How Much Technology

It's fair to ask how much technology do I think we ought to use.  The right amount is the answer.  Technology ought to improve working condition without endangering jobs because, after all, the purpose of society is to provide the greatest good for the greatest number not the most money to the fewest doodlebugs.

So, for example, I once worked in bulk mail.  When I started we had these truly awful machines that used printer paper with the holes punched in the sides and a guillotine to cut the paper into rows and then a knife to cut the rows into individual labels which then had to have glue stuck on the back of them which then were glued on to the envelope, catalog, or what have you and then went to a conveyor belt where somebody scanned the labels and organized the letters into stacks of at least 10, I think it was, mailing by full zip, first three, or state as they whizzed along. Then the letters got tied into a bundle and thrown into a filthy mail bag. It was a crap job.  The glue didn't work or the machine would jam and eat up a bunch of labels or you buried trying to sort, although some folks were really good at it.  At some point they brought in inkjet machines that sprayed the label on the mailing and organized the mail by full, three, and state by stopping between the correct number of pieces so that on the conveyor belt a gap appeared.  Productivity went up, the job got a lot easier, no one was fired, in fact, they created two new position because of the need to format the mailing lists on the computer.

This is bad technological innovation:



Why?  Because at some point the greater efficiency and lower costs will led to all robot warehouses and, given the crappy job creating skills of the unfettered market, no jobs for the humans displaced by the robots.  Now, obviously, getting rid of all the people is a fine idea if you cannot think past the end of your nose.