[antisthenes]

> The "Lump of Labor" fallacy is just that, a fallacy. Economic gains are not zero-sum.

Frankly, I'm very tired of debunking the zero-sum trope.

Not only are many things in the economy zero-sum, in the case of labor, even if the economy is humming at 150%, it's trivial to imagine a scenario where the man and the woman are both earning 75% of what they would have without the other sex in the labor force. Both are worse off, yet the capital owners are better off and it gives the illusion that everything is going great.

The illusion is so good that we've divorced productivity from wage for 50 years, made tons of women miserable and no one so much as batted an eye.

And in many places, housing has effectively become zero-sum, due to pressure from large capital investors and zoning restrictions on building new housing. In these scenarios, even modest increases in demand can skyrocket the housing/rental prices beyond what is sustainable by the young population.

> Whatever the cause I fully reject the lazy conclusion this is somehow women's fault.

You're right to reject it, but the zero-sum argument is absolutely orthogonal to the issue. It's also completely incorrect and trivially debunked by anyone with a shred of economic common sense.

[boppo1]

> Not only are many things in the economy zero-sum, in the case of labor, even if the economy is humming at 150%, it's trivial to imagine a scenario where the man and the woman are both earning 75% of what they would have without the other sex in the labor force. Both are worse off, yet the capital owners are better off and it gives the illusion that everything is going great.

> The illusion is so good that we've divorced productivity from wage for 50 years, made tons of women miserable and no one so much as batted an eye.

Pop-feminism is too carefully-enshrined to speak openly about this, but I'm pretty sure it's absolutely correct.

[tpxl]

> Not only are many things in the economy zero-sum, in the case of labor, even if the economy is humming at 150%, it's trivial to imagine a scenario where the man and the woman are both earning 75% of what they would have without the other sex in the labor force. Both are worse off, yet the capital owners are better off and it gives the illusion that everything is going great.

Can you elaborate further on this please, I'm not sure I understand your point (genuinely).

[piaste]

Women entering the workforce en masse did double the supply of labor, regardless of any other merits of that change.

And increasing the supply reduces prices.

[tpxl]

Unless it halved the prices (which I doubt greatly) it's a positive sum.

[piaste]

It's a valid point, but I have at least three objections:

1) Everybody starts out as single, so young men start out with a sharply reduced salary due to higher supply, which makes it harder for them to become financially secure and find a partner (which would then decrease their costs).

2) There are many extra costs associated with a two-income household, and many more negative effects from a two-income-as-the-default economy. Elizabeth Warren write The Two-Income Trap on this very subject.

3) It's quite possible that it did halve prices, or came surprisingly close! Have you seen those productivity vs wages graphs? Productivity increased by about 245%, wages increased by 110% (since 1950). That means wages are now at 60% of what they were, relative to productivity. That's not quite half, and the switch to a two-income expectation can't be the only factor, but it's close. Then again, there is still a significant workforce participation gap between men and women, even in the USA (69% vs. 57%), so even in ideal circumstances I wouldn't expect a perfect halving.

[tpxl]

1) I don't quite understand, what does being single have to do with anything and why do men start out with a sharply reduced salary? Or do you mean relative to the men only workforce?

2) I'll check it out.

3) 1890 to 1950 has also seen big productivity growth and I doubt the wages kept pace.

[paganel]

And there's also the immigration fallacy. At least in their last issue The Economist has the decency of mentioning the "de facto lack of incoming migrants" as one of the main 3 (I think they were 3) causes behind the US's current privileged position for its workers, but that definitely wasn't the case until very recently. In other words, no matter how mocked it was, there was a definite truth behind "Dey took 'er jerbs!".

The Economist quote:

> Immigration, which plunged during Donald Trump’s nativist presidency, has sunk further, to less than a quarter of the level in 2016

source here [1]

[1] https://archive.fo/qOPe9