Carney 15m jobs to go in UK due to automation

[unbeliever]

10 years ago my job didn't even really exist, now it's one of the most highly sought after positions in IT and growing at a rapid rate as people are finally realising how important it is to make sure your data is nice and cosy and secure. TalkTalk take note!

 

We replace 10 typists working 60 hours a week with 1 computer, but at the same time we create 9 jobs building those computers working 35 hours a week on higher hourly salaries than the typists. That's how things are going, we are working less and less hour (in general) for more and more money. But we still need to do more to encourage better wealth distribution as that's the key problem I think we face rather than a 'lack of work'.

 

If we demand more of ourselves in terms of becoming and remaining trained in the most economically useful work then all the rest will take care of itself.

[Bargepole23]

That's not how it works at all.

 

The idea that people are paid what they're worth went out the window long ago. If that were true care workers would be the most essential workers and paid accordingly, while bean counters, accountants and the like could easily be replaced (and soon will be) by computers.

 

Do you know anything of what accountants actually do?

 

I'm guessing not, if you think they "could easily be replaced (and soon will be) by computers".

[Anna B]

If it's happening already why are unemployment numbers going down and why do we have a record number in work?

 

The subsistence theory of wages is what you are proposing above. So why have we not all long ago moved back to subsistence wages? The answer, ironically is technology which is the very thing you rail against. New technology always creates new jobs as people seek to understand and employ it. Only when we cease to bring in new technology will we in fact have severe problems with the regression of wages to subsistence levels.

 

First of all I am not against technology. Far from it. You cannot stop progress, and handled well it will benefit us all.

 

As for the rest of your argument, have you not watched the news lately? Employment may be up ( depending on how you count it, we've discussed this before,) but many of the jobs are low paid, low hours, short term and poor quality self employment. Wages have also dropped, particularly at the bottom end where they can least afford it, and more people than ever are having to claim in work benefits. All this has been well documented, in fact it was lead story on the news recently. I work with some of the victims of these changes, and it's not pretty.

 

For every case like sgtkate's, (well done, by the way,) there are more people being added at the bottom end of the pay scale or unemployed. We are only just beginning to see the affects. What happens when those computers sgtkate talks about are also made entirely by robots? She is however quite right when she says this in itself is not the problem, but the redistribution of wealth is.

 

---------- Post added 08-12-2016 at 13:13 ----------

 

Do you know anything of what accountants actually do?

 

I'm guessing not, if you think they "could easily be replaced (and soon will be) by computers".

 

Not my words, but those of people who know a great deal more about it than me, like Mark Carney.

[unbeliever]

First of all I am not against technology. Far from it. You cannot stop progress, and handled well it will benefit us all.

 

As for the rest of your argument, have you not watched the news lately? Employment may be up ( depending on how you count it, we've discussed this before,) but many of the jobs are low paid, low hours, short term and poor quality self employment. Wages have also dropped, particularly at the bottom end where they can least afford it, and more people than ever are having to claim in work benefits. All this has been well documented, in fact it was lead story on the news recently. I work with some of the victims of these changes, and it's not pretty.

 

For every case like sgtkate's, (well done, by the way,) there are more people being added at the bottom end of the pay scale or unemployed. We are only just beginning to see the affects. What happens when those computers sgtkate talks about are also made entirely by robots? She is however quite right when she says this in itself is not the problem, but the redistribution of wealth is.

 

---------- Post added 08-12-2016 at 13:13 ----------

 

 

Not my words, but those of people who know a great deal more about it than me, like Mark Carney.

 

 

 

For the love of Darwin, please listen!

 

Why are we not all unemployed, or doing work of "low quality" already when all our jobs from 200 years ago have been taken by combine harvesters?

If you cannot explain this then your entire train of logic is complete crud.

[Obelix]

First of all I am not against technology. Far from it. You cannot stop progress, and handled well it will benefit us all.

 

As for the rest of your argument, have you not watched the news lately? Employment may be up ( depending on how you count it, we've discussed this before,) but many of the jobs are low paid, low hours, short term and poor quality self employment. Wages have also dropped, particularly at the bottom end where they can least afford it, and more people than ever are having to claim in work benefits. All this has been well documented, in fact it was lead story on the news recently. I work with some of the victims of these changes, and it's not pretty.

