Where are the new jobs coming from?

[Dave1987]

And where is your evidence beyond a gut feeling? Like I said said time and again "it's obvious" isn't an argument.

Inventions like the internet were inconceivable 50 years ago - in its current form it was inconceivable 20 years ago. Why are you so confident new things won't come alone?

My statistics have shown that, through history, new jobs have been created despite almost all previous jobs being displaced. Defining yourself to be correct by simply saying "well, it'll happen after your statistics say it will" is, frankly, b*llocks.

Stem cell research, nanotechnology, biochemical engineering, robotics, AI, renewable energy, consultancy, urban farming, senior care, 3D printing are, off the top of my head, all things that will see vastly increased demand in the upcoming years. And that's only a small section of what I could think of right now. I bet you didn't even know that half of those existed, nevermind that they will become hugely prominent in the upcoming decades.

Why don't you just admit that you don't like things changing and be done with it? The economy is not doomed - be happy.

Most of which require people with a PhD or similar level degree. I've heard of all of them thanks. Stop trying to make me out to be a simpleton, just like you told me not to make judgements about you, don't make judgements about me. None of them will provide the mass employment for people who aren't academically gifted to study at degree level. For a thriving economy you need plenty of jobs at all levels of the economy from those who have PhD's all the down to people who only managed basic GCSE's. I can definitely see an economy of mass unemployment for the less well educated in society when automation takes over the jobs they have done for many years.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Most of which require people with a PhD or similar level degree. I've heard of all of them thanks. Stop trying to make me out to be a simpleton, just like you told me not to make judgements about you, don't make judgements about me. None of them will provide the mass employment for people who aren't academically gifted to study at degree level. For a thriving economy you need plenty of jobs at all levels of the economy from those who have PhD's all the down to people who only managed basic GCSE's. I can definitely see an economy of mass unemployment for the less well educated in society.

No they don't - not the support work around them. Do you know anything about those industries at all?

And given the number of people with degrees is always increasing...

 

[Dave1987]

No they don't - not the support work around them. Do you know anything about those industries at all?

And given the number of people with degrees is always increasing...

So you are telling me someone with basic low level GCSE grades will be working in stem cell research in the future? That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. What about the people who aren't academically gifted to study at degree level? Just leave them in the gutter to rot because you've automated any jobs they could have done previously?

 

[deltic]

One of the biggest growing sectors which is very hard to fully automate is social welfare for which demand will continue to grow with an aging population.

 

[47802]

So you are telling me someone with basic low level GCSE grades will be working in stem cell research in the future? That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. What about the people who aren't academically gifted to study at degree level? Just leave them in the gutter to rot because you've automated any jobs they could have done previously?

Indeed and is it not the case that there are many people both skilled and unskilled that are struggling in Low paid and Part Time/Self Employed Jobs NOW because many Traditional well paid jobs have gone.

Then you've got many other countries which will be vying for the advanced technology work.

 

[Dave1987]

One of the biggest growing sectors which is very hard to fully automate is social welfare for which demand will continue to grow with an aging population.

Indeed but that is never going to provide enough employment to cover for all the job losses that are going to occur. It is also very poorly paid so the economy would shrink.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Indeed and is it not the case that there are many people both skilled and unskilled that are struggling in Low paid and Part Time/Self Employed Jobs NOW because many Traditional well paid jobs have gone.

Then you've got many other countries which will be vying for the advanced technology work.

Indeed, and with the competition prices will drop, then wages will drop and the economy will shrink.

 

[radamfi]

Technological change will happen regardless so worrying whether technology is bad for employment is moot. Unless you plan to make research illegal. Society needs to manage the implications whether they are good or bad.

If you assume total automation where robots can do everything that humans can do, so that they can fix themselves and can even replace prostitutes then that may not be a bad thing. There will be no economy but there will also be no need for money. The only reason why money is needed today is because humans need to be paid.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

No they don't - not the support work around them. Do you know anything about those industries at all?

And given the number of people with degrees is always increasing...

So you are telling me someone with basic low level GCSE grades will be working in stem cell research in the future? That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. What about the people who aren't academically gifted to study at degree level? Just leave them in the gutter to rot because you've automated any jobs they could have done previously?

