[Closed] Robots vs people - employment crisis looming

I think I didn't explain my comment on being entitled to a job properly. Everyone should be entitled to the chance to get a job, but that doesn't mean they should be provided with one regardless. As you say, things change and people have to adapt. That's just life.

It doesn't mean their efforts to adapt shouldn't be supported though. Whilst the tech scene can go over the top with the belief that learning to code can be everyone's salvation, it isn't to say people can't be helped to find ways to apply their skills in new ways.

Would be interesting to see if someone could program something to do that en masse, thereby tech solving the problem it is supposedly destined to create 🙂

Software that endlessly asks questions then matches people up with opportunities to retrain? Dibs on the name OKStupid 😛

Is it not basically this simple... The whole work for wages thing is a great way to get people to do things they don't want to. A step up from coercion and slavery. But over time, we've come up with other ways to get stuff done, which is reducing the amount of work that people need to do. That's not a problem in itself.

What is a problem, is that the old system is still chuntering along trying to force people to do work, but no longer has work for them to done. So it's actually striving to put people out of work, while simultaneously punishing people for being out of work.

Essentially there's a dude standing behind you with a whip, shouting at you to build that pyramid... But they finished building it last year using a jcb.

Automation doesn't take work from people- it takes away the need for people to work. That's only half of the process. Essentially we've built the tech, we've not addressed the morality. Quite a common problem, hard engineering is easier than social engineering.

THM.... from what I've read between country income inequality has reduced but within country inequality....globally....has increased.

Yes and no. Yes to the first bit, the more accurate account of the second is that patterns of income inequality are returning to more normal patterns. Apply some historical perspective and you see that quite clearly. Of course, choose your starting point wisely and you can make your common (if misleading) conclusion. History tells you that the low levels of income inequality achieved in the mid 20C were an aberration rather than the norm. There is nothing particularly new about current levels of inequality - over time they are the norm not the exception. Go check....

If what I remember is correct, then you need to think about statistics properly.

You don't, see above. But thanks for the advice any way. I will bear it in mind.

Again, utterly simplistic way of looking at the issue.

Why thank you. Why keep things simple when you can over complicate and mislead?

The problem is that the rate of change is forecasted by some to be unprecedented and the effects of this are expected to cause massive social issues. It would probably be wise to consider social polices that aim to reduce any resultant social unrest.

Consultant poppycock led by the likes of Tom Peters and the Thriving on Chaos school many years ago. Again history tells us that there is nothing unprecedented about the current rate of change indeed it is far less significant than other periods. It keeps snake oil consultants happy, but is incorrect for most of us.

The policy that affects Europe the most and has created massive income inequality and suffering is the folly of the single currency. Let's address that one first. BTW, I have long around that social unrest will bring about the eventual collapse of the single currency in Europe and that is probably still valid.

What's harder - to replicate the knowledge of a doctor or the physical skill of a plumber?

Doctors won't be around for long, or the legal profession. The whole upper-middle class knowledge based professions will be gone before they know they're even under threat.

And when the dust settles there'll just be us directionless arty farty airy fairy types who didn't do vocational degrees, we'll be the ones who laugh loudest and longest. Haaaaaaaa! Turns out I did have a career plan all along. I just didn't know what it was til now

Bow down to the New Effete Elite all you professionally qualified lowlifes with letters after your names from what you term 'proper degrees'. All thats required now is for us to..... oooo, whats that out of the window? Awwww thats nice.......

What was i talking about?

But footflaps' B, C and D aren't just programs to do a job - they are systems that need people to provide input and process output; but more importantly they are probably allowing the business to do new businessy things that it couldn't do before. And those new things will require people to do the business. There's no business I can think of that doesn't require any human input.

They're normally stuff no one has thought about before and once automated enhance productivity, so you don't do yourself out of a job, you just keep adding value / improving productivity....

we still struggle to compete with China and the US where the culture is to work like dogs

Really? They are at work for long hours, but not very productive. One of my favourite and quite representative photos of a Huawei engineer hard at work:

[url= https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4015/4521093245_0d51f454b8.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4015/4521093245_0d51f454b8.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/7TvMvx ]Huawei engineer hard at work[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/people// ]brf[/url], on Flickr

They ship 100s of them out to customer sites and then they sit around asleep not fixing any of the issues...

