This is a polemic, the chapter he refers to is actually a cogent argument: <a href="https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=a56b9a7189f07816307ed5bdcb581d1ae1bae032" rel="nofollow">https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&d...</a><p>Basically he traces the origin of the "fallacy" back to "a hodgepodge of
borrowed working-class slang, middle-class prejudice, and archaic economic doctrine" from David Schloss in 1891, and shows it had nothing to do with the 8-hour day effort at the time. The "lump-of-labor fallacy" is essentially a strawman trotted out by opponents of lower hours as a rhetorical device, similar to how the waterfall model never existed before Agile came along as "the alternative". (See e.g. <a href="https://pragtob.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/why-waterfall-was-a-big-misunderstanding-from-the-beginning-reading-the-original-paper/" rel="nofollow">https://pragtob.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/why-waterfall-was-a...</a>)<p>Then he uses Chapman's theory of hours and some estimates from Denison to show that most likely the 35 hour work week would result in lower unit labor costs, increased demand, and a net gain in productivity overall from the redistribution of working time.<p>Then he gets into a discussion of fixed costs, and basically says "the government can subsidize the transition by restructuring taxes".<p>I'm not saying his arguments are sound, although they don't seem obviously wrong, but the chapter is certainly a lot better than the original link, which just summarizes the strawman conclusion but not the evidence.