Where are the new jobs coming from?

[Lad Brookes]

I'm curious as to whether you were served more quickly at the two counters or compelled to use a machine? When I went to my local branch and waited a very long time to be served by human at the counter I was repeatedly asked if I wanted to use a machine which I refused (I go into my branch to be served by a human and not a machine). If everyone starts using the machines in banks all the time then the bank staff will all be got rid of and yet more jobs will be lost from the economy. Multiply that across the board with various industries and that's thousands and thousands of jobs lost from the economy.

The last time I went in, I was served almost instantly at one of the counters.

I use machines and online banking as much as I can. I'd rather not have to interact with someone else any more than I have to.
Who pays for those jobs though? You and me as customers in higher fees, worse interest rates etc. If you want to create jobs, you can always break your own windows every day- you'll keep a glazier in a job then.

 

[AlterEgo]

In developing countries yes technology has enabled mass job creation because they were years behind the developed world. We are now getting to a stage where jobs are being lost a big rate because of automation, with computers and automated machines replacing many many jobs in various industries. All those jobs losses are less wages into the economy. I would challenge anyone who believes automation is good for the economy to show where the jobs are coming from to provide employment to those who have been replaced by automation. The less people who are employed means the economy shrinks!

You were shown data earlier in the thread which explains that even as technological advances occur, the job market catches up, and that it is not true that fewer people are employed as a result.

It's difficult to have a debate when people simply deny material facts.

 

[Dave1987]

The last time I went in, I was served almost instantly at one of the counters.

I use machines and online banking as much as I can. I'd rather not have to interact with someone else any more than I have to.
Who pays for those jobs though? You and me as customers in higher fees, worse interest rates etc. If you want to create jobs, you can always break your own windows every day- you'll keep a glazier in a job then.

Really? So you would rather be served by machines? Well I'd much rather interact with another human being but each to their own.

You say who pays for those jobs. I presume you are perfectly happy to see people on the dole being supported by the state? The economy relies on people having jobs, paying taxes and spending money. You would probably find yourself out of a job very quickly unless you are in the privileged position of having a job that isn't affected by the strength of the economy.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You were shown data earlier in the thread which explains that even as technological advances occur, the job market catches up, and that it is not true that fewer people are employed as a result.

It's difficult to have a debate when people simply deny material facts.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me where all these people who are made redundant by automation are supposed to find jobs? Where are all these thousands of jobs being created to replace the once being lost automation? The job market catches up when new jobs are created by new areas of employment being created. The creation of Social Media was the last time that happened. There are literally thousands of jobs and wages being lost from the economy every year, and eventually that will start to tell unless new industries are created with high quality jobs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Really? So you would rather be served by machines? Well I'd much rather interact with another human being but each to their own.

I would much rather use a machine myself to deal with simple tasks such as buying a known ticket, making a bank withdrawal etc, just as I cut my own lawn, use a dishwasher and washing machine myself etc rather than having domestic staff. That frees up people to be able to spend the time to help me properly when I have a real problem that the machines can't handle.

If businesses use that as an excuse to cost-cut, I don't support that. But businesses will do that whether there is automation or not.

It does mean fewer of what you might term "menial jobs", but I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing.

So let's say you want to take a flight. Do you prefer the modern-day version of booking online, printing your boarding card then breezing through security to the gate, or would you rather make a trip to a travel agent to book, queue at the ticket desk to collect your paper ticket (I'm old enough to have done that, most people have forgotten you used to need to!), then queue again at the check-in desk to receive your boarding pass? I'll have the former, thanks.

The creation of Social Media was the last time that happened.

It really isn't, it is a continuous process.

 

[Lad Brookes]

Really? So you would rather be served by machines? Well I'd much rather interact with another human being but each to their own.

You say who pays for those jobs. I presume you are perfectly happy to see people on the dole being supported by the state? The economy relies on people having jobs, paying taxes and spending money. You would probably find yourself out of a job very quickly unless you are in the privileged position of having a job that isn't affected by the strength of the economy.

Yes, the person is more likely to be irrational and impervious to logic than a machine.

