Where are the new jobs coming from?

[TheKnightWho]

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:

I don't believe in a completely free market with absolutely no governmental oversight. Go burn your strawman elsewhere.

I just think that your total outrage over any kind of job losses due to technological advancement is short-sighted, lacks economic understanding and, frankly, I think your proposed solution is about the worst economic idea I've heard all year. Understanding basic concepts like interest rates does not make you an economic expert. You can't crow about how the economy doesn't always sustain optimal employment rates when there are factors such as, you know, Brexit or other economic shocks that cause issues. The difference is that those job losses are temporary (i.e. only last a few years) and are made up for as the graph of unemployment levels showed you. If technology was causing job losses, there would be a constant trend and not a short-term shock.

Also, for someone who dismissed all of economic history as irrelevant when discussing the possible future, you sure are keen on economic evidence when it suits your position. It's this kind of incoherence and contradiction that means I can't take you seriously. It also makes no sense how you say that you can already see these job losses happening around you and the economy is worse off for it, yet when presented with statistics showing that you're wrong you say "well all those jobs can be automated in the next 50-100 years!" - well that's as well maybe (and I'd still dispute it), but it still doesn't make your incorrect perception that current job losses are outweighing job creation are less false. There's a jumble of contradictions going on here.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

No-one said the economy is always flourishing. As I have stated repeatedly, we are talking about long-term trends. If you can't distinguish between shocks to the economy and your hypothesis that unemployment will increase over time then I really do despair. As I have already stated (a phrase I seem to be using a lot), job losses cannot be made up for immediately. That doesn't mean there's an economic catastrophe as the data suggests unemployment has been decreasing, and is set to increase within normal levels. If you want to talk about the next 50-100 years you're going to have to explain how no new innovations, economic or social paradigms or anything else won't create new industries as has always happened. "I just can't see it happening" is no argument - neither could the Luddites, and they were also wrong.

 

[AlterEgo]

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.

Right, so companies will be actively incentivised to ignore technological developments that make work cheaper, more efficient, and (often) better quality.

Insane! Just insane.

 

[Dave1987]

Right, so companies will be actively incentivised to ignore technological developments that make work cheaper, more efficient, and (often) better quality.

Insane! Just insane.

They would be incentivised to keep people in a bloody job. Do you jump up and down with joy when companies announce job losses?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't believe in a completely free market with absolutely no governmental oversight. Go burn your strawman elsewhere.

I just think that your total outrage over any kind of job losses due to technological advancement is short-sighted, lacks economic understanding and, frankly, I think your proposed solution is about the worst economic idea I've heard all year. Understanding basic concepts like interest rates does not make you an economic expert. You can't crow about how the economy doesn't always sustain optimal employment rates when there are factors such as, you know, Brexit or other economic shocks that cause issues. The difference is that those job losses are temporary (i.e. only last a few years) and are made up for as the graph of unemployment levels showed you. If technology was causing job losses, there would be a constant trend and not a short-term shock.

Also, for someone who dismissed all of economic history as irrelevant when discussing the possible future, you sure are keen on economic evidence when it suits your position. It's this kind of incoherence and contradiction that means I can't take you seriously. It also makes no sense how you say that you can already see these job losses happening around you and the economy is worse off for it, yet when presented with statistics showing that you're wrong you say "well all those jobs can be automated in the next 50-100 years!" - well that's as well maybe (and I'd still dispute it), but it still doesn't make your incorrect perception that current job losses are outweighing job creation are less false. There's a jumble of contradictions going on here.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


No-one said the economy is always flourishing. As I have stated repeatedly, we are talking about long-term trends. If you can't distinguish between shocks to the economy and your hypothesis that unemployment will increase over time then I really do despair. As I have already stated (a phrase I seem to be using a lot), job losses cannot be made up for immediately. That doesn't mean there's an economic catastrophe as the data suggests unemployment has been decreasing, and is set to increase within normal levels. If you want to talk about the next 50-100 years you're going to have to explain how no new innovations, economic or social paradigms or anything else won't create new industries as has always happened. "I just can't see it happening" is no argument - neither could the Luddites, and they were also wrong.

Well you haven't answered my question. Was the government reaction to the potential closure of Port Talbot a massive overreaction? The local MP's said the closure would have a devastating effect on the local economy but by your theories that's complete nonsense as innovation would replace all those jobs. So surely you believe that the government totally overreacted to the Port Talbot situation and those potential job losses are just how the economy works.

Frankly your theories that innovation always provides enough employment to keep the economy going is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. It's been disproved many many times over the course of history. And I'm sure those people who are being made redundant by automation now will sleep soundly in their beds knowing innovation will help pay their mortgage/rent...... not!!

 

[AlterEgo]

They would be incentivised to keep people in a bloody job. Do you jump up and down with joy when companies announce job losses?

