Technology, Economics, and the Fear Fallacy

Mankind has been perpetually fearful of technological/scientific innovation and its influence on jobs and employment since the inception of economic study.

This image disseminates inaccurate information regarding self-checkout kiosks, and will be used a reference point for this article.

The self-checkout kiosk is simply the next in a long line of technological devices and tools to be needlessly decried due to fear of change.

And, as has been the case every time before, this fear is unnecessary, unwarranted, and predicated upon a basic misunderstanding of the way in which technology and economics progress and regress symbiotically.

Self-checkout machines don't kill jobs. Rather, these kiosks replace unnecessary jobs with necessary ones.

How many thousands of men and women are employed by the companies which design, produce, manufacture, and sell these machines? How many men and women are employed by companies which ship these machines to consumers? How many men and women are employed by businesses which preform maintenance and repair on these machines? And when these machines reduce employment costs at specific locations and free up specifically allocated corporate funds to be redirected, how many companies are fiscally eligible to open new stores in new locations which provide more jobs in places where there were previously none? Utilizing self-checkout kiosks allows corporations to cut expenses, and channel capital in order to expand and, ultimately, increase the workforce. Because your local Wal-Mart is saving money by installing self-checkout machines, the corporation can afford to build and open new Wal-Marts which could not have existed before.

Being persistently afraid of technological and scientific advancement on the work front has yielded prophesies and predictions of economic doom and ruin which have never come to fruition. The promised disastrous effects of technological advancement on the workforce have simply never materialized. Society also initially rejected the cotton gin, automobiles, the household computer, and internet shopping because of their "dangerous nature" and potential to eliminate employment on a cataclysmic scale. Instead, these advancements have simplified and eased daily life, reduced costs and prices, and created jobs virtually every time. Without exception.

By the poor and flawed logic of refusing to use self-checkout kiosks to "save jobs", we should also refuse to pump our own gas, cook our own food, and mow our own lawns. Rather than abstaining from these things, we understand that when certain tasks become obsolete and superfluous, we eliminate and replace them.

To break this argument down one point at a time:

1. "They kill jobs" -- When companies apply cost-cutting technology across the board, they are capable of increasing velocity, building additional storefronts, and ultimately providing and creating more jobs in the nations and cities which host said storefronts. This is not limited to increased positions in Chinese manufacturing plants. This includes employment opportunities for those who ship the machines, install the machines, and maintain the machines within the United States, and it includes jobs created because corporations can now afford to open new storefronts that would otherwise be infeasible.

2. "They don't contribute with payroll taxes" -- Self-checkout kiosks DO contribute taxes, though not directly. See the above point: More jobs created by technology and greater corporate income allowed by technological advances yields more aggregate tax dollars. It is incredibly naïve to evaluate only the effect individual self-checkout machine as compared to a payroll tax contributing person, and not consider the effect of these devices across the country and the globe.
Further, companies and employees don't exist for the purpose of state funding and taxes. Measuring people and corporations simply as a source of federal income is an extremely hypocritical position in light of the intent to champion the working man over the machine. This flawed argument sets upindividuals as a means to a monetary end, and this line of reasoning is unacceptable.

3. "They are not convenient" -- This is anecdotal and entirely irrelevant. Self-checkout kiosks are clearly desired and preferred by some consumers, or else corporations wouldn't install them. The bottom line: If you don't want self-checkout kiosks at your local Wal-Mart, don't use them. Your preference regarding technology is not apposite to the dialogue.

The misconception that technological progress hampers economic growth and stability has consequentially given rise to farcical concept that employers and corporations are primarily obligated to/exist to serve and provide for employees. The narrative goes that if cost-cutting tactics and initiatives implemented on the part of a business would cause a reduction of wages or jobs, said tactics and initiatives should be ridiculed and abandoned altogether. This notion is entitled and dangerous.

An employer's first responsibility is not to his employees, but rather, to the income and the bottom line of his practice. Of course, a business or corporation can also take good care of the people that work for it, but if overhead and labor costs become greater than revenue, there will no longer be companies to provide jobs, goods, services, and benefits in the first place. When we insist that corporations are "evil" for prioritizing profit over people, we demonstrate a basic misunderstanding of the role businesses play in society and of the positive effect that their mere existence has on millions of men and women every day. Companies ought to prioritize profit over people if they wish to continue existing to serve people at all.