Where are the new jobs coming from?

[TheKnightWho]

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.

I've provided no evidence? When your response boils down to "no you!" in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary (there's irony for you) then I have nothing more to say to you.

Your gut feeling is no substitute for anything.

 

[radamfi]

I can understand why Dave1987 is so upset about this because he currently works in a very highly paid job that is at high risk of automation in the medium term. Past experience has shown that people displaced by technology find other things to do, but that's irrelevant to Dave1987 because he says we cannot guarantee 100% that will also apply in the future. As nobody has a crystal ball, it is impossible to prove otherwise. There may be some point in the future where automation does genuinely cause fewer people to be employed. But as it is impossible to ban technological improvement, there's no point moaning about it. The world just has to deal with it regardless.

 

[AlterEgo]

I can understand why Dave1987 is so upset about this because he currently works in a very highly paid job that is at high risk of automation in the medium term. Past experience has shown that people displaced by technology find other things to do, but that's irrelevant to Dave1987 because he says we cannot guarantee 100% that will also apply in the future. As nobody has a crystal ball, it is impossible to prove otherwise. There may be some point in the future where automation does genuinely cause fewer people to be employed. But as it is impossible to ban technological improvement, there's no point moaning about it. The world just has to deal with it regardless.

Nail on head. Time for the lock!

 

[Dave1987]

I can understand why Dave1987 is so upset about this because he currently works in a very highly paid job that is at high risk of automation in the medium term. Past experience has shown that people displaced by technology find other things to do, but that's irrelevant to Dave1987 because he says we cannot guarantee 100% that will also apply in the future. As nobody has a crystal ball, it is impossible to prove otherwise. There may be some point in the future where automation does genuinely cause fewer people to be employed. But as it is impossible to ban technological improvement, there's no point moaning about it. The world just has to deal with it regardless.

Utter nonsense. My job isn't likely to be automated in my career time. I'm concerned for the economy long after I've retired. Automation is likely to start destroying the economy after I have retired.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Nail on head. Time for the lock!

Dear oh dear. Considering im talking 50-100 years in this thread I will be retired by then. Next..........:roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I've provided no evidence? When your response boils down to "no you!" in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary (there's irony for you) then I have nothing more to say to you.

Your gut feeling is no substitute for anything.

And your gut feeling that innovation will provide jobs to replace those that are going to be automated over the next 50-100 years counts for nothing as well. Your "evidence" is merely employment figures for a time where automation hasn't really started to take over in the sectors where the economy relies on which it is starting to do now. Once the generation that wants to be served by humans are six foot under the services sector will no doubt see mega job losses from automation.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Automation is likely to start destroying the economy after I have retired.

Automation won't replace things when it's not economically advantageous. You don't seem to understand economics here.

And your gut feeling that innovation will provide jobs to replace those that are going to be automated over the next 50-100 years counts for nothing as well. Your "evidence" is merely employment figures for a time where automation hasn't really started to take over in the sectors where the economy relies on which it is starting to do now. Once the generation that wants to be served by humans are six foot under the services sector will no doubt see mega job losses from automation.

So the Victorian period and first half of the 20th century saw no advances in automation, did they?

 

[Dave1987]

Automation won't replace things when it's not economically advantageous. You don't seem to understand economics here.

Business is ruthless. If one company can gain a small advantage they will do it even if it eventually results in the demise of their market because of the shrinking of the economy they would still do it. If one person can make a quick buck they will no matter what the consequences of the future. I very much do understand economics. I also understand how ruthless business is.

So the Victorian period and first half of the 20th century saw no advances in automation, did they?

Yes the Victorians saw massive advances in automation. We have no idea what employment levels or wages would have been if there hadn't. I'm betting wages would have been far far higher though. Automation means more people are fighting for less jobs which drives down wages which makes the economy smaller because people have less money to spend. I'm suggesting that as automation takes over more and more there will be less and less jobs available and the economy will shrink.

 

[NSEFAN]

I already said that there are localised issues with job losses, but that this is more than offset.

To be fair, it's not quite so simple (although on a national level, things are okay because new jobs are created). If an entire community depends upon one local industry, which then goes bust/makes most people redundant, that community will suffer greatly.

You and I may have higher-level education so that we can easily find other work, but people who work in such industries as I described typically don't have good education or money. I don't think job market forces are strong enough to force these people to retrain and move, otherwise we wouldn't have such things as "benefits street" parts of the UK. How do we solve this problem?

 

[radamfi]

Utter nonsense. My job isn't likely to be automated in my career time. I'm concerned for the economy long after I've retired. Automation is likely to start destroying the economy after I have retired.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34066941

says that there is a 68% chance of train and tram drivers being automated within 20 years.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Business is ruthless. If one company can gain a small advantage they will do it even if it eventually results in the demise of their market because of the shrinking of the economy they would still do it. If one person can make a quick buck they will no matter what the consequences of the future. I very much do understand economics. I also understand how ruthless business is.