No, they would be incentivised to retain jobs, to do the job less efficiently, and more costly, than the new innovative method.

Assuming that applies to all companies, then businesses which produce innovative products or solutions will no longer be able to sell their wares, so they won't be in business any more.

At one time the railway was an innovation (which many people hated)! The canals were slow and inefficient compared to the train, which sprung up almost overnight. Lots of people lost jobs and their way of life because the railways sprang up - which did the same job, faster, cleaner, cheaper, and with fewer people involved. The London to Birmingham stagecoach simply ceased to be. I bet there were lots of stagecoach drivers and innkeepers who suffered then too.

So essentially you wish to kill off any further innovation and human progress because you don't want people to lose their jobs...

People have gained and lost and gained and lost and gained jobs since forever.

I started off in customer service, then complaints, then social media, then media and PR strategy...my job has changed a lot over time. I used to be a cashier in a bank quite a long time ago, but there are fewer of those now - I was let go from RBS shortly after the financial crisis. I didn't die or anything. I just got a new job with my transferable skills. I might not be doing what I do now in 5-10 years time. That's fine by me.

Whatever happened to lift attendants? Or railway porters? Or firemen? You going to bring them back? For the tax relief you propose? At least everyone would have a job.... :roll:

The absolute paranoia to change is concerning and maddening at the same time.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Frankly your theories that innovation always provides enough employment to keep the economy going is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. It's been disproved many many times over the course of history. And I'm sure those people who are being made redundant by automation now will sleep soundly in their beds knowing innovation will help pay their mortgage/rent...... not!!

Sure Dave, innovation is bad, bad bad bad bad.

Disproved how? Show us some evidence.

My job exists *because of* innovation - the internet wasn't even really a thing when I was born, and social media hadn't even been invented when I left school. "Social media" wouldn't have even been in the careers advisor's book.

Your job exists *because of* innovation - an innovation that obliterated the canals as Britain's prime method of transporting goods, and smashed the stagecoach business into smithereens.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Well you haven't answered my question. Was the government reaction to the potential closure of Port Talbot a massive overreaction? The local MP's said the closure would have a devastating effect on the local economy but by your theories that's complete nonsense as innovation would replace all those jobs. So surely you believe that the government totally overreacted to the Port Talbot situation and those potential job losses are just how the economy works.

Frankly your theories that innovation always provides enough employment to keep the economy going is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. It's been disproved many many times over the course of history. And I'm sure those people who are being made redundant by automation now will sleep soundly in their beds knowing innovation will help pay their mortgage/rent...... not!!

We're talking about long-term trends. Port Talbot is a recent event which counts as a recent economic shock. If my theory that innovation provided more jobs was false then unemployment would have been steadily rising. It hasn't. I also thought you didn't care about past trends and only cared about the future. What you're saying is contradicting earlier posts you made.

Look - if you aren't going to read the majority of my posts and are going to claim I said stuff that directly contradicts things I've actually said then I have absolutely no time for you. You clearly have strawmen to burn, and I think that's probably because you don't want to admit that your theories aren't actually very well thought through.

Read that post again and come back to me.

 

[Dave1987]

We're talking about long-term trends. Port Talbot is a recent event which counts as a recent economic shock. If my theory that innovation provided more jobs was false then unemployment would have been steadily rising. It hasn't. I also thought you didn't care about past trends and only cared about the future. What you're saying is contradicting earlier posts you made.

Look - if you aren't going to read the majority of my posts and are going to claim I said stuff that directly contradicts things I've actually said then I have absolutely no time for you. You clearly have strawmen to burn, and I think that's probably because you don't want to admit that your theories aren't actually very well thought through.

Read that post again and come back to me.

I was talking about the very long distance future but you continually bought present day figures into the equation to try and justify your argument so I brought Port Talbot up to show that your figures aren't as rosy as you make out. I'm still waiting to hear whether you believe the government over reacted to the Port Talbot closure threat. You said innovation will always provide plenty of jobs so surely the plant closure would be nothing to worry about. So surely they overreacted, yes or no?

 

[TheKnightWho]

I was talking about the very long distance future but you continually bought present day figures into the equation to try and justify your argument so I brought Port Talbot up to show that your figures aren't as rosy as you make out. I'm still waiting to hear whether you believe the government over reacted to the Port Talbot closure threat. You said innovation will always provide plenty of jobs so surely the plant closure would be nothing to worry about. So surely they overreacted, yes or no?

I brought in the long-term trends of the last 150 years to show that you are wrong. You then claimed unemployment was set to rise in the next few years because there was a small rise in the years coming up to 2020. You keep switching between short and long term when convenient. I have been entirely consistent. If you can't understand the difference between economic shocks and long-term trends then it's clear you're entirely economically illiterate. Stop asking me to explain how an economic shock doesn't immediately fit in with a long-term trend, because that makes absolutely no sense. It's like asking someone how they can explain the declining populations in Germany or Japan when the world population is rising, as though individual events or places can't differ from the bigger picture's general trend.

