Father time catches to everyone, in sports father time is undefeated. I bring this point to explain the lump of labor fallacy. There seems to be a misconception that if older people stay in the workforce, the younger workforce will never get an opportunity to excel because of positions being taken by the older workforce. We have to take this notion out of minds, all that matters in a strong economic workforce is production. Age is not equivalent to youth unemployment.

If look at this argument from a relativism perspective one can see it really should not matter. Economist completely refutes the idea of such a thing being true, stating “When women entered the workforce there weren’t fewer jobs for men, the economy only expanded.” The relativism perspective can be used to favor either side of the argument if we use generations as the social culture. If this fallacy held any water, how would we be able to explain the sports economic market? An athlete cannot stay on top forever at one point his or her performance will drop, the same can be said of the elder workforce. I believe there is a lack of context with this fallacy; it seems like the younger generation does not realize the struggles the older workforce had to endure just to be where they are now. Because the younger generation went to school and had a generation, they sometimes believe they are worth more than their experience or production says they are worth.