• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Where are the new jobs coming from?

Status
Not open for further replies.

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
9,213
Location
SE London
Between 2009 and 2015 the UK economy has gained 1.9m jobs - those sectors gaining or losing more than 30,000 jobs are shown below

56210 : Event catering activities -68000
88990 : Other social work activities without accommodation nec -65000
84120 : Regulation of the activities of providing health care, education, cultural services and other social services, excluding social security -56000
43210 : Electrical installation -43000
84240 : Public order and safety activities -43000
86102 : Medical nursing home activities -41000
42990 : Construction of other civil engineering projects nec -34000
47110 : Retail sale in non-specialised stores with food, beverages or tobacco predominating -34000
96090 : Other personal service activities nec -34000
84130 : Regulation of and contribution to more efficient operation of businesses -33000
53100 : Postal activities under universal service obligation -32000
61900 : Other telecommunications activities -32000
84230 : Justice and judicial activities -31000
64191 : Banks -30000

(Quoting only the sectors with job losses). It's interesting that, reading through that list, relatively few of those are industries where technological improvements over the last 7 years would plausibly have caused lots of job losses. Most of them look to me like industries that would have suffered as a direct result of Government austerity policies, or because of economic changes.

That suggests to me (albeit with data from a very limited time period) that if you want to protect jobs, the main threat that you should address is not technology change!
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

ninja-lewis

Member
Joined
27 Oct 2012
Messages
99
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.
I would suggest any such desire is long way down the list of reasons for the end of those jobs. More relevant reasons, in no particular order, would be:

* Councils nowadays are responsible for a much wider range of services and have more important priorities to fund. Increasing council budgets would not bring those jobs back because the extra resources could always be used to provide other new services that prioritisied more.
* Modern labour costs make such roles uneconomic - minimum wage, taxes, pensions, working time directive, H&S requirements, cost of accommodation, willingness to perform such roles. You simply couldn't employ a park-keeper or lavatory attendant in the way they were once were.
* Demand for the services is not what it was. Fewer people use public toilets because there are more alternatives of an acceptable standard available now. Promenading in grand public parks was once a core leisure activity but today other leisure options are preferred and parks are more likely to be simple utilitarian spaces used by dog walkers, joggers, etc so no need to maintain complex floral displays.
* Technology has made the remaining staff much more productive. Hand dryers replacing the need to deal with paper towels, modern materials requiring less maintenance and modern cleaning products making toilets each to clean. Self-propelled lawnmowers that allow an individual to twice the area area in the half time.
* Roles are increasingly specialised. Where once a park-keeper might have been responsible for dealing with fallen trees in his park, the council engages a tree surgeon on a case-by-case basis. Because the tree surgeon specialises in trees, it is economic for him to purchase specialised equipment, develop specialised techniques and employ staff to cope with the additional opportunities opened up by specialising like this.

The one thing all those reasons have in common is progress. Different types of progress certainly but progress all the same. You will find that for every park-keeper and lavatory attendant displaced, more jobs have been created in the wider economy through the allocation of the displaced labour to more productive tasks: the social care worker, the home bathroom fitter, the gym receptionist, the supplier to lawnmower manufacturer, the child care provider that looks after their children to name a few jobs in the modern economy.
 
Last edited:

LateThanNever

Member
Joined
18 Jul 2013
Messages
1,029
(Quoting only the sectors with job losses). It's interesting that, reading through that list, relatively few of those are industries where technological improvements over the last 7 years would plausibly have caused lots of job losses. Most of them look to me like industries that would have suffered as a direct result of Government austerity policies, or because of economic changes.

That suggests to me (albeit with data from a very limited time period) that if you want to protect jobs, the main threat that you should address is not technology change!
Quite.
A desire by corporations to maintain or improve profits and government austerity look to be the main reasons for job losses. Even some of the private job losses will even have been caused by the same government spending cuts. The austerity mantra is particularly daft as we don't tax then spend, we spend then tax - as, among other things, the foundation of the Bank of England proves.
See Richard Murphy's recent book, 'The Joy of Tax' for anyone who thinks this is doubtful.
 

TheKnightWho

Established Member
Joined
17 Oct 2012
Messages
3,183
Location
Oxford
But you have no evidence that all the economy will do is grow, that's the argument you're putting forward.

I do when the work being done before is still being done. That doesn't mean the economy shrinks - it means the economy maintains the same level or goes up.