I would also have thought that you could have worked out by now that I don't think the Port Talbot closure was the best course of action, but I also don't think endlessly subsidising uneconomic steel is good either. The solution is to invest in areas which experience such large economic shocks (as should have happened in the 80s in South Wales, the North East etc.) to ensure that upcoming areas of employment like health, education, business and the like begin employing people at a faster rate than they would have done naturally. That doesn't mean the market wouldn't have corrected itself, because ultimately hundreds of thousands of unemployed people concentrated in one area present ripe areas for employment, but a raw, unmitigated transition would often be unacceptable because of the effect it would have on the people involved.

On the other hand, you're completely stuck in your blinkered mindset that can't conceive of the value of any innovation at all. At least I have a plan - you just want the country to stay at a standstill and haven't taken into account the effects that would have on Britain on the world stage, and consequently, how it would simply tank the economy.

 

[Dave1987]

I brought in the long-term trends of the last 150 years to show that you are wrong. You then claimed unemployment was set to rise in the next few years because there was a small rise in the years coming up to 2020.

You keep switching between short and long term when convenient. I have been entirely consistent.

Did the government overreact to the Port Talbot job losses? Yes or No? Simple question, simple answer. If the plant closes will "innovation" replace all those thousands of jobs lost in that local economy?

 

[TheKnightWho]

Did the government overreact to the Port Talbot job losses? Yes or No? Simple question, simple answer. If the plant closes will "innovation" replace all those thousands of jobs lost in that local economy?

Do you support tanking the economy by stifling all British innovation? It's a simple question that you've refused to answer repeatedly on this forum.

Why do you hate the British economy?

(And before you get outraged yet again, it's an equally stupid question to the one you keep asking.)

 

[deltic]

Did the government overreact to the Port Talbot job losses? Yes or No? Simple question, simple answer. If the plant closes will "innovation" replace all those thousands of jobs lost in that local economy?

I refer my learned friend to post 190

 

[Dave1987]

Do you support tanking the economy by stifling all British innovation? It's a simple question that you've refused to answer repeatedly on this forum.

Why do you hate the British economy?

(And before you get outraged yet again, it's an equally stupid question to the one you keep asking.)

I support government taking action to promote companies hiring more staff or retaining as many staff as possible unlike the situation we have at the moment where companies have as few staff as they can possibly get away with.

I'm presuming your refusal to answer my question on Port Talbot is because you know the government didn't overreact and those job losses will devastate the local economy and innovation will not provide the jobs to prop up that economy thereby completely destroying you argument that society always adapts to job losses.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I refer my learned friend to post 190

Indeed but local economies simply do not stand up to that length of periodic change. And as automation slowly takes over and jobs become more and more niche and specialised the majority will be left behind and the economy will suffer greatly for that.

 

[deltic]

Indeed but local economies simply do not stand up to that length of periodic change. And as automation slowly takes over and jobs become more and more niche and specialised the majority will be left behind and the economy will suffer greatly for that.

I agree but government intervention should be as it is normal in these cases to provide training and providing workforce with skills to re-enter the labour market. Not to provide ongoing support to a business that will fail. As I also posted earlier there is a huge amount of churn in the economy as technology destroys and creates jobs as it has been doing for at least 5,500 years from when the wheel was first invented

 

[TheKnightWho]

I support government taking action to promote companies hiring more staff or retaining as many staff as possible unlike the situation we have at the moment where companies have as few staff as they can possibly get away with.

I'm presuming your refusal to answer my question on Port Talbot is because you know the government didn't overreact and those job losses will devastate the local economy and innovation will not provide the jobs to prop up that economy thereby completely destroying you argument that society always adapts to job losses.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Indeed but local economies simply do not stand up to that length of periodic change. And as automation slowly takes over and jobs become more and more niche and specialised the majority will be left behind and the economy will suffer greatly for that.

I answered the question m80. If you can't be bothered to read my posts properly then there's no point in having this discussion.

 

[Blamethrower]

So who here has actually suffered at the hands of automation?

Me for one, many, many times, I am actually under threat at the moment, but not through automation, through market pressures, which is often the case.

Automation will always exist, it makes things easier, you just have to employ automation experts who cost a damn sight more than a manual employee, or three!

So ultimately you have to balance the cost of automation people over manual people. Automation people are very expensive, manual people are not and I find that there is usually a blend of both to get the job done to the best of our ability.

What I do is often seen as an intangible skill and is therefore easily outsourced or automated. However, the same issues always exist within the business and it almost always ends up that things are lot more expensive and complex to fix when it inevitably goes wrong.

But hey that doesn't matter coz we've got the working class out of our office and filled it with good clean middle-class sheeple

 

[Dave1987]

I answered the question m80. If you can't be bothered to read my posts properly then there's no point in having this discussion.

