This article discusses the notion of a ‘lump of labour fallacy’ used since the end of the nineteenth century and more strongly over the recent period in order to criticise the idea that the number of jobs in an economy is fixed. Examining the recent literature using this notion, the article shows that the lump of labour fallacy is more often used as an assumption rather than examined in-depth. Despite a lack of empirical evidence, it became a key argument in the British debate, used, for instance, to justify an increase in the retirement age. From a critical point of view, the article concludes that an in-depth evaluation of the way the number of jobs varies still needs to be done, looking particularly at the evolution of working time.

none left for humans. Economists may call this the lump of labour fallacy, arguing that in reality no such limitation exists. A long-term difficulty can Technological unemployment is the loss of jobs due to technological change. It is a key type of structural unemployment. Technological change typically includes the introduction of labour-saving "mechanical-muscle" machines or more efficient "mechanical-mind" processes (automation) and, in doing so, humans' role in these processes are minimized. Historical examples include artisan weavers losing w The term "Luddite fallacy" is sometimes used to express the view that those concerned about long-term technological unemployment are committing a fallacy, as they fail to account for compensation effects. People who use the term typically expect that technological progress will have no long-term impact on employment levels, and eventually will raise wages for all workers, because progress helps to increase the overall wealth of society. The term is originating on from the Luddites, members of an early 19th century English anti-textile-machinery organisation. During the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st century, the dominant view… Traditionally ascribed to the Luddites (accurately or not), that there is a finite amount of work available and if machines do it, there can be none left for humans. Economists may call this the lump of labour fallacy, arguing that in reality no such limitation exists. A long-term difficulty can arise that has nothing to do with any lump of labour. In this view, the amount of work that can exist is infinite, but machines can do most of the "easy" work that requires less skill, talent, knowledge, or insight the definition of what is "easy" expands as information technology progresses, and the work that lies beyond "easy" may require greater brainpower than most people have. This second view is supported by many modern advocates of the possibility of long-term, systemic technological unemployment. In his 2018 book Bullshit Jobs, David Graeber argues that the real reason that mass unemployment has never materialised, despite a widespread expectation, that total hours worked and the length of the workweek have not substantially declined since the 1930s, and that instead overwork is considered a pervasive problem, is that genuinely necessary jobs that have been lost to automation have been replaced by jobs, typically white-collar jobs, whose relevance to the economy is unclear and which do not respond to any genuine market demand (as opposed especially to essential labour such as care work, part of critical infrastructure), and which even those who are employed in these jobs themselves often cannot justify and find pointless. Histo…