Where are the new jobs coming from?

[Dave1987]

If an industry causes job losses elsewhere it also reduces demand for its own product. These macro-economic phenomena offset each other. Innovation is also offset by innovation elsewhere. You are making the same argument that the Luddites made, and it didn't come true there either. I'm no champion of the free-market, but I at least appreciate the effects that it has. There is absolutely no incentive in business to allow the economy to shrink - look what happened when it did.

Beyond the technological singularity (which we aren't remotely close to achieving), there is absolutely no basis for saying that unemployment is going to rise consistently in the long-term due to innovation. As I said before - it does result in short-term job losses, and the turbulence of the 19th century is a testament to that. However, you might have noticed that after that there was also a period of 1-2% unemployment for 2 decades.

Simply saying "my local bank has lost some jobs recently due to automation" is no reason to lose our heads. Yes, it is possible that eventually everything may be automated - until innovation is automated and no-one wants any human interaction there is no need to worry.

I believe you completely underestimate the markets and big business. We already have people on this very forum who seem to dislike human interaction. Young people today spend most of their time engrossed in mobile devices using their tech for as much as they can. What will happen is that the only people who will have a job are those who are well educated but being a student I'm sure you have no problem with that. But to have a successful economy those at the bottom need to have a decent jobs and a decent wage. If you automate all those jobs that don't require a degree or a very high standard of education the economy will shrink drastically.

Yes, yes it has. Beyond the very simple process of exchanging goods for money, trade is nearly unrecognisable in its current form from even 200 years ago.

No the methods we use to trade have changed massively but the basic principle hasn't. If people don't have jobs to earn money to pay for goods and services then the principals of trade would have to be thrown out as people won't have anything to trade for the goods and services they need.

 

[Tetchytyke]

We understand the argument. We just think it's wrong because history has always had situations like this, and because the unemployment figures don't stack up in your favour.

I'm not so sure the unemployment figures stack up in your favour either, especially if you break them down by region. There has been very high unemployment rates in the north east ever since the deep-level mines were replaced with opencast mines using a large amount of automation. Some new jobs have been created, mostly in call centres and in retail, but it's a shaky argument to say the ex-pitmen are the ones now working in retail or in call centres.

You refer to the Luddites; I'd say what happened to the handloom weavers of the 1780s is an excellent example of what automation does. They still had a job- in the factories- but trying to argue they had the same standard or quality of life is laughable.

People are resilient, by and large, and will get jobs doing what they can do. The problem is that the manual jobs are now done by machines, which minimises that which people who are less academic, shall we say, can do. If you can't read very well and you can't write very well you're not going to last in a call centre or in a shop for very long.

 

[northwichcat]

I'm not so sure the unemployment figures stack up in your favour either, especially if you break them down by region. There has been very high unemployment rates in the north east ever since the deep-level mines were replaced with opencast mines using a large amount of automation. Some new jobs have been created, mostly in call centres and in retail, but it's a shaky argument to say the ex-pitmen are the ones now working in retail or in call centres.

More likely the recent school leavers, especially the female ones, have found it relatively easy to find work in a suitable role than the older male ones who once worked in the mines. School leavers are quite often better qualified to do office work than people 50+ who've never worked in an office, the former have probably been using Excel since they were 11 while some of the latter have possibly never used Excel.

It also gets overlooked that while on average there's more men in work and on average they are on higher wages than women, that the reverse applies for under 32s.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Doesn't really need any evidence.
Take your bank account for example.
A bank isn't going to employ somebody (with the required qualifications, experience and knowledge of the banking system) to sit at a desk somewhere 'just in case' their computer goes down and they can't access their accounts online.

Walk into any medium sized branch of my bank, HSBC and you won't see 5-10 people behind desks conducting transactions with people, you'll see (pardon the pun), banks of machines taking in coins and notes, and giving it out, rows of computers so the customer can look at their accounts online, a couple of telephone lines in case they want to speak to someone and maybe 2 people floorwalking to ensure the machines are working properly and the people using them can do so.