Well you must be studying to be a politician in how to change a yes/no answer into a paragraph. You haven't answered the question. Yes or No did the government over react to the threat of the Port Talbot closure? Will innovation replace all the jobs lost if the plant closes?

Very very simple yes/no answers please.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So who here has actually suffered at the hands of automation?

Me for one, many, many times, I am actually under threat at the moment, but not through automation, through market pressures, which is often the case.

Automation will always exist, it makes things easier, you just have to employ automation experts who cost a damn sight more than a manual employee, or three!

So ultimately you have to balance the cost of automation people over manual people. Automation people are very expensive, manual people are not and I find that there is usually a blend of both to get the job done to the best of our ability.

What I do is often seen as an intangible skill and is therefore easily outsourced or automated. However, the same issues always exist within the business and it almost always ends up that things are lot more expensive and complex to fix when it inevitably goes wrong.

But hey that doesn't matter coz we've got the working class out of our office and filled it with good clean middle-class sheeple

Yes but the way companies look at it is the more people they employ the more NI they pay, the more pension contributions they have to pay, which is why they always choose automation over jobs.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Well you must be studying to be a politician in how to change a yes/no answer into a paragraph. You haven't answered the question. Yes or No did the government over react to the threat of the Port Talbot closure? Will innovation replace all the jobs lost if the plant closes?

No, I just don't accept your implicit assumptions. If you actually read the paragraph you'd be able to understand why the question you're posing is irrelevant, and I've explained my position quite clearly. I also literally did answer the question if you read the sentence where I say closure with no safeguards was not the best course of action. If you're trying to pull a Paxman you're not very good at it. I also don't see how Port Talbot is relevant to innovation anyway - it closed down because of foreign competition - there's no way the government is going to be able to make that go away.

Like I said - do you hate the British economy? Your plan suggests you do. Apparently if you give me anything but a yes or no answer (and no explanation) then you're just studying to be a politician and your answer is worthless.

Frankly, I'm bored of this argument. You clearly aren't willing to accept that your intuition is wrong about a number of things, and you're trying to shut down any part of the discussion that explains why that's the case. When it's you vs the experts you have three options: 1) The experts are all wrong - pretty unlikely, and even if true the chances of someone who is just a layperson finding the right answer is astoundingly rare; 2) the experts are in a conspiracy against you - very, very unlikely and impossible to keep under wraps anyway, or; 3) the experts know something you don't - very, very likely.

Are you just incredibly arrogant? Because you'd have to be to pick option 1. Yes or no answer please!

 

[Dave1987]

No, I just don't accept your implicit assumptions. If you actually read the paragraph you'd be able to understand why the question you're posing is irrelevant, and I've explained my position quite clearly. I also literally did answer the question if you read the sentence where I say closure with no safeguards was not the best course of action. If you're trying to pull a Paxman you're not very good at it. I also don't see how Port Talbot is relevant to innovation anyway - it closed down because of foreign competition - there's no way the government is going to be able to make that go away.

Like I said - do you hate the British economy? Your plan suggests you do. Apparently if you give me anything but a yes or no answer (and no explanation) then you're just studying to be a politician and your answer is worthless.

Frankly, I'm bored of this argument. You clearly aren't willing to accept that your intuition is wrong about a number of things, and you're trying to shut down any part of the discussion that explains why that's the case. When it's you vs the experts you have three options: 1) The experts are all wrong - pretty unlikely, and even if true the chances of someone who is just a layperson finding the right answer is astoundingly rare; 2) the experts are in a conspiracy against you - very, very unlikely and impossible to keep under wraps anyway, or; 3) the experts know something you don't - very, very likely.

Are you just incredibly arrogant? Because you'd have to be to pick option 1. Yes or no answer please!

Ah so your claim that society always adapts to job losses is a total load of bull! Because if it did the closure of Port Talbot wouldn't make the blind bit of difference to the local economy because innovation would provide jobs to replace those lost. What difference is there between jobs being lost at Port Talbot and jobs being lost to automation? It's all jobs lost in the economy and less wages going into the economy. I see on the Bexit thread you are really worried about the markets reaction to Brexit. Why? If society adapts why is there any reason to be concerned? Innovation will surely replace all jobs lost as a result of Bexit? So you should have no reason to be concerned by Brexit consequences.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Ah so your claim that society always adapts to job losses is a total load of bull! Because if it did the closure of Port Talbot wouldn't make the blind bit of difference to the local economy because innovation would provide jobs to replace those lost. What difference is there between jobs being lost at Port Talbot and jobs being lost to automation? It's all jobs lost in the economy and less wages going into the economy. I see on the Bexit thread you are really worried about the markets reaction to Brexit. Why? If society adapts why is there any reason to be concerned? Innovation will surely replace all jobs lost as a result of Bexit? So you should have no reason to be concerned by Brexit consequences.

