THE GREAT RESET Recession, advancing technology kill middle-class jobs - BERNARD CONDON - commentary

I found this article in my local paper.Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-----------------------------

This article is too long to republish here, so I will quote some relevant passages and comment on them.

The author of this article is concerned that technological advancements are eliminating jobs in favor of machines doing those tasks. He writes, 

"The global economy is being reshaped by machines that generate and analyze vast amounts of data; by smartphones and tablet computers that let people work just about anywhere; by smarter, nimbler robots; and by services that let businesses rent computing power when they need it. Whole employment categories, from secretaries to travel agents, are starting to disappear." 

This is classic Luddite thinking. Luddites resisted the advance of technology brought about the by the industrial revolution. They viewed these advancements as detrimental to their way of life and their jobs. Economist John Maynard Keynes gave credence to the theory in the 1930s. Keynes, of course, advanced the economic theories beloved by leftists, who implemented them to our ruin.

The Luddite fallacy is just that, a fallacy. It is (or should be) common knowledge that technological advances and labor saving devices have brought a prosperity unprecedented in human history. The problem is, the Left typically views situations as static. They don't account for the dynamic changes possible when one aspect of the situation is changed. For example, they assume that a $500 billion tax increase will generate $500 billion in revenue. Of course it never does, because peoples' behavior changes to avoid the tax as much as they can. Or, an anti smoking law will be passed, but people don't stop smoking, they just smoke elsewhere.

It is the same thing with technology. technology doesn't kill jobs, it simply redistributes them. In fact, new industries spring up around new technologies. For example, no one would be making covers for cell phones if cell phones hadn't been invented. But if the Luddites had their way, we would still be communicating by pony express. In actual fact, it is a good thing pony express riders lost their jobs.

So because the economy is dynamic and not static, the loss of jobs in a soon-to-be obsolete industry means that some other part of the economy is prospering. No one should expect that their low tech/low skill job will survive. No one should expect that they are indispensable. A person has a job only because his employer has tasks that need to be performed. He isn't employed to further a government agenda or a social purpose. He is employed because his skills are needed. When his skills are no longer valuable, he will lose his job. 

Because this 

giving way to this

is a good thing. It means more productivity, more prosperity, and more employment for those who wish to acquire the skills to succeed.

Consider: If we did not have computers, we would be using type writers and calculators. But those were technological advances. So we should have rejected them because of people losing their jobs, people who made pens and slide rules. But those were technological advances as well. People who made quills and bottles of ink were put out of work. 

The author blames YOU: 

"The uncomfortable truth is that technology is killing jobs with the help of ordinary consumers by enabling them to quickly do tasks that workers used to do full time, for salaries. Use a self-checkout lane at the supermarket or drugstore? A worker behind a cash register used to do that. Buy clothes without visiting a store? You’ve taken work from a salesman. Click “accept” in an email invitation to attend a meeting? You’ve pushed an office assistant closer to unemployment. Book your vacation using an online program? You’ve helped lay off a travel agent."

It's your fault people don't have jobs. You want convenience, low prices, and ease of use, and it's costing a lot of people their jobs. Of course this is total nonsense, but why should we expect that people know anything about economics these days?

In actual fact, the whole article is a diversion, an attempt to shift blame for the failures of government and crony capitalism (resulting in our present financial devastation) on something completely unrelated. 

Interestingly, the author offers no solutions. One would think that had he been so completely persuaded that technology has cost people their jobs, that he would present the obvious solution: Technology is bad, so technological advancement must be stopped. But he does not do that. 

It is ironic that the author's article appears on the internet, a product of technological advances that may soon lead to the demise of print newspapers. Is there any doubt that he composed his article on a computer program, has an automobile in his garage, and has cable TV?