"And the broken windows fallacy ceases to be a fallacy..." -- Paul Krugman, Sept. 3, 2011
Indeed. But let's take this an important step further. A fallacy that ceases to be a fallacy couldn't have been a fallacy in the first place. It was only an empirical proposition whose parameters didn't fit the then current conditions. Facts change and the discerning change their minds. Please, Professor Krugman, please, weigh in with your mind change on the lump-of-labor "fallacy" now that the amount of work to be done appears, for all intents and purposes, to be a "fixed quantity."
In 1993, you wrote:
"Economists call it the "lump of labor fallacy." It's the idea that there is a fixed amount of work to be done in the world, so any increase in the amount each worker can produce reduces the number of available jobs. (A famous example: those dire warnings in the 1950's that automation would lead to mass unemployment.) As the derisive name suggests, it's an idea economists view with contempt, yet the fallacy makes a comeback whenever the economy is sluggish."
Back in May, I sent you an open letter (by snail mail) challenging each component of this fallacy claim with historical documentation. You haven't replied.
There have been 1702 page views of that letter on my blog. When the lump of labor fallacy ceases to be fallacy, don't you think you should change your mind?
- Jobs, Liberty and the Bottom Line
- Time on the Ledger: Social Accounting for the “Goo...
- Intermediate Goods and Duplication
- The Long Term Problem of Full Employment
- The Source and Remedy of the National Difficulties...
- Grundrisse: "Capital (like property) rests on prod...
- Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844: "W...
- McCulloch on Combination Laws
- Submission to the White House Task Force on Middle...
- Thinking Along the Right Lines
- The Problem with "The Problem of Social Cost"
- State and Prospects of Manufactures