This post is a riff on a recent op-ed column by Don Boudreaux at the Pitt Tribune “Minimum Wage & Technology.”
As Don writes:
When I explain to my students that minimum wages prompt firms to substitute technology for labor, they often react as if this greater reliance on technology is an upside of the job-destroying nature of minimum wages. But my students are mistaken.
This attitude is often portrayed as justification for all kinds of government interventions: minimum wage, labor restrictions, scarcityism, etc. Technology is a sign of advancement, so we must advance!
But advancement is not a costless procedure. Not only, as Don points out in his article, is there costs to developing said technology, but there are also costs to implementing and adopting such technology. If a self-help kiosk is installed at a fast-food restaurant, its costs are more than just the new machine: it needs to be wired, staff trained (which reduces their productivity in the meantime), company policy created (and all other kinds of backroom stuff), etc. All these things take time and resources; they all have costs. If these costs, plus those that Don mentions in his article are higher than the benefits, then the intervention in the market, even if it produces newer technology, is a net loss.
This is an important point that is implied in the above discussion but I want to make explicit: just because there is a hypothetical “better” outcome, it does not mean that the market has failed! If that outcome does not occur because the transaction and transition costs are too high, then the current outcome, with all its flaws, is the most optimal.
Indeed, there is really only one condition under which we can say with any certainty that a true market failure has occurred: if the outcome is suboptimal, and the transaction costs were misestimated, and this misestimation should have been known to the market participants. This is an extremely high bar to reach, one that is made all the higher given it requires a huge judgment call on the part of the analyst. In a sense, the analyst ends up begging the question since he has to assume his judgment and knowledge and subjective evaluations of the costs and benefits are equally shared by the participants (or he knows their inner workings).
Among economists of all stripes, the presumption of liberty, that is the promotion of free markets even when they are imperfect, remains predominant for exactly the reason discussed here: the knowledge of transaction and transition costs are highly personal and their existence gives the economist pause whenever discussing “welfare enhancing” policies specifically designed to control economies.