Where are the new jobs coming from?

[Dave1987]

In the last decade we have seen a real concerted effort by management and tech firms across the spectrum to automate as many jobs as possible. Back in the early 20th century there was near 100% employment as there were thousands of "blue collar" jobs. With this increasing mantra for using tech in as many ways as possible is the economy eventually doomed? If more and more jobs are taken over by tech then surely unemployment will grow and the economy is going to collapse. I'm talking 50-100 years in the future BTW.

Thoughts on this?

 

[telstarbox]

We'll need to adjust to spending less time working which will mean some sort of basic income.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

 

[Tetchytyke]

The idea that we can continue growing the economy forever is fanciful, and growth will slow to a stop. Even with natural inflation, there comes a limit to everything. I think we're starting to see it in Europe and in Japan.

Not everything can be automated and not everything that can be automated will be automated. But already more of our economy is in the service industry not in the manufacturing industry. Whilst you can get robots to build the widget, the internet can sell the widget and the robots can pack and post the widget, there's still a huge need for people. Automated callcentres don't work, you can't conduct business deals with robots, there will always be a need for people.

I think we're going to increasingly see people get left behind though, if they can't read very well and they can't write very well. There isn't going to be the manual work for them. We're already seeing this, and with Brexit and the rise of UKIP and Momentum we're seeing the anger of the people who are being left behind.

Jobs for all has never been economically desired by the bosses because it drives wages up, but if not enough people have jobs then there's nobody to buy the widgets. So there will need to be more compromise on welfare; a certain guaranteed income may well become desirable to keep the economy ticking over.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I think we're going to increasingly see people get left behind though, if they can't read very well and they can't write very well. There isn't going to be the manual work for them. We're already seeing this, and with Brexit and the rise of UKIP and Momentum we're seeing the anger of the people who are being left behind.

In my opinion there is no reason why anyone should be left behind. However the emphasis should be on the individual to make things happen for them, in other words to aspire to be / do something for themselves. The Government should certainly be instrumental in helping individuals to achieve success through high class free education but it shouldn't be a case of people being given something on demand!

 

[Tetchytyke]

In my opinion there is no reason why anyone should be left behind. However the emphasis should be on the individual to make things happen for them, in other words to aspire to be / do something for themselves.

Not everyone has the same skillset, not everyone can be academic, not everyone can be artistic, not everyone can be good at sales, not everyone can be good at manual labour. But in an economy where increasingly only certain skills will get you a job, people without those skills will be left behind.

The idea that everyone can get an A at A'Level if only we give them enough education is fanciful.

 

[deltic]

In the last decade we have seen a real concerted effort by management and tech firms across the spectrum to automate as many jobs as possible. Back in the early 20th century there was near 100% employment as there were thousands of "blue collar" jobs. With this increasing mantra for using tech in as many ways as possible is the economy eventually doomed? If more and more jobs are taken over by tech then surely unemployment will grow and the economy is going to collapse. I'm talking 50-100 years in the future BTW.

Thoughts on this?

Technology has been destroying and creating jobs since the beginning of time - employment in terms of the proportion of adults in work is virtually at the highest its ever been.

Many millions of people are doing jobs today that didnt exist a decade ago - all those web designers - while lots of jobs that existed in the past have disappeared - anyone remember typing pools?

What we are seeing as others have highlighted is a core of people who have been left behind and there has been a stagnation of middle incomes for many decades. For an economy to work the winners have to support the losers otherwise everyone loses out.

 

[Clip]

I think the OP has looked at this in too narrow a view as there are many things that technology just will not replace such as the services and entertainments industries as two small examples which will always need people to be employed as no technology will make that redundant.

 

[northwichcat]

If more and more jobs are taken over by tech then surely unemployment will grow and the economy is going to collapse.

But the technology doesn't develop itself and humans need to be on hand for when the technology goes wrong.

