From time to time, various groups of workers have feared that some new technology would eliminate their jobs. In extreme cases, they have sought to destroy new machinery that did their work more efficiently than they could do it.
For instance, in 19th century Britain, some workers known as the Luddites are said to have destroyed automated looms because they feared the looms would put them out of work.
We understand anyone's concern about losing a job. But imagine what would happen if we tried to protect every job by discouraging technological advances that might reduce demand for a particular type of work. We might still be riding in horse-drawn buggies rather than driving cars, or we might be reading by candlelight rather than by light bulb.
While we do not believe that President Barack Obama is opposed to technology, he strangely seemed to suggest recently that our nation's economy may have become "too efficient" - and that efficiency is partly to blame for high unemployment.
Interviewed on NBC, he said, "There are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM. You don't go to a bank teller. Or you go to the airport and you're using [a self-serve] kiosk instead of checking in at the gate."
What the president didn't mention is that when a company automates services and makes them more efficient, the company can invest the savings in other, more productive job-creating ventures. The savings don't simply "disappear." They can be put to good use.
Efficiency benefits our economy. It's not a negative.