There's a serious misunderstanding here.

It just happens that yesterday, I was at an advanced biological research facility. I had time to chat to some of the personnel. There were admin people, lab technicians, security staff, cleaners, catering teams, building maintenance, contracted electricians, plumbers and HVAC workers, specialist advisors, van drivers and just a few very highly qualified specialist academics.

TheKnightWho specifically stated "not the support work around them", and you reply that this is "one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard". It is exactly the basis of employment in which advanced technology works - like old tech, like public sector work, like finance, like railways.

A specialised industry needs a large number of unspecialised staff. That is not 'ridiculous'.

. . . Stop trying to make me out to be a simpleton, just like you told me not to make judgements about you, . . . .

It never advances a debate to confuse criticism of the evidence with criticism of the person.

 

[Dave1987]

There's a serious misunderstanding here.

It just happens that yesterday, I was at an advanced biological research facility. I had time to chat to some of the personnel. There were admin people, lab technicians, security staff, cleaners, catering teams, building maintenance, contracted electricians, plumbers and HVAC workers, specialist advisors, van drivers and just a few very highly qualified specialist academics.

TheKnightWho specifically stated "not the support work around them", and you reply that this is "one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard". It is exactly the basis of employment in which advanced technology works - like old tech, like public sector work, like finance, like railways.

A specialised industry needs a large number of unspecialised staff. That is not 'ridiculous'.

It never advances a debate to confuse criticism of the evidence with criticism of the person.

All of which will no doubt be automated jobs in the future. And that's the point the fact that the lesser skilled jobs are being automated in a relentless pursuit of cost reduction which will result in the economy shrinking. In 50-100 years time automation will no doubt have got to a stage where all but the most skilled jobs are automated. And that's where economic collapse is a real possibility if the economy still relies on currency and trade.

We are already seeing the start of the automation leading to job losses and it's only going to get worse over the coming decades.

 

[radamfi]

We are already seeing the start of the automation leading to job losses and it's only going to get worse over the coming decades.

If we assume that new technology no longer creates jobs like in the past but causes net unemployment instead, what can we realistically do about it?

 

[Dave1987]

If we assume that new technology no longer creates jobs like in the past but causes net unemployment instead, what can we realistically do about it?

Companies rely on reputation and brand image. I remember when all customer call centres used to be based in Mumbai because it was cheaper. That was until enough people complained about it and people started going to companies who had UK call centres. It then became good for brand image to have UK call centres and companies actively promoted that they have UK call centres. I far prefer being served by a human and as said earlier in the thread enough people have complained at my local bank branch that they've reversed the decision on not replacing staff who left. Also the government will realise soon enough when automation starts to destroy the economy and jobless figures start to rise so would expect some kind of action from government in the very long term future. Thing is is whether they would act soon enough before the economy started to contract because as we know once the economy starts shrinking in earnest it's a big downwards spiral.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Companies rely on reputation and brand image. I remember when all customer call centres used to be based in Mumbai because it was cheaper. That was until enough people complained about it and people started going to companies who had UK call centres. It then became good for brand image to have UK call centres and companies actively promoted that they have UK call centres. I far prefer being served by a human and as said earlier in the thread enough people have complained at my local bank branch that they've reversed the decision on not replacing staff who left. Also the government will realise soon enough when automation starts to destroy the economy and jobless figures start to rise so would expect some kind of action from government in the very long term future. Thing is is whether they would act soon enough before the economy started to contract because as we know once the economy starts shrinking in earnest it's a big downwards spiral.

You have no evidence the economy will shrink, because you seem to assume that productivity that isn't done directly by a human doesn't count. That is patently ridiculous.

 

[cjp]

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.

I have a similar view.

But what I have read so far seems not to factor in the increasing longevity and its effect on employment. We have more older people although perhaps they are less likely to called unemployed as retired. They do of course add to employment opportunities by wanting to be clothed and fed (perhaps not UK produced?) And have promoted a growth in those employed to keep them well (although in my recent stay in a British Hospital those of British origin, judging by accents, were not the majority).
i am not saying that the KnightWho's graphs are wrong but maybe they are misleading for the UK now we have a stronger global economy?