You presume incorrectly. You also seem to also presume that anyone whose job is no longer required due to some form of technological advancement will never ever be able to have a job, pay tax or spend money again. It's amazing though that despite technology advancing evermore, we seem to have more people in employment than ever before.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentan...mploymentandemployeetypes/timeseries/mgrz/lms

 

[Dave1987]

Yes, the person is more likely to be irrational and impervious to logic than a machine.

You presume incorrectly. You also seem to also presume that anyone whose job is no longer required due to some form of technological advancement will never ever be able to have a job, pay tax or spend money again. It's amazing though that despite technology advancing evermore, we seem to have more people in employment than ever before.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentan...mploymentandemployeetypes/timeseries/mgrz/lms

Well firstly employment figures now have nothing to do with 50-100 years time. Secondly if you are automating jobs then there are less jobs for those that have been made redundant and wages go down and the economy shrinks. Unless there are thousands of new jobs created by tech then those made redundant will end up on the dole. Those of you who support mass automation have still yet to give an example of where these masses of well paid jobs are being created by tech. Automation could destroy the economy in the long term.

 

[Lad Brookes]

Well firstly employment figures now have nothing to do with 50-100 years time. Secondly if you are automating jobs then there are less jobs for those that have been made redundant and wages go down and the economy shrinks. Unless there are thousands of new jobs created by tech then those made redundant will end up on the dole. Those of you who support mass automation have still yet to give an example of where these masses of well paid jobs are being created by tech. Automation could destroy the economy in the long term.

Automation could destroy the economy long term. Or it could carry on growing it. Evidence so far suggests the latter is more likely. But you're right, doing the opposite to what has so far proved beneficial could quite possibly be more beneficial one day at some undefined point in the future. Forgive me if I rely on facts and historical evidence though. It also happens to be what machines do, rather than act irrationally or be impervious to reasoning. Which takes us back to the start.

 

[Dave1987]

Automation could destroy the economy long term. Or it could carry on growing it. Evidence so far suggests the latter is more likely. But you're right, doing the opposite to what has so far proved beneficial could quite possibly be more beneficial one day at some undefined point in the future. Forgive me if I rely on facts and historical evidence though. It also happens to be what machines do, rather than act irrationally or be impervious to reasoning. Which takes us back to the start.

Like I have said time and time again on this thread which none of you have addressed is that tech is not currently creating more jobs than it's replacing. So you may well point to history but that doesn't get away from the fact that thousands of jobs are being replaced by automation, possibly at the fastest rate in history. You only have to Google 'could automation lead to economic collapse' to see this is a bigger issue than you think it is.

 

[deltic]

Like I have said time and time again on this thread which none of you have addressed is that tech is not currently creating more jobs than it's replacing. So you may well point to history but that doesn't get away from the fact that thousands of jobs are being replaced by automation, possibly at the fastest rate in history. You only have to Google 'could automation lead to economic collapse' to see this is a bigger issue than you think it is.

There are more jobs now than there ever been which would imply technology and other factors are creating more jobs - 150 years ago around a fifth of the workforce were employed in agriculture - a sector that has been massively automated so it now employs less than 1% of the workforce. A high proportion of jobs that existed 50 even 20 years ago have gone - a whole load of new jobs that didnt exist then are done by millions of people now. We dont know what the jobs of the future will be - many of them dont exist now and the ones we do now wont exist then.

There will be winners and losers but the chances are on average we will remain better off.

 

[Dave1987]

There are more jobs now than there ever been which would imply technology and other factors are creating more jobs - 150 years ago around a fifth of the workforce were employed in agriculture - a sector that has been massively automated so it now employs less than 1% of the workforce. A high proportion of jobs that existed 50 even 20 years ago have gone - a whole load of new jobs that didnt exist then are done by millions of people now. We dont know what the jobs of the future will be - many of them dont exist now and the ones we do now wont exist then.

There will be winners and losers but the chances are on average we will remain better off.

Yes I totally understand your argument but when you consider that the UK in particular is heavily dependent on the services industries, and we have people on this very forum who want to have as little interaction with humans as possible it is easy to see that this vital industry for jobs in the UK could be under serious threat from automation in the future. There is articles on the internet saying that the Chinese economy is under serious threat from automation. Yes there will always be winners and losers but you need the majority to be winners for the economy to prosper.