Saying nobody is entitled to a job is a bit harsh but nobody is entitled to keep doing the job they are doing now for life. Things change

Hmm, yes. Perhaps what we need is an organisation to oversee the way the economy and society is changing, to make sure that people don't get shat on too much. To come up with new ideas for how to keep everyone working where they are needed and where their skills can be put to use, and provide new ones. Something that is not simply a market, because people are not simply commodities. I would call it ... Government 🙂

we still struggle to compete with China and the US where the culture is to work like dogs

Hmm, yes. Perhaps what we need is an organisation to oversee the way the economy and society is changing, to make sure that people don't get shat on too much. To come up with new ideas for how to keep everyone working where they are needed and where their skills can be put to use, and provide new ones. Something that is not simply a market, because people are not simply commodities. I would call it ... Government

If you like doublespeak 🙂

I'm just posting in favour of big government, to be honest. What we need is a modern approach to big government. I wish we would spend more time and effort getting government to work rather than simply paring it down. Capitalism is always going to end up with a lot of miserable people and only a few rich happy ones.

EDIT insufficiently checked capitalism, I mean.

I would call it the Administration. Calling them Government leads them to believe they should have power over us. Wrong. They should be administering the affairs of the nation for the benefit of the majority. They are our servants, not vice versa.

A name change is hardly going to affect behaviour of people who are holding the reins, and it's not like career politicians/voracious climbers suddenly won't know where to go.

They should be administering the affairs of the nation for the benefit of the [s]majority[/s] all.

FTFY

*runs*

Yes and no. Yes to the first bit, the more accurate account of the second is that patterns of income inequality are returning to more normal patterns. Apply some historical perspective and you see that quite clearly. Of course, choose your starting point wisely and you can make your common (if misleading) conclusion. History tells you that the low levels of income inequality achieved in the mid 20C were an aberration rather than the norm. There is nothing particularly new about current levels of inequality - over time they are the norm not the exception. Go check....

You say that like a good thing - historically monarchies, witchburnings, executing turnip thieves and feudalism are perfectly normal.

So not only were you wrong about global inequality - in an attempt to backtrack you also outed your political ideologies here THM ie Darwin meets UKIP.

Tom +1000

20th Century has also given us such aberrations to the historical norm as life expectancy that goes beyond middle age, greater worldwide democracy, female suffrage, abolition of slavery in most of the world, curtailment of the absolute power of feudal masters, massively increased literacy and numeracy etc etc

THM's argument is frankly bizarre

Tom, what an earth are you talking about? You do not even have to go back very far (we even debated this recently on another thread) to see that current levels of income inequality are by no means unusual in the UK or elsewhere. This is nothing to do with feudalism ect, that is tosh.

Please tell me about where I am wrong about global inequality? I would love to know, since by definition the world bank must be too. There is no backtracking at all. I merely presented an extra element to the suggested (incomplete) conclusions of the World Bank. I have made no reference to whether current levels are good/bad/anything else, so your final barb is misplaced. I have however stated a preference for a freedom to choose rather than blunt gov legislation in response in addition to my first point about the need for education and training as a better solution. I think you will find that this proposal crossed party politics.

Freedom of speech allows people,to make fools of themselves as they see fit. I will place your comments about UKIP in that category along with much of the above.

Olddog, feel free to look at the stats on income inequality over time. They are freely available and I have posted them before. Then repeat the "bizarre" comment as you see fit.

Why would it be surprising that certain existing jobs would disappear? It happens all the time. People adapt as they always have done.

Try telling that to a 55 year old miner.

[b]Populations[/b] adapt, as they have always done. Individuals aren't the same as populations.

Try telling that to a 55 year old miner.

The bizarreness point is about calling back to historical analyses of inequality but ignoring the fact that the reduction in inequality should be seen alongside a load of other positive changes that have happened in the last 100 years or so.

All the things I mention would be seen as progress as opposed to an aberration to some historic natural order - so why should reductions in inequality not be seen in the same way.

I would also argue that increase in income and wealth inequality to "historic levels" would also lead to an erosion of other progress on such things as health and education - hopefully our imperfect democracies are well formed enough to stop this happening

Individuals adapt also, you have to otherwise you end up like the bitter old mine.

Tom, what an earth are you talking about? You do not even have to go back very far (we even debated this recently on another thread) to see that current levels of income inequality are by no means unusual in the UK or elsewhere. This is nothing to do with feudalism ect, that is tosh.

Please tell me about where I am wrong about global inequality? I would love to know, since by definition the world bank must be too. There is no backtracking at all. I merely presented an extra element to the suggested (incomplete) conclusions of the World Bank. I have made no reference to whether current levels are good/bad/anything else, so your final barb is misplaced. I have however stated a preference for a freedom to choose rather than blunt gov legislation in response in addition to my first point about the need for education and training as a better solution. I think you will find that this proposal crossed party politics.

