[Closed] More trauma for the non working classes

People were told to much fanfare that this new earth-shattering technological breakthrough would revolutionise their lives

It has.

It strikes me that we'll end up only needing a tiny proportion of the population actually working, so what do we do with the rest of them? How can a human compete with a machine?

Who makes the machines? How many people are involved in design, manufacture, R&D? Who makes the silicon chips, who designs those?

BTW in my Asda, only about three or four checkouts have been replaced with 20 or so of these things. The other checkouts are still heavily manned. And how many people are not dissuaded from picking up a few more things or coming into the store at all because of big queues? How many people are buying slightly more because they're less stressed?

Ironic that a site dedicated to playing with children's toys elevated to carbon and titanium interactive leisure jewellery can have complaints about technology failing to deliver leisure opportunities.

Toys, I'll give you, children's toys? Not really. There always has been a percentage of the population sufficiently affluent to be able to play as well as work. that percentage has certainly grown, but it strikes me its set to shrink markedly soon, if it hasn't started already.

Moll, I hear what you're saying, but the maths just doesn't add up, does it? I mean, the motivation to put these machines in place is financial, and where is the saving if its not from the wage budget? And if your local Asda only has a few of these, just watch that space; that's how mine started, and I'd say nearly half the tills have been replaced now, and speaking to the staff, hours are thin on the ground as a result.

molgrips - Member

"People were told to much fanfare that this new earth-shattering technological breakthrough would revolutionise their lives"

It has.

It hasn't, not in the way they said it would.

Which is clear if you put the above quote in the full context I put it in, ie :

[i]Tedious tasks would in future be preformed by machines freeing people to spend more time enjoying their lives. The new growth areas would be the leisure industries as they expanded and developed to deal with the new situation caused by people only needing to work 3 or 4 days per week.[/i]

We are now expected to work harder and retire later than we did before the advent of new technology. It has not revolutionised people's lives. Their lives are fundamentally the same, whether they use a mobile rather than a payphone, read a website rather than a newspaper, an email rather than a letter, drive a high tech car rather than a classic Capri, etc. The majority of people do not enjoy a 3 or 4 day weekend or a dramatically reduced working day as was predicted would happen. There's just more unemployment and less job security. And of course lower wages.

And if your local Asda only has a few of these, just watch that space; that's how mine started, and I'd say nearly half the tills have been replaced now, and speaking to the staff, hours are thin on the ground as a result.

So Asda are using the savings which they are making to provide their staff with shorter hours for the same money ?

Of course not, that's not how capitalism works.

Who makes the silicon chips, who designs those?

A lot of well paid Engineers in Cambridge - 95% of mobile phones have a chip designed here in it (or several in many cases) thanks to CSR, Arm, Broadcom, etc.

Who makes the machines? How many people are involved in design, manufacture, R&D? Who makes the silicon chips, who designs those?

So all the people who become redundant as the result of new technology can be re-employed designing and making machines ? It seems hardly worth the bother of replacing people with machines if you then have to employ these people to make more machines.

An easier solution might be to develop machines which are designed to be consumers themselves. Obviously you would have to pay these machines wages - penniless consumers are no good to anyone, but at least it would keep demand at a reasonable level to create profits. Perhaps machines could be designed to buy products from other machines, products which are then destroyed and re-cycled ?

I mean, the motivation to put these machines in place is financial, and where is the saving if its not from the wage budget?

Well yes, financial, but what happens to those savings? What would you do if you were CEO?

You could either trouser the money, or you could re-invest the money in things that make your business more appealing to customers and lure them from competitors, thereby boosting the business as a whole and providing more employment overall.

For example, at the same time as installing a load of new self checkouts, they laid laminate flooring in the make-up aisle. Who's going to be able to resist class like that? Waitrose is doomed.

Seriously though - I'm just playing devil's advocate, but I'm trying to see around the Luddite position. I remember in the 80s we had 3m unemployed. Now it's what - 2.5m? So unemployment doens't seem to be rising inexorably. I know it's more complicated than that, but for 200 years people have been worried that machines would take their jobs away, but we still seem to have a similar number of jobs, and most of us still work.

So maybe people really are finding other things to do.

So unemployment doens't seem to be rising inexorably.

We once referred to 1 million or more unemployed as "mass unemployment", it is now such a permanent feature that we class 2 million plus unemployed as quite good.

When?

When what ? When did we call 1 million or more unemployed as "mass unemployment" ?