 

[yorksrob]

but you need the majority to be winners for the economy to prosper.

This is the key. And for there to be a safety net for the losers, which in turn also requires a majority to be winners.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Like I have said time and time again on this thread which none of you have addressed is that tech is not currently creating more jobs than it's replacing. So you may well point to history but that doesn't get away from the fact that thousands of jobs are being replaced by automation, possibly at the fastest rate in history. You only have to Google 'could automation lead to economic collapse' to see this is a bigger issue than you think it is.

If it wasn't producing more than it creates, how is it possible that unemployment has been going down?

 

[Dave1987]

If it wasn't producing more than it creates, how is it possible that unemployment has been going down?

I'm sure you are intelligent enough to realise two important things. Firstly the current employment figures are not relevant in terms of 50-100 years time. Secondly automation is only just starting to properly impact the services industry that this country in particular relies on for jobs. At the moment we still have lots of people employed in banks, shops, restaurants, ticket offices, estate agents etc etc. Automation is just starting to make an impact on these. If automation is allowed to take over these jobs then there is a significant threat to the economy long term. I'm still waiting for examples of where these thousands of well paid jobs are being created by tech. You are so confident tech is creating more jobs than its replacing but you can't give any examples!

 

[northwichcat]

If it wasn't producing more than it creates, how is it possible that unemployment has been going down?

Unemployment going down is partly political spin as the government counts the following groups of people as being in work:
1. People who have been offered a part time job but ideally want a full time job.
2. People out of work with savings who would have previously got some means tested benefits but no longer do.
3. People who have registered as self-employed who have little or no work.
4. People who have opted to undertake a qualification in a new field due to the length of time they've been unemployed.

I'm still waiting for examples of where these thousands of well paid jobs are being created by tech.

What's a well paid job is subject to opinion and partly depends where you live and what your living costs are. I can't give numbers of numbers of jobs created by tech and the number of jobs which tech has taken away but I can say I'm qualified to do a job which didn't exist prior to the world wide web being invented and I wouldn't rather work sorting letters in a postal office or in another role which tech has partly or fully taken away. I can also say a decision made by Steve Jobs made a skill I was qualified in effectively redundant (Adobe Flash.) Even if everyone in the industry was in a union I doubt there would have been industrial action over employers no longer giving employees Flash based work but there might have been if employers refused to invest in training employees in alternatives (e.g. HTML 5.)

 

[Dave1987]

What's a well paid job is subject to opinion and partly depends where you live and what your living costs are. I can't give numbers of numbers of jobs created by tech and the number of jobs which tech has taken away but I can say I'm qualified to do a job which didn't exist prior to the world wide web being invented and I wouldn't rather work sorting letters in a postal office or in another role which tech has taken away. I can also say a decision made by Steve Jobs made a skill I was qualified in effectively redundant (Adobe Flash.) Even if everyone in the industry was in a union I doubt there would have been industrial action over employers no longer giving employees Flash based work but there might have been if employers refused to invest in training employees in alternatives (e.g. HTML 5.)

Indeed it depends entirely on where you live in the country as what you would class as well paid. This country is entirely reliant on services for the majority of the economy. So one could argue that any jobs that are automated in the services sector stand to make the economy weaker in the long run. The only way for the economy not to shrink in the long term is to ensure that for every job that is lost to automation is replaced by a new job being created with similar wages overall. Some on this thread are claiming that new jobs are being created by tech but have failed to give any examples of where jobs are being created to replace the ones that they are seemingly happy to see disappear. People who are happy to see jobs disappear because prices to them are lower will be the ones complaining when they are at risk of losing their job because the economy has collapsed and people can't afford to buy whatever goods or services their company makes/provides.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Indeed it depends entirely on where you live in the country as what you would class as well paid. This country is entirely reliant on services for the majority of the economy. So one could argue that any jobs that are automated in the services sector stand to make the economy weaker in the long run. The only way for the economy not to shrink in the long term is to ensure that for every job that is lost to automation is replaced by a new job being created with similar wages overall. Some on this thread are claiming that new jobs are being created by tech but have failed to give any examples of where jobs are being created to replace the ones that they are seemingly happy to see disappear. People who are happy to see jobs disappear because prices to them are lower will be the ones complaining when they are at risk of losing their job because the economy has collapsed and people can't afford to buy whatever goods or services their company makes/provides.