The idea that the economy can't grow forever only works if we remain technologically stagnant. That is not the case. And in fact history is some quite strong evidence in favour of that.
 

SteveP29

Member
Joined
23 Apr 2011
Messages
1,181
Location
Edinburgh/ Chester le Street
I do when the work being done before is still being done. That doesn't mean the economy shrinks - it means the economy maintains the same level or goes up.

The idea that the economy can't grow forever only works if we remain technologically stagnant. That is not the case. And in fact history is some quite strong evidence in favour of that.


Economic growth is not entirely dependent on technological innovation.
 

krus_aragon

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2009
Messages
6,105
Location
North Wales
I wondered into this thread a day or two ago, and was so surprised by the heated argument that I backed out without saying a word.

This evening I've come across the following opinion article which compares the Keynesian prediction of 15-hour weeks (with greater automation) with what has come to pass so far. I thought I'd give you a link and feed the debate: On the Phenomenon of Bull**** Jobs by David Graeber

(Language guidance: the moderate profanity used in the title is repeated several times in the article, but no other such language is used)
 

Dave1987

On Moderation
Joined
20 Oct 2012
Messages
4,563
I do when the work being done before is still being done. That doesn't mean the economy shrinks - it means the economy maintains the same level or goes up.

The idea that the economy can't grow forever only works if we remain technologically stagnant. That is not the case. And in fact history is some quite strong evidence in favour of that.

Well at the moment the economy is on a knife edge. Interest rates at an historic low because the economy is so fragile at the moment. If society adapts as much as you say it does then surely the huge worry around Brexit and the turmoil in the markets is all unjustified as our economy will naturally adapt to it and there is no need to worry about any job losses from it. Clearly the worry about the job losses at Port Talbot were all unjustified as the economy would "adapt" to those job losses. :roll:
 

deltic

Established Member
Joined
8 Feb 2010
Messages
3,719
Well at the moment the economy is on a knife edge. Interest rates at an historic low because the economy is so fragile at the moment. If society adapts as much as you say it does then surely the huge worry around Brexit and the turmoil in the markets is all unjustified as our economy will naturally adapt to it and there is no need to worry about any job losses from it. Clearly the worry about the job losses at Port Talbot were all unjustified as the economy would "adapt" to those job losses. :roll:

The evidence shows that markets do adjust - however they can take a long time especially in more peripheral areas which are over dependent on just one or two sectors of the economy.

In 1971 over 1m worked in London's manufacturing sector - today only 250,000 do - while business services has almost mirrored that growing from 450,000 in 1971 to 1.1m today.
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
Well at the moment the economy is on a knife edge. Interest rates at an historic low because the economy is so fragile at the moment. If society adapts as much as you say it does then surely the huge worry around Brexit and the turmoil in the markets is all unjustified as our economy will naturally adapt to it and there is no need to worry about any job losses from it. Clearly the worry about the job losses at Port Talbot were all unjustified as the economy would "adapt" to those job losses. :roll:

But you haven't addressed the question as to how to ban automation. For example, suppose a new form of transport is invented that is cheaper, faster, safer and more environmentally friendly than motor vehicles. Almost everything about it is good. The only downside would be that people employed in the operation and manufacturing of motor vehicles would have to be laid off.

Would you allow this?
 

Dave1987

On Moderation
Joined
20 Oct 2012
Messages
4,563
But you haven't addressed the question as to how to ban automation. For example, suppose a new form of transport is invented that is cheaper, faster, safer and more environmentally friendly than motor vehicles. Almost everything about it is good. The only downside would be that people employed in the operation and manufacturing of motor vehicles would have to be laid off.

Would you allow this?

Well what should happen is that the government should incentivise companies to ensure they retain all their workforce at the same wages through tax incentives. If a new form of transport was created then why couldn't all the workforce be retrained in the new form of transport? Why would they need to be laid off when their skills are almost certainly transferable and the bit that aren't would need extra training.
 

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
29,532
Location
LBK
Well what should happen is that the government should incentivise companies to ensure they retain all their workforce at the same wages through tax incentives. If a new form of transport was created then why couldn't all the workforce be retrained in the new form of transport? Why would they need to be laid off when their skills are almost certainly transferable and the bit that aren't would need extra training.

That is just completely unrealistic.

Just one example: Before the invention of automated farming machinery you'd have had dozens of people working on every farm.