Back in 1979 when we had 1.5 million unemployed and the Tories we creating a song and dance about it :

[img] [/img]

We now have higher levels of unemployment but apparently the present Tory government thinks the unemployment figures are really rather good.

I'm talking about the last two centuries of mechanisation though, speaking more generally. Does this not show that increased mechanisation does not lead to higher overall unemployment?

Genuine question, not a challenge.

It's important to remember we have also had a net population increase though, so working on the basis that we have seen something like 11% population increase, factored with people living considerably longer at greater levels of fitness (and so being able to, and wanting to, work longer), we would naturally see unemployment growth.

Sources for population growth:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_pop-people-population&date=1979

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_pop-people-population&date=2011

Factor in increased automation, the rise of the internet and access for consumers to make purchases online from anywhere in the world, plus of course more women working than in the previous generation (thus eroding the jobs that men would have taken while their wives stayed at home) and a rise in unemployment is by definition inevitable.

That's not down to government policy or anything else - it's societal change.

So Asda are using the savings which they are making to provide their staff with shorter hours for the same money ?

Actually ASDA are quite good at giving people shorter hours, admittedly not for the same money.

Clicking through the first six jobs only one provides full time hours http://www.indeed.co.uk/Asda-jobs

It wouldn't surprise me if most supermarkets do this. I wonder what there policy on overtime rates are?

I'm talking about the last two centuries of mechanisation though, speaking more generally. Does this not show that increased mechanisation does not lead to higher overall unemployment?

Well I'm not sure what the unemployment levels were in the pre-industrial feudal days, I suspect not very high. But yeah, we have certainly had a period of full employment during the industrialised era. The mistake is to believe that an equilibrium will always occur were the disadvantages are automatically compensated by advantages. Your "who makes the machines?" comment suggests this scenario.

That's not down to government policy or anything else - it's societal change.

You really think that unemployment levels aren't down to government policy ?

BTW at 7.8% (officially) the unemployment rate today is higher than it was in 1979.

How many more women in the labour market now than in 1979?

Technology has freed up women to enter the labour market. There are more jobs than there ever were.

BTW at 7.8% (officially) the unemployment rate today is higher than it was in 1979.

But as per my post, if more women are going into work than back in 1979, then by definition there will be less jobs, and more unemployment. An interesting metric would be to compare the actual of numbers of women back then who responded to a census as "housewife" relative to today. I may be wrong, but I reckon we will see a considerable difference in the 2 numbers and this in turn will go at least some way to explain increases.

It's oversimplification for anyone (and this is in no way aimed at anyone on here) to solely blame "the government". There's too many other external factors to consider.

That poster was pretty accurate, Labour wasn't working so the country voted for someone else, glad you pointed that out.

[s]Technology has freed up[/s]Chronically low wages that families can't survive on have forced women to enter the labour market.

Chronically low wages that families can't survive on have forced women to enter the labour market.

I would argue (including real life experience of family and friends round me) that it is actually consumerist desires to have more stuff, rather than "chronically low wages".

People "expect" the "right" to have multiple holidays, multiple TVs, 2 cars, lots of new clothes rather than repairing or having hand downs.

Not saying either is right or wrong, but maybe our desire for more drives the financial requirement to find a way to pay for our modern lifestyle? Just a thought.

i don't have any pretensions about foreign holidays or multiple consumer items at the moment - we're just trying to survive on two chronically low wages with two teenage kids

So all the people who become redundant as the result of new technology can be re-employed designing and making machines ? It seems hardly worth the bother of replacing people with machines if you then have to employ these people to make more machines.

also, even ignoring that the world where someone sacked from ASDA can move straight into chip design, the design involves nowhere near as many people either - look at arm vs asda - financially asda is about 3x the size, but arm has 2000 employees, vs asda's 175000.

The mistake is to believe that an equilibrium will always occur were the disadvantages are automatically compensated by advantages. Your "who makes the machines?" comment suggests this scenario.

Well to be a bit more accurate, obviously everyone doesn't get work making machines, otherwise the machines would cost a lot more than the labour they replace and no-one would ever use them.

The point is that historically speaking, the labour market has adapted and people have found other things to do. Now, whether or not this is simply unsustainably kicking the can down the road to developing nations is another issue I suppose.

And as for feudal times - the Luddite protests were 1811 to 1817.

People "expect" the "right" to have multiple holidays, multiple TVs, 2 cars, lots of new clothes

I don't think so. The only people I know who have multiple holidays are well off middle class people. Most families I know at the crappy end of the labour market working poorly paid service jobs are struggling, and never go on holiday.

many people i know who work , rely on both partners working,in order to provide a pittance just above benefit levels,some do two or three part time jobs, and like trailmonkey says, not for luxuries , but just to get bye. I think the demographic of stw is not representative of the uk workforce- its defo skewed towards higher earners.

