The Economist again pimps its lump:
A commonly held view is that British youngsters have been displaced by the influx of youthful migrants from eastern Europe since 2004. But this is the "lump-of-labour" fallacy—that a job for a Polish cleaner means one fewer for a native worker...No. This is the lump of labour fallacy. And this is how The Economist has reused and reused and reused the same propaganda boilerplate nineteen (19) times since 1993!
A more likely explanation, though still disputed, is that the minimum wage was pushed up too much a few years ago.
More than a year ago, I offered $10,000 to anyone who could refute my debunking of this perennial "lump-of-labour fallacy" canard and get their refutation published in a leading economics journal. And I repeated my offer and repeated it.
No takers. No nibbles, even. Why? Because if you actually look into The Economist boilerplate about "this is the lump of labour fallacy, yada, yada..." you'll quickly learn it is bogus. It is baseless name-calling and not a bona fide "economic fallacy".