Tories whose dads are well off.

[Vespasian777]

Yeah, I know, but that's what I'm saying mate. What if you haven't got a supportive environment at home? Where's the ringing endorsement for this country? I'm not suggesting that everyone in the UK ( never mind the rest of the world ) is likely to have the highest standard of living. But the I'm all right jack mentality is more or less guaranteed to keep those who are struggling, struggling. Didn't you focus on wants? Do you just focus on needs when it suits you i.e when it's somebody else. As for your last 2 lines, once again, I haven't got a clue what you're on about.

 

[estebanrey]

Did I say you won't need anybody to oversee it?.

You implied it by saying that answering machines would negate the need for call centre operatives. I'm saying those operatives will still ultimately need to deal with the end query even if they don't physically speak to the customer.

Does the car building process take more or less people to build a car after automation? - I'll let you figure that one out.

Probably roughly the same. If you look ONLY at the factory then sure, they'll be less people on the shop floor than there was before (although I live near the Mini plant and they still require thousands of workers despite all this automation) but you've missed the point that someone has to build the robots that build the cars and that business didn't exist before the robots were put into the car factories.

In other words, if the car factory needed 5000 employees in the old days and only 2000 now because of automation, there's probably 3000 people now working for the companies that supply the robots (ergo there is still 5000 people employed in the whole process).

Another factor you seem to be missing is 40 years ago, a big company's office staff would be tiny and mainly consist of management. Now though, because of computers, these companies will have thousands of people working in their offices. So whilst they'll have less people doing manual labour, they now have far more doing clerical work.

What you are not thinking about is when you make a robot that does something all you've done is pushed the human manual apsect back one stage, you haven't got rid of it. And until robots can appear out of thin air or some how reproduce without human intervention that will always be the case.

The point is, you need less or no people to do the same jobs as technology progresses - we have already exhausted the primary & secondary sectors - we have become a service based economy.

Our becoming a service based economy has little to do with the increase in technology, it was the political actions by the last Tory and Labour administrations that have got us there. Germany for example, still has a thriving manufacturing industry.

If you look at the advancements of 3d printing we have already (manufacturing objects from base material in the fashion it's being done) then manufacturing will change, the intended function is what I was referencing - not the actual technology of the program.

An the advancement of 3D printing will in itself create new jobs and industries.

People have made your point before, in the 50s they were saying the same thing but like you they had no idea that in 50 years time we would have internet companies, package holiday tourism, electric cars, mp3 players......

The mistake you are making is you are loooking at what industries exists today, and then applying future technology to them without knowing how the world will change and create new things and jobs that need doing. The nature of people's jobs will change but the need for them to do some kind of job shouldn't.

 

[elmarko]

You implied it by saying that answering machines would negate the need for call centre operatives. I'm saying those operatives will still ultimately need to deal with the end query even if they don't physically speak to the customer.



Probably roughly the same. If you look ONLY at the factory then sure, they'll be less people on the shop floor than there was before (although I live near the Mini plant and they still require thousands of workers despite all this automation) but you've missed the point that someone has to build the robots that build the cars and that business didn't exist before the robots were put into the car factories.

In other words, if teh car factory needed 5000 employees in the old days and only 2000 now because of automation, there's probably 3000 people now working for the companies that supply the robots (ergo there is still 5000 people employed in the whole process).

What you are not thinking about is when you make a robot that does something all you've done is pushed the human manual apsect back one stage, you haven't got rid of it. And until robots can appear out of thin air or some how reproduce without human intervention that will always be the case.



Our becoming a service based economy has little to do with the increase in technology, it was the political decision made by the last Tory and Labour administrations that have got us there. Germany for example, still has a thriving manufacturing industry.



An the advancement of 3D printing will in itself create new jobs and industries.

People have made your point before, in the 50s they were saying the same thing but like you they had no idea that in 50 years time we would have internet companies, package holiday tourism, electric cars, mp3 players......

The mistake you are making is you are loooking at what industries exists today, and then applying future technology to them without knowing how the world will change and create new things and jobs that need doing.

It's not the same thing just because you declare it.

Are you aware of what percentage of the workforce is involved in agriculture compared to 100 years ago? - are you aware as to how much of the workforce has been displaced from manufacturing into the service sector.