I imagine as we become more reliant on technology we'll need more overnight and weekend work being done to keep everything up and running all day every day. Although, an alternative to that is for Australia and/or New Zealand to provide overnight support for UK/Ireland based companies (when it's day there) and for UK and/or Ireland to provide overnight support for Australia/New Zealand based companies.

 

[Dave1987]

Yes tech does not develop itself but one could also say many tech things that are developed are not really needed and they are only developed for the sake of lowering the lower end wage bill which in terms of the economy is self defeating in the long term. Tech isn't producing the same amount of jobs as its replacing. And that is the point, for the economy to be sustained you need to have the same amount of jobs with similar wages for the economy to not collapse. If tech replaces more jobs than it creates then the economy will collapse eventually.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But the technology doesn't develop itself and humans need to be on hand for when the technology goes wrong.

I imagine as we become more reliant on technology we'll need more overnight and weekend work being done to keep everything up and running all day every day. Although, an alternative to that is for Australia and/or New Zealand to provide overnight support for UK/Ireland based companies (when it's day there) and for UK and/or Ireland to provide overnight support for Australia/New Zealand based companies.

"Follow the sun" support is already used in many areas of the IT industry and has been for years.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes tech does not develop itself but one could also say many tech things that are developed are not really needed and they are only developed for the sake of lowering the lower end wage bill which in terms of the economy is self defeating in the long term. Tech isn't producing the same amount of jobs as its replacing.

Are you sure that is the case? It may not produce the same number of entry-level jobs, but the same number in general?

It has spawned an entire set of global industries. Nobody, for instance, worked in the mobile phone business in 1960, as it simply didn't exist.

 

[yorksrob]

If you look back at the industrial revolution, you had a lot of skilled people working autonomously to provide goods and services across the country. The industrialisation process destroyed these jobs and replaced them with low paid ones in the factories and mills. Overall wealth increased, but it's questionable whether this increase found it's way to the workers who had lost their autonomy and had to do the poverty knock in the factories.

It then took over a century to wrest power and wealth from the owning classes, which included a considerable amount of upheaval and social unrest in the industrial world, including the rise of the far right and left.

If the technological gatekeepers are allowed to accumulate wealth and power again, we could be in danger of history repeating itself.

 

[jon0844]

If the technological gatekeepers are allowed to accumulate wealth and power again, we could be in danger of history repeating itself.

Look at Uber, Deliveroo, Facebook and many other examples. You can get someone young to set up a firm that uses technology to replace jobs, or 'manage' jobs and get a cut of the revenue - without actually owning any factories, cars, printing presses etc.

Or look at the likes of Apple taking 30% from developers, and money from everyone who makes a lead, pair of headphones, dock etc.

That seems to be the new way to create mill, sorry, billionnaires. People who set up businesses to take a slice of the profits without actually having to do much - or even hire staff. Most staff being contractors or zero hours, or not actually working for the company at all.

We all aspire to be like these people, and yet statistically most of us never will and never could.

 

[HSTEd]

I think the answer is taht the current economic model is doomed - however the economy itself will survive, although it might not look anything like it does now.

For example the life experience of the average might tend towards what we see in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine where people do things because they want to do them as everything has been rendered so cheap as to be free thanks to superior technology. [The Replicator needs only power and potentially generic raw material to work and can be used to make fusion reactors etc]

Run a restaurant to show your mastery of cooking, but don't push yourself too hard doing it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the technological gatekeepers are allowed to accumulate wealth and power again, we could be in danger of history repeating itself.

Equally, technology is giving small businesses global reach - it's the medium sized chains that are threatened now, both by very big business (Amazon etc) and very small business.

 

[J-2739]

I think the economy will just adapt to this current change. It's a revolution, but not a big panic.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Yes tech does not develop itself but one could also say many tech things that are developed are not really needed and they are only developed for the sake of lowering the lower end wage bill which in terms of the economy is self defeating in the long term. Tech isn't producing the same amount of jobs as its replacing. And that is the point, for the economy to be sustained you need to have the same amount of jobs with similar wages for the economy to not collapse. If tech replaces more jobs than it creates then the economy will collapse eventually.

