Where are the new jobs coming from?

[TheKnightWho]

Prey tell exactly how that is happening then?

Am I to blame if the current government is cr*p? Blame them, not the unstoppable force of innovation.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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?

As has been said tens of times before, there is no issue unless the unemployment rate goes above normal levels and looks set to stay there. Who cares if some companies employ fewer than they did 30 years ago when others employ far more, or exist where they couldn't before?

You are literally just ignoring the evidence because it's inconvenient to you.

 

[Dave1987]

Am I to blame if the current government is cr*p? Blame them, not the unstoppable force of innovation.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


As has been said tens of times before, there is no issue unless the unemployment rate goes above normal levels and looks set to stay there. Who cares if some companies employ fewer than they did 30 years ago when others employ far more, or exist where they couldn't before?

You are literally just ignoring the evidence because it's inconvenient to you.

You said that there were processes in place to assist people who have been replaced by automation back into work, I asked you to detail them, you haven't so clearly that complete bull.

As automation slowly takes over more and more, and more aggressively in base level jobs then unless your innovation can provide jobs at a greater rate than they are being replaced then the economy will eventually collapse. I see that 1800 jobs are being lost at Fujitsu, and not because of Bexit. But I'm sure you are positively gleefull at that because productivity is being maximised, even though that's another 1800 wage packets lost from the local economy.

 

[tony_mac]

But I'm sure you are positively gleefull at that because productivity is being maximised, even though that's another 1800 wage packets lost from the local economy.

Why are you saying things like that?

Do you have any reason to believe that he is particularly malicious? Because I haven't seen any evidence of that.

 

[Railops]

Why are you saying things like that?

Do you have any reason to believe that he is particularly malicious? Because I haven't seen any evidence of that.

I presume you're being very sarcastic because the poster in question who floats in a massive superiority bubble has managed to offend so many people that hardly anybody will engage with him anymore.

 

[tony_mac]

No, I wasn't being sarcastic.
I have seen no evidence that he is malicious - have you?

 

[Dave1987]

Why are you saying things like that?

Do you have any reason to believe that he is particularly malicious? Because I haven't seen any evidence of that.

You only have to read the tone of his posts to realise that he sees people losing their jobs as "progress". It certainly doesn't seem to concern him when jobs are lost in the economy. I'm sure the 1800 people about to be made redundant by Fujitsu because of their automation drive certainly won't see it as progress, nor will the surrounding economies that rely on those jobs spending money in the local economy.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You only have to read the tone of his posts to realise that he sees people losing their jobs as "progress".

It *is*.

Some jobs go, some new ones come along. People have to be flexible or we will never go anywhere as a society.

 

[AlterEgo]

You only have to read the tone of his posts to realise that he sees people losing their jobs as "progress". It certainly doesn't seem to concern him when jobs are lost in the economy. I'm sure the 1800 people about to be made redundant by Fujitsu because of their automation drive certainly won't see it as progress, nor will the surrounding economies that rely on those jobs spending money in the local economy.

Because that is a very short term view.

I'm afraid that jobs come and go all the time. That is life, and also progress.

You have your job as a train driver because people on canals and stagecoaches lost theirs after the mid-1800s.

 

[Dave1987]

It *is*.

Some jobs go, some new ones come along. People have to be flexible or we will never go anywhere as a society.

What on earth do you mean by that? Ok where are those 1800 people going to find employment then? Plus the 100's more that will go in the local economy as a result of less money being spent. Where are the jobs for them to go to? You class these 1800+ job losses as progress?

 

[tony_mac]

It certainly doesn't seem to concern him when jobs are lost in the economy.

I see no evidence of that.

He has said he believes that, in the long term, jobs will recover.
That is a million miles away from being delighted that jobs are being lost - as you claimed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What on earth do you mean by that? Ok where are those 1800 people going to find employment then? Plus the 100's more that will go in the local economy as a result of less money being spent. Where are the jobs for them to go to? You class these 1800+ job losses as progress?

The job losses aren't progress, but they result from progress.

Where are they going to find employment? I don't know, where there *is* employment. Some will be local, some not.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I presume you're being very sarcastic because the poster in question who floats in a massive superiority bubble has managed to offend so many people that hardly anybody will engage with him anymore.

No, that would be you, who gets offended by pretty much anyone who disagrees with him. You're a seriously special snowflake, and just as delicate. The vast majority of people on this forum are perfectly able to have a civil conversation with me (and do).

Pretty much the entirety of your contributions to this forum have been personal attacks against me or crowing about your political views. The only reason I haven't reported you for your clearly targeted personal attacks is because I can't be bothered.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What on earth do you mean by that? Ok where are those 1800 people going to find employment then? Plus the 100's more that will go in the local economy as a result of less money being spent. Where are the jobs for them to go to? You class these 1800+ job losses as progress?