The bank that the organisation I work for had a refurb and got rid of 5 tellers and replaced them with automatic tellers and 2 human tellers to conduct face to face transactions, consequently, the queue is ALWAYS out of the door, unless you get there at the moment the doors open.

The evidence is out there, its already happened

To be fair a "bank branch" is not something I have entered, nor had any desire to enter, since I switched first to a telephone based bank in 1999 (which even back then had very rudimentary view-only Internet banking), and an Internet bank around 2002. (The banks concerned are the Co-operative Bank and their offshoot Smile, though with recent troubles I am considering a move to First Direct).

Cheques are deposited by post, cash just gets spent.

First Direct are one reason HSBC have so many machines. They allow First Direct customers to use the machines to make deposits but not to use the counters. While Martin Lewis keeps telling people how great he thinks First Direct is and that there's an incentive for switching so more and more people are becoming First Direct customers. I tried First Direct and didn't stay with them as I wasn't impressed with the standard of their online communication. Additionally, I opened a current account and was planning to open an ISA as well. However, they dropped the rate of interest on the ISA for new customers between when I opened the current account and them sending me the application form for the ISA - I don't know why an online based bank required a paper form to be filled in!

I've found the HSBC in my town has it's door opens on a Saturday but there's no visible staff so you can go in and use the machines but can't see or talk to any staff.

 

[jon0844]

Don't assume that any profession is immune to technological change...

The legal profession is certainly considered to become a target of automation and utilising AI. That's a lot of well educated and we'll rewarded people potentially out of a job one day.

It absolutely isn't just manual workers that would consider their days numbered.

 

[PeterC]

According to all the forecasts when I was a child we would all be working two hours a week by now.

 

[Dave1987]

First Direct are one reason HSBC have so many machines. They allow First Direct customers to use the machines to make deposits but not to use the counters. While Martin Lewis keeps telling people how great he thinks First Direct is and that there's an incentive for switching so more and more people are becoming First Direct customers. I tried First Direct and didn't stay with them as I wasn't impressed with the standard of their online communication. Plus I also opened a current account and was planning to open an ISA as well but they dropped the rate of interest on the ISA for new customers after I opened the current account but before they sent me the form for the ISA - I don't know why an online based bank required a paper form to be filled in!

I've found the HSBC in my town has it's door opens on a Saturday but there's no visible staff so you can go in and use the machines but can't see or talk to any staff.

My local branch has cut the number of staff dramatically recently replacing them with machines. The queue to be served by the two manned positions is always very long unless you get there early or go later in the day. Was told when I commented on this that head office was trying to get people to use the machines more but they have had so many complaints that they are being forced to hire more to replace the ones that had left and not been replaced.

Well I know that First Direct is a bank to avoid then!

 

[Clip]

My local branch has cut the number of staff dramatically recently replacing them with machines. The queue to be served by the two manned positions is always very long unless you get there early or go later in the day. Was told when I commented on this that head office was trying to get people to use the machines more but they have had so many complaints that they are being forced to hire more to replace the ones that had left and not been replaced.

Well I know that First Direct is a bank to avoid then!

Yet you go into a Metro Bank branch and they are positively swarming with both counter clerks and those sat at other desks to deal with other issues.

And they generally have 2 ATMs in branch too.

 

[ExRes]

First Direct are one reason HSBC have so many machines. They allow First Direct customers to use the machines to make deposits but not to use the counters

I have to disagree with that statement, either I'm a VIP customer without knowing it or numerous HSBC branches have allowed me to use their counters in error, including this very week

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I've found the HSBC in my town has it's door opens on a Saturday but there's no visible staff so you can go in and use the machines but can't see or talk to any staff.

We still have an HSBC bank branch in Wilmslow but my account (from the days when it was the Midland Bank) that was opened over 60 years ago has always been at the main HSBC branch in Manchester. For very many years, this was in King Street, then since then at Corporation Street and finally at the current location of St Ann's Square that has two floors with a good number of staff always available. This branch is in the areas of the quality retail shops and stores.

However, I do not (and never will) use internet banking as the banking industry security levels against bank crime are just not good enough.

 

[LateThanNever]

According to all the forecasts when I was a child we would all be working two hours a week by now.

