How White Elephants Are Born - And How To Abort Them

Thanks once again to my daily newspaper, I learned recently of the existence of an organization called Consumers for Paper Options.  This, it turns out, is a lobbying group heavily supported by the companies that produce ... paper!   What a shock.  And what does the group want?  To slow or halt the government's transition of records, statements and such (e.g., social security statements) from paper to electronic versions.  Why?  Purportedly, because they want to defend to poor or infirm people who do not have computers and may not be able to receive or access their accounts.

We're quite used to corporations seeking to protect their business interests by arguing that ________ (fill in the blank with anything they oppose because it reduces their market) will harm consumers.  Curiously, they never want anything for themselves.  This is called "corporate responsibility" or "corporate good citizenship."   So there's nothing much new here, except the ground on which the battle is going to be fought this time:  paper.

I confess that, in the rush to push toward electronic documents, I have been a footdragger because of my own concerns that computers and electrons are complex systems that not everyone -- for example, those who suffer from dementia or Alzheimer's -- may be able to master.  I can handle electronic documents now, but what happens when I can't?  So subjectively, it seems there should indeed be a means by which those who don't want, or can't handle, electronic statements, can still obtain the real thing. 

On the other hand, Consumers for Paper Options is pressing for lawmaking action that would require government to keep producing paper statements.  I note that there's no evidence of a push to require private companies to do so!  But even if that were not the case, the legislation CPO is arguing for is a bad idea, because it is inevitably the kind of thing that becomes a straitjacket on the government and a windfall to the industry involved.  We've seen it happen in entire sectors of our economy:  oil and gas; sugar; farming.  And the paper industry already has its own corporate entitlements. 

When we look at the comparative processing costs (9 cents for an electronic transfer, $1.25 for a paper check) and the technology trend line (computers, tablets and smart phones are ever more ubiquitous, and by the way, who's to say that the new generation, which masters computer use at age 4, won't be able to deal with electronic documents even in their dotage?), the answer is obvious (or should be), especially to profit-making companies that would never think of restricting their own options to cut costs:   Don't do it!

The CPO efforts run the risk of creating, right before our eyes, the next USPS-like white elephant.  It can be avoided if legislators will "just say no" to these self-appointed guardians of consumers' rights.  

Comments

[PiedType]

Funny, I've been mourning the slow death of my beloved publishing industry (I retired in 1998) without ever giving a thought to how technology was also killing the paper industry.

I do most things electronically now, but only because I can get paper copies from everyone if I want them. If that ever stops being an option, I'll get very nervous. Computer errors are too easy to make (without realizing it) and electronic documents go "poof" all too easily.

[JHawk23]

Thanks for your comment. I agree, the ability to get paper even from those pushing the electrons is reassuring (though so is the ability to call up the electrons if your paper ever disappears).
So the cautious among us will probably continue to go with double backup for the really important stuff.
But I hope we can avoid REQUIRING government (or business) to perpetuate the costly paper option when the world is clearly headed the other way. That's just building inefficiency into the process ... something that in our great cumulated wisdom these days, we ought to be able to recognize and avoid.