Where are the new jobs coming from?

[TheKnightWho]

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.

Yes they are, by the increased demand. Those jobs were replaced by the fact that Tesco's can do better business and open more stores, and by the fact that a lot fewer people's time is wasted in and around the shop. And I said 8 check-outs, not 20. Stop making wild assumptions.

Businesses exist to maximise profits and not to minimise outgoings, as I said before. Lower wage bills means more money can be spent elsewhere to maximise their profits, which means a more productive business which means those doing business with them perform better which means a healthier economy. There are areas where I think privatisation causes damage and these should be regulated - automation of check-outs is not one of them.

 

[Dave1987]

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.

It's bleeding obvious isn't it? No you are going off historical figures that have no relation to 50-100 years from now making cante blanche statements like "society adapts". In the next 50-100 years there will be the biggest impact on jobs by automation than there has been for a very very long time. You can't really believe there are few million new jobs about to be created to replace all the millions that are going to be automated in the next 50-100 years!

 

[TheKnightWho]

It's bleeding obvious isn't it? No you are going off historical figures that have no relation to 50-100 years from now making cante blanche statements like "society adapts". In the next 50-100 years there will be the biggest impact on jobs by automation than there has been for a very very long time. You can't really believe there are few million new jobs about to be created to replace all the millions that are going to be automated in the next 50-100 years!

I'll take the answer as no. You don't have any evidence against my evidence that unemployment has not skyrocketed as technology has improved. The Luddites said the exact same things you did. They were completely wrong, and frankly it's a good thing we don't run the world on gut instinct.

We're back to where we started: your lack of imagination about what new innovations and industries may spring up does not mean that they won't. If you think something's bleeding obvious and people disagree with you, maybe have a think about why they disagree with you, and not just keep saying "it's obvious" when it clearly isn't to most people.

 

[Dave1987]

Yes they are, by the increased demand. Those jobs were replaced by the fact that Tesco's can do better business and open more stores, and by the fact that a lot fewer people's time is wasted in and around the shop. And I said 8 check-outs, not 20. Stop making wild assumptions.

Businesses exist to maximise profits and not to minimise outgoings, as I said before. Lower wage bills means more money can be spent elsewhere to maximise their profits, which means a more productive business which means those doing business with them perform better which means a healthier economy. There are areas where I think privatisation causes damage and these should be regulated - automation of check-outs is not one of them.

So Tesco needs even more trade just to maintain the same amount of jobs! Which is a net loss in jobs as that trade will be taken away from another store. Tesco gains extra profits as they are paying less wages for the same amount of goods sold but the economy loses because there are less wages going into the economy.

 

[TheKnightWho]

So Tesco needs even more trade just to maintain the same amount of jobs! Which is a net loss in jobs as that trade will be taken away from another store. Tesco gains extra profits as they are paying less wages for the same amount of goods sold but the economy loses because there are less wages going into the economy.

How does that mean trade will be taken away from another store? The economy isn't zero-sum: it's growing. Economic growth is not just generated through wages - if they're doing more business they're paying more taxes, and also generating more productivity with all the people they're doing that extra business with.

Have you ever studied economics? Because you're making some seriously ill-considered assumptions.

 

[Dave1987]

I'll take the answer as no. You don't have any evidence against my evidence that unemployment has not skyrocketed as technology has improved. The Luddites said the exact same things you did. They were completely wrong, and frankly it's a good thing we don't run the world on gut instinct.

We're back to where we started: your lack of imagination about what new innovations and industries may spring up does not mean that they won't.

Well I truly hope that one day you meet someone who's job and livelihood is threatened by automation and then you might actually realise what you are talking about. Not that you will care by the sounds of it.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Well I truly hope that one day you meet someone who's job and livelihood is threatened by automation and then you might actually realise what you are talking about. Not that you will care by the sounds of it.

Don't assume you know anything about who I am. I am looking at the bigger picture - not making emotional demands based on economic illiteracy and a complete lack of historical understanding or imagination.

 

[Dave1987]

How does that mean trade will be taken away from another store? The economy isn't zero-sum: it's growing.

