It wasn't a blessing to longshoremen (manual labor at ports) worldwide. That doesn't mean we should remain stuck in the past, driving horse-drawn carriages so t

It wasn't a blessing to longshoremen (manual labor at ports) worldwide. That doesn't mean we should remain stuck in the past, driving horse-drawn carriages so the buggy whip makers can stay in business, but let's not gloss over the very serious downside to millions of people, their families and communities. Two thoughts: 1. I always try to remember: Capital can move and technology can change far faster than people can. The factory can move to another country far faster than its 10,000 employees can move to a new job, possibly in a new city. Shipping containers can be implemented far faster than millions (or more?) of longshoremen worldwide can learn new trades, find jobs, and return to their former incomes. I support innovation, but we should take care of the people who can't possibly keep up and who have little power over their fate. 2. If technology comes along that disrupts the careers of the politically weak, such as longshoremen, people say that it's just the nature of the game; that's innovation and they should take care of themselves. We just focus on the overall economic gains and are excited. But if new tech disrupts the politically strong, such as the music and film industries, then the technology is outlawed and law enforcement protects their privilege. Ironically, it's the weak who need that protection far more than the strong. I used to think that we all should sacrifice for overall economic efficiency; that it's the rules of the game we all playI find it harder and harder to justify sacrificing the welfare of human beings for more cash, and of course I realized the 'rules' were made by a specific group of people to serve themselves.