Germany isn't the standard & just because one country still has a manufacturing sector (which is still smaller than it was 50 years ago when looking at the workforce as a % of population) it's means nothing against the fact that most of the workforce are now in the service sector.

Manufacturing (due to technology) requires less labour to produce goods per item, due to this a large portion of the workforce was pushed into the service industry to sustain cyclic consumption.

Each time an old industry is automated we push people further & further into "alternative work", I'm not saying that people won't be able to find work - (you seem to keep missing this point so I'll bold it for you).

I'm talking about meaningful work VS Working for the sake of working

I don't think we should create artificial industries when we automate (mostly) the last of the big three - as technology is supposed to free us from labour (provide us with more free time), that's it's purpose.

You are utter wrong about the figures above, it's a well known fact that the amount of jobs in manufacturing has decreased (overall) globally (some country individually with an increase, but I'm talking global).

Look at agriculture, open up Google & look at the figures & numbers if you think "fear of displacement from automation" is a myth.

The mistake you are making is you are loooking at what industries exists today, and then applying future technology to them without knowing how the world will change and create new things and jobs that need doing.

The mistake you make is assuming we have some magical force ensuring that the people to jobs ratio will always remain the same, despite evidence to the contrary.

 

[estebanrey]

elmarko did you actually read my post?

I'm not arguing there are less people physically building and making things now than there was 100 years ago but there are also far, far more people working in the administration that supports that manufacturer (by the way someone who works in admin is not doing a serviced based job).

Why must I consider the depreciation in numbers of people working in fields whilst allowing you the ignore the explosion of people working in offices now? The way we work changes, the fact we need to work (or that businesses need people to do those jobs) doesn't.

You are coming across as saying that anyone who isn't the archytypal working class labourer isn't doing a job that's worthwhile. Do you think businesses employee more people than they need to, that all those people now working in admin and HR are somehow being kept on by private organisations out of some sense of social responsibilty?

No they are doing admin roles because they are required for that business to function whereas 100 years ago that role didn't need doing. All that's happened is the type of work has changed.

You are only looking at the times technology replaces the need for human manual effort, but completely ignoring the thousands of new job roles and industries that technology has created over the years. I would go as far as to guess that technology has created more jobs that it has destroyed.

 

[elmarko]

elmarko did you actually read my post?

I'm not arguing there are less people physically building and making things now than there was 100 years ago but there are also far, far more people working in the administration that supports that manufacturer (by the way someone who works in admin is not doing a serviced based job).

Why must I consider the depreciation in numbers of people working in fields whilst allowing you the ignore the explosion of people working in offices now? The way we work changes, the fact we need to work (or that businesses need people to do those jobs) doesn't.

You are coming across as saying that anyone who isn't the archytypal working class labourer isn't doing a job that's worthwhile. Do you think businesses employee more people than they need to, that all those people now working in admin and HR are somehow being kept on by private organisations out of some sense of social responsibilty?

No they are doing admin roles because they are required for that business to function whereas 100 years ago that role didn't need doing. All that's happened is the type of work has changed.

You are only looking at the times technology replaces the need for human manual effort, but completely ignoring the thousands of new job roles and industries that technology has created over the years. I would go as far as to guess that technology has created more jobs that it has destroyed.

I'm not sure how you figure that one out.

Pretty much everybody had to work to eat (historically), now we have some western society's with 20% unemployment.

A large portion of work is already surplus to requirements (if you the element of competition induced by capitalism out of the equation)

So from your perspective, once we find a way to automate most of the office work, it's all going to be fine because a new thing will appear absorbing the labour market?

Is that what you go by, blind hope/faith?, I'd prefer something a little more concrete to be honest.

 

[estebanrey]

I'm not sure how you figure that one out.

Pretty much everybody had to work to eat (historically), now we have some western society's with 20% unemployment.

Well this is complete rubbish.

Firstly, there was no welfare state historically so it was work, forage or die. Secondly if you think unemployment before technology was always low and 20% unemployment (I assume you are referring to specifically to France) is unknown the world's history I suggest you do some research. In the Victorian era there were periods huge unemployment, far more than today.

A large portion of work is already surplus to requirements (if you the element of competition induced by capitalism out of the equation)

Hmm, you seem to also have a misundertsanding of how supply and demand works. Are you trying to say that because Ford exists, the people that work for BMW, Honda, Vauxhall etc are doing uneccessary jobs?