Have you ever studied economics? Because you're making some seriously ill-considered assumptions.

Haha so all your assumptions are based on the economy growing continually then! Yeah that worked well over history hasn't it :roll:

 

[TheKnightWho]

Haha so all your assumptions are based on the economy growing continually then! Yeah that worked well over history hasn't it :roll:

Yes. And do you know what drove that growth? Technology. Instead of millions slaving away at subsistence farming or spending decades on construction, they can spend their time doing things humans are much better suited at and therefore make us all much better off. The idea that the economy has to stop growing assumes that 1 person has a ceiling on productivity - with technology this need not be the case (and just have a look at the GWP/capita to see how much that has increased).

 

[Dave1987]

Don't assume you know anything about who I am. I am looking at the bigger picture - not making emotional demands based on economic illiteracy and a complete lack of historical understanding or imagination.

Ow I'm looking at the big picture. And actually realising tech is replacing far far more jobs than its creating. And I understand that history has no relevance to what may happen in the future.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Ow I'm looking at the big picture. And actually realising tech is replacing far far more jobs than its creating. And I understand that history has no relevance to what may happen in the future.

Frankly, you're talking out of your a*se. Unemployment is at similar levels to the 19th century. If you want to say technology is displacing jobs

a) You need to actually show that the number of jobs is consistently decreasing relative to the population. It isn't.

b) You need to explain why this hasn't happened in previous times of innovation. You haven't.

c) You need to show how it's down to technology and not something else (and "it's obvious" isn't an argument). You haven't.

You're not looking at the bigger picture - you're declaring yourself correct based on your own personal anecdotes, and then making emotional appeals to try and discredit me. On the other hand, I'm using actual statistics to make a point, and you've consistently failed to address them.

 

[Dave1987]

Yes. And do you know what drove that growth? Technology. Instead of millions slaving away at subsistence farming or spending decades on construction, they can spend their time doing things humans are much better suited at and therefore make us all much better off. The idea that the economy has to stop growing assumes that 1 person has a ceiling on productivity - with technology this need not be the case (and just have a look at the GWP/capita to see how much that has increased).

Yes so over the history of time tech has meant that people have become far far more efficient. But that also means as tech becomes more advanced that there will have to be a massive growth in the economy, as the current amount of work in the economy will be done by less and less jobs. The more advanced tech gets the bigger the economy needs to be to provide enough jobs. The economy simply isn't growing that quickly! You do realise that interest rates are at there lowest level in history because the economy is so fragile at the moment?

 

[TheKnightWho]

Yes so over the history of time tech has meant that people have become far far more efficient. But that also means as tech becomes more advanced that there will have to be a massive growth in the economy, as the current amount of work in the economy will be done by less and less jobs. The more advanced tech gets the bigger the economy needs to be to provide enough jobs. The economy simply isn't growing that quickly! You do realise that interest rates are at there lowest level in history because the economy is so fragile at the moment?

Technology drives growth - growth isn't a separate thing that has to "catch up". You're getting cause and effect the wrong way around.

And it won't have to be done by less and less jobs, because despite your lack of imagination and enormous historical precedent, new jobs are created in new flourishing industries that work off the backs of the new automation. Like the internet, phones, the stock market, pharmaceuticals, high-tech manufacturing, thousands of different service industries etc. etc. This is exactly why Britain now specialises in services, the majority of which are jobs that didn't even exist 50 years ago.

 

[Dave1987]

Frankly, you're talking out of your a*se. Unemployment is at similar levels to the 19th century. If you want to say technology is displacing jobs

a) You need to actually show that the number of jobs is consistently decreasing relative to the population. It isn't.

b) You need to explain why this hasn't happened in previous times of innovation. You haven't.

c) You need to show how it's down to technology and not something else (and "it's obvious" isn't an argument). You haven't.

You're not looking at the bigger picture - you're declaring yourself correct based on your own personal anecdotes, and then making emotional appeals to try and discredit me. On the other hand, I'm using actual statistics to make a point, and you've consistently failed to address them.