The data I've seen was from the IMF.

Sorry that just confuses a simple soul ike me. I have made reference to the benefits of technology and positive changes - slightly tongue in cheek from page 1

Machines/tech are great - weekly shop done on-line in the middle of the night and delivered in the morning, no need to expensive encyclopedias, just google, ability to compare prices more freely putting power in the hands of the consumer, ability to see global news at an instant, read zillions of bike reviews at the flick of a switch, even debate cycling topics with hundreds of strangers, talk to relatives overseas with pictures and for free. Amazing stuff!

I have not argued that increases are good. Merely pointed out that there (1) is nothing unusual about current levels and seen from a different perspective (2) we have seen a reduction in inequality at the global level. Of course, linked to (2) is the issue of to what extent the low/middle paid workers in developed markets have been the main losers - the WB claims that this is WIP!

Tom, what an earth are you talking about?

I'm not Tom but I think he is questioning your reasoning.

This may be because what you are saying does seem a bit mental. If this isn't your agruement then applogies but on the face of it you seem to be saying...

"Historically income inequanlity always used to be higher than it is now so we should ignore the fact it's growing again. There is nothing wrong with high income inequality becuase that is how it has always been."

Now I'd have some sympathy for an arguement that says the current trend is just regression to the mean and we are worrying about nothing, but a)that doesn't seem to be what you are arguing and b) It doesn't appear that the current trend is regression to the mean.

We havn't seen a reduction in inequality at a global level, just between country inequality.

There's a massive elephant sized difference between that and general inequality throughout the world that should be measured via within country income inequality. That has got worse.

should we pay them to keep going down a hole and scratch round at rocks all day long?

Are you saying there is no demand for coal ?

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

This is one of the great bits of correlation that STW provides with the number of people longing for the days where everyone had a job was well paid and had a great pension regardless of what they did vs. the Where The **** can I find XYZ 27p cheaper than somebody already making a loss on it.

should we pay them to keep going down a hole and scratch round at rocks all day long?

Of course not. But try putting yourself in the shoes of a highly skilled person of advancing age whose entire industry suddenly disappears.

Its easy to feel superior when you don't think it will happen to you.

Are you saying there is no demand for coal ?

Not at the prices we can extract and export it at!

Of course not. But try putting yourself in the shoes of a highly skilled person of advancing age whose entire industry suddenly disappears.

Its easy to feel superior when you don't think it will happen to you.

I just had this conversation with a staff room full of postdocs. They all ascribed to the right wing, it's all their own fault viewpoint. No sympathy or critical thinking around the subject what so ever, which suprised me considering they're meant to be reasonably well educated.

Maybe I need to work at a better University.

Its easy to feel superior when you don't think it will happen to you.

I have not said that we should ignore it - refer to my first post, the answer is better education and training.

I HAVE said that there is nothing new about current levels - that is a value free observation supported by data. It's FACT.

Tom, I think we are saying the same thing, Within countries here have been pretty consistent recent trends towards higher levels of income inequality (one axis) but across the world (another axis) there has been a reduction in income inequality with low/middle income groups being the main beneficiary. The WB calls this trends "profound", so may I suggest reading it?

There is an on-going shift of economic power going on in which we are losing the battle for economic hegemony. If you are skilled you can still prosper, if you are not, you will suffer. Education, education, education as some bloke once said.

Tom, I think we are saying the same thing, Within countries here have been pretty consistent recent trends towards higher levels of income inequality (one axis) but across the works there has been a reduction in income inequality with low/middle income groups being the main beneficiary. The WB calls this trends "profound", so may I suggest reading it?

Two things

A) Different income inequality indicators can have different outcomes

B) The IMF data shows that within country inequality in almost all of the developing world is getting greater.

THM - If you were just making a technical point fair enough, but then your use of language and framing of the argument led us into this discussion somewhat - ie mid C20 lower levels of income inequality being an aberration - as I said there was lot of positive social reform at that time that is equally aberrant by your analysis.

On the technical issues, as you say, you need to be careful about how the analysis is constructed. There is much confusion post 2008 of how to interpret inequality and the damage it may have on growth - IMF in a major volte-face are now very big on the damaging impact of inequality - the paper by Ostry and Berg illustrates some of the developing thinking, but lots of talking and not much consensus is my analysis.

