I don't think I'll like it very much. I've never much liked
the No Frills supermarkets where there is a cashier, but the customer bags
his/her own order. As you say, however, whether we like it or not, it's likely
to come about.
I believe taxing technology which puts people out of work is
part of the platform of the Green Party of Ontario. I have mixed feelings on the
subject. I am a technophile and thus am dubious about arresting real technical
progress. However, as I indicated, I do make a distinction between technology
which really reduces labor and technology which simply offloads the same amount
of work from a paid employee to an unpaid consumer. Sort of adding insult to
injury as I see it. I would happily tax any technology which merely transfers
work to the consumer. However, it is not always too easy to make the
distinction. For instance, internet banking probably takes at least as much time
as the actual transaction with a teller, but it saves my total time since I
don't have to drive into town, and since the transactions are easily downloaded
into my cheque book manager program.
Regards,
Victor
----- Original Message -----From: Thomas LundeSent: June 20, 1999 5:48 PMSubject: Re: automated supermarketsThomas:
This is a very interesting article in not only what it tells and what it implies for FW but the thing that struck me was the speed at which it is happening. I think consumers will like it, I find I like the Teller machine for 80% of my banking. But whether we like it or not, between E Commerce and automation of retailing, the jobless ranks are going to soar. The only human jobs for the semi- to unskilled will be as a Courier driver delivering parcels or pizza delivry guy/girl and even both of those "jobs" could be automated. It's time to own up that we need a new way to distribute income other than working - the production of goods and services are still there and need consumers to exist so I suggest a significant tax be added to each machine or group of machines that eliminate work. Prices will stay the same because automation is cheaper than labour but the government will have signicantly more resources to distribute to those who have been marginalized.
Thanks for the posting Victor,
Respectfully,
Thomas Lunde
