Democrats treat the U.S. economy like one giant jobs program, protecting existing positions instead of encouraging innovation and better opportunities.
The new Restrictions on Self-Service Checkout Stations Act in Rhode Island makes that point plain: it requires one staffed checkout lane for every three self-checkout kiosks and bars employees monitoring those kiosks from performing any other task at the same time. This law is being touted as a defense of work, but it reads more like a rule to freeze an old job mix in place. It captures a wider instinct in modern progressive policy that reflexively favors keeping current jobs over creating better ones.
That instinct is hardly limited to grocery stores. It shows up in fights over artificial intelligence, manufacturing automation, teacher staffing, and other arenas where machines or new methods threaten existing roles. The impulse is consistent: if automation or new technology could reduce the headcount tomorrow, policy must step in today to stop it. The problem is that this prioritizes preserving the status quo over encouraging productivity or new industries.
The Rhode Island law is worth examining not just for its particulars but for what it reveals about a policy mindset. When the primary goal becomes keeping every job exactly as it exists now, lawmakers end up crafting rules that block progress and raise costs for consumers. That approach treats the economy as a fixed pie of positions rather than a dynamic system that can create better work and higher wages over time.
https://x.com/ReemAmirIbrahim/status/2075258527082291469
The anecdote people call the “Lesson of the Spoons” captures the mismatch. The story says that Milton Friedman once asked why a canal in China was being dug by hand rather than with tractors, and a bureaucrat answered, “You don’t understand. This is a jobs program.” Friedman replied, “Oh, I thought you were trying to build a canal. If it’s jobs you want, you should give these workers spoons, not shovels!” Those lines land because they expose priorities: jobs for their own sake versus outcomes that actually improve lives.
That same instinct—to protect the jobs that exist today rather than ask what better ones might exist tomorrow—shows up in policy debates over AI. Progressive lawmakers in several states have pushed for studies or limits on AI deployment specifically to preserve current roles rather than to guide transition or retraining. California and New York have introduced measures aimed at studying or restricting AI-driven displacement before the technology has even scaled enough to cause widespread job losses.
The assumption behind those moves mirrors the Rhode Island checkout rule: the number of jobs today is treated as the number of jobs that should exist tomorrow, and any technology that threatens that headcount is presumed bad. That assumption ignores how technology has historically created whole new industries and higher-value roles even as it phased out older tasks. When policy freezes labor patterns by law, it often freezes productivity and wages too.
Automation in manufacturing and ports provides another clear example. The International Longshoremen’s Association pushed to limit automated cargo-handling equipment at East Coast ports, securing contract language that caps how much automation could be installed. The dynamic is straightforward: equipment that does the job with fewer people becomes a target, not because it is unsafe or ineffective, but because it reduces the number of workers needed.
Amazon and other large employers have faced similar pressure over warehouse robotics as lawmakers introduce “technology displacement” bills to slow automation in fulfillment centers. Those bills are framed as protecting workers, yet they often ignore how automation changes the kind of work available and can raise productivity that supports higher pay and new roles. The political instinct is to legislate away disruption rather than manage it.
There are two ways to solve economic problems: one is to let the market discover new uses for labor and capital, and the other is to use protectionist rules to lock in today’s arrangements. The historical record strongly favors the market for creating broad prosperity and unexpected industries, while protectionism tends to deliver stagnation and inefficiency. When lawmakers decide which jobs are allowed to exist, they hand bureaucrats power that belongs to consumers and entrepreneurs.
None of this is yet full-bore socialism, but it’s a step toward the same mindset: trusting authorities to pick winners and losers instead of trusting people to respond to better options. The lesson of the spoons is not just about tools; it is a warning about what happens when policy substitutes for markets. That warning applies equally to a grocery checkout lane in Rhode Island and to national debates over automation, AI, and the future of work.
