When a Fallacy Ceases to be a Fallacy

"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?