If you are David Graeber you think that "The ruling class has figured out that a happy and productive population with free time on their hands is a mortal danger" and I'm inclined to agree.
http://evonomics.com/why-capitalism-creates-pointless-jobs-david-graeber/
Every experiment with a Universal Basic Income has improved people's wellbeing and yet it is never widely adopted because people - especially the banks - think either it is not right or they'd lose their power.

 

[Bletchleyite]

However, I do not (and never will) use internet banking as the banking industry security levels against bank crime are just not good enough.

They really are. Telephoning your bank, or indeed discussing matters with a teller in person, are actually far less secure. Writing with an unencrypted letter certainly is.

 

[SteveP29]

However, I do not (and never will) use internet banking as the banking industry security levels against bank crime are just not good enough.

Really?
I registered for Internet Banking when I opened my HSBC account 15 years ago, I've never had a problem with it, never had reason to make complaints or ask about any 'suspicious' transaction (as I've never had any)

 

[northwichcat]

I have to disagree with that statement, either I'm a VIP customer without knowing it or numerous HSBC branches have allowed me to use their counters in error, including this very week

It might be the counters can only be used for certain type of transactions. I seem to recall there was some restrictions on what First Direct customers could do in HSBC branches but it's a couple of years since I looked at the features of the First Direct current account.

However, I do not (and never will) use internet banking as the banking industry security levels against bank crime are just not good enough.

There's more chance of someone illegally getting hold of your details via a Point of Sale machine or Cashpoint than through them getting in to your account via the internet bank. I've found most banks immediately send you a text message if a new payee or a transfer is made via the internet bank so you'd know within seconds if there had been unauthorised activity on your account.

 

[Lad Brookes]

First Direct are one reason HSBC have so many machines. They allow First Direct customers to use the machines to make deposits but not to use the counters. While Martin Lewis keeps telling people how great he thinks First Direct is and that there's an incentive for switching so more and more people are becoming First Direct customers. I tried First Direct and didn't stay with them as I wasn't impressed with the standard of their online communication. Additionally, I opened a current account and was planning to open an ISA as well. However, they dropped the rate of interest on the ISA for new customers between when I opened the current account and them sending me the application form for the ISA - I don't know why an online based bank required a paper form to be filled in!

I've found the HSBC in my town has it's door opens on a Saturday but there's no visible staff so you can go in and use the machines but can't see or talk to any staff.

That's not my experience. I've been with First Direct for about 8 years, and have had only a couple of very minor issues with them. I only need to enter a branch a few times a year (the last occasion was quite recent though), and have had no problems using the counter at the HSBC branch near where I work.

That branch, incidentally, ripped out the traditional bank interior a few years ago, and replaced it with two counters and countless machines, with a couple of members of staff walking the floor. Since then, I have typically been served much more quickly.

 

[LateThanNever]

They really are. Telephoning your bank, or indeed discussing matters with a teller in person, are actually far less secure. Writing with an unencrypted letter certainly is.

That's probably true but with internet banking the bank is able to put the onus for error on the operator ie the customer. With other systems there is much less opportunity for that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's probably true but with internet banking the bank is able to put the onus for error on the operator ie the customer. With other systems there is much less opportunity for that.

Well, check what you are doing and double-check it, then

 

[northwichcat]

That's probably true but with internet banking the bank is able to put the onus for error on the operator ie the customer. With other systems there is much less opportunity for that.

I was once on a train where someone loudly gave their debit/credit card details on the phone. I'm pretty sure if someone wrote those down and used them fraudulently the issuer could blame for the customer for not keeping their details secure.

One bank recently phoned me at a time I was unavailable and asked me to phone them back without leaving a number so I had to go on to the website to find the bank's number - probably that wasn't by accident and was to get customers in to the habit of looking for the bank's number themselves to prevent scams.

 

[Dave1987]

That's not my experience. I've been with First Direct for about 8 years, and have had only a couple of very minor issues with them. I only need to enter a branch a few times a year (the last occasion was quite recent though), and have had no problems using the counter at the HSBC branch near where I work.