What would you do with, say, 30 people on a farm today?
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
Well what should happen is that the government should incentivise companies to ensure they retain all their workforce at the same wages through tax incentives. If a new form of transport was created then why couldn't all the workforce be retrained in the new form of transport? Why would they need to be laid off when their skills are almost certainly transferable and the bit that aren't would need extra training.

How do you know the skills are transferable? This future mode of transport may be so different to what we have today. For example, if this mode of transport is like what they have in Star Trek, then there may be few if any staff needed.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
17,611
Location
Isle of Man
This evening I've come across the following opinion article which compares the Keynesian prediction of 15-hour weeks (with greater automation) with what has come to pass so far. I thought I'd give you a link and feed the debate: On the Phenomenon of Bull**** Jobs by David Graeber

It's an interesting point, and one with some merit I would say. Looking at the higher education sector, as he did, you see a lot of non-jobs. The government policy is for universities to compete in an open market, so now we have endless departments devoted to the "student experience": tempting the students in, asking them what they like, analysing customer satisfaction surveys, developing training to improve satisfaction scores, studying new ways of gaming the system. The "student experience" budget at a big uni is probably in the mid 8-digits per year, and does any of it actually achieve anything? Of course it doesn't.

You see it in so many places. You want to set standards in schools, so you have thousands of people drawing up those standards. And then you have thousands more using a checklist to monitor them, and thousands more making sure the assessors are being assessed properly. None of it can, or will, be automated because it doesn't really achieve anything.

It's hard to make value judgments about which jobs are valuable and which jobs are not, but I think we've all been in jobs where we wonder what the bloody point of it is. We go and do it because we need money. But we know the value of the job is very limited, we know we change nothing and achieve nothing.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
35,453
Location
A typical commuter-belt part of north-west England
It's hard to make value judgments about which jobs are valuable and which jobs are not, but I think we've all been in jobs where we wonder what the bloody point of it is. We go and do it because we need money. But we know the value of the job is very limited, we know we change nothing and achieve nothing.

I have emboldened that part of your posting which recognises an important fact of life that so applies these days.
 

Dave1987

On Moderation
Joined
20 Oct 2012
Messages
4,563
That is just completely unrealistic.

Just one example: Before the invention of automated farming machinery you'd have had dozens of people working on every farm.

What would you do with, say, 30 people on a farm today?

It's not unrealistic. If a company reduces the amount of workers they employ, the less generous tax concessions they are given.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
How do you know the skills are transferable? This future mode of transport may be so different to what we have today. For example, if this mode of transport is like what they have in Star Trek, then there may be few if any staff needed.

So you believe transportation is going to jump from the internal combustion engine to warp speed just like that? That's frankly ridiculous.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
9,213
Location
SE London
It's not unrealistic. If a company reduces the amount of workers they employ, the less generous tax concessions they are given.

How would that work for a company that needs to reduce its workforce because it's making a loss and therefore needs to make efficiency savings, or because the market for its product is declining? If companies that reduce their workforce always have to pay more tax as a result, that would probably drive quite a few struggling companies into bankruptcy.

It also means that businesses would become very reluctant to take any new employees if they think there is any chance that the need for those employees might not be permanent.
 
Last edited:

Dave1987

On Moderation
Joined
20 Oct 2012
Messages
4,563
How would that work for a company that needs to reduce its workforce because it's making a loss and therefore needs to make efficiency savings, or because the market for its product is declining? If companies that reduce their workforce always have to pay more tax as a result, that would probably drive quite a few struggling companies into bankruptcy.

It also means that businesses would become very reluctant to take any new employees if they think there is any chance that the need for those employees might not be permanent.

Why? The more employees they take on the more generous tax concessions they would get. And if they need to reduce their workforce to save the company then you could easily put a clause in there for that, just like companies offset their tax today.
 

NSEFAN

Established Member
Joined
17 Jun 2007
Messages
3,518
Location
Southampton
Dave1987 said:
Why? The more employees they take on the more generous tax concessions they would get. And if they need to reduce their workforce to save the company then you could easily put a clause in there for that, just like companies offset their tax today.
But then we're at a stage of employing people to do jobs that are otherwise useless. If we're going to do that, we might as well find something more enjoyable for people to do than sitting at a desk. Heck, it may be better value for the taxpayer to literally pay people to do things like go to dance classes or take up some other active hobby (health benefits from not having to do boring work / unsociable hours, saving the NHS money for example)...
 