Innovation in technology is offset by innovation in what we can do with that technology. I keep asking why unemployment hasn't consistently risen over the last 140 years of technological innovation and you have still given no explanation.

It feels like everyone arguing with you is talking to a brick wall - you are ignoring the facts and figures based on your own gut feeling. Unfortunately the real world doesn't work like that.

 

[47802]

Innovation in technology is offset by innovation in what we can do with that technology. I keep asking why unemployment hasn't consistently risen over the last 140 years of technological innovation and you have still given no explanation.

It feels like everyone arguing with you is talking to a brick wall - you are ignoring the facts and figures based on your own gut feeling. Unfortunately the real world doesn't work like that.

While people have been predicting that automation will make people redundant for many years I think that the next generations of automation over the next 20 years it will finally happen, I believe driverless vehicles alone could make about million people redundant in this country, then there is my own sector IT, increasing automation and how many jobs IT have been lost in the UK just by outsourcing those jobs including my own to other countries with cheaper Labour costs.

 

[Dave1987]

Innovation in technology is offset by innovation in what we can do with that technology. I keep asking why unemployment hasn't consistently risen over the last 140 years of technological innovation and you have still given no explanation.

It feels like everyone arguing with you is talking to a brick wall - you are ignoring the facts and figures based on your own gut feeling. Unfortunately the real world doesn't work like that.

Because never in our history has tech replaced so many jobs while producing so few. Where is tech currently creating thousands of jobs? I could detail where thousands of jobs are being lost to automation so where are the thousands of jobs coming from to replace them? You keep claiming that innovation is creating jobs, well where then? Give us some examples.

 

[TheKnightWho]

While people have been predicting that automation will make people redundant for many years I think that the next generations of automation over the next 20 years it will finally happen, I believe driverless vehicles alone could make about million people redundant in this country, then there is my own sector IT, increasing automation and how many jobs IT have been lost in the UK just by outsourcing those jobs including my own to other countries with cheaper Labour costs.

Automation doesn't leave people redundant, sitting at home doing nothing. Society adapts around that automation and demand hugely increases where before it would have been impossible to provide at that level. For example, when the telephone came along it didn't replace letters on a 1:1 ratio - it just meant that we were all communicating with each other a lot more (and brought many new technologies with it). The same goes for the internet, and that brought jobs with it too.

Driverless cars will, assuming they can be powered with cheap renewable energy, vastly increase demand for travel. Any current industry that relies on travel will benefit enormously, and can therefore expand accordingly.

 

[Dave1987]

Automation doesn't leave people redundant, sitting at home doing nothing. Society adapts around that automation and demand hugely increases where before it would have been impossible to provide at that level. For example, when the telephone came along it didn't replace letters on a 1:1 ratio - it just meant that we were all communicating with each other a lot more (and brought many new technologies with it). The same goes for the internet, and that brought jobs with it too.

Driverless cars will, assuming they can be powered with cheap renewable energy, vastly increase demand for travel. Any current industry that relies on travel will benefit enormously, and can therefore expand accordingly.

So you are still refusing to show examples of where tech is creating jobs. Tech is replacing jobs at the greatest pace we have seen in history. Just saying "society adapts" is utter nonsense. Remember the Great Depression of the early 20th century? Society didn't adapt there did it? It took a horrible war for the global economy to recover.

 

[TheKnightWho]

So you are still refusing to show examples of where tech is creating jobs. Just saying "society adapts" is utter nonsense. Remember the Great Depression of the early 20th century? Society didn't adapt there did it? It took a horrible war for the global economy to recover.