You are using historical stats that bear no relation to the current pace of technological change and automation rates. It's plain to see how many jobs are being replaced by tech yet you haven't shown any specific jobs that tech is creating in significant numbers to replace those currently being lost.

 

[TheKnightWho]

You are using historical stats that bear no relation to the current pace of technological change and automation rates. It's plain to see how many jobs are being replaced by tech yet you haven't shown any specific jobs that tech is creating in significant numbers to replace those currently being lost.

How do they bear no relation?

If no new jobs were being created, unemployment would be rising rapidly. It isn't. It doesn't matter what the specific jobs are - the fact is that they exist.

But just for you, this article explains: https://www.pwc.co.uk/assets/pdf/ukeo/ukeo-sectoral-employment-march-2016.pdf

The fastest growing industries in terms of job creation at the moment are business services, education and health, transport and communication and distribution, hotels and restaurants.

 

[Dave1987]

Technology drives growth - growth isn't a separate thing that has to "catch up". You're getting cause and effect the wrong way around.

And it won't have to be done by less and less jobs, because despite your lack of imagination and enormous historical precedent, new jobs are created in new flourishing industries that work off the backs of the new automation. Like the internet, phones, the stock market, pharmaceuticals, high-tech manufacturing, thousands of different service industries etc. etc. This is exactly why Britain now specialises in services, the majority of which are jobs that didn't even exist 50 years ago.

All of which mostly done by automation now.... the services industries are mostly low paid jobs that are slowly being replaced by automation.

 

[TheKnightWho]

All of which mostly done by automation now.... the services industries are mostly low paid jobs that are slowly being replaced by automation.

I must have completely misread the employment figures, because that's simply wrong otherwise.

 

[Dave1987]

How do they bear no relation?

If no new jobs were being created, unemployment would be rising rapidly. It isn't. It doesn't matter what the specific jobs are - the fact is that they exist.

But just for you, this article explains: https://www.pwc.co.uk/assets/pdf/ukeo/ukeo-sectoral-employment-march-2016.pdf

The fastest growing industries in terms of job creation at the moment are business services, education and health, transport and communication and distribution, hotels and restaurants.

All of which will be hit by automation within the next 50-100 years. End of argument.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I must have completely misread the employment figures, because that's simply wrong otherwise.

With the rate of progression in tech most of those industries will be hit by automation within the next 50-100 years.

 

[TheKnightWho]

All of which will be hit by automation within the next 50-100 years. End of argument.

All of which will lead to new industries, as has always happened. Pretty much every single job in existence in the 19th century has been hit by automation now. That doesn't mean it's the end of the line.

Your argument is based on simply saying "that will be automated!!!" in the face of literally everything. That makes it a completely unscientific because you make it impossible for you to be wrong as you define yourself as being correct. That's not an argument - that's just declaring yourself the winner.

You're also completely inconsistent - earlier you were saying automation was already hitting jobs (given the predicted small rise in the years coming up to 2020) - in the face of evidence against that you suddenly say it will happen in 50-100 years. Frankly, this backtracking is getting boring.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

All of which will be hit by automation within the next 50-100 years. End of argument.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


With the rate of progression in tech most of those industries will be hit by automation within the next 50-100 years.

Frankly, I'd like proof that new industries won't become possible because of said automation. You're flying in the face of every bit of evidence there is based on your gut instinct.

 

[Dave1987]

All of which will lead to new industries, as has always happened. Pretty much every single job in existence in the 19th century has been hit by automation now. That doesn't mean it's the end of the line.

Your argument is based on simply saying "that will be automated!!!" in the face of literally everything. That makes it a completely unscientific because you make it impossible for you to be wrong as you define yourself as being correct. That's not an argument - that's just declaring yourself the winner.

You're also completely inconsistent - earlier you were saying automation was already hitting jobs (given the predicted small rise in the years coming up to 2020) - in the face of evidence against that you suddenly say it will happen in 50-100 years. Frankly, this backtracking is getting boring.


Frankly, I'd like proof that new industries won't become possible because of said automation. You're flying in the face of every bit of evidence there is based on your gut instinct.

