(New York: Harper & Row, 1965). I have been reinforced in the conclusions reached in those essays by noting their agreement with the subsequent report of the National Commission on Technology, Automation, and Economic Progress, Technology and the American Economy (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1966), and the recent book by Charles Silberman, The Myths of Automation (New York: Harper & Row, 1966).
2.
The technological developments that underlie the possibilities of using human and computer programs interchangeably in a wide range of tasks are discussed in my paper, “Decision Making as an Economic Resource,” in SeltzerLawrence H., ed., New Horizons of Economic Progress (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1964), pp. 71–95.
3.
Ibid., pp. 91–93.
4.
“The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing” are examined in Kenneth Arrow's well-known essay with that title, Review of Economic Studies, XXIX (June 1962), 155–173, and in the reference cited there.
5.
“Decision Making as an Economic Resource,”op. cit., pp. 80–82.
6.
My intention here is simply to state a fact, not to offer social criticism. In particular, I do not mean to argue that transmission of production programs should be the sole, or even a major, goal of formal education. I simply observe that it is easy to jump to the conclusion that this is what education is all about. The jumping has been encouraged by studies of American education that have made much of the largely spurious correlation between the amount of education and earnings. The correlations are spurious because they have been uncorrected, or inadequately corrected, for differences in ability, in ambition, and in family status.