Yes, but you're also forgetting that all of the business they were doing with people they weren't employing can increase, which improves prospects for others, which in turn generates jobs through business being more prosperous. This is what all of the evidence points to.

Yes the Victorians saw massive advances in automation. We have no idea what employment levels or wages would have been if there hadn't. I'm betting wages would have been far far higher though. Automation means more people are fighting for less jobs which drives down wages which makes the economy smaller because people have less money to spend. I'm suggesting that as automation takes over more and more there will be less and less jobs available and the economy will shrink.

So if we still had 18th century technology you think wages would be far, far higher? :roll: I'm at a loss for words. You honestly don't see how inventions like the train, the computer or mass manufacturing have vastly increased prosperity? I thought you said there was near-100% employment in that period anyway?

Nevermind the fact that if we let the job market become complacent that creates stagnation.

 

[Dave1987]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34066941

says that there is a 68% chance of train and tram drivers being automated within 20 years.

Well the reality is that my job is highly unlikely to be automated in my career time. There have been numerous threads on this forum detailing the arguments.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes, but you're also forgetting that all of the business they were doing with people they weren't employing can increase, which improves prospects for others, which in turn generates jobs through business being more prosperous. This is what all of the evidence points to.

You are a student and clearly have a very rose tinted view on business. The truth of the matter is is that the economy doesn't work for a huge amount of people in society and that is only going to get worse as automation takes over.

So if we still had 18th century technology you think wages would be far, far higher? :roll: I'm at a loss for words. You honestly don't see how inventions like the train, the computer or mass manufacturing have vastly increased prosperity? I thought you said there was near-100% employment in that period anyway?

Nevermind the fact that if we let the job market become complacent that creates stagnation.

No that's not what I'm saying at all! And you talk about me twisting things. I simply cannot believe how blaise you are about automation taking over and making people redundant. Yes is happened over the course of history but there has always been a role for the human to play. The future looks set for the human to be completely eliminated from a lot of processes. I'm sure being a student you are going into an industry where you stand only a small chance of being replaced by automation but unless "innovation" can provide millions of new jobs to replace those where the human has been completely replaced then the economy is surely going to dramatically shrink. The more people fighting for less and less jobs the lower wages will be. Back in the 18th century there were many labour intensive industries that relied on its workforce so there would be plenty of jobs otherwise industries wouldn't be able to produce their goods. The future looks set that many industries won't require hardly any workforce (if any at all) to provide their goods and services. Which means less and less jobs in the economy. Yes there may well be new industries created like social media but the economy will definitely need them badly if automation continues at the rate it is.

 

[radamfi]

Dave1987, I think you should give up your train driver job on principle. The massive increase in the use of computers over the last few decades has lead to jobs moving from out of town factories to city centre offices. This trend has helped drive train passenger growth. So if it wasn't for computers, there might not be as many train driver jobs are there are now.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I already said that there are localised issues with job losses, but that this is more than offset.

Offset by what? And where?

Up here in the north east, unemployment is high, much higher than the national average. Jobs in the mines and shipyards and steelworks have gone. Some have been replaced by opencast mining, more with call centre jobs, others by retail work. More jobs again have not been replaced, and will not be replaced.

I don't think we can stand still, lock everything into a time capsule, and nor do I think we should. But automation destroys jobs and destroys communities that relied on industries that are now automated.

The issues may be "localised", but we're talking about cities and regions, not the odd little backwater nobody really cares about. A job created in a shop in London is no use to an ex-miner in Peterlee, is it?

 

[radamfi]

The unemployed rate in the NE is 6.8%, only slightly worse than the land of milk and honey (aka London), at 6.1%

http://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentand...etypes/bulletins/regionallabourmarket/oct2016

 

[Tetchytyke]

The unemployed rate in the NE is 6.8%, only slightly worse than the land of milk and honey (aka London), at 6.1%

The unemployment rate in the north east is almost double that of the unemployment rate in the south east.

 

[radamfi]

The unemployment rate in the north east is almost double that of the unemployment rate in the south east.

Yes, but 6.8% is still a low rate. SE has a *very* low rate. London is supposed to be "where it's at" yet it is not much better than the NE. That indicates that unemployment is more a local thing than a regional thing. There are areas that are particularly disadvantaged, which means that there must be many areas of the NE where there is near full employment in order to make the average only 6.8%.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Yes, but 6.8% is still a low rate.

It's the highest rate in the entire country.

It also doesn't include other people who are "economically inactive" without being unemployed, such as people with significant health problems or caring responsibilities. Of working age adults in the north east, only about 70% are actually employed.

There are areas that are particularly disadvantaged, which means that there must be many areas of the NE where there is near full employment in order to make the average only 6.8%.

The whole of the north east isn't a desolate wasteland, we have two world-class universities, three more half-decent universities, and plenty of businesses.

But even with all this, we still have the highest unemployment rate in the country.

 

[deltic]

It's the highest rate in the entire country.

It also doesn't include other people who are "economically inactive" without being unemployed, such as people with significant health problems or caring responsibilities. Of working age adults in the north east, only about 70% are actually employed.