 

So?

 

Really so what? Apart from your appeal to pity above, none of what you have said is of any relevance at all to your argument.

 

Do you understand the subsistence theory of wages and why it doesn't apply? Do you not see that as technology comes along new industries appear and old ones disappear?

 

1950's IBM reckoned there was a world market for five computers.... I've got five sat on my desk at the moment! That's many millions of people in an entirely new industry. That more than counters the loss of jobs from say steam engines vanishing for example.

 

This process is ever continuing - and every time people cry that automation from stocking frames, through automobiles, robotised production and AI is going to cast them out of a job - and the sky still hasn't fallen in and Chicken Little is still about...

[Anna B]

For the love of Darwin, please listen!

 

Why are we not all unemployed, or doing work of "low quality" already when all our jobs from 200 years ago have been taken by combine harvesters?

If you cannot explain this then your entire train of logic is complete crud.

 

For the love of God, I have already explained this! Going back to the Agrarian revolution which was fortuitously followed by the biggest Industrial revolution the world has ever seen, which changed the world.

 

We are only at the start of the next revolution which is why 'we are not all unemployed or doing low quality work' yet, but the process has started. You'd have to be blind to not see it. However it has not worked its way through the system yet, we are talking about the future which has to be planned for now.

[unbeliever]

For the love of God, I have already explained this! Going back to the Agrarian revolution which was fortuitously followed by the biggest Industrial revolution the world has ever seen, which changed the world.

 

We are only at the start of the next revolution which is why 'we are not all unemployed or doing low quality work' yet, but the process has started. You'd have to be blind to not see it. However it has not worked its way through the system yet, we are talking about the future which has to be planned for now.

 

Noooooooo!

This process does not require revolutions. It's ongoing. And what you describe are not fortuitous coincidences but are unbreakably linked.

You don't have to plan for anything. The new businesses emerge automatically and when they do so they're hungry for people to employ.

Just leave it alone. Anything you do along the lines of "planning for it" is just going to foul it up.

[Anna B]

So?

 

Really so what? Apart from your appeal to pity above, none of what you have said is of any relevance at all to your argument.

 

Do you understand the subsistence theory of wages and why it doesn't apply? Do you not see that as technology comes along new industries appear and old ones disappear?

 

1950's IBM reckoned there was a world market for five computers.... I've got five sat on my desk at the moment! That's many millions of people in an entirely new industry. That more than counters the loss of jobs from say steam engines vanishing for example.

 

This process is ever continuing - and every time people cry that automation from stocking frames, through automobiles, robotised production and AI is going to cast them out of a job - and the sky still hasn't fallen in and Chicken Little is still about...

 

This is old thinking, and may not apply this time round. So everything I have said is perfectly relevant.

 

Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England, thinks we are heading for 15 million unemployed, and a lot of those will be middle class workers. Why don't you take it up with him...

[unbeliever]

This is old thinking, and may not apply this time round. So everything I have said is perfectly relevant.

 

Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England, thinks we are heading for 15 million unemployed, and a lot of those will be middle class workers. Why don't you take it up with him...

 

 

Don't get me started on Carney.

 

 

I'll try again. New technology makes people more productive. A worker armed with a new machine might do the work of 2 workers without in the same time. Said worker, so armed is now twice as productive and (minus the cost of the machine) will draw up to twice as much pay, or work fewer hours, or some combination of the two.

This is how it has always been and how it always will be. It's not magic or happy chance that it's absolutely always worked this way in the past. It's completely inevitable.

Edited December 8, 2016 by unbeliever

[Obelix]

This is old thinking, and may not apply this time round. So everything I have said is perfectly relevant....

 

Doesn't work like that. You need to show your reasons why it is going to happen this time - beyond just saying - it will happen isn't it awful.

 

 

Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England, thinks we are heading for 15 million unemployed, and a lot of those will be middle class workers. Why don't you take it up with him...

 

Appeal to authority is one of the classical logical fallacies Anna.