People "expect" the "right" to have multiple holidays, multiple TVs, 2 cars, lots of new clothes rather than repairing or having hand downs.

Well, many of these things are rammed down our throats by advertising. The "right" as you call it is arguably more about perception of what you should have based on your observations of the world around you. If you don't have these things, what does it mean for your place in society?

The point is that historically speaking, the labour market has adapted and people have found other things to do.

Historically speaking ? Why are you comparing the situation today with the situation 25, 50, 100, or 200, years ago ? Has nothing changed ?

EDIT : btw I agree that there are plenty of "other things to do". The question you need to answer is why aren't they being done now ?

No my point is that the economy continually adapts and has been doing so since the industrial revolution.

There's a billion people in China who just ten years ago were mostly growing rice in the back of beyond, all of whom would quite like to have a standard of living like ours. They seem quite determined to get it.

So the consensus is, as a society, we're screwed. As an individual, we may be ok, so long as we get a job either building or servicing the robots*, or we own shares in companies employing robots.

Awesome, can't wait. So glad I've brought children into this world...

There's a billion people in China who just ten years ago were mostly growing rice in the back of beyond, all of whom would quite like to have a standard of living like ours. They seem quite determined to get it.

*ie; any labour reducing technology.

No my point is that the economy continually adapts and has been doing so since the industrial revolution.

OK, it "adapts", as you put it. But accommodating 10%, 25%, or 50% unemployment, is [i]adapting.[/i] You seemed to be suggesting that the labour market would adapt in an altruistic or benevolent way. That's not what markets are about, far from it. Nor is there any evidence that the market has any sort of inbuilt self-preservation mechanism that protects it, which again seems to be what you are suggesting by claiming that it adapts.

Awesome, can't wait. So glad I've brought children into this world...

I'm actually quite optimistic, because I believe that people will adapt - not the markets. I think new methods of less labour intensive production should be embraced, but for the benefit of all, not the few. It will release people to engage in other socially useful tasks but which don't necessarily create an easily identifiable material profit. Necessity forces humans to adapt, and they will imo.

There's a billion people in China who just ten years ago were mostly growing rice in the back of beyond,

oldnpastit--- do you teach in a private school ?

I like your optimism ernie, I don't share it though.:(

You seemed to be suggesting that the labour market would adapt in an altruistic or benevolent way.

No, not at all. Markets can never be benevolent, can they? Surely they're completely amoral, which is their problem.

All I'm saying is that historically, people have always found something else to do when their jobs are replaced by machines. Whether or not that's a good thing is another debate, but It's been happening.

I think that, rather than machines freeing up our leisure time, they've actually freed us up (collecively) to start other businesses to make more money, and employ other people who are also freed from menial labour.

I think that, rather than machines freeing up our leisure time, they've actually freed us up (collecively) to start other businesses to make more money, and employ other people who are also freed from menial labour.

are you serious--so the global downturn is not happening ?-- more under/unemployed than ever in uk --

are you serious--so the global downturn is not happening ?

Sigh.. I'm talking about mechanisation in general. It's been going on a lot longer than 2008 hasn't it?

Are you trying to say that the global downturn is a result of mechanisation?

I think that, rather than machines freeing up our leisure time, they've actually freed us up (collecively) to start other businesses to make more money, and employ other people who are also freed from menial labour.

I understand what you're saying, but the majority of those businesses seem to be coffee shops, baby clothing shops, and beauty salons.
The [i]quality[/i] of the jobs, and working conditions, have deteriorated for many .

I've asked this often and never had a decent answer.

Exactly why are baby clothing shops, beauty salons and coffee shops bad?

Coffee shops only exist because lots of people have the means to buy coffee and the time to drink it.

You might hark back to manufacturing as being somehow more worthy than coffee shops, but a large part of manufacturing is making total shite that no-one needs. The only difference is that you drink coffee rather than look at it or give it to people. And it doesn't end up in landfill either.

All I'm saying is that historically, people have always found something else to do when their jobs are replaced by machines.