My OP said will automation lead to economic collapse as there will be less and less jobs in the economy in 50-100 years time. You make sweeping statements about society adapting and thousands of jobs being created by automation. I simply don't see as many jobs being created as you think there will be. And you've said nothing to make me think otherwise. No specific examples of how automation is created thousands of jobs. If you had said X industry has created 2000 jobs which offset the losses in Y industries I might have believed you but you haven't so I dont believe your argument.

 

[TheKnightWho]

My OP said will automation lead to economic collapse as there will be less and less jobs in the economy in 50-100 years time. You make sweeping statements about society adapting and thousands of jobs being created by automation. I simply don't see as many jobs being created as you think there will be. And you've said nothing to make me think otherwise. No specific examples of how automation is created thousands of jobs. If you had said X industry has created 2000 jobs which offset the losses in Y industries I might have believed you but you haven't so I dont believe your argument.

Why don't you see it happening? What is that actually based on statistically?

There has never been a situation like that in history despite almost every single job in history having already become obsolete and replaced by something we actually had demand for. You don't see many stonemasons, carpenters or medieval doctors around anymore.

That PDF linked above shows you where new jobs are being created - you can't just say "2,000 jobs lost here and 2,000 jobs created here", as the economy is too complicated for that. Those 2,000 new jobs will be spread out. However, the fact is that it is happening - unemployment is within historical norms, and until that starts to change you have absolutely no ground to stand on. You can even see the figures that growth is happening in health, business and education - that's where thousands of jobs are being created right now, if you really want me to single things out.

Automation does not directly generate jobs - it enables jobs through increased productivity. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

 

[Dave1987]

Why don't you see it happening? What is that actually based on statistically?

There has never been a situation like that in history despite almost every single job in history having already become obsolete and replaced by something we actually had demand for. You don't see many stonemasons, carpenters or medieval doctors around anymore.

That PDF linked above shows you where new jobs are being created - you can't just say "2,000 jobs lost here and 2,000 jobs created here", as the economy is too complicated for that. Those 2,000 new jobs will be spread out. However, the fact is that it is happening - unemployment is within historical norms, and until that starts to change you have absolutely no ground to stand on.

Well we will see in the next decade or two won't we. With the scale of job losses to automation that is happening currently and how much that is going to accelerate in the next 50 years there will need to be millions of jobs created. I severely doubt that will happen. So what specific jobs are being created in health business and education that will offset the thousands that are being automated currently then?

 

[TheKnightWho]

Well we will see in the next decade or two won't we. With the scale of job losses to automation that is happening currently and how much that is going to accelerate in the next 50 years there will need to be millions of jobs created. I severely doubt that will happen.

No forecast supports your position. I wonder why that is.

Why do you doubt it despite history showing that millions of new jobs in new industries has happened for literally hundreds of years?

You're just going off gut instinct because you don't like the fact your bank has fewer tellers these days. You're going to have to do a lot better than that to convince anyone we're close to crisis.

 

[Dave1987]

No forecast supports your position. I wonder why that is.

Why do you doubt it despite history showing that millions of new jobs in new industries has happened for literally hundreds of years?

You're just going off gut instinct because you don't like the fact your bank has fewer tellers these days. You're going to have to do a lot better than that to convince anyone we're close to crisis.

So what are these thousands of jobs that are being created in health, education and business then? What part of these are requiring more jobs than they already have? Your broad statements don't convince me that they will replace all the jobs being lost. I'm sure these industries will be exactly like all others where automation slowly takes over jobs. Any examples of jobs that automation will create?

 

[TheKnightWho]

So what are these thousands of jobs that are being created in health, education and business then? What part of these are requiring more jobs than they already have? Your broad statements don't convince me that they will replace all the jobs being lost.

So are you doubting the statistics now? Do you think everyone's lying to you?

You can't say I'm making broad statements when I've cited statistics at you and given multiple citations.

 

[Dave1987]

So are you doubting the statistics now? Do you think everyone's lying to you?

You can't say I'm making broad statements when I've cited statistics at you and given multiple citations.