 

[NSEFAN]

We are already seeing the start of the automation leading to job losses and it's only going to get worse over the coming decades.

I still don't understand why it would be a bad thing for there to be mass job losses? The whole point of machines is to make life easier for humans, so why don't we embrace automation instead of having to make every person justify their existence by deliberately making them do tasks in exchange for tokens that allow them to live? If we're going to do that then we can surely find something more mentally stimulating to make people do than to serving people Big Macs and groceries?

 

[radamfi]

Companies rely on reputation and brand image. I remember when all customer call centres used to be based in Mumbai because it was cheaper. That was until enough people complained about it and people started going to companies who had UK call centres. It then became good for brand image to have UK call centres and companies actively promoted that they have UK call centres.

But what we are talking about is where technology makes an old job redundant. In your example, there is still a call centre. The only difference is the location of the call centre.

In any case, surely you don't approve of call centres? Before call centres you used to have to visit the bank, office or shop concerned.

You say your local bank branch is no longer cutting staff, but banks are continuing to close branches. It may be just the ones that are left are keeping their staff numbers constant, for now. Do you want banks to stop offering mobile phone banking?

 

[yorksrob]

I still don't understand why it would be a bad thing for there to be mass job losses? The whole point of machines is to make life easier for humans, so why don't we embrace automation instead of having to make every person justify their existence by deliberately making them do tasks in exchange for tokens that allow them to live? If we're going to do that then we can surely find something more mentally stimulating to make people do than to serving people Big Macs and groceries?

Because the people who own the technology run off with all the money.

Think of all those giant internet companies where everyone looks "cool" and dresses like students. They seem a lot more "traditional" when it comes to massaging their tax affairs.

It's also worth pondering why even in highly skilled high earning industries such as law and finance, where one would have thought that companies had the means to employ plenty of people, their employees all seem to work ridiculously long hours with little leisure time.

You just can't trust the owners of this technology not to exploit it at the expense of everyone else.

 

[NSEFAN]

Because the people who own the technology run off with all the money.

Think of all those giant internet companies where everyone looks "cool" and dresses like students. They seem a lot more "traditional" when it comes to massaging their tax affairs.

It's also worth pondering why even in highly skilled high earning industries such as law and finance, where one would have thought that companies had the means to employ plenty of people, their employees all seem to work ridiculously long hours with little leisure time.

You just can't trust the owners of this technology not to exploit it at the expense of everyone else.

So the issue is not really about technology at all, it's about hoarding of wealth and power? Should we be deliberately preventing particular jobs from becoming automated in order to force human employment, to maintain a greater amount of power for workers?

 

[yorksrob]

So the issue is not really about technology at all, it's about hoarding of wealth and power? Should we be deliberately preventing particular jobs from becoming automated in order to force human employment, to maintain a greater amount of power for workers?

At the moment, when somebody is without employment, the economy functions by punishing that person by providing them with a sub-standard standard of living. It does this to encourage others to continue in employment.

Until we find a way to have a functioning economy in which those who are technically "redundant" are enabled to thrive with a decent standard of living, it might well be wise to prevent the automation of some employment.

 

[radamfi]

it might well be wise to prevent the automation of some employment.

Can you give examples of employment which would be banned from automation?

Would you ban the starting up of new industries which make existing ones redundant?

 

[yorksrob]

Can you give examples of employment which would be banned from automation?

Would you ban the starting up of new industries which make existing ones redundant?

Not really. It's not something I've thought through in detail.

The only thing I'm sure of is that as it stands, the economy isn't geared up to support large numbers of permanently redundant people.

Perhaps the experiments with guaranteed minimum income will uncover a solution.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Not really. It's not something I've thought through in detail.

The only thing I'm sure of is that as it stands, the economy isn't geared up to support large numbers of permanently redundant people.

Perhaps the experiments with guaranteed minimum income will uncover a solution.

This only works as an assumption if we assume no new jobs come along. People said the same thing with the Luddites, and the same thing with post-war automation. All that happened was that the new jobs people did were more productive because of automation, and made us all richer.

Dave1987's argument just says "all jobs can be automated", as though that will a) happen all at once, and b) won't result in further innovation within the job market and changes in industries. It's very short-sighted.

