Lump of Labor Fallacy

Just learned this new term, Lump of Labor Fallacy.   Per wikipedia

"In economics, the lump of labour fallacy (or lump of jobs fallacy, fallacy of labour scarcity, or the zero-sum fallacy, from its ties to the zero-sum game) is the contention that the amount of work available to labourers is fixed. It is considered a fallacy by most economists,^[1] who hold that the amount of work is not static. Another way to describe the fallacy is that it treats the demand for labour as an exogenous variable, when it is not."

The fallacy appeals to struggling lower and middle class workers, especially older displaced workers, who are finding it difficult to find jobs.   If fewer people are allowed to apply for the job I was rejected for, doesn't that improve my odds, and won't employing me decrease unemployment and boost the economy?

Generally the fallacy is applied when minimum wage or overtime policy is discussed.  Limit overtime, or cut the work week to 35 hours, and more work will spill over into the unemployment line.  Economists groan, as these policies limit the 20 percent who add 80 percent of value.  Try applying that to baseball - limit the number of innings the best pitchers are allowed to pitch, give them vacations in the middle of the season, and pitchers cut from the team are brought back onto the field, increasing employment...?  Pele, Zidane, Messi, Maradona, Beckham... please sit on the bench for awhile so that an American soccer player can earn some field time.

The same zero-sum argument can be applied - fallaciously - to global trade and immigration.   Cap the number of workers or ban the export of work over state and national lines, and please the second best and third best in the workforce.  Eliminate Dominicans from baseball, and the USA economy should slightly improve as 69 mile per hour pitchers are hired from minor leagues.

No.  It makes the league play worse, and makes the world economy worse.    The USA economy is the strongest indicator of a strong state economy, a state economy is the biggest predictor of a strong city economy, and the world economy is the best indicator for the USA economy.

The problem behind the "lump of labor" solution is that we live in a global economy.   There is no way to make the same rule across every team in the league.  The Red Sox might decide to hire only USA-born players, but they have to play against the Yankees.  If the USA cannot hire the best of India's software engineers, it still must play against India on the field.  The Red Sox not only hurt their own team, they actually give the Yankees better pool to recruit from.

The Basel Convention: Bayesian Soup Nazi Episode

Ok, Another E-Scrap Conference, and another allusion to an American comedy.  I hope my international readers will be patient.

R2 or E-Steward?  Who has the best recipe?

Yesterday's E-Scrap 2012 Conference in Dallas had two sessions worth writing about.   John Lingelbach of R2 and Jim Puckett presented on the two certification programs for Electronics Recyclers (along with auditor Kelley Keough of Greeneye).   Later, Travis Reed Miller of MIT presented on the use of Bayesian predictors to refine data, and Laura Bloodgood of US International Trade Office reported (without data) on the survey work on 900+ e-scrap firms.

The session with BAN E-Stewards and R2 was very amicable.  Sitting in the audience, I couldn't help but feel bad for having taken Puckett tiredly to task the day before in the blog.  They seemed to narrow the "disagreement" between the two programs down as follows:

1. E-Stewards is expensive.  And R2, while cheaper, is unsustainable (it needs to be more expensive).
2. BAN - a little unclearly, I thought - described their belief in evolving WITH a Basel Convention group.  The Basel Ban Amendment - not passed - should be incorporated in the standard because they are confident it will be passed.  The E-Steward position on export of goods for repair, while CLEARLY on the list of Annex IX "non-waste" activities, is that they should be held to a standard of a recent committee at Basel Meetings... ie not to International Law, but held to the amendment of the international law which the non-profit NGO promotes for a living).

This "adherence to promoted future law" of course is what frightens the USA away from Ratifying Basel Convention.   The USA Congress might agree with everything in a convention as written, and then Jim Puckett may make a presentation in Jakarta or Columbia, and the non-elected international group of attendees may vote that repair, allowed in the Convention, should no longer be allowed.  In that case the USA has passed a law which gives a non-elected international  interest group, effectively, regulatory power over USA companies.  UN Treaty 101.