Yes it is - think of all the service jobs that didn't exist even a few years ago. The idea there was near 100% employment for much of the 20th century is a complete fantasy.

I've attached a graph I just made of the unemployment rate from 1870 to 2015 (with projections to 2020). The data suggests economic innovation does disrupt existing industries, as you suggest, but it's only temporary (look at the 19th century - that volatility is the industrial revolution!). The data from the 1950s to the end of the 1960s is also why baby-boomers are so idealistic: they grew up when unemployment was negligible. However, the data suggests today's conditions are completely normal.

 

[yorksrob]

And many people lived in grinding poverty for much of the 20th century as well.

 

[Trog]

And many people lived in grinding poverty for much of the 20th century as well.

Yes but nobody important.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes but nobody important.

Too true !

 

[AM9]

Too true !

They're all scroungers anyway because they don't pay tax.

 

[yorksrob]

They're all scroungers anyway because they don't pay tax.

Is that the poor, or the technological gatekeepers you're referring to?

 

[Dave1987]

I think the economy will just adapt to this current change. It's a revolution, but not a big panic.

The economy relies on people to be employed, earning a wage, and then spending their money on goods and services to be sustainable. The more people you take out of that chain or reduce their income the more the economy shrinks. The more tech takes over people's jobs means less people to put money into the economy. I don't know whether or not the economy will be able to adapt in the future. IMO tech firms trying to automate people out of jobs will eventually lead to economic collapse unless vast amounts of new jobs are created to replace the ones they have automated out of existence. Tech firms might be reason for the collapse of the economy.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes it is - think of all the service jobs that didn't exist even a few years ago. The idea there was near 100% employment for much of the 20th century is a complete fantasy.

I've attached a graph I just made of the unemployment rate from 1870 to 2015 (with projections to 2020). The data suggests economic innovation does disrupt existing industries, as you suggest, but it's only temporary (look at the 19th century - that volatility is the industrial revolution!). The data from the 1950s to the end of the 1960s is also why baby-boomers are so idealistic: they grew up when unemployment was negligible. However, the data suggests today's conditions are completely normal.

In the early 20th century before the world wars there was near 100% employment. In the modern economy that kind of employment is virtually impossible. There simply aren't enough jobs due to tech taking over and I believe it will only get worse in 50-100 years time. Tech simply isn't creating as many jobs as its replacing. And eventually that would lead to economic collapse.

 

[TheKnightWho]

In the early 20th century before the world wars there was near 100% employment. In the modern economy that kind of employment is virtually impossible. There simply aren't enough jobs due to tech taking over and I believe it will only get worse in 50-100 years time. Tech simply isn't creating as many jobs as its replacing. And eventually that would lead to economic collapse.

Did you even look at the graph? :roll: It is literally impossible for me to make it any clearer how you are wrong.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In the early 20th century before the world wars there was near 100% employment. In the modern economy that kind of employment is virtually impossible. There simply aren't enough jobs due to tech taking over and I believe it will only get worse in 50-100 years time. Tech simply isn't creating as many jobs as its replacing. And eventually that would lead to economic collapse.

You are forgetting one very, very significant change that has nothing to do with tech *taking jobs* and everything to do with a need (expensive housing) and a desire (more holidays, more tech etc) for a higher household income as well as a view that everyone, not just half the household, should and wishes to contribute, and that is that the vast majority of households now have two breadwinners, not one (and there are more single person households, who have the same effect). That won't halve the number of jobs available as it creates some based on lack of time - childcare, sandwich sales etc - but those aren't enough to compensate.

If only one in every two adults (roughly) worked now, as was the case then, there would be plenty of jobs to go round. Indeed, there would be the kind of worker shortage that leads to deliberate import of immigrants e.g. where people were brought in from the Caribbean onto London Transport.