Are you capable of distinguishing between the long term and economic shocks? Are you even reading anything I write?

When you're saying things I have already addressed it just makes you look like you have no idea what you're talking about.

We're talking about long-term trends. Port Talbot is a recent event which counts as a recent economic shock. If my theory that innovation provided more jobs was false then unemployment would have been steadily rising. It hasn't. I also thought you didn't care about past trends and only cared about the future. What you're saying is contradicting earlier posts you made.

Look - if you aren't going to read the majority of my posts and are going to claim I said stuff that directly contradicts things I've actually said then I have absolutely no time for you. You clearly have strawmen to burn, and I think that's probably because you don't want to admit that your theories aren't actually very well thought through.

Read that post again and come back to me.

I brought in the long-term trends of the last 150 years to show that you are wrong. You then claimed unemployment was set to rise in the next few years because there was a small rise in the years coming up to 2020. You keep switching between short and long term when convenient. I have been entirely consistent. If you can't understand the difference between economic shocks and long-term trends then it's clear you're entirely economically illiterate. Stop asking me to explain how an economic shock doesn't immediately fit in with a long-term trend, because that makes absolutely no sense. It's like asking someone how they can explain the declining populations in Germany or Japan when the world population is rising, as though individual events or places can't differ from the bigger picture's general trend.

I would also have thought that you could have worked out by now that I don't think the Port Talbot closure was the best course of action, but I also don't think endlessly subsidising uneconomic steel is good either. The solution is to invest in areas which experience such large economic shocks (as should have happened in the 80s in South Wales, the North East etc.) to ensure that upcoming areas of employment like health, education, business and the like begin employing people at a faster rate than they would have done naturally. That doesn't mean the market wouldn't have corrected itself, because ultimately hundreds of thousands of unemployed people concentrated in one area present ripe areas for employment, but a raw, unmitigated transition would often be unacceptable because of the effect it would have on the people involved.

On the other hand, you're completely stuck in your blinkered mindset that can't conceive of the value of any innovation at all. At least I have a plan - you just want the country to stay at a standstill and haven't taken into account the effects that would have on Britain on the world stage, and consequently, how it would simply tank the economy.

 

[Dave1987]

Are you capable of distinguishing between the long term and economic shocks? Are you even reading anything I write?

When you're saying things I have already addressed it just makes you look like you have no idea what you're talking about.

Ow dear god. You clearly said that society adapts to job losses. If society adapts then it doesn't make a difference if jobs are lost from automation or economic shocks (it's a job and a wage lost from the economy) as innovation would replace and jobs lost. Your argument about society adapting to job losses is complete bull. If you were confident in society adapting you would not be concerned by Brexit at all. The economy relies on people having stable employment. The more jobs that are lost the less stable the economy is. The closure of Port Talbot would be devastating to the local economy, it wouldn't just adapt to the loss of the jobs.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Ow dear god. You clearly said that society adapts to job losses. If society adapts then it doesn't make a difference if jobs are lost from automation or economic shocks (it's a job and a wage lost from the economy) as innovation would replace and jobs lost. Your argument about society adapting to job losses is complete bull. If you were confident in society adapting you would not be concerned by Brexit at all. The economy relies on people having stable employment. The more jobs that are lost the less stable the economy is. The closure of Port Talbot would be devastating to the local economy, it wouldn't just adapt to the loss of the jobs.

I didn't say it adapted immediately and without any issues whatsoever.

You can't argue that innovation is bad and should be disincentivised, and then tell those of us who argue against that that we clearly must be deluded and think there are no economic issues whatsoever with it. If you bothered to read anything that I or others have said you'd see that we don't believe in an unfettered free market, but that we also don't think innovation is bad simply because it causes people to lose jobs.

Your argument is totally incoherent. You've gone from caring only about long-term trends to pointing at single recent events to saying history is irrelevant. All of those things are mutually contradictory.

 

[Dave1987]

I didn't say it adapted immediately and without any issues whatsoever.

You can't argue that innovation is bad and should be disincentivised, and then tell those of us who argue against that that we clearly must be deluded and think there are no economic issues whatsoever with it. If you bothered to read anything that I or others have said you'd see that we don't believe in an unfettered free market, but that we also don't think innovation is bad simply because it causes people to lose jobs.

Your argument is totally incoherent. You've gone from caring only about long-term trends to pointing at single recent events to saying history is irrelevant. All of those things are mutually contradictory.

I said I was concerned about the effect of automation taking people's jobs and that in 50-100 when thousands more jobs have been lost to automation could lead to economic collapse. You said society adapts to automation and that innovation always provides the jobs to replace those lost. You are now admitting that job losses do have an impact on the economy. But before you were claiming that innovation would make up for any job losses the economy suffers. I want the government to create policies that encourage business to employ as many people as possible and not the bear minimum they need just to operate. In the other thread you are saying that you are deeply concerned about the consequences of Brexit but on the other hand on this thread you are saying that job losses are normal and society adapts to this. And you say I'm contradictory!