That branch, incidentally, ripped out the traditional bank interior a few years ago, and replaced it with two counters and countless machines, with a couple of members of staff walking the floor. Since then, I have typically been served much more quickly.

I'm curious as to whether you were served more quickly at the two counters or compelled to use a machine? When I went to my local branch and waited a very long time to be served by human at the counter I was repeatedly asked if I wanted to use a machine which I refused (I go into my branch to be served by a human and not a machine). If everyone starts using the machines in banks all the time then the bank staff will all be got rid of and yet more jobs will be lost from the economy. Multiply that across the board with various industries and that's thousands and thousands of jobs lost from the economy.

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm curious as to whether you were served more quickly at the two counters or compelled to use a machine? When I went to my local branch and waited a very long time to be served by human at the counter I was repeatedly asked if I wanted to use a machine which I refused (I go into my branch to be served by a human and not a machine). If everyone starts using the machines in banks all the time then the bank staff will all be got rid of and yet more jobs will be lost from the economy. Multiply that across the board with various industries and that's thousands and thousands of jobs lost from the economy.

Do you think there should still be a change office in general stores, where the cashier would pop your money in a little wooden ball and send it upstairs?

That's two people employed instead of one. Hooray.

Or maybe we should go back to having to use an operator to connect telephone calls?

 

[Dave1987]

Do you think there should still be a change office in general stores, where the cashier would pop your money in a little wooden ball and send it upstairs?

That's two people employed instead of one. Hooray.

Or maybe we should go back to having to use an operator to connect telephone calls?

Or maybe we should automate everything we possibly can so there are so few jobs that wages are as low as possible? So no one has any money to spend so the economy shrinks. Would rather have a plentiful supply of jobs, decent wages and a thriving economy.

 

[AlterEgo]

Or maybe we should automate everything we possibly can so there are so few jobs that wages are as low as possible? So no one has any money to spend so the economy shrinks. Would rather have a plentiful supply of jobs, decent wages and a thriving economy.

No, how about you answer the question - which is really "why should we actively fight against technological progress just because?"

Seriously, would you rather we employed people to calculate your change rather than a till? This would definitely mean more jobs...

 

[yorksrob]

No, how about you answer the question - which is really "why should we actively fight against technological progress just because?"

Seriously, would you rather we employed people to calculate your change rather than a till? This would definitely mean more jobs...

A lot of the technological "progress" seems to have reduced employment and made the customer experience worse.

Thinking of McDonalds queueing system which often only has one person on the tills taking cash, and supermarkets, which try to push you towards self service, even though you're going to need to get authority from the overstretched supervisor who's got ten other customers to deal with because you've got booze.

I also loathe doing transactions over the internet, not least because of the suspicion that everything will grind to a halt just at the point when you don't know whether it's gone through or not.

 

[deltic]

But the proportion of people in work is at its highest ever - technology has been destroying and creating jobs since the wheel was invented. Rather ironic to quote supermarkets and McDonalds as they displaced more labour intensive shops and restaurants. Higher productivity means we can afford to buy things that our parents and grand parents could only have dreamed off.

 

[yorksrob]

But the proportion of people in work is at its highest ever - technology has been destroying and creating jobs since the wheel was invented. Rather ironic to quote supermarkets and McDonalds as they displaced more labour intensive shops and restaurants. Higher productivity means we can afford to buy things that our parents and grand parents could only have dreamed off.

That has bee fine up until now as the trend has been for lower skilled employment to be replaced by higher skilled.

All bets are off when the computers take over highly skilled work. Remember all the skilled craftsmen who got shunted into the mills and factories during the industrial revolution.

 

[deltic]

But average wage rates increased - improvements in automation means more people benefit- there are billions worldwide that technology is taking out of poverty at a faster rate than has ever been achieved in history.

 

[yorksrob]

But average wage rates increased - improvements in automation means more people benefit- there are billions worldwide that technology is taking out of poverty at a faster rate than has ever been achieved in history.

That's reliant on there being more sophisticated activities that the majority of people can move on to. The problems will arise when technology moves into even these areas and people won't be able to keep up.