If Ford was the only company producing cars, it would need to employ all the people who currently work for the other companies to meet the demand of them being the only car manufacturer. There would be some small effieciency savings sure, but not enough for you to bring this up as a point.

So from your perspective, once we find a way to automate most of the office work, it's all going to be fine because a new thing will appear absorbing the labour market?

It is self evident that whatever we create to automate the office process will in turn require the same amount of human effort to implement so yes.

Whilst it is a physics law, it's the same with employment "every action requires an equal and opposite reaction".

Is that what you go by, blind hope/faith?, I'd prefer something a little more concrete to be honest.

No I'm basing it on logical reasoning and an assesment of the history. Unless you can predict the future the same 'faith' critism applies to you.

Your whole argument here is the equivelent of early man saying that when shops are invented, men will no longer be needed as their main duty of being hunter becomes uneccsary. As you can see, males still exist.

 

[elmarko]

Well this is complete rubbish.

Firstly, there was no welfare state historically so it was work, forage or die. Secondly if you think unemployment before technology was always low and 20% unemployment (I assume you are referring to specifically to France) is unknown the world's history I suggest you do some research. In the Victorian era there were periods huge unemployment, far more than today.

No I'm not referring to France.

Hmm, you seem to also have a misundertsanding of how supply and demand works. Are you trying to say that because Ford exists, the people that work for BMW, Honda, Vauxhall etc are doing uneccessary jobs?

Are you suggesting that every single item that's produced get's sold & used? - as the wasted created goods (due to competition) is a massive waste of time & resources.

If Ford was the only company producing cars, it would need to employ all the people who currently work for the other companies to meet the demand of them being the only car manufacturer. There would be some small effieciency savings sure, but not enough for you to bring this up as a point.

Of course..., which is why when two big companies merge they don't sack anybo..... oh wa......

The entire marketing sector for one, along with any job related to sales, insurance, banking or finance would be gone without capitalism.

Keep up.

It is self evident that whatever we create to automate the office process will in turn require the same amount of human effort to implement so yes.

Ok, let's deconstruct this.

It's self evident (clearly not).

That whatever we create (I assume you mean humanity) to automate the office process (in this case, a program or AI).

Will in turn require the same amount of human effort to implement so yes. (lol, if this was true - nobody would automate anything & even if it was true - it's a flawed statement as doing something manually is a sustained effort, the time spent in automation is a one off).

That has to be one the biggest loads of rubbish I've ever had the misfortune to read.

Whilst it is a physics law, it's the same with employment "every action requires an equal and opposite reaction".

Ok, are you trying to imply that the laws of employment (a fabricated construct) are bound in the same was as the laws of the universe?

What about a solar panel, it takes X amount of energy to create - but create more than it took to produce.

You seem to be doing the thing which many people (who don't understand physics do) assume we are living in a closed system.

No I'm basing it on logical reasoning and an assesment of the history. Unless you can predict the future the same 'faith' critism applies to you.

Not really, you are assuming that a new unknown industry will start up.

I'm simply asserting that the current will be automated (which it currently is in the process of being).

Your whole argument here is the equivelent of early man saying that when shops are invented, men will no longer be needed as their main duty of being hunter becomes uneccsary. As you can see, males still exist.

Missing the point entirely as usual, no I'm not saying that.

 

[estebanrey]

Are you suggesting that every single item that's produced get's sold & used? - as the wasted created goods (due to competition) is a massive waste of time & resources.

I'm suggesting that most people agree that supply and demand does a pretty good job of matching required consumption.

A business wouldn't go an produce a million TVs if it wasn't pretty confident there was a market for them.

If you want a world where every single thing that is build is used to it's maximum with zero wastage then you are an idealist (although that's pretty obvious).

If you think the amount of things we need can be decided by some guys somewhere based on maths then you are extremely naive to think this kind of system would create zero wastage.

Of course..., which is why when two big companies merge they don't sack anybo..... oh wa......

Not always no (and btw it would be redundancy anyway).

But fundementally I disagree with the premise here anyway because I think that having lots of different businesses creating different brands and versions of things is a good thing and not a waste. I'd rather have 2000 people creating 2 distinct products in the same sector than only being able to choose from 1 made by 1500 people.

You way of thinking seems to be isolating something (like efficiency in this case) and then completely ignoring all the other factors that go with like the increase in choice.