Dave1987

On Moderation
Joined
20 Oct 2012
Messages
4,563
But then we're at a stage of employing people to do jobs that are otherwise useless. If we're going to do that, we might as well find something more enjoyable for people to do than sitting at a desk. Heck, it may be better value for the taxpayer to literally pay people to do things like go to dance classes or take up some other active hobby (health benefits from not having to do boring work / unsociable hours, saving the NHS money for example)...

Well we arguably already do that, look at the House of Lords for example. Far far better to provide incentives for companies to take on as many employees as possible who then spend their wages in the economy rather than the way we are going at the moment.
 

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
29,532
Location
LBK
It's not unrealistic. If a company reduces the amount of workers they employ, the less generous tax concessions they are given.

Answer the question. What are they going to do all day, if their work is no longer needed?

Just sit around and get paid while the company gets a tax concession?

La la land.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Far far better to provide incentives for companies to take on as many employees as possible

They can only do that if there's work for them to do!
 

TheKnightWho

Established Member
Joined
17 Oct 2012
Messages
3,183
Location
Oxford
But then we're at a stage of employing people to do jobs that are otherwise useless. If we're going to do that, we might as well find something more enjoyable for people to do than sitting at a desk. Heck, it may be better value for the taxpayer to literally pay people to do things like go to dance classes or take up some other active hobby (health benefits from not having to do boring work / unsociable hours, saving the NHS money for example)...

Now that is something that would shrink the economy.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Well we arguably already do that, look at the House of Lords for example. Far far better to provide incentives for companies to take on as many employees as possible who then spend their wages in the economy rather than the way we are going at the moment.

The House of Lords is not useless. You might disagree with it politically, but to say that the Lords don't do anything is just pure ignorance of what actually goes on and is factually false. If you're going to spout-off and claim you know about the economy, politics etc. at least pretend that you know something about the subject matter.
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
So you believe transportation is going to jump from the internal combustion engine to warp speed just like that? That's frankly ridiculous.

We are talking about future technology so anything is possible. Some things that we take for granted today would have been science fiction 100 years ago.

Should Netflix and Amazon hire all the people who used to work for Blockbusters in their video shops?
 
Last edited:

Dave1987

On Moderation
Joined
20 Oct 2012
Messages
4,563
Answer the question. What are they going to do all day, if their work is no longer needed?

Just sit around and get paid while the company gets a tax concession?

La la land.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


They can only do that if there's work for them to do!

They would do exactly what they did before! Just means the company would be given less tax concessions if they allow automation to replace jobs.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Now that is something that would shrink the economy.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


The House of Lords is not useless. You might disagree with it politically, but to say that the Lords don't do anything is just pure ignorance of what actually goes on and is factually false. If you're going to spout-off and claim you know about the economy, politics etc. at least pretend that you know something about the subject matter.

The House of Lords is the most grossly inflated load of rubbish this country has, which is even more wasteful than the Royal Family and that's saying something. But no it's far far better to replace Joe Bloggs with a machine than get rid of the House of Lords :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
We are talking about future technology so anything is possible. Some things that we take for granted today would have been science fiction 100 years ago.

Should Netflix and Amazon hire all the people who used to work for Blockbusters in their video shops?

Yup, they put them out of a job so why shouldn't they be forced to employ them?
 

TheKnightWho

Established Member
Joined
17 Oct 2012
Messages
3,183
Location
Oxford
The House of Lords is the most grossly inflated load of rubbish this country has, which is even more wasteful than the Royal Family and that's saying something. But no it's far far better to replace Joe Bloggs with a machine than get rid of the House of Lords :roll:

Do you have any idea what the House of Lords actually does? You do realise they're the check and balance against the House of Commons? And with almost no hereditary peers left (which should be got rid of anyway) they're people who are actual experts, which is why they get involved in the legislative process in the first place.

But yes, it's good to see that someone like yourself who clearly has absolutely no idea but ensures me he knows an awful lot about economics and politics demonstrating he has 0 knowledge of the function of the House of Lords whilst proposing economic protectionism that amounts to little more than desperate hand-waving because technology means that some people are losing their jobs. The alternative you've proposed literally amounts to employing people to do nothing - what a great way of keeping Britain competitive on the world stage! Technological stagnation and wasteful tax breaks that literally disincentivise innovation. Meanwhile, the rest of the world moves on and we get an even larger trade deficit because anything home-grown is utterly uneconomic. Are you proposing we ban driverless cars because they might put people out of a job? After all - in your fantasy world the same amount of work and economic wealth being done by fewer people apparently results in a recession, even though that makes no mathematical sense. :roll:

