Technologys contribution to the inequities in American society

Bethany J. Royer Technology has always posed difficulty in terms of American society when it comes to equality, specifically the ever-widening gap between the rich and the poor. n the past, the industriali!ed revolution transformed the world, changing manual labor and creating better and faster products "#c$amb, %&''(. )ome prospered during this technology-advancing time, however, there were others who languished in factories up to seven days a wee* and for the larger portion of the day "+hitney, n.d.( after finding employment wor*ing with machines. Today, some feel we are under a similar revolution but one that is widening the discrepancies between the haves and the have-nots. )ome may argue it is solely the fault of technology and others believe the fault is due to greed "Ba*er, %&'%(. n terms of inequality today, much as it did during the industrial revolution, it more than li*ely resides somewhere in the middle. ,or e-ample, a recent article by Andrew $eonard poses the potential loss of .obs for minimum-wage earners such as wait staff at area restaurants due to technology. /pon current reports, Applebee0s is loo*ing to install i1ad tablets at every table so patrons may order, pay, and even play games without any 2interference3 from wait staff. +hile emphasi!ing wait staff numbers would not decrease "%&'4( the implementation of these devices are obvious. n this above case, for the wait staff at Applebee0s restaurants across the country, the utili!ation of this technology will remove their need. t is simply a matter of time before they are laid off. +hich leaves the question, if the restaurant saves money by using technology over human labor, will the masses see the difference in terms of

e-penditures5 1robably not as more than li*ely it will be the company itself that will profit from money saved. Thus technology in this case will lead to a great deal of inequity for minimum wage wor*ers in American. And if this is any indication of the future, those who have ta*en to the streets in the fast food industry "as another restaurantrelated, low wage earning e-ample( demanding a living wage and emphasi!ing the nature of greed as reasons behind economic inequality ")olomon, %&'4( they may be out of luc* if technology puts them out of a .ob, too. Their .obs may be potentially replaced by a robot or tablet in the very near future -a living wage the least of their concerns. This is not to inherently say technology is easily divided into good versus bad, the industriali!ed revolution changed the world. #any technologies since then have come to the aid of those in developing countries with better access to education, health care, communication, and even in their line of wor* "6remus, %&'4( but getting it into their hands proves to be a tas*. The same issue resides for the poor in the /nited )tates such as in the case of education and technology, where wealthier districts have greater access to computers and the nternet. 7ot only in the school environment but at home, too, however, this is not to say that immediately furbishing the poor with electronics will aid in higher academic achievement "Bader, %&'4( in this situation. 8alled the digital divide, and in some cases the racial divide, minority groups tend to have less access to technology such as computers and the nternet. This puts them behind the technology curve that is so shaping our society today. This is not the only problem, as there is also the lac* of interest in some cases, referred to as a gender divide which is associated with few numbers of women entering technology fields. +hich is

unfortunate given the world is ever more dependent on technology and growing by the day ")teele-8arlin, %&&%( as made evident in the case of Applebee0s wait staff. /nfortunately or fortunately, a nation0s economic health is determined by their acceptance and utili!ation of new technologies "7obel, %&'%(. #eaning, if the /nited )tates adopts new technologies the per capita income rises but only for those who li*ewise adopt and utili!e it. ,or those who do not have ready access to technologies, who have been left behind in terms of education and familiarity, such as those in poverty, poor school districts, and even sometimes gender, they will be left behind, creating inequities. f such issues as the tablets at restaurants overta*e low wage .obs, where will these individuals go for wor*, especially if this is but a stepping stone to other such employers utili!ing technology5 t would be one thing if customers to such companies would see the monetary difference but that won0t be the case. The monies saved by eliminating a human labor wor*force will be poc*eted and what is to become of those left unemployed becomes a definite issue. /nfortunately, Americans do not value minimum wage .obs and society0s response to the demand by low-wage employees for a living wage has gone mostly unresponded to due to 2class bias3. Those of high-power continue and assure the prosperity of their positions through such means as discrimination, defining and setting society rules, derogatory labeling, stereotyping, broad assumptions, e-clusion, and psychological power-plays. The latter done through dehumani!ation by assessing those of lesser power to be void of 2secondary emotions such as guilt, shame, embarrassment, delight, and sensitivity3 "$ott, %&&%( among other methods including pitting those in lower

socioeconomic states against one another. This is often done through the use of myths or assumptions about their associated class. /se of technology -such as in the case of a restaurant installing tablets in order to "eventually( remove wait staff- will further the bias and inequities. 1ut into further perspective, retail and fast-food companies are the largest employers in the /nited )tates "9ess, %&'4(. f all these .obs or the vast ma.ority are eliminated via technology :what becomes of those wor*ers5

References Bader, ;. "%&'4(. Technology alone won0t save poor *ids in struggling schools. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http<==www.theatlanticcities.com=technology=%&'4=&>=technology-alone-wontsave-poor-*ids-struggling-schools=>?@A=. Ba*er, B. "%&'%(. Technology doesn0t cause inequality- deliberate policy change does. The Cuardian. Retrieved from http<==www.theguardian.com=commentisfree=cifamerica=%&'%=.ul='?=technologyinequality-policy-change. 9ess, A. ;.#. "%&'4(. The '& largest employers in America. /)AToday.com. Retrieved from http<==www.usatoday.com=story=money=business=%&'4=&D=%%=ten-largestemployers=%?D&%A@=. $eonard, A. "%&'4(. )alon.com. Ama!on, Applebee0s and Coogle0s .ob-crushing drones and robot armies< 8oming for your .ob ne-t. Retrieved from http<==www.salon.com=%&'4='%=&?=triumphEofEtheEdrones=. $ott, B. "%&&%(. 8ognitive and behavioral distancing from the poor. American 1sychologist, >F"%(, '&&-''&. doi<http<==d-.doi.org='&.'&4F=&&&4-&??G.>F.%.'&& #c$amb, ;. "%&''(. mpact of the industrial revolution. ;cology Clobal 7etwor*. Retrieved from http<==www.ecology.com=%&''=&@='D=ecological-impact-industrialrevolution=. 7obel, 8. "%&'%(. 9ow technology adoption affects global economies. 9arvard Business )chool. Retrieved from http<==hbsw*.hbs.edu=item=?@>'.html.

6remus, +. "%&'4(. ntel innovation barometer< #illenials fear technology, older women embrace it. )late.com Retrieved from http<==www.slate.com=blogs=futureEtense=%&'4='&='F=intelEinnovationEbarometerE millennialsEfearEtechnologyEolderEwomenEembrace.html. )olomon, B. "%&'4(. #emo to fast food minimum wage stri*ers< nvestors don0t care. ,orbes.com. Retrieved from http<==www.forbes.com=sites=briansolomon=%&'4='%=&>=fast-food-investors-notscared-of-minimum-wage-wor*er-stri*e=. )teele-8arlin, ). "%&&%(. 8aught in the digital divide. ;ducation +orld. Retrieved from http<==www.educationworld.com=aEtech=tech&A'.shtml. +hitney, ;. "n.d.(. ndustrial revolution< 8lass of people. ndustrial Revolution Research. Retrieved from http<==www.industrialrevolutionresearch.com=industrialErevolutionEclassesEofEpe ople.php.