 

[Dave1987]

Did you even look at the graph? :roll: It is literally impossible for me to make it any clearer how you are wrong.

Yes and I confirms pretty much what I expected. How does it prove that I'm wrong exactly? The "future" predicts rising unemployment!

 

[Bletchleyite]

There are also other jobs that simply are not being done any more in most cases - often public service type jobs like on-site park keepers and lavatory attendants. Yes, we do sort of still have them driving round in vans, but we used to have one per park/lavatory who was there all the time - a higher number. It's a continuing desire to pay less tax that causes the end of those jobs through Council cost cutting.

 

[Dave1987]

You are forgetting one very, very significant change that has nothing to do with tech *taking jobs* and everything to do with a need (expensive housing) and a desire (more holidays, more tech etc) for a higher household income as well as a view that everyone, not just half the household, should and wishes to contribute, and that is that the vast majority of households now have two breadwinners, not one (and there are more single person households, who have the same effect). That won't halve the number of jobs available as it creates some based on lack of time - childcare, sandwich sales etc - but those aren't enough to compensate.

If only one in every two adults (roughly) worked now, as was the case then, there would be plenty of jobs to go round. Indeed, there would be the kind of worker shortage that leads to deliberate import of immigrants e.g. where people were brought in from the Caribbean onto London Transport.

Indeed the modern world where both adults are required to earn an income does throw in a variation to years past. But that kinda makes the situation worse. For tech not to destroy the economy it needs to create as many jobs with the same salary as it replaces and I just don't believe that's happening. And the issues you have are the nice to haves you talk about are the first things people cut back on when spending gets tight.

 

[yorksrob]

It's not just the number of jobs that are being lost, but also the type which is the problem. From the middle ages, the development of a middle class, prizing control from the propertied elite has been one of the major drivers for social change and improvement throughout western world. The hollowing out of middle class, professional employment through technological change risks recreating an all-powerful elite which will have even more control over resources.

The other issue is the global mobility of this elite and capital. During the Victorian era, one of the main drivers behind the construction of public sanitation, the expansion of public schooling etc was the self-interest of the establishment in preventing revolution. Similarly, during the mid to late 20th century, there has been a real incentive for the powers that be to ensure that living standards improved across the board to make sure that the West could compete in terms of technical and material improvement with fascism and comunism. If the elite can just up sticks with it's capital, one wonders what incentive there is for it to improve living standards amongst the wider population. It's one of the reasons why the democratic nation state is the key to social and material progress.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Another issue in terms of household income and inequality is the rise of women in the workplace. You generally find that young educated professionals will generally have relationships and marry other young educated professionals, meaning that two good jobs go into the same household. This naturally increases the inequality between households with well-paying jobs and households without them.

Obviously women should be in the workplace with all the same opportunities as men, but it does widen the gap between the haves- who'll now have two "good" jobs- and the have-nots who may not have any employment.

As for the "hollowing out of the middle class", I don't think that is what is happening. Professional roles aren't disappearing- you can't automate a doctor or a teacher- it is the "lower" manual roles which are disappearing. Which has the effect of increasing competition for jobs that are available which then has the effect of reducing wages down to penury levels and removing any semblance of job security, e.g. care workers, retail staff, delivery couriers.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If the elite can just up sticks with it's capital, one wonders what incentive there is for it to improve living standards amongst the wider population.

Indeed, and that is what we are seeing in the south east with capital from all the world's dodgiest countries (China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore) flooding into the London property market. It's trashing living standards in the country the capital has left and it's trashing living standards in London and the south east too.

A 5000% property tax on non-UK residents would solve most of the problems in London, but the elite who run London are the same elite who have stolen all the money out of China and Russia.

 

[yorksrob]

Just to clarify, it is true that manual roles have been mainly affected - up until now. The hollowing out of the middle class is something predicted for the near future with the development of AI.