 

[TheKnightWho]

I said I was concerned about the effect of automation taking people's jobs and that in 50-100 when thousands more jobs have been lost to automation could lead to economic collapse. You said society adapts to automation and that innovation always provides the jobs to replace those lost. You are now admitting that job losses do have an impact on the economy. But before you were claiming that innovation would make up for any job losses the economy suffers. I want the government to create policies that encourage business to employ as many people as possible and not the bear minimum they need just to operate. In the other thread you are saying that you are deeply concerned about the consequences of Brexit but on the other hand on this thread you are saying that job losses are normal and society adapts to this. And you say I'm contradictory!

It does adapt to innovation. Please explain how Port Talbot or Brexit have anything to do with innovation. Please also explain how they'll have a long-term impact on the economy that has anything to do with innovation. I said the government needs to ensure that the transition to new industries is aided and done as painlessly as possible. How is that contradictory? On the other hand, you want to stop innovation altogether, which is deeply damaging to the economy. You also seem to be under impression job losses are the only thing that can damage the economy - I can be concerned about the economy without thinking there's going to be long-term high unemployment.

You're trying to catch me out, but it just makes you look like you don't understand what I'm saying. None of what I've said has contradicted itself unless you assume the ridiculous strawmen you seem to think I'm arguing for. Unfortunately for you, I've actually thought about this for more than 5 minutes.

You're also using "innovation" and "job losses" interchangeably, when the very way society adapts is through innovation creating new jobs. Your sophistry isn't going to work on me.

 

[dcsprior]

I've been reading this thread for a while, but haven't posted until now, partly because it seems to be more of an argument than a discussion. I think to be able to have a meaningful discussion about the effects of technology on the economy, the question needs to be phrased so as to be very clear about what scale we're considering the impact at - both in terms of time and geography.

To illustrate how the impact can be very different depending on how "zoomed in" we're looking at it, I've thought about Grocery Retail as an example. I work in IT for a retailer, but in non-food; so although I do try to keep up to date with technological developments in grocery, it's not my area of expertise and as such some of the details may not be 100% accurate - I hope my overall point will however remain valid.

20 years ago, almost everyone did their grocery shopping by visiting a store, picking up items themselves, and having them rung up on a cash register by a human being.

From 20-5 years ago, self checkouts (SCOs) became common. This reduced the number of staff required, today you'll often find 1 member of staff looking at 8 SCOs - but the throughput at an SCO may be only half of that at a traditional checkout, so the total number of checkout staff required may be a quarter rather than an eighth.

From 10 years ago until now, online grocery shopping became common. This created a whole load of new jobs to pick stock in the store, and to deliver it to customers.

Overall, the two changes above resulted in a net increase in jobs - however at a local level this won't always be the case: you may see an overall decrease in staff at a city-centre store with an average basket size of 10 items, and an increase in staff at an out of town store; similarly you may see an decrease in less affluent areas where internet shopping has taken off less quickly. Similarly there are some people who are able to do the job of a checkout operator, but not pick & deliver stock - for instance someone who has trouble standing. Fortunately the pace of change was relatively slow relative to the staff turnover in the affected jobs, so I don't think anyone actually lost their job, it was more a case of fewer ner hires.

Around now, many supermarkets are moving from a pick-from-store model to a "darkstore" one where stock is sourced from a dedicated warehouse. This is more efficient so will require fewer staff - though I expect that overall we're still looking at more than we started with. However there will be fewer of these darkstores than there are supermarkets, so the distance employees have to travel will increase - given the relatively low pay of the jobs involved, some may choose not to travel (they'll probably be entitled to redundancy if the move is over a certain distance) reducing the number employed in some areas and having significant impact on individuals.

I expect at some point in the not too distant future, we'll see these darkstores consolidated into fewer but larger ones with the picking process semi-automated - in other words what has already happened with a lot of non-food retailers. Also, we'll probably see some of the things at SCOs which require assistance to be possible via AI (age-verification by facial recognition?) or remotely (with the assistance button connecting you to a call centre with webcams). Both of these things will result in a decrease in staff, but all this time (and partly driven by the lower costs the last two changes have brought) more customers have switched from to the more labour-intensive channel for their weekly shop, so the overall impact may be nil. However the jobs will now be concentrated in fewer places.​

In the above example, there have been short-term increases and decreases in number of staff required that have balanced out (obviously part of the above is a prediction of the future, so we don't know if this will be correct) in the long term. Similarly jobs have moved from some localities to others - so you could look at this from a local scale and see huge impact or from a national scale and see no change in the long term, though short term increases and decreases.

In the above I've not included any jobs involved in creating and maintaining the automation itself - partly because these jobs don't require you to be physically close to the end customer, and may therefore end up being created in another country. Again, it is important to define what scale we're considering here.