I literally gave you 2 examples just there of where, in the past, society adapted to create jobs. It's not my fault you're not reading my posts, because I'm pretty sure the internet came after the Great Depression. On that note - are you genuinely saying tech caused the Great Depression? Got any evidence?

Automation expands production, but it's no use flooding the market with mass produced things if there's no demand for them. That increased demand in response to increased supply is only sustainable if that increased demand is sustainable, which itself comes from the expansion of other industries. And do you know what that means? Those industries are creating more jobs. Supply and demand is economics 101.

 

[47802]

Automation doesn't leave people redundant, sitting at home doing nothing. Society adapts around that automation and demand hugely increases where before it would have been impossible to provide at that level. For example, when the telephone came along it didn't replace letters on a 1:1 ratio - it just meant that we were all communicating with each other a lot more (and brought many new technologies with it). The same goes for the internet, and that brought jobs with it too.

Driverless cars will, assuming they can be powered with cheap renewable energy, vastly increase demand for travel. Any current industry that relies on travel will benefit enormously, and can therefore expand accordingly.

That remains to be seen and their will come a point where that doesn't happen

 

[Dave1987]

I literally gave you an example just there of where, in the past, society adapted to create jobs. It's not my fault you're not reading my posts.

Are you genuinely saying tech caused the Great Depression? Got any evidence?

No you haven't, you haven't mentioned a single specific industry where jobs are being created at the same level as they are being replaced. You keep coming out with generalisations of "society adapts" etc. I studied the Great Depression in great detail at school. It was a great example that disproves your theory of 'society adapting'. Same as the huge recession in the 1970's. Society doesn't just automatically adapt to job losses. And in current day when tech is taking so many jobs out of the economy especially in the services sector which the UK is so reliant on, tech needs to create far far more jobs than it is doing.

 

[TheKnightWho]

No you haven't, you haven't mentioned a single specific industry where jobs are being created at the same level as they are being replaced. You keep coming out with generalisations of "society adapts" etc. I studied the Great Depression in great detail at school. It was a great example that disproves your theory of 'society adapting'. Same as the huge recession in the 1970's. Society doesn't just automatically adapt to job losses. And in current day when tech is taking so many jobs out of the economy especially in the services sector which the UK is so reliant on, tech needs to create far far more jobs than it is doing.

The internet has created tens of millions of jobs. It has not displaced tens of millions of jobs. If you can't read my posts about telephones and the internet then there's no point trying to argue with you.

I studied the Great Depression in great detail at university, if you want to play top trumps. I think I win. Technology was not the cause of either the Great Depression or the 73-75 recession. You might have a point with the dot com crash, but you didn't mention that one (and it was relatively minor anyway).

Society does adapt to job losses because the automation is more economically viable and occurs to meet (or generates) increased demand in other industries, which leads to those industries hiring more people. This is exactly how the service sector has boomed in the last 30-40 years. I've already mentioned this argument and you have failed to address it, preferring to say that technology advanced before the Great Depression and 73-75 recession and therefore must have caused it (whilst completely ignoring the economic booms also preceded by technological advancement). Newflash: technology is always advancing.

What you're doing is going off gut instinct, confirmation bias and a failure to understand that correlation does not equal causation. I'm sorry, but if you want to start going on about your credentials then I'm going to call you out on where you're falling short.

 

[Dave1987]

Automation expands production, but it's no use flooding the market with mass produced things if there's no demand for them. That increased demand in response to increased supply is only sustainable if that increased demand is sustainable, which itself comes from the expansion of other industries. And do you know what that means? Those industries are creating more jobs. Supply and demand is economics 101.

What actually happens in the real world is an industry uses automation to be able to produce the same amount of product with less people so there has to be an even bigger demand for their product just to maintain the same level of jobs as before automation was brought in. What happens if demand doesn't increase? Ow yeah jobs are lost. Automation means you need a huge amount more demand for your product just to maintain the same number of jobs.

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm still waiting for you to tell me where all these people who are made redundant by automation are supposed to find jobs? Where are all these thousands of jobs being created to replace the once being lost automation? The job market catches up when new jobs are created by new areas of employment being created. The creation of Social Media was the last time that happened. There are literally thousands of jobs and wages being lost from the economy every year, and eventually that will start to tell unless new industries are created with high quality jobs.

