Proponents of the broken window fallacy push the idea that destruction of property is economically beneficial overall as it creates jobs fixing said destruction. This notion is entirely false, and is essentially born from a failure to recognise the unseen.
While the party paid to issue repairs after an act of destruction may economically benefit and be provided work, the owner of the destroyed property will see a reduction in their wealth. The property owner now has less money to spend elsewhere on other goods. It then follows that sectors of the economy that the property owner was planning on injecting those funds into will now no longer receive these funds; that work will never come into existence. When accounting for this fact, there is no net gain of employment in reality. On top of this, the owner of the damaged property will no longer be able to receive whatever goods or services they wanted. This shows that destruction is actually a net negative for the economy overall.1