 

[Dave1987]

It does adapt to innovation. Please explain how Port Talbot or Brexit have anything to do with innovation. Please also explain how they'll have a long-term impact on the economy that has anything to do with innovation. I said the government needs to ensure that the transition to new industries is aided and done as painlessly as possible. How is that contradictory? On the other hand, you want to stop innovation altogether, which is deeply damaging to the economy. You also seem to be under impression job losses are the only thing that can damage the economy - I can be concerned about the economy without thinking there's going to be long-term high unemployment.

You're trying to catch me out, but it just makes you look like you don't understand what I'm saying. None of what I've said has contradicted itself unless you assume the ridiculous strawmen you seem to think I'm arguing for. Unfortunately for you, I've actually thought about this for more than 5 minutes.

You're also using "innovation" and "job losses" interchangeably, when the very way society adapts is through innovation creating new jobs. Your sophistry isn't going to work on me.

You said a while back that there are processes in place to assist people who a made redundant by automation. I asked you to detail these but you ignored this. Port Talbot is a great example of how job losses can have a great impact on the economy of a local area. You specifically stated that the economy adapts to job losses through innovation, so I asked how exactly innovation was going to offset the massive job losses at Port Talbot. You failed to answer that.

You have said job losses aren't important as innovation provides new jobs, yet you have said that the Government hasn't over reacted to the Port Talbot crisis. Yet surely by your reckoning all these jobs will be replaced by innovation!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I've been reading this thread for a while, but haven't posted until now, partly because it seems to be more of an argument than a discussion. I think to be able to have a meaningful discussion about the effects of technology on the economy, the question needs to be phrased so as to be very clear about what scale we're considering the impact at - both in terms of time and geography.

To illustrate how the impact can be very different depending on how "zoomed in" we're looking at it, I've thought about Grocery Retail as an example. I work in IT for a retailer, but in non-food; so although I do try to keep up to date with technological developments in grocery, it's not my area of expertise and as such some of the details may not be 100% accurate - I hope my overall point will however remain valid.

20 years ago, almost everyone did their grocery shopping by visiting a store, picking up items themselves, and having them rung up on a cash register by a human being.

From 20-5 years ago, self checkouts (SCOs) became common. This reduced the number of staff required, today you'll often find 1 member of staff looking at 8 SCOs - but the throughput at an SCO may be only half of that at a traditional checkout, so the total number of checkout staff required may be a quarter rather than an eighth.

From 10 years ago until now, online grocery shopping became common. This created a whole load of new jobs to pick stock in the store, and to deliver it to customers.

Overall, the two changes above resulted in a net increase in jobs - however at a local level this won't always be the case: you may see an overall decrease in staff at a city-centre store with an average basket size of 10 items, and an increase in staff at an out of town store; similarly you may see an decrease in less affluent areas where internet shopping has taken off less quickly. Similarly there are some people who are able to do the job of a checkout operator, but not pick & deliver stock - for instance someone who has trouble standing. Fortunately the pace of change was relatively slow relative to the staff turnover in the affected jobs, so I don't think anyone actually lost their job, it was more a case of fewer ner hires.

Around now, many supermarkets are moving from a pick-from-store model to a "darkstore" one where stock is sourced from a dedicated warehouse. This is more efficient so will require fewer staff - though I expect that overall we're still looking at more than we started with. However there will be fewer of these darkstores than there are supermarkets, so the distance employees have to travel will increase - given the relatively low pay of the jobs involved, some may choose not to travel (they'll probably be entitled to redundancy if the move is over a certain distance) reducing the number employed in some areas and having significant impact on individuals.

I expect at some point in the not too distant future, we'll see these darkstores consolidated into fewer but larger ones with the picking process semi-automated - in other words what has already happened with a lot of non-food retailers. Also, we'll probably see some of the things at SCOs which require assistance to be possible via AI (age-verification by facial recognition?) or remotely (with the assistance button connecting you to a call centre with webcams). Both of these things will result in a decrease in staff, but all this time (and partly driven by the lower costs the last two changes have brought) more customers have switched from to the more labour-intensive channel for their weekly shop, so the overall impact may be nil. However the jobs will now be concentrated in fewer places.​

In the above example, there have been short-term increases and decreases in number of staff required that have balanced out (obviously part of the above is a prediction of the future, so we don't know if this will be correct) in the long term. Similarly jobs have moved from some localities to others - so you could look at this from a local scale and see huge impact or from a national scale and see no change in the long term, though short term increases and decreases.

In the above I've not included any jobs involved in creating and maintaining the automation itself - partly because these jobs don't require you to be physically close to the end customer, and may therefore end up being created in another country. Again, it is important to define what scale we're considering here.

So does the net result of the amount of jobs and wages stay the same, decrease or increase?