If even surgeons jobs can be taken over, there's little hope for the majority who aren't as skilled as surgeons, and computers will become the curse of mankind.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A lot of the technological "progress" seems to have reduced employment and made the customer experience worse.

Thinking of McDonalds queueing system which often only has one person on the tills taking cash, and supermarkets, which try to push you towards self service, even though you're going to need to get authority from the overstretched supervisor who's got ten other customers to deal with because you've got booze.

I prefer the new McD's system. You get your order in nice and quickly, then you wait until your number is called. No having to choose a queue, no jostling for position, no having to wait awkwardly by the counter for your food. A real improvement, which when combined with cooking more items fresh to me is a real gain.

I don't even know if they have reduced staffing. They may well not have done - cook to order requires more kitchen staff.

I also loathe doing transactions over the internet, not least because of the suspicion that everything will grind to a halt just at the point when you don't know whether it's gone through or not.

I find online services really good, myself. I can do things whenever I want, at the pace I want. I can compare items and suppliers without pressure. I can keep a copy of a product to show to someone else. I can see what others think of a product or supplier. I can easily track what is happening. And (and to me this is good for society) the barrier to entry for small suppliers is tiny - if I wanted to set up a business with global reach I could do it tomorrow. I remember when I was a kid writing some pieces of software but not really having a way to market them. Nowadays I could be making money out of them hours after having finished.

To me the "bad" time was that between the old-fashioned approach and the modern Internet approach we had in the 1990s - poor quality mass call centres etc. NRES was one of the best examples. Yet now who needs to call NRES? Just search online. You can't deny that is better.

It has provided huge opportunity, particularly to the little guy.

 

[yorksrob]

But average wage rates increased - improvements in automation means more people benefit- there are billions worldwide that technology is taking out of poverty at a faster rate than has ever been achieved in history.

I prefer the new McD's system. You get your order in nice and quickly, then you wait until your number is called. No having to choose a queue, no jostling for position, no having to wait awkwardly by the counter for your food. A real improvement, which when combined with cooking more items fresh to me is a real gain.

I don't even know if they have reduced staffing. They may well not have done - cook to order requires more kitchen staff.



I find online services really good, myself. I can do things whenever I want, at the pace I want. I can compare items and suppliers without pressure. I can keep a copy of a product to show to someone else. I can see what others think of a product or supplier. I can easily track what is happening. And (and to me this is good for society) the barrier to entry for small suppliers is tiny - if I wanted to set up a business with global reach I could do it tomorrow. I remember when I was a kid writing some pieces of software but not really having a way to market them. Nowadays I could be making money out of them hours after having finished.

To me the "bad" time was that between the old-fashioned approach and the modern Internet approach we had in the 1990s - poor quality mass call centres etc. NRES was one of the best examples. Yet now who needs to call NRES? Just search online. You can't deny that is better.

It has provided huge opportunity, particularly to the little guy.

I remember calling national rail enquiries back when they were UK based and they were fine. When they were outsourced, they struggled a bit, but nowadays the NRE website seems to have gone downhill a lot of the time.

 

[Dave1987]

But average wage rates increased - improvements in automation means more people benefit- there are billions worldwide that technology is taking out of poverty at a faster rate than has ever been achieved in history.

In developing countries yes technology has enabled mass job creation because they were years behind the developed world. We are now getting to a stage where jobs are being lost a big rate because of automation, with computers and automated machines replacing many many jobs in various industries. All those jobs losses are less wages into the economy. I would challenge anyone who believes automation is good for the economy to show where the jobs are coming from to provide employment to those who have been replaced by automation. The less people who are employed means the economy shrinks!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I'm curious as to whether you were served more quickly at the two counters or compelled to use a machine? When I went to my local branch and waited a very long time to be served by human at the counter I was repeatedly asked if I wanted to use a machine which I refused (I go into my branch to be served by a human and not a machine). If everyone starts using the machines in banks all the time then the bank staff will all be got rid of and yet more jobs will be lost from the economy. Multiply that across the board with various industries and that's thousands and thousands of jobs lost from the economy.

There remains a counter on the first floor of my bank with staff only too pleased to offer the once-traditional service. Perhaps being the main branch in Manchester may well have had something to do with this.