Sorry but you've given nothing but broad statements. No specific examples of how automation is creating jobs at all. I can show multiple examples of how automation is costing jobs. If there really were thousands of jobs being created you would be able to give specific examples. End of as far as I'm concerned.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Sorry but you've given nothing but broad statements. No specific examples of how automation is creating jobs at all. I can show multiple examples of how automation is costing jobs. If there really were thousands of jobs being created you would be able to give specific examples. End of as far as I'm concerned.

Did you actually look at that PDF? It gives you specifics. Did you look at my graphs of unemployment, GWP or GWP/capita? They give you specifics. You seem to think that if you say something enough times it makes it true, despite the increasing amount of evidence against you.

Given unemployment is within normal levels, one or a combination of these three things are happening:

1) Tech is not making people redundant, so your argument is wrong.

2) Tech is making people redundant but these jobs are made up elsewhere, so your argument is wrong.

3) Tech is creating jobs directly but causes job losses elsewhere, so your argument is very wrong.

Which is it?

And as for examples, I gave you the example of telephones and the internet. And I also gave you the current examples of which industries are expanding. Why does it matter to you what the specific jobs are when the industries are employing more people year on year? Either way, jobs aren't being lost.

 

[Dave1987]

Did you actually look at that PDF? It gives you specifics. Did you look at my graphs of unemployment, GWP or GWP/capita? They give you specifics. You seem to think that if you say something enough times it makes it true, despite the increasing amount of evidence against you.

Given unemployment is within normal levels, one or a combination of these three things are happening:

1) Tech is not making people redundant, so your argument is wrong.

2) Tech is making people redundant but these jobs are made up elsewhere, so your argument is wrong.

3) Tech is creating jobs directly but causes job losses elsewhere, so your argument is very wrong.

Which is it?

And as for examples, I gave you the example of telephones and the internet. And I also gave you the current examples of which industries are expanding. Why does it matter to you what the specific jobs are when the industries are employing more people year on year? Either way, jobs aren't being lost.

Well AGAIN I'm talking about 50-100 years time so none of your statistics for the present day have any relevance! We fortunately still have people employed in banks, shops, ticket offices, estate agents etc etc. Within 50-100 years all these are likely to be mostly automated with hundreds of thousands of job losses. I don't believe tech and automation will provide enough new jobs to replace all these. None of your statistics show that there will be jobs created to replace these. It's all hearsay and maybes. You cannot provide ANY examples of jobs being created by automation so why should I believe there are going to be thousands and thousands of jobs created when you can't provide a single example. Current employment statistics bear no relevance when jobs that are very likely to be automated still exist for the moment.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Well AGAIN I'm talking about 50-100 years time so none of your statistics for the present day have any relevance! We fortunately still have people employed in banks, shops, ticket offices, estate agents etc etc. Within 50-100 years all these are likely to be mostly automated with hundreds of thousands of job losses. I don't believe tech and automation will provide enough new jobs to replace all these. None of your statistics show that there will be jobs created to replace these. It's all hearsay and maybes.

And where is your evidence beyond a gut feeling? Like I said said time and again "it's obvious" isn't an argument.

Inventions like the internet were inconceivable 50 years ago - in its current form it was inconceivable 20 years ago. Why are you so confident new things won't come alone?

My statistics have shown that, through history, new jobs have been created despite almost all previous jobs being displaced. Defining yourself to be correct by simply saying "well, it'll happen after your statistics say it will" is, frankly, b*llocks.

Stem cell research, nanotechnology, biochemical engineering, robotics, AI, renewable energy, consultancy, urban farming, senior care, 3D printing are, off the top of my head, all things that will see vastly increased demand in the upcoming years. And that's only a small section of what I could think of right now. I bet you didn't even know that half of those existed, nevermind that they will become hugely prominent in the upcoming decades.

Why don't you just admit that you don't like things changing and be done with it? The economy is not doomed - be happy.

 

[Hornet]

Everything in the garden is not rosy, especially with the inept Politicians and Economists that abound in the world today.

http://reports.weforum.org/future-of-jobs-2016/employment-trends/