The whole of the north east isn't a desolate wasteland, we have two world-class universities, three more half-decent universities, and plenty of businesses.

But even with all this, we still have the highest unemployment rate in the country.

Yet the employment rate in the North East is the highest its been in the present series of statistics which go back to 1992

 

[radamfi]

It's the highest rate in the entire country.

Unless everywhere is identical, somewhere has to be "worst".

 

[Greenback]

This thread has clearly run out of steam.

 

[Dave1987]

I've seen a lot of posts on this forum from members asserting that they would rather not see people in what they consider "non jobs", but doing jobs they consider that the economy needs. We have the Government ploughing public money into tech that will put more people out of a job. And we have companies in a relentless race to minimise their wage bills, ditching as many jobs as they can through "modernisation" programs. The question I have for people is where are these new jobs coming to replace all those lost and the hundreds and hundreds that we be lost in the near future?

 

[Bromley boy]

I think it's all quite worrying.

High employment figures mask the fact that a lot of people these days are employed (or increasingly forced to be self employed) in casual, gig-economy type jobs which lack decent pay and job security.

We seem to be on the cusp of a new age where automation - a process that started in the industrial revolution - seems poised to move up a gear and start making serious inroads into traditional semi-skilled and even white collar jobs.

I can't help but think the future is going to be more and more polarised. For the highly educated, good jobs will remain available in tech and the professions for a good while yet (although with AI becoming more and more sophisticated many of these jobs will also be vulnerable to technology in time). Builders and tradespeople will also be around for the foreseeable future.

However it's inevitable that with increasing levels of automation and robotisation, fewer and fewer clerical and manual jobs will be available for the rest to fight over. Let's face it, we are witnessing the start of this process on the railway with the demise of the guards and ticket offices.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I've seen a lot of posts on this forum from members asserting that they would rather not see people in what they consider "non jobs", but doing jobs they consider that the economy needs.

What is a "non job"?

 

[TheEdge]

I've seen a lot of posts on this forum from members asserting that they would rather not see people in what they consider "non jobs", but doing jobs they consider that the economy needs. We have the Government ploughing public money into tech that will put more people out of a job. And we have companies in a relentless race to minimise their wage bills, ditching as many jobs as they can through "modernisation" programs. The question I have for people is where are these new jobs coming to replace all those lost and the hundreds and hundreds that we be lost in the near future?

I asked this months ago and the overwhelming response was "you'll just have to cope/I'm alright Jack" :roll:

A lot of "employed" people really are not, between zero hours contracts and "self employed" the figures are no where near as good as they look.

 

[Bevan Price]

What is a "non job"?

Too many administrators /management types per productive worker ?

 

[RichmondCommu]

Too many administrators /management types per productive worker ?

Who decides whether the ratio is too high? Certainly in the private sector there is a constant drive to reduce costs including cutting out management roles.

 

[bb21]

The question I have for people is where are these new jobs coming to replace all those lost and the hundreds and hundreds that we be lost in the near future?

There is none.

Improved productivity is supposed to bring about shorter working hours, and each person only needing to do half a job to support themselves.

Oh, wait...

 

[Cambus731]

Has there been a discussion on here about the feasibility of having a universal basic unconditional income from the state?

 

[Jordeh]

And we have companies in a relentless race to minimise their wage bills, ditching as many jobs as they can through "modernisation" programs. The question I have for people is where are these new jobs coming to replace all those lost and the hundreds and hundreds that we be lost in the near future?

This has been going on since the luddites and economies have always adapted. Businesses have always tried to be modern and minimise their wage bills, throughout history. Whilst many jobs will no longer be needed, have you considered how new jobs are always being created?

The general trend as everyone's quality of life improves (and that encompasses all of society, being poor today isn't comparable with being poor 30 years ago for instance), people spend more on services and ways to improve their life. For instance in the past people didn't used to get as many haircuts or eat out anywhere near as much as they do now.

Many popular jobs now such as consultants, ICT workers, data analysts, care workers, teaching assistants, personal trainers, baristas, hair dressers, bicycle couriers either didn't exist 30 years ago or were nowhere near as popular as they are now.

 

[yorkie]

I do three jobs; two of these exist due to recent advances in computerised technology.

Only one existed pre-2000ish and that's the job i only do for 10 hours a month, and i only do it because i mostly enjoy it and it's with the same employer as my main job.

Also if it wasn't for advances in technology, this forum wouldn't exist and neither would many of the companies who supply us services and who advertise on here.

Some sense of perspective is needed.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Too many administrators /management types per productive worker ?

Who decides whether the ratio is too high? Certainly in the private sector there is a constant drive to reduce costs including cutting out management roles.

Ideally the ratio should be around 5% in pure administrative and back office functions against 95% productive employees.

The lines blur a bit when you come to public services as they are not "productive" in the normal sense of the word; in those cases the measure should be against the front line staff - but the ratio should hold.

Unfortunately a lot of these organisations have ratios that are far too high compared to the front line staff and that causes inefficiency. A bit of re-organisation within them would result in far more good being done for considerably less expense.