Calling something a fallacy does not mean it truly is one. I have not seen strong evidence that there is not a "lump of labor" in extremely high-rent countries like the US.
For a sufficiently small period of time, there absolutely is a "lump of labor". If I were to go into a county with robots and rent them out to employers for 1/4 of the wage of their current employees, and they all fired their employees and accepted my robots, do you really believe that all of ex-employees would be able to find work again within 6 months? Or even 70% of them? What about their new wages? Do you think these new jobs would pay as well? I have a hard time believing that to be the case.
There are a number of misconceptions when it comes to the lump of labor fallacy. The prevalent one is confusing the small and the big picture.
If a factory introduces automation, no doubt that the resulting job losses are a problem that must be addressed.
However, the lump of labor refers to the big picture - in the same time span, other jobs are created elsewhere. If they weren't, considering that automation started at least 200 years ago (in the most limited sense of the term), the whole planet would be out of jobs by now.
Who's upset here about the hordes of horse manure cleaners that lost their jobs due to the advent of cars? Does anyone miss the stench of a 1800s street in the summer heat?
No.
Lets ask the influencers, the twitch celebs, the podcasters id they would prefer to shovel horse crap, or play with their e-device all day.
And to be completely fair, the manufacturing jobs may be gone because elected leaders were told it was OK export the vast majority of those jobs (millions) abroad, where labor doesn't have govt benefits or red tape. This makes new jobs go to foreigners instead of staying stateside.
So, we all save a few pennies on each item made in china and sold on Amazon, at the price of nuking all US craftsmanship and artisans.
This is really aggressively reductive. Job elimination isn't entirely about people who were sweeping up horse dung, and the new jobs aren't all comfy podcasting and influencer gigs.
The job elimination can mean people who spent decades honing a craft and no longer have any realistic job opportunities at a remotely equivalent pay level, and have no path into a new career because they're now decades behind (or too old to realistically train up a new skill if they're a physical laborer). Sure, it's progress, but it's weird to imply that all the labor that's being eliminated lacks value or artistry.
And the new jobs are frequently things like acting as a babysitter for an AI or sitting in a call center pressing buttons. Certainly, this is also "work", but if we're comparing it to shoveling horse manure I wouldn't necessarily consider it elevated much even if it's more comfortable.
> Lets ask the influencers, the twitch celebs, the podcasters id they would prefer to shovel horse crap, or play with their e-device all day.
That reads like the premise of a joke: “What’s the difference between a manure cleaner and a social media influencer? The former reduces the amount of shit in your life, the latter adds to it”.
Preferences aside, if we take into account both physical and mental damage, I wonder which job is more harmful. Not only to the practitioner, but society in general. I’m not advocating for bringing back the job of horse manure cleaner, but I don’t think social media influencer should be a job either.
> Who's upset here about the hordes of horse manure cleaners that lost their jobs due to the advent of cars?
False dichotomy. Not every modern-day twitch celeb would be shoveling manure. And another false dichotomy: I was not arguing for either NOW or THE TIME before cars. And I wonder how many people would trade their modern influence job for shoveling manure in return for living in an area with cleaner air. Also, ask the question again to people living NEXT to tire factories that stink and whose only job is collecting garbage NOW like bottles from trash because they don't have enough education to get a proper job.
Besides, I am one of those "influencers" -- not exactly on Twitch, but a full-time content creator. And I WOULD go back to those times.
Why is it that every time I bring up the dangers of technology, some techie HAS to bring up cars versus manure shovelers, as if that settles every argument about the dangers of technology? Rather intellectually stifled, I feel. And rejecting technology doesn't mean going back to the way things WERE; rather it means making changes NOW to go to a NEW future that has less technology.
You're setting an extremely obnoxious tone by capitalizing random words like that. I suggest that you edit your post if you want to be taken seriously.
I would call the neighbour playing rap and full volume 'extremely obnoxious'. It's hard to believe that a few capitalized words would fall under the same category. Suggestion noted.
Technology disappears when it becomes ubiquitous. It never actually becomes less, because people don't want less. I can't see for example people wanting there to be fewer lightbulbs, or even refrigerators (mainly for those in warm areas). Everybody wants safe lighting and their food unspoiled after a day (once exposed to these things), and likely won't consider the means to be "tech". And it only improves over time. AI is just another tech that's in the early stage but also on it's way to ubiquity.
I do, the Amish do, and quite a few other people against technology DO want less. In fact, even ordinary people (non-techies) often tell me technology is too entrenched. What about those people ditching smartphones for dumphones. I don't think that tech improves things and I DO want less.
The general form of what you're describing ("I want product X to have less Y", in this case, tech) has been discussed by Joel Spolsky in an article about product design.
I can't find the article, but it said something around the lines of "each Microsoft Word user thinks that there are too many functionalities, and wants less".
His remark is that each user uses different functionalities, so one can't reduce a product's functionality in a way that satisfies everybody.
Everybody would sure love to have a smartphone tailored 100% to their usage, but in real world, either they accept smartphones in toto, or they just use a brick. In generalized form, the same concept applies to tech.
What do you want less of exactly? A dumbphone is still tech. Perhaps some would rather have just a land line (brings to mind that there are still places in my country without phone lines since the passage of hurricane Beryl)?
But back to the primary: is it really tech that some want less of, or the negative effects caused by its overuse/abuse? For example, IIUC the Amish are against modern tech primarily because it's changing their communities in ways they aren't fond of. But they still use tech that's not so modern, such as buggies (as opposed to just riding horses), manual plows for farming, saws and hammers for building, etc. Can anyone even go less than that? And that relative "less" only moves forward over time.
I would like fewer lightbulbs. Modern omnipresent light pollution is harmful to ourselves and our environment, and probably doesn't need to be at the level it is now for "safe lighting". It's okay to have some darkness sometimes, inside your house and inside your neighborhood.
Agreed that some darkness is OK, particularly in unused areas of a home. And there're already solutions for that, such as motion sensors.
I doubt you want much dark in a neighborhood though, particularly if there are unsavory elements potentially roaming around. A sliver of light may be the difference between someone being attacked or a home robbed.