I understand you are frustrated, but you are spouting armchair economics that everyone on this thread is poking holes in from all different perspectives. Perhaps it's time to admit that there might be some factors involved here that you haven't taken into consideration? I'll happily admit economists don't always get it right, but I'll take the word of tens of thousands of people who dedicate their lies to studying this stuff over someone who seems to think their bank having a few fewer tills is indicative of economic Armageddon. They might not be spot-on and they will make mistakes, but at least they aren't taking a stab in the dark based on their own very limited perspective and rubbishing any statistical data they don't like (whilst counting those that they do).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Yup, they put them out of a job so why shouldn't they be forced to employ them?

Because they've found work doing things that are actually economic and not work doing things that are now out of date. I am very glad that you aren't running the country, because you'd send us straight into depression, whilst sending multinationals fleeing. And before you celebrate that, you'll have to deal with the millions of jobs lost in the wake of that and a much, much smaller British economy. Self-sufficiency sounds great until you realise that reliance on the rest of the world is inescapable unless you want a 50% pay cut.
 
Last edited:

Dave1987

On Moderation
Joined
20 Oct 2012
Messages
4,563
Do you have any idea what the House of Lords actually does? You do realise they're the check and balance against the House of Commons? And with almost no hereditary peers left (which should be got rid of anyway) they're people who are actual experts, which is why they get involved in the legislative process in the first place.

But yes, it's good to see that someone like yourself who clearly has absolutely no idea but ensures me he knows an awful lot about economics and politics demonstrating he has 0 knowledge of the function of the House of Lords whilst proposing economic protectionism that amounts to little more than desperate hand-waving because technology means that some people are losing their jobs. The alternative you've proposed literally amounts to employing people to do nothing - what a great way of keeping Britain competitive on the world stage! Technological stagnation and wasteful tax breaks that literally disincentivise innovation. Meanwhile, the rest of the world moves on and we get an even larger trade deficit because anything home-grown is utterly uneconomic. Are you proposing we ban driverless cars because they might put people out of a job? After all - in your fantasy world the same amount of work and economic wealth being done by fewer people apparently results in a recession, even though that makes no mathematical sense. :roll:

I understand you are frustrated, but you are spouting armchair economics that everyone on this thread is poking holes in from all different perspectives. Perhaps it's time to admit that there might be some factors involved here that you haven't taken into consideration? I'll happily admit economists don't always get it right, but I'll take the word of tens of thousands of people who dedicate their lies to studying this stuff over someone who seems to think their bank having a few fewer tills is indicative of economic Armageddon. They might not be spot-on and they will make mistakes, but at least they aren't taking a stab in the dark based on their own very limited perspective and rubbishing any statistical data they don't like (whilst counting those that they do).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Because they've found work doing things that are actually economic and not work doing things that are now out of date. I am very glad that you aren't running the country, because you'd send us straight into depression, whilst sending multinationals fleeing. And before you celebrate that, you'll have to deal with the millions of jobs lost in the wake of that and a much, much smaller British economy. Self-sufficiency sounds great until you realise that reliance on the rest of the world is inescapable unless you want a 50% pay cut.

Well judging by your responses you must believe that the governments reaction to the Port Talbot jobs losses was a massive overreaction as society would "adapt" to all those job losses with innovation. You must believe that Morgan Stanley's threat to move thousands of jobs abroad post Brexit is no worry at all as society will again "adapt" to all those losses as well. I'm presuming the BoE cutting interest rates to an historic all time low is also a massive over reaction because the economy can easily sustain any job losses because innovation will provide plenty more jobs. Ow sorry I have no clue about how the economy works so how could I possibly understand the BoE base rate or quantitative easing or inflation. What a massive simpleton I am :roll:
 
Last edited:

tony_mac

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2009
Messages
3,626
Location
Liverpool
You said that you were talking about a 50-100 year timescale.

I think that any former Port Talbot steelworkers will have other things on their mind in 50-100 years time!
 

Dave1987

On Moderation
Joined
20 Oct 2012
Messages
4,563
You said that you were talking about a 50-100 year timescale.

I think that any former Port Talbot steelworkers will have other things on their mind in 50-100 years time!

I am but TheKnightWho is determined to bring current economic figures into the discussion so I thought I would bring some sense of reality to their theories that the economy is flourishing presently and that society always adapts to job losses.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top