But all this seems of the original point.... I think it is beyond doubt that technological advance has been a good think for societies on average but can be damaging to industrial sectors, specific geographies and very much individuals. It is the role of governments to anticipate and manage that transition - but it is increasingly difficult in a globalised environment

(2) we have seen a reduction in inequality at the global level.

Globlal inequality is an entirely irrlevant statistic. What really maters to people is their income relative to their peers and their quality of life. A growing middle class in Asia may do wonders for global inequality stats but it does nothing for the quality of life in working class Britain or even working class Asia. It just means there are more Asian people who can afford to go on holiday.

jfletch - exactly, another example is Nigeria - just become the biggest economy in Africa, rapid growth in GDP through oil production. But wealth concentrated in an elite whilst most of country is still poor.

I still couldn't justify funding uneconomic or pointless industry just to avoid telling somebody bad news.

You said "pay them to keep going down a hole and scratch round at rocks all day long" there was no mention of "uneconomic" just the suggestion that they were not doing anything of any importance.

The economics behind the argument is very different, and all the consequences should be considered, including the long term effects of investment, the negative effects of importing coal, the increase costs associated with making people reliant on Job Seekers Allowance, subsidies such as Polish coal that we import receive, the lose of tax revenue, costs such as law enforcement, housing, etc, in deprived areas.

I have never heard a convincing argument in favour of dole not coal. The argument has always been political not economic.

J, go tell that to the team in the world bank focused on studying it!!!!

OD/Tom, it's not a technical issue it's just a fact. Easily observable. I make no comment on whether it is good or not. Of course the bottoming out in the UK occurred in late 79s early 80s, so people can draw their own conclusions there!!!

Tom, the OECD falls into the same trap of framing their analysis after 1980. It's still good stuff but misses the point entirely. Fortunately the WB does a better job. May be the authors there are of a certain age that allows them to look back far enough?

OD - true add Bz and SA to Nigeria.

But wealth concentrated in an elite whilst most of country is still poor.

But that elite is still less well of than the infamous western 1% so overall Nigeria's oil wealth might reduce global inequality. The poor people in Nigeria are screwed though as their relative purchasing power will go down.

Thankyou for your analysis of my superiority. In the last 15 years I have transitioned through 4 different industries to find employment. I know what it's like. I still couldn't justify funding uneconomic or pointless industry just to avoid telling somebody bad news. All it ends up with is more people doing it and more to upset. If you can't deal with it grow a pair.

Oh for heaven’s sake, I knew I shouldn’t have used the word “miner”. It still gets the Thatcherites frothing around the mouth and completely missing the point.

Yes I suppose I could “grow a pair”, but I prefer to feel some sympathy for people who “there but for the grace of God”.

The booming middle class in sub-Saharan Africa is one of the most powerful developments in global economics/finance. Ignore it at your peril.

Where do you think Bobbie Diamond has gone off to after canary wharf ?

Ernie, if you want to keep the industry going it takes more than a few more miners and brings heaps more into an industry that might not have much more of a future. I've just come back from somewhere that is pulling 60 million tonnes/year out of the ground and if aiming for 100 shortly. It makes digging round under bits of the UK uneconomic despite where you haul it from. The point is further reaching than a specific mining example, keeping an industry going to support a few jobs for those who are too old/stubborn to retrain is not a good idea. Especially if you end up sucking more people into that sector.

for those who are too old/stubborn to retrain is not a good idea.

I think they were neither. Abandoned would be a better description.

J, go tell that to the team in the world bank focused on studying it!!!!

OK, Maybe I was a bit flipant. It's relevant to understanding the global ecomony and how changes but it is entirely irelevant when discussing quality of life and purchasing power as we are now.

But again not of this is relevant to increased mechanisation. Income inequality is driven by the cumulation of capital and the income that can be generated from this capital outstripping that of making stuff. Mechanisation and automation increases the ammount of stuff that can be made for the same ammount of work, this reduces income inequality as seen during the industrial revolution.

The nigeiran working poor won't become more weathly by working in manual labour based factories. The might become more weathly if they can find work where mechanisation increases their productivity.

I think the boom time in the de-manualisation of British industries was in the 70's and 80's so the job losses are all comommonly blamed on Thatcher. Maybe she actually was a robot...

My bigger concern is what will happen when the computers figure out how to make people surplus to the needs of the economy...

I'd argue that the destruction of the mining industry was political rather then economic - to do with a wider reorientation of power between organised labour and government. That doesn't mean that change wouldn't have happened - but could have been handled differently