New office jobs? There are plenty being created all the time.

Why is that such a problem for you?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You have your job as a train driver because people on canals and stagecoaches lost theirs after the mid-1800s.

But of course that doesn't count, because Dave1987 seems to think that until the 1970s everything was static in society and there was also full employment (even though the stats say otherwise).

 

[deltic]

You said that there were processes in place to assist people who have been replaced by automation back into work, I asked you to detail them, you haven't so clearly that complete bull.

As automation slowly takes over more and more, and more aggressively in base level jobs then unless your innovation can provide jobs at a greater rate than they are being replaced then the economy will eventually collapse. I see that 1800 jobs are being lost at Fujitsu, and not because of Bexit. But I'm sure you are positively gleefull at that because productivity is being maximised, even though that's another 1800 wage packets lost from the local economy.

Jobcentre Rapid Response Service deals with large scale job losses - as has frequently been stated a higher proportion of people are in work in the UK than ever before. High levels of productivity generate high wages - the UK is a low productivity economy in terms of the developed world which is one reason why wages are low. However, low wages and relaxed labour laws means we have more jobs.

Technology creates and destroys jobs and on the whole it makes them safer and easier. Jobs loses at Fujitsu are for a number of reasons - mainly globalisation - which has also taken billions of people out of poverty.

 

[Harbornite]

You only have to read the tone of his posts to realise that he sees people losing their jobs as "progress".

By that logic, no one should ever lose their job so for example, coal miners shouldn't ever be laid off, even if the coal seam runs out or becomes unworkable. Good logic there. :roll:

 

[Harbornite]

No, that would be you, who gets offended by pretty much anyone who disagrees with him. You're a seriously special snowflake, and just as delicate. The vast majority of people on this forum are perfectly able to have a civil conversation with me (and do).

Pretty much the entirety of your contributions to this forum have been personal attacks against me or crowing about your political views. The only reason I haven't reported you for your clearly targeted personal attacks is because I can't be bothered.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


New office jobs? There are plenty being created all the time.

Why is that such a problem for you?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


But of course that doesn't count, because Dave1987 seems to think that until the 1970s everything was static in society and there was also full employment (even though the stats say otherwise).

Very true. Continuing the mining example, it's not as if colleries were ever closed in the 1950s and 60s in the name of mechanisation and modernisation...

 

[Dave1987]

I see no evidence of that.

He has said he believes that, in the long term, jobs will recover.
That is a million miles away from being delighted that jobs are being lost - as you claimed.

I see a very blaise attitude to job losses, in fact I see someone who seems to actively want more job losses from more and more automation.

 

[J-2739]

I see a very blaise attitude to job losses, in fact I see someone who seems to actively want more job losses from more and more automation.

Are you also aware of the many new skills and technologies that would be created in the far future, thus creating new jobs?

 

[Dave1987]

The job losses aren't progress, but they result from progress.

Where are they going to find employment? I don't know, where there *is* employment. Some will be local, some not.

What an awful attitude to have. That's exactly what has caused our entire nation to become totally London centric.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

New office jobs? There are plenty being created all the time.

Why is that such a problem for you?

Haha most of those are being automated now, and in the future most clerical work will be automated........ next.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Are you also aware of the many new skills and technologies that would be created in the far future, thus creating new jobs?

I'm looking at what has been created in the last decade or so and most have been poorly paid service jobs that are the first to go when the economy shrinks and the first to be automated when possible to do so.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I see a very blaise attitude to job losses, in fact I see someone who seems to actively want more job losses from more and more automation.

No. Stop making things up.

Automation is good, but you seem to have this idea that job creation is impossible even though all evidence points to the contrary. A classic example of "if I can't understand it it must be impossible".
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Haha most of those are being automated now, and in the future most clerical work will be automated........ next.

Why are office jobs rising in number then?

The long-term future is irrelevant - you say I can't predict the future, but then seem to think you have a crystal ball of destitute unemployment. You don't. What matters is actual evidence, which clearly shows that I'm right and you're not.

 

[J-2739]

I'm looking at what has been created in the last decade or so and most have been poorly paid service jobs that are the first to go when the economy shrinks and the first to be automated when possible to do so.

Ok, but the point I'm trying to make is that even with the vast automation we are seeing, the amount of people actually working as a whole has not gone the negative side. In fact, it must have been positive as the jobs we don't want to do can go to automation and heavy duty jobs like a dentist would find more people earning skills in them. That's ignoring the amount of new jobs in new industries.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I'm looking at what has been created in the last decade or so and most have been poorly paid service jobs that are the first to go when the economy shrinks and the first to be automated when possible to do so.