 

[47802]

This only works as an assumption if we assume no new jobs come along. People said the same thing with the Luddites, and the same thing with post-war automation. All that happened was that the new jobs people did were more productive because of automation, and made us all richer.

Dave1987's argument just says "all jobs can be automated", as though that will a) happen all at once, and b) won't result in further innovation within the job market and changes in industries. It's very short-sighted.

You seem to be of the opinion that enough new jobs will be created to compensate for automation just because that's what happened in the past when in reality there is clearly no certainty that will continue to happen going forward, particularly as the rate of automation my start to advance at a rate we have not seen before.

 

[Dave1987]

You seem to be of the opinion that enough new jobs will be created to compensate for automation just because that's what happened in the past when in reality there is clearly no certainty that will continue to happen going forward, particularly as the rate of automation my start to advance at a rate we have not seen before.

Yes very much indeed. TheKightWho is very much concentrating on the high end, highly skilled end of the market, where the economy relies on those base level jobs which are the first to automated in a relentless mission to 'reduce costs'. Unless those base level jobs are replaced with new jobs which is highly unlikely with that relentless progress of automation then the economy will suffer. People who are not academically gifted may well get left behind in the future and the economy will suffer for it.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Yes very much indeed. TheKightWho is very much concentrating on the high end, highly skilled end of the market, where the economy relies on those base level jobs which are the first to automated in a relentless mission to 'reduce costs'. Unless those base level jobs are replaced with new jobs which is highly unlikely with that relentless progress of automation then the economy will suffer. People who are not academically gifted may well get left behind in the future and the economy will suffer for it.

No I am not. I have repeatedly stated that there are millions of support jobs required for all of those kinds of new sectors, and you have dismissed it as "they will be automated too!" as though they'll all suddenly disappear at once. That isn't how things work in the real world. You also still seem to think the aim of corporations is to reduce cost and not to maximise profits - these are not the same thing. It's quite insulting when you make assumptions about what I'm saying that fit your strawman and ignore things I have actually said that don't fit into your convenient idea of what you think I'm saying.

That is why your view is unscientific - any argument against it you dismiss as "that can be automated!" without actually providing any evidence how or any understanding of developments in education or further innovations in industry. You've also completely ignored my point that the economy will not suffer if a job is automated because the same or higher productivity is achieved as before, and business can continue at the same or a greater rate. You clearly have little understanding of how an economy works - the idea that automation will hurt the economy is completely absurd, because there is no incentive for that to happen. Those people who are put out of work are not left destitute and unable to contribute either, because there are measures in place for them to get new jobs. Yes, those jobs may well be automated in the future too, but the cycle will just continue (just as it has already been through several iterations already).

Hell, innovation itself can be automated (and will be) with self-learning algorithms and the like. These already exist, so "high end high skilled" jobs are not immune, but I'm not worried about that either because I understand that, throughout history, we have adapted around such changes. Stop being so pessimistic.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Banning any job from automation is a ridiculous idea. There are plenty of things that could be done (and aren't able to be automated) that are to society's benefit but aren't being done. Plenty of scope to create jobs if we are willing to pay taxes to fund them being done.

 

[Dave1987]

No I am not. I have repeatedly stated that there are millions of support jobs required for all of those kinds of new sectors, and you have dismissed it as "they will be automated too!" as though they'll all suddenly disappear at once. That isn't how things work in the real world. You also still seem to think the aim of corporations is to reduce cost and not to maximise profits - these are not the same thing. It's quite insulting when you make assumptions about what I'm saying that fit your strawman and ignore things I have actually said that don't fit into your convenient idea of what you think I'm saying.

That is why your view is unscientific - any argument against it you dismiss as "that can be automated!" without actually providing any evidence how or any understanding of developments in education or further innovations in industry. You've also completely ignored my point that the economy will not suffer if a job is automated because the same or higher productivity is achieved as before, and business can continue at the same or a greater rate. You clearly have little understanding of how an economy works - the idea that automation will hurt the economy is completely absurd, because there is no incentive for that to happen. Those people who are put out of work are not left destitute and unable to contribute either, because there are measures in place for them to get new jobs. Yes, those jobs may well be automated in the future too, but the cycle will just continue (just as it has already been through several iterations already).

