Obama Blames ATMs for Unemployment, Rather than Himself

Original Post: Associated Content

Casting around for someone or something to blame other than himself for long-term unemployment, President Barack Obama told NBC News that one culprit is automated telling machines (ATMs), which are taking jobs from bank tellers, according to Fox Nation.

"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 kiosk instead of checking in at the gate."

People have been blaming technology for taking away people's jobs ever since the luddites attacked mechanized looms in early 19th century England. The notion is fallacious now as it was then. By promoting efficiency and expanding consumer choice, technology like ATMs spur economic growth and thus job creation.

Jonah Goldberg, writing in National Review, makes this very point about ATMs and bank tellers:

"I'm not sure how you can possibly blame ATMs. Aside from the myriad ways in which ATMs boost efficiency, liquidity, consumer spending (and don't forget all of the jobs created for technicians and manufacturers of ATM machines), I'm not sure you can even blame a drop in bank teller jobs on bank machines. This is just a quick take, but just think about it for two seconds. The number of bank branches has soared in recent years. Those branches need human tellers (and bank machines). That's why the BLS predicted that teller jobs would grow about 6% from 2008 to 2018 (it predicted other banking jobs would grow as well)."

Goldberg also notes that both the number of ATMs and bank tellers has grown between 1985 and 2002, thus invalidating President Obama's point.

Obama was obviously making an attempt to shift blame from himself to the growth of automation. However, the disquieting thought occurs that perhaps the president will take this theme to heart and enact regulations restricting the use of automation in favor of human workers.

One would almost laugh at the idea, but it is no more absurd than the stimulus bill, health care reform, or cash for clunkers. Trying to inhibit automation by government fiat is just the sort of social engineering that the president and his people love to engage in.

One suspects that the president, should he run with this, will pretty up the proposal by calling it something like "American Jobs through Technological Restraint." Democrats in Congress will certainly grasp at this as a way to give jobs to angry constituents and thus quiet their unhappiness, making them want to vote for Democrats.

People who point out, as Goldberg does, that automation actually creates jobs in the long run will be accused of being cold and heartless and no doubt in the pay of robotics manufacturers. The unions, who will surely want to organize these retro workers, will certainly be all for the proposal as well.

All kidding aside, President Obama will almost certainly get a pass for this inanity, unlike what would have happened if it had come out of Sarah Palin's mouth. He is, after all, smart and, as his wife suggested, better prepared than the people who brief him on a daily basis. Thus, to paraphrase Orwell, stupidity is intelligence.