What evidence do you have for that assertion? It appears to be somewhat contradicted by the statistics deltic posted earlier for jobs created in the 5 years to 2015:

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

45200 : Maintenance and repair of motor vehicles 33,000
69201 : Accounting, and auditing activities 33,000
87300 : Residential care activities for the elderly and disabled 33,000
68310 : Real estate agencies 34,000
85200 : Primary education 34,000
87900 : Other residential care activities 34,000
73110 : Advertising agencies 35,000
82200 : Activities of call centres 35,000
87100 : Residential nursing care activities 38,000
85310 : General secondary education 41,000
55100 : Hotels and similar accommodation 54,000
47910 : Retail sale via mail order houses or via Internet 56,000
62012 : Business and domestic software development 58,000
69202 : Bookkeeping activities 60,000
86900 : Other human health activities 63,000
81100 : Combined facilities support activities 65,000
62020 : Computer consultancy activities 75,000
82990 : Other business support service activities nec 79,000
52103 : Operation of warehousing and storage facilities for land transport activities of division 49 80,000
56101 : Licensed restaurants 83,000
56102 : Unlicensed restaurants and cafes 83,000
88100 : Social work activities without accommodation for the elderly and disabled 88,000
70100 : Activities of head offices 90,000
70229 : Management consultancy activities (other than financial management) 92,000
56290 : Other food service activities 94,000
86101 : Hospital activities 115,000
78200 : Temporary employment agency activities 157,000

Those statistics are not broken down by salary, but looking at the industries in which the most jobs have been created, they don't seem to fit your description. Most of those look to me like industries that you'd expect to be relatively highly paid. Some (residential care, hospital activities, etc.) are likely to be badly paid - but that's more to do with Govt support for health care, nothing to do with technology - and I also would not expect those to be too susceptible to economic downturns. Looking through the list, the only one I can see that comes close to matching your description of 'poorly paid service jobs that are the first to go when the economy shrinks' are 'temporary employment agency activities', and restaurant and food service activities - and between them, those appear to account for only a minority of jobs created.

(Proviso: I'm not sure where deltic got those stats from, so I don't know how reliable they are. deltic?)

 

[deltic]

[QUOTE

(Proviso: I'm not sure where deltic got those stats from, so I don't know how reliable they are. deltic?)[/QUOTE]

The data comes from the annual Office of National Statistics Business Register and Employment Survey - so unless you are a conspiracy theorist its the most reliable data source available

 

[Bletchleyite]

What an awful attitude to have. That's exactly what has caused our entire nation to become totally London centric.

The UK has been London-centric for years.

The other answer, of course, is to set up your own business!

 

[Dave1987]

The UK has been London-centric for years.

The other answer, of course, is to set up your own business!

Some of your posts a just laughable. You your expect someone who has worked in a bank for the last 25 years to just set up their own business?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No. Stop making things up.

Automation is good, but you seem to have this idea that job creation is impossible even though all evidence points to the contrary. A classic example of "if I can't understand it it must be impossible".

So you must clearly believe that those 1800+ job losses are all good. Maybe even feel very pleased when you hear about redundancies due to automation.

Why are office jobs rising in number then?

The long-term future is irrelevant - you say I can't predict the future, but then seem to think you have a crystal ball of destitute unemployment. You don't. What matters is actual evidence, which clearly shows that I'm right and you're not.

Ow I'm sure all those office jobs will be automated in the future. The long term future is very very relevant. Lots of people in this country still have 20+ years on their mortgage to go.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ok, but the point I'm trying to make is that even with the vast automation we are seeing, the amount of people actually working as a whole has not gone the negative side. In fact, it must have been positive as the jobs we don't want to do can go to automation and heavy duty jobs like a dentist would find more people earning skills in them. That's ignoring the amount of new jobs in new industries.

Currently I don't believe we are at the point where automation can cause real harm....yet! We still have people who wish to be served by an actual person in a shop or bank, people who still wish to use a ticket office rather than use a machine etc etc. Once we get to a stage where people are happy to just be served by machines constantly and aren't bother about having any kind of human interaction except through a smart phone or computer I believe that is when automation will really start to bite the economy.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Those statistics are not broken down by salary, but looking at the industries in which the most jobs have been created, they don't seem to fit your description. Most of those look to me like industries that you'd expect to be relatively highly paid. Some (residential care, hospital activities, etc.) are likely to be badly paid - but that's more to do with Govt support for health care, nothing to do with technology - and I also would not expect those to be too susceptible to economic downturns. Looking through the list, the only one I can see that comes close to matching your description of 'poorly paid service jobs that are the first to go when the economy shrinks' are 'temporary employment agency activities', and restaurant and food service activities - and between them, those appear to account for only a minority of jobs created.

