they want you to read the instruction book before you comment.
i read your letter to Krugman. you are undoubtedly a scholar, but you must have noticed the futility of argument, especially with economists.
ah, the secret is to preview it first.
ReplyDeletethe first comment was that the quote at the head of the page ("After all their idle sophistry...") is untrue. The Soviet Union moved Russia from the dark ages to a world power (a form of wealth) with reasonable living standards in thirty years while fighting off the German army.... without any notable claim to freedom.
Not that I don't prefer freedom myself. But I also prefer a shorter work week, and I don't care if that results in less production or not. The arguments of the advocates, on either side, strike me as sophistry.
Not that I don't
You're absolutely right, coberly. Arguing with people who don't know what they're talking about in the first place is futile -- especially when they are certified as "experts" and spout pure garbage. I can't help indulging an "emperor's new clothes" fantasy, though. If only perhaps ten or twenty people who read this would write to Autor, Katz and Krugman demanding an explanation for their intellectually dishonest parroting maybe they would feel obliged to respond.
ReplyDeleteSandwichman
ReplyDeleteit's okay if you enjoy it. you are interesting enough that i enjoyed your essay. but don't expect A,K, or K to change their minds about anything.
I am going to try to take up Krugman's claim back on AngryBear. Feel free to argue with me. I am not a scholar, but I try not to be a sophist.
The thing is, not even the Luddites posited a fixed number of jobs. The whole thing is a canard.
ReplyDeleteOTOH, there is, for sure, a finite number of jobs. And when you have unemployment hovering near double digits, and U6 at 16% for a couple of years, it's pretty clear the the number of jobs is inadequate. In fact, over the last decade, jobs have left this country in droves.
The number of jobs might not be fixed, but it sure a hell isn't growing.
WASF,
JzB