Dani
Rodrik wrote an article: “Technology for All,” that's a bit puzzling because he
speaks of employment in digital technology as if it were as simple as hair
styling, for example. It is like saying: You know how to style the hair of a
client or you don't. The article was published in the Project Syndicate edition
of March 6, 2020.
The
reality is that digital technology is as complex as say, the auto industry for
example. There are the engineers who design the car, those who produce the
parts, those who assemble the parts into a car, those who repair the car when
it breaks down, those who refuel it at the gas station and those who wash it at
the car wash. And of course, there are the chauffeurs who drive the car.
Leaving
aside the hardware, and restricting our discussion to the software part of
digital technology, we find that the workers in this field, range from the
engineers who specialize in the design of software for the space program, to
those who design social application type software … and everyone in-between.
Aside from all that, it is important to remember that writing software is like
writing in one of the human languages. Those who master one or more language
can write a good software. Those who are naturally talented in addition to
learning the language, can write user-friendly software.
And
this is where Dani Rodrik seems to miss the boat. He confuses the work that's
done by the writers of software with the work that's done by the users of the
software. It is like confusing the engineer that designs the car with the
chauffeur that drives it. In fact, it happens that increasingly, those who
write software need to acquire knowledge in various other disciplines,
especially in advanced mathematics.
At
the same time, however, those who use the software, increasingly insist on
having ever more user-friendly software. Whether they check their bank balance
on the Automatic Teller Machine or they operate a precision tool machine, the users
of digital technology want to converse with the algorithm they are using, as
easily as they tweet a text to a friend.
A
study of society in the age of digital technology will demonstrate that the
young are better at handling the products of technology than their elders. Why
is that? Because handling these products is done in the language of the age,
and children are wired to learn languages faster and more readily than adults.
Thus, we can only conclude that in the future, the so-called “digital divide”
will prove to be a myth. And this prompts the following question: How did that
myth come to be in the first place?
The
answer to that question can be found in the Dani Rodrik article where it will
be seen that the confusion between the writers of software and the users of
software inevitably lead to that kind of mythology. Look at the following
passage and see for yourself:
“We
live in a world with a widening chasm between the skills of the average worker
and the capabilities demanded by technologies that raised demand for skilled
professionals. Technologies replace factory, sales, and clerical workers. This
skills gap contributes to the signal problems of our time. The conventional
response is more and better education. If ordinary people are not to be left
behind in this age, truck drivers need to become computer programmers. This is
a one-sided remedy. The gap between skills and technology can be closed by
increasing education to match the demands of new technologies, or by
redirecting innovation to match the skills of the current labor force or by
creating jobs for the workers we have, not the workers we wish we had”.
This
is the mentality of three decades ago. It reminds those of us who were around
at the time, that during his presidential campaign in the early years of the
1990s, Bill Clinton promised that he'll do his utmost to give every child the
knowledge to log onto the internet. Well, the children did not need his help.
They did it on their own, and did it in spades. The result has been that they
horrify their parents who can't keep up with them, having lost control of the
internet influences that shape the children’s character.
But
if technology per se is not the culprit, what is it that's causing the income
disparity in a society that knows this is dangerous and wants to change it, but
knows not what exactly the problem is or how to fix it?
Simply
put, the problem is human nature, which has a dark side that is tamed by
culture, and where necessary, tamed by the law. But whenever something new
comes along, the dark side takes advantage of it before culture or the law get
involved and curtail the excesses.
Like
the warrior that used to fight with bows and arrows, and was suddenly given a
machine gun, those who treat life like a war game, and suddenly have access to
new technologies, use them to “slaughter” their opponents. Culture is powerless
to change this kind of behavior; only the law is in a position to do it. Until
this happens, the rich boor will get richer and the poorer of the poor will get
poorer still.