The entire marketing sector for one, along with any job related to sales, insurance, banking or finance would be gone without capitalism.

Yes and how boring would the world be? I don't know what the relevance of the above statement is here anyway, we have capitalism so I'm tempted to be flippant and reply 'if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle'.

Ok, let's deconstruct this.

It's self evident (clearly not).

That whatever we create (I assume you mean humanity) to automate the office process (in this case, a program or AI).

Will in turn require the same amount of human effort to implement so yes. (lol, if this was true - nobody would automate anything)

That has to be one the biggest loads of rubbish I've ever had the misfortune to read.

Oh for Christ's sake. Stop isolating a single business and look at the bigger picture!

Firstly not all automation is there to replace human effort, most of the time it exists to save time. If I have a task that takes me 5 hours and you can sell me something that let's me do it in 1, then all it means is I have more time in my job to do other things. Technology is used like this far more than the job replacing robots and machines you elude to.

Secondly, and I'm getting tired of saying it, you keep ignoring the fact that the company that supplies the automation didn't exist before and now it does it has created new jobs.

Ok, are you trying to imply that the laws of employment (a fabricated construct) are bound in the same was as the laws of the universe?

No I used a phrase use in physics and said you could apply the same logic to man's effort in terms of jobs that need doing.

But thanks for wildly extrapolating anyway

What about a solar panel, it takes X amount of energy to create - but create more than it took to produce.

A solar panel does not increase the net levels of energy in the solar system so no it doesn't "create" energy, it merely takes energy that already exists and redistributes it somehwere else (to power you Kettle in this case)

And this sums up my argument on employment, just because you have removed a job from one area, doesn't mean you haven't indirectly created another job somewhere else.

 

[elmarko]

I'm well aware of the laws of entropy thanks.

And this sums up my argument on employment, just because you have removed a job from one area, doesn't mean you haven't indirectly created another job somewhere else.

I agree, it does not.

Funnily enough you can also say - "just because a job has been removed from one area, it does not mean another has been created in another to replace it".

I never even stated that not a single job which get's displaced by technology would be replaced, just that not all will (which will exasperate unemployment - which happened historically until a new sector expanded to accommodate them).

Next you will be telling me you believe in "the invisible hand".

 

[estebanrey]

elmarko, are you a luddite?

Anyway, read this if you are bored arguing with me. What you are saying isn't new....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite_fallacy

If the Luddite fallacy were true we would all be out of work because productivity has been increasing for two centuries.

 

[The Halk]

I never even stated that not a single job which get's displaced by technology would be replaced, just that not all will (which will exasperate unemployment - which happened historically until a new sector expanded to accommodate them).

Economic theory disagrees, oh, that and history, and fact.

 

[Vespasian777]

Economic theory disagrees, oh, that and history, and fact.

Expound.

 

[estebanrey]

Expound.

Economists almost universally believe in something called the "Luddite fallacy" -- which basically says that advancing technology will always create more jobs than it destroys. In other words, any fear that technology will cause widespread, long term unemployment is a fallacy.

 

[SeraphX]

I'm a floater and my father is dead,

 

[elmarko]

The Luddite fallacy is not fact, neither is it a logical fallacy of any form.

It's simply a subjective economic view which I don't agree with.

And again, as I've said for the 100 billionth time,

I said worthwhile productive work not working for the sake of continuing cyclic consumption.

An extract from the same article.

Marshall Brain and Martin Ford are IT engineers who have worried that advancing IT will displace workers faster than current economic structures can absorb them into new kinds of jobs.

Ford presents an argument for why the Luddite premise, although it was fallacious for two centuries, might lose its fallaciousness as machines become qualitatively different from those of the past.

He compares this to the standard warning in financial prospectuses that "past performance is not a guarantee of future results"

"James S. Albus, a US government engineer and a prolific pioneering inventor of intelligent systems, automation and robotics, was concerned for many years about the potential social impact of advanced intelligent systems. Dr. Albus was optimistic about the wealth producing capabilities of intelligent machines, but concerned about the elimination of jobs and the downward pressures advanced automation placed on human wages and incomes. In his 1976 book titled "Peoples' Capitalism: The Economics of the Robot Revolution", and on his websites he lays out a plan to broaden capital ownership to the point where, in his view, every citizen becomes a capitalist with a substantial income from personal ownership of capital assets, leading, in his view, to achieving a future economic system where income from ownership of capital assets supplements, and eventually supplants, wages and salaries as the primary source of income for the average citizen."