(Proviso: I'm not sure where deltic got those stats from, so I don't know how reliable they are. deltic?)

As far as I can see at least half that list is poorly paid and very susceptible to economic growth/decline.

 

[TheKnightWho]

So you must clearly believe that those 1800+ job losses are all good. Maybe even feel very pleased when you hear about redundancies due to automation.

This is about as good an argument as those who think supporting Bremain is treasonous. If you equate anything I say with your conclusion you can come up with whatever you like.

It's very obvious you have absolutely no interest in real discussion, and have a huge chip on your shoulder about something. I'm not interested in talking with you anymore until you're willing to have an adult conversation and at least attempt to understand where I'm coming from.

 

[Dave1987]

This is about as good an argument as those who think supporting Bremain is treasonous. If you equate anything I say with your conclusion you can come up with whatever you like.

It's very obvious you have absolutely no interest in real discussion, and have a huge chip on your shoulder about something. I'm not interested in talking with you anymore until you're willing to have an adult conversation and at least attempt to understand where I'm coming from.

Ow I understand exactly where you are coming from. And I'm perfectly happy to have an adult conversation. I don't have a 'chip on my shoulder' about anything. It takes two to tango and you refused to acknowledge the problems caused by redundancies which are caused by automation taking over. Your posts sounded callus and heartless, basically making it seem like you thought anyone who is made redundant by automation should shut up and get on with it. So you refuse to acknowledge my argument and then have the cheek to accuse me of not attempting to understand where you are coming from. Double standards..............

 

[TheKnightWho]

Ow I understand exactly where you are coming from. And I'm perfectly happy to have an adult conversation. I don't have a 'chip on my shoulder' about anything. It takes two to tango and you refused to acknowledge the problems caused by redundancies which are caused by automation taking over. Your posts sounded callus and heartless, basically making it seem like you thought anyone who is made redundant by automation should shut up and get on with it. So you refuse to acknowledge my argument and then have the cheek to accuse me of not attempting to understand where you are coming from. Double standards..............

No you don't. You twist everything I say to fit your obvious agenda. I'm no longer interested in this conversation until you begin to try and understand why I believe what I do.

I have acknowledged the issues, but was shouted down by you constantly saying "but that can be automated". Not to mention the fact that you think your gut instinct can override statistics. Total arrogance.

 

[Dave1987]

No you don't. You twist everything I say to fit your obvious agenda. I'm no longer interested in this conversation until you begin to try and understand why I believe what I do.

I have acknowledged the issues, but was shouted down by you constantly saying "but that can be automated". Not to mention the fact that you think your gut instinct can override statistics. Total arrogance.

No you haven't acknowledged any issues what so ever. Saying repeatedly that automation is good and that innovation will provide all the jobs the economy needs. You have never once acknowledged the impact that job losses from automation have on the economy or peoples livelihoods continually professing that automation is good. Then when we have one prime example come up of automation causing serious job losses you say I'm twisting things when I ask if you are happy about all those jobs being lost. You refuse to acknowledge that automation has a serious impact on the economy and then claim I'm not willing to accept your arguments. Like it said double standards end of.

 

[TheKnightWho]

No you haven't acknowledged any issues what so ever. Saying repeatedly that automation is good and that innovation will provide all the jobs the economy needs. You have never once acknowledged the impact that job losses from automation have on the economy or peoples livelihoods continually professing that automation is good. Then when we have one prime example come up of automation causing serious job losses you say I'm twisting things when I ask if you are happy about all those jobs being lost. You refuse to acknowledge that automation has a serious impact on the economy and then claim I'm not willing to accept your arguments. Like it said double standards end of.

Have you actually read anything I've written? You're a Luddite and nothing more. Go back to the 18th century, because it's obvious you're not interested in a discussion so much as being right at all costs.

I already said that there are localised issues with job losses, but that this is more than offset. On the other hand, you rave about how any evidence presented against you is flawed without ever actually providing evidence.

 

[Dave1987]

Have you actually read anything I've written? You're a Luddite and nothing more. Go back to the 18th century, because it's obvious you're not interested in a discussion so much as being right at all costs.

I already said that there are localised issues with job losses, but that this is more than offset. On the other hand, you rave about how any evidence presented against you is flawed without ever actually providing evidence.

Yup I've read every post. Thanks for another insult by the way. I could say exactly the same about you. Of you cannot post without insulting me than I'm not even going to bother reading what you have to say.