 

[dcsprior]

So does the net result of the amount of jobs and wages stay the same, decrease or increase?

In the very limited example I have, I already said the net number employed had risen up to now, and would fall back to the starting point in future. I expect average wages will have risen so far (fewer checkout operators, more stick pickers who're paid same as checkout operators and more customer delivery drivers who're paid more) - what happens in future depends to a certain extent on whether audonation affects the higher paid driving jobs more or less than the lower paid stock picking jobs.

But my point was that we need to know the scale of what we're discussing (individual vs local vs national vs global; similarly the time scale) for it to be meaningful.

 

[TheKnightWho]

You said a while back that there are processes in place to assist people who a made redundant by automation. I asked you to detail these but you ignored this. Port Talbot is a great example of how job losses can have a great impact on the economy of a local area. You specifically stated that the economy adapts to job losses through innovation, so I asked how exactly innovation was going to offset the massive job losses at Port Talbot. You failed to answer that.

You have said job losses aren't important as innovation provides new jobs, yet you have said that the Government hasn't over reacted to the Port Talbot crisis. Yet surely by your reckoning all these jobs will be replaced by innovation!

I have literally just said that I think the government should ease the transition into other industries. deltic already pointed out how manufacturing in London has been displaced largely by business - it is these kinds of transitions that mean there is no long-term trend of unemployment. You're asking me to behave like a fortune teller - I don't know what specific jobs will replace those lost in Port Talbot; what I do know is that literally every other major job loss gets offset within 10 years, and that is largely down to innovation. Plus we're all richer for it, too, because we're all more productive and, therefore, wealthier.

If you can't keep track of more than one thing I've said then there's not much I can do, because you're making it literally impossible for me to convey my message to you. No-one else on this thread has had any trouble understanding it.

Try actually reading, digesting and understanding what I'm saying rather than trying to poke holes in it that you come up with on the fly without thinking about anything else I've said.

 

[dcsprior]

I don't know what specific jobs will replace those lost in Port Talbot; what I do know is that literally every other major job loss gets offset within 10 years, and that is largely down to innovation. Plus we're all richer for it, too, because we're all more productive and, therefore, wealthier.

To make the same point as I made to Dave1987, I think the extent to which your bolded text is correct depends on the scope of how we define it: It is not that unlikely that innovation will have failed to drive the replacement of those jobs within 10 years in Port Talbot; it is less likely within Wales; even less likely within the UK; and even less likely globally.

Sent from my LG-H340n using Tapatalk

 

[TheKnightWho]

To make the same point as I made to Dave1987, I think the extent to which your bolded text is correct depends on the scope of how we define it: It is not that unlikely that innovation will have failed to drive the replacement of those jobs within 10 years in Port Talbot; it is less likely within Wales; even less likely within the UK; and even less likely globally.

Sent from my LG-H340n using Tapatalk

Pretty much. Frankly, what I think we're really seeing is a shift of power from traditionally rich countries towards developing ones, and the resultant backlash within the UK, US and other rich nations is a result of us not dominating in the world in the way that we once used to. However, it shouldn't be those who are the worst off that get hardest by that. The government shouldn't drive the country into the ground by retaining uneconomic enterprises and industries, but it should be ensuring that those who are displaced can find good work elsewhere.

 

[radamfi]

I don't think Dave1987 would be satisfied with anything less than communism as practised pre-1989 as he can't tolerate any loss of jobs for any reason. He can't tolerate businesses competing with each other as that might mean the weaker firm cutting jobs or going bust. That also means no company can take on new staff in case it gets too competitive, and in any case everyone will be in a job for life so getting new staff will be a struggle without immigration or an increased birth rate.

 

[Dave1987]

Pretty much. Frankly, what I think we're really seeing is a shift of power from traditionally rich countries towards developing ones, and the resultant backlash within the UK, US and other rich nations is a result of us not dominating in the world in the way that we once used to. However, it shouldn't be those who are the worst off that get hardest by that. The government shouldn't drive the country into the ground by retaining uneconomic enterprises and industries, but it should be ensuring that those who are displaced can find good work elsewhere.

Prey tell exactly how that is happening then?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't think Dave1987 would be satisfied with anything less than communism as practised pre-1989 as he can't tolerate any loss of jobs for any reason. He can't tolerate businesses competing with each other as that might mean the weaker firm cutting jobs or going bust. That also means no company can take on new staff in case it gets too competitive, and in any case everyone will be in a job for life so getting new staff will be a struggle without immigration or an increased birth rate.

Well what I'm actually saying is that the government should be providing incentives for companies to keep as many people in a job as possible. More wages paid out equals more money spent in the economy. Currently companies will take on as few staff as they can possibly get away with with many companies having less staff than they actually need and relying on overtime as it saves them on NI and pension costs. Do you jump for joy when you see massive job losses announced by companies who then announce bumper profits?