Another differing view.

It would be flawed to suggest that ALL jobs would go due to technological advancement - but not that some (or enough to destabilise the workforce enough to destroy the economy).

What evidence do you have the market could absorb people that quickly?.

I'll reply for you.

None.

Edit - On a final note, I won't point out the breathtaking hypocrisy of making the comment "any fear that technology will cause widespread, long term unemployment is a fallacy" while you try to imply my logic is at fault.

You like making broad statements of "fact" don't you

 

[Vespasian777]

I think we win.

 

[estebanrey]

The Luddite fallacy is not fact, neither is it a logical fallacy of any form.

It's simply a subjective economic view which I don't agree with.

But is is backed by the majority of Economists and history. I think I'll go with them over your opinion.

No one claimed it was a logical fallacy so I don't know why you felt the need to clear that up but anyway....

And again, as I've said for the 100 billionth time,

I said worthwhile productive work not working for the sake of continuing cyclic consumption.

I've already covered this. Who decides what jobs are 'worthwhile' and 'productive'. The implication I have got from you so far is only manual labour can be considered to have these attributes.

Let's clear this up, do you think someone who is currently doing a data entry job qualifies as doing something worthwhile or productive?

An extract from the same article.

Marshall Brain and Martin Ford are IT engineers who have worried that advancing IT will displace workers faster than current economic structures can absorb them into new kinds of jobs.

Ford presents an argument for why the Luddite premise, although it was fallacious for two centuries, might lose its fallaciousness as machines become qualitatively different from those of the past.

He compares this to the standard warning in financial prospectuses that "past performance is not a guarantee of future results"

Agree with the quote, it is self evident given that no one can predict the future. However, if you want to predict or forecast a future a event, analyzing past results is the most rational way of doing it.

If I pick up a ball and drop it, I don't need faith to predict it will fall to the ground. I don't know 100% that it will but it is perfectly reasonable for me to make the assumption it will fall because that behaviour is historically consistent.

"James S. Albus, a US government engineer and a prolific pioneering inventor of intelligent systems, automation and robotics, was concerned for many years about the potential social impact of advanced intelligent systems. Dr. Albus was optimistic about the wealth producing capabilities of intelligent machines, but concerned about the elimination of jobs and the downward pressures advanced automation placed on human wages and incomes. In his 1976 book titled "Peoples' Capitalism: The Economics of the Robot Revolution", and on his websites he lays out a plan to broaden capital ownership to the point where, in his view, every citizen becomes a capitalist with a substantial income from personal ownership of capital assets, leading, in his view, to achieving a future economic system where income from ownership of capital assets supplements, and eventually supplants, wages and salaries as the primary source of income for the average citizen."

The man is trying to sell a book and runs a website, I'm sorry but that kind of belittles his position on this. Books that make mundane claims don't tend to sell well.

Another differing view.

It would be flawed to suggest that ALL jobs would go due to technological advancement - but not that some (or enough to destabilise the workforce enough to destroy the economy).

What evidence do you have the market could absorb people that quickly?.

Again because historically that has always happened. I refer you to me dropping a ball analogy.

You like making broad statements of "fact" don't you

I've never claimed anything to be fact unless it actually is, I'm giving you my opinion which is what message boards are for.

 

[Vespasian777]

ffs.

 

[Amp34]

Ignorance truly is bliss in that example, some people are stupid.

Which side is ignorant? To me the first thought was inflation. If everyone else had twice as much money as you products would go up in price. The extra £50k may still make you relatively poorer and less able to buy things than having just the £50k. And then there is the question of how that question was asked.

 

[elmarko]

Which side is ignorant? To me the first thought was inflation. If everyone else had twice as much money as you products would go up in price. The extra £50k may still make you relatively poorer and less able to buy things than having just the £50k. And then there is the question of how that question was asked.

Well, not everybody would have twice as much money.

Just the distribution would be evened out a little more, inflation is caused by an increase in the money supply - not by a more even distribution.

Products don't magically go up in price just by paying the bottom staff a higher percentage of the wage - the price of products go up due to inflation which is caused by the creation of new money (via quantitative easing or fractional reserve banking - of "theft of value from the rest of money in existence" as it's also called - pending on how you see it).