Exactly! Ultimately we'll all end up working for a coffee franchise, selling each other overpriced lattes while we sit designing Apps on a Macbook Pro, and experimenting with elaborate facial hair. This already accounts for 92% of the entire British economy. The other 8% being Tesco

China is a good example since liberalisation of the Chinese economy has lifted significant numbers out of poverty, raised education standards and created many new opportunities. As always this has not been cost-free and the externalities associated with market economies have also been apparent (eg pollution etc). However, the key point is that China's future economic success is based on its ability to transform itself from an investment-led economy to more of a consumer driven one. Quite to opposite of the trends in the developed world where we have excess consumption driven by excess borrowing and insufficient consumption. China is not finding this transformation easy and nor are we!

Are you trying to say that the global downturn is a result of mechanisation?

It's certainly possible that we've reached a tipping point, isn't it?

Well, I'm not an economist, but it may well be that we've just shifted the profile of our manufacturing to different countries. So we get to do all the service industry stuff, and someone else ends up making the shite. The tipping point may well come when there are no more poor countries left. But is that possible?

PS previous post edited.

V8ninety, do you think people have got to the point of questioning the "growth notion?" Its an interesting idea, but I am not sure it has been accepted.

Can you imagine Osborne standing up and saying, "look, there isn't going to be any real growth for some considerable time while we work through this excess leverage. Old Ed is correct, flatlining is the best we can hope for over the next 5-10 years (let's hope we are not another Japan, then it's 20 years of dealing with excess leverage). But let's be happy and accept this new paradigm of lower/no growth and the benefits that brings to all of us and the environment. "

That would be quite some manifesto comment! In the meantime I would expect any government to face flack for not pulling the growth rabbit out of the hat.

What's 'excess leverage'?

Sorry, economists BS! In proper English, I mean too much borrowing.

When applied to banks, corporates and countries people tend to use leverage rather than borrowing. Banks in particularly use borrowing to leverage their equity capital and grow their assets. In Europe, for various reasons, this remains at unsustainably high levels and needs to be reversed (and is being) which is one reason why monetary policy solutions are having such limited effect on the real economy.

But this is the crux of the problem. We have the hangover from too much borrowing by states, banks, corporate and households. And there is no instant cure. As I have suggested on other threads different people have tried different solutions in terms of the policy mix to solve the levels of debt, but the rabbit remains elusive!

So what's wrong with flat growth, if we have flat population?

Is it that we have to actually repay our debts properly rather than letting them shrink as a proportion of GDP?

Partly thats true. But the current solution is the tried and tested one from the 40-60s period. It's called stealing, sorry, financial repression, which is another BS term designed to hide the fact that returns (interest rates) will be deliberately kept below inflation/growth in order to reduce the level of debt over time. *

Savers are deliberately denied the returns they should receive in order to bail out debtors. It doesn't pay (in many senses) to have been prudent!

* edit: for me, at least (!!) it was interesting that at the IMF meetings over the weekend, the questions over the risks associated with Quantitaive Easing (hidden stealing, manipulation of rates below their required level etc) where being debated more openly.

So if we can take the pain for 5-10 years, then what? Will we be able to continue to grow with less debt?

Lets hope so!

But remember, all the austerity in the UK is not paying down the debt, it is merely slowing (? In theory?) it's growth. Households have done little so far to pay down their debt levels and it's been a mixed picture for the banks. They have found it harder to raise equity, so they have tackled "excess leverage" (sorry!) by shrinking their balance sheets. This is one reason why Osborne is on the wrong track. It is almost impossible to rely on monetary policy while insisting that banks reduce their levels of leverage. These are incompatible objectives. One has to give (and it's actually the regulation of banks at the moment in terms of severity and timing of new regulation being adjusted).

V8ninety, do you think people have got to the point of questioning the "growth notion?" Its an interesting idea, but I am not sure it has been accepted.

THNM-- as you say, they talked more openly about the 'risks' of QE, its funny how most of the time they like to obfuscate their real agenda with BS designed to confuse, in reality its a fixed market trying to stay one step ahead of it all unravelling....

It was ever thus, rudebwoy!! I am glad we agree that it is a fixed, not a free market!! 😉

V8ninety, yes very interesting points. I wasnt disagreeing with them, only questioning how widely the "obvious fact" has been accepted.

Anyway, little window of opportunity for a ride now. So I will leave you to it. Interesting idea to think about though!

I'm sorry THM, that's simply not on. Not only was your last post reasonable and congenial, you stated that my posts were 'interesting' and that you 'weren't disagreeing'?!?! to top it all, you also actually went out for a ride. What were you thinking man?? THIS IS STW!!!

Therefore, post BLOODY WELL reported.

😉

And to make matters worse, 20 degrees, dusty trails, generally empty and great new trails at Swinley!!!! Dream day.