Hell, innovation itself can be automated (and will be) with self-learning algorithms and the like. These already exist, so "high end high skilled" jobs are not immune, but I'm not worried about that either because I understand that, throughout history, we have adapted around such changes. Stop being so pessimistic.

I'm completely entitled to disagree with you. I understand exactly how the economy works which is why I and others are concerned with the way things are progressing currently. There are thousands of part time jobs where people want to be full time but no work available. Thousands of people who are under threat from their jobs being automated and them being put on the dole who won't be able to get another job because they aren't qualified enough and don't have the option of gaining qualifications because they need to work to feed their families. Im sure those who are having their livihoods put under threat by automation would find your blaise attitude very insulting.

People who are made redundant by automation and have their livelihoods put in jeopardy are made to feel worthless by the system. Im wondering what makes you qualified to say that people aren't made to feel worthless by the system when they are automated out of job?

I'd love to know what these systems are that you claim are put in place to help those made redundant by automation to get new jobs!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Banning any job from automation is a ridiculous idea. There are plenty of things that could be done (and aren't able to be automated) that are to society's benefit but aren't being done. Plenty of scope to create jobs if we are willing to pay taxes to fund them being done.

Such like? What's not able to be automated in the future that pays a decent wage and can provide enough employment to keep millions in a job?

 

[NSEFAN]

People who are made redundant by automation and have their livelihoods put in jeopardy are made to feel worthless by the system. Im wondering what makes you qualified to say that people aren't made to feel worthless by the system when they are automated out of job?

I'd love to know what these systems are that you claim are put in place to help those made redundant by automation to get new jobs!

Perhaps it's our social attitudes which need to change, in that case? We would all like the world to be better off for everyone, but at the same time we don't seem to want to accept that this means our current situation cannot continue.

It must be possible for people to move on when a job becomes automated or an industry dies out. Swindon for example was only built to serve the railway, but since the closure of the works people have moved on into other jobs. Indeed, the works did not close overnight but gradually declined, giving people time to move into other work and for new jobs to come in.

Such like? What's not able to be automated in the future that pays a decent wage and can provide enough employment to keep millions in a job?

You'll have to hire a good fortune teller if you want to see the future in any precise detail.

But seriously, could you have predicted the creation of jobs that came about from the internet? As TheKnightWho has said, this didn't happen overnight but happened gradually, as internet usage has become more and more commonplace.

If you want a long-term prediction, my guess would be that procedural jobs (both physical or data-processing) will be gradually automated as time goes by. We will get to a stage where the only jobs left will be ones that humans are good at, which is creative tasks. Since these are inherently more pleasing to humans, they don't require high remuneration compared to stressful and monotonous jobs. The culture of "what am I going to do to earn a living to pay my way?" will gradually evolve into "what do I enjoy doing?". The real challenge will be to get ourselves into this state, which won't be easy if we have to keep fighting against the mindset that "everyone needs a job, otherwise they're worthless".

 

[radamfi]

Thousands of people who are under threat from their jobs being automated and them being put on the dole who won't be able to get another job because they aren't qualified enough and don't have the option of gaining qualifications because they need to work to feed their families. Im sure those who are having their livihoods put under threat by automation would find your blaise attitude very insulting.

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

Would you allow this?

 

[deltic]

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





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

 

[TheKnightWho]

I'm completely entitled to disagree with you. I understand exactly how the economy works which is why I and others are concerned with the way things are progressing currently. There are thousands of part time jobs where people want to be full time but no work available. Thousands of people who are under threat from their jobs being automated and them being put on the dole who won't be able to get another job because they aren't qualified enough and don't have the option of gaining qualifications because they need to work to feed their families. Im sure those who are having their livihoods put under threat by automation would find your blaise attitude very insulting.

People who are made redundant by automation and have their livelihoods put in jeopardy are made to feel worthless by the system. Im wondering what makes you qualified to say that people aren't made to feel worthless by the system when they are automated out of job?

I'd love to know what these systems are that you claim are put in place to help those made redundant by automation to get new jobs!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Such like? What's not able to be automated in the future that pays a decent wage and can provide enough employment to keep millions in a job?

None of this addresses any of what I actually said.