Speed, Technology, Progress does not mean BETTER

jack@his.com
Sat, 21 Jan 95 16:45:59

Sean Gawne said: "What's the right answer? I don't know if there is one. I work
at a large
electric company. Our company will soon begin installing automatic meters,

and phasing out the job of the meter readers. This will affect only a few
hundred people, and it's spread out over years. Nationwide many thousands
are affected. Such examples are increasingly common, and always sad. But
every company must change, because the competitors are changing. The only
alternative is obsolesence.

Maybe the answer is this: yes, these things are progress. There is an
unstated assumption, which is largely false, that progress means better."

Sean, I was bowled over by the sentence "The only alternative is
obsolescence." This reflects the common habit of organizations -
especially businesses - to ignore elementary systems thinking. In my
opinion, a society which systematically puts people out of work is
obsolescent. The salaries of the meter readers are paid in the rates. Is
the removal of the meter readers the only way - or even the best way - to
reduce rates (which is what you mean, I think, about keeping up with
competitors who are changing, even though Southern California Edison
doesn't have too much competition)? Here are some consequences: As
people lose work, they are less able to buy things they need. This has
the effect of reducing the income of those who sell things to them. For
those who are doing the selling, the energy rates represent an increasing
portion of their (now) declining income, so they will press for even lower
rates (which will cause people to lose work) or they will use less energy
(which will cause people to lose work). Such loops can and should be
avoided...

--Jack (jack.hirschfeld@his.com)