Your guess is as good as mine. I don't have to tell you where new jobs are coming from. They'll come from new innovations and industries which haven't been born yet.

It's been clearly shown that there has been no doomsday scenario since the wheel was invented that puts an enormous amount of people en masse, onto the scrap heap, forever.

If I knew where the jobs were coming from I'd be making millions in a new industry, not commenting on RUK...!

 

[TheKnightWho]

What actually happens in the real world is an industry uses automation to be able to produce the same amount of product with less people so there has to be an even bigger demand for their product just to maintain the same level of jobs as before automation was brought in. What happens if demand doesn't increase? Ow yeah jobs are lost. Automation means you need a huge amount more demand for your product just to maintain the same number of jobs.

Why would they do that when they would make a greater profit by increasing production? :roll: Businesses exist to maximise profit - not minimise outgoings (which can be done by not having a business at all, with outgoings of 0). You don't need to retain the same amount of people in the automated industry either - those losses are compensated elsewhere (which explains the turbulent unemployment figures during the 19th century and now - times of swift automation and innovation).

This is also literally how economic growth occurs. But hey - do remind me to go down to my local Tesco's and tell them they should replace their 30+ self-serve checkouts with 8 staff checkouts. After all - we're all so productive when we're stuck in a queue aren't we?

 

[Dave1987]

The internet has created tens of millions of jobs. It has not displaced tens of millions of jobs. If you can't read my posts about telephones and the internet then there's no point trying to argue with you.

I studied the Great Depression in great detail at university, if you want to play top trumps. I think I win. Technology was not the cause of either the Great Depression or the 73-75 recession. You might have a point with the dot com crash, but you didn't mention that one (and it was relatively minor anyway).

Society does adapt to job losses because the automation is more economically viable and occurs to meet (or generates) increased demand in other industries, which leads to those industries hiring more people. This is exactly how the service sector has boomed in the last 30-40 years. I've already mentioned this argument and you have failed to address it, preferring to say that technology advanced before the Great Depression and 73-75 recession and therefore must have caused it (whilst completely ignoring the economic booms also preceded by technological advancement). Newflash: technology is always advancing.

What you're doing is going off gut instinct, confirmation bias and a failure to understand that correlation does not equal causation. I'm sorry, but if you want to start going on about your credentials then I'm going to call you out on where you're falling short.

What I'm doing is going of what is actually happening in real life! Where thousands and thousands of jobs are being lost. You say the internet has created lots of jobs which is true but it has also caused just as many job losses. And the internet if is now getting to the stage where many more jobs are being lost to automation as coding gets more and more advanced. And in the future as tech gets more and more advanced it will get worse.

 

[TheKnightWho]

What I'm doing is going of what is actually happening in real life! Where thousands and thousands of jobs are being lost. You say the internet has created lots of jobs which is true but it has also caused just as many job losses. And the internet if is now getting to the stage where many more jobs are being lost to automation as coding gets more and more advanced. And in the future as tech gets more and more advanced it will get worse.

What I'm doing is going off actual figures and statistics, not my own gut instinct.

Can you actually provide evidence the internet has displaced as many jobs as it has created? You know, actual figures and hard evidence, and not an anecdote and appeal to common sense.

 

[Dave1987]

Why would they do that when they would make a greater profit by increasing production? :roll: Businesses exist to maximise profit - not minimise outgoings (which can be done by not having a business at all, with outgoings of 0). You don't need to retain the same amount of people in the automated industry either - those losses are compensated elsewhere (which explains the turbulent unemployment figures during the 19th century and now - times of swift automation and innovation).

This is also literally how economic growth occurs. But hey - do remind me to go down to my local Tesco's and tell them they should replace their 30+ self-serve checkouts with 8 staff checkouts. After all - we're all so productive when we're stuck in a queue aren't we?

But they aren't!! Tell me at your local Tesco store where about 20 job losses must of occurred because of automated self service tills, where were those jobs replaced exactly? Businesses exist to maximise profits but by using automation to lower wage bills means less jobs in the economy.