Whenever a new technology arrives that comes blessed with the phrase “increased efficiency”, investors wet their pants. A technology that does that can come in many forms, but no matter what form it takes, it almost invariably means that people are going to lose their jobs.
“Increased efficiency” is code for “fewer people required”, and to an investor that means reduced costs and greater profits. The fact that people are going to lose their jobs and possibly plunge them into a financial whirlpool is rarely (read never) a consideration.
Reliably, the justification fed to us is that, yes, some people will lose their jobs. But other, better, more high-paying jobs will open up because of this new technology, and those people can re-train for that, so it’s really all a wash in the grand scheme of things. Everyone will be better off.
I call boatloads of bullshit, and I’m sick of hearing it, because it’s a cynical lie. It’s the same kind of tactic that gave us trickle down economics and that tells us that if you keep your nose to the grindstone and work hard you can be wealthy, too. And if you’re not wealthy then, clearly, you’re lazy and deserve nothing.
Here’s a scenario. There’s a factory somewhere that has 50 people working minimum wage, doing a job by hand. Then the company decides to automate. They’re going to bring in 20 machines, and will require only two technicians to maintain them. Assuming those two come from the pool of 50 (unlikely), what happens to those other 48 people? What new jobs are opening up for them? Will jobs like that open up in other factories that are adopting the same technology? No; other factories are going to be shedding employees, too.
So now you’ve got hundreds of people unemployed. And since they were working minimum wage, it’s pretty unlikely that they’ll be able to afford retraining costs and living expenses at the same time, and it’s also unlikely that the government will be providing much in the way of training. Rather, people will try to obtain employment insurance and look for non-existent work. More people chasing fewer jobs means wages get driven down and investors win again. Following this through to its logical conclusion, employment insurance stops, people lose their homes, and now you’ve got a homeless problem. Government can’t or won’t do much about that, of course, because the people who think government should be run like a business (i.e. the wealthy who buy political influence and hire lobbyists), don’t want to pay the taxes that could help those people. They want to pay less tax always, and money being spent on a bunch of layabouts who were too stupid or slow to get out from under their heel when it came down is not their problem.
Fortunately, I’m just fear mongering. None of this has come to pass, because we don’t have a homeless problem. Oh, wait…
So, don’t tell us that it’s all fine. Don’t tell us that it’s the same hue and cry every time a new technology comes along and that it’s always unfounded, that people adapt. Don’t tell us that “increasing efficiency” is good for everyone. It’s not. It’s good for some, it’s bad for far more.
We live in a time when there have never been more people on the face of the Earth, and there has never been more effort put into making sure that none of them have a job. I’ve heard people say “Won’t it be great when nobody has to work?” That always makes me laugh. Consider first who owns the technology that has put us all out of work. It won’t be us plebs reaping the benefits.
I understand that standing in the way of so-called “progress” is a fool’s game. I understand that we, as a society, have reaped many benefits from advancements in technology. This is all very clear. But to stand there and say that it’s all to the plus, that nobody really suffers, and that the net effect of technological change on people’s ability to live in safety and provide food for their families is nil,…. Well, that is utter and complete hogwash, so stop lying about it.