Lloyds Bank to axe hundreds of jobs / and now RBS

glen8 said:
No chance

Today yes, tomorrow maybe, in 100 years..... nope

You're telling me it takes 50,000 IT engineers to look after an AI chat bot network (which has already been designed remember) which has replaced 50,000 telephone support staff.

People can't be made redundant until AFTER a replacement system has been put in place. Computers can do the work of many men, that is the entire issue here.

Like I said earlier, IT systems become faster, easier and cheaper over time.
Click to expand...

You've seen the Steel industry?

jonneymendoza said:
We won't be here in 100 years so as long as what we do in IT doesn't harm the planet. Why care?
In fact. IT tech could save this planet.
Click to expand...

There is never that specific Only Fools and Horses clip when you need it when Rodney said something about the planet in several hundred years. While Del boy said well we've got time for a quick one.
 
Haggisman said:
Let's look at self checkouts as an example. I've generally seen about 6 self checkouts per staff member. So that's 5 jobs "lost". Are you really saying it takes 5 people working full time to upgrade and maintain 6 self checkouts?
Click to expand...

Maybe not, but there's also the companies who design and sell them to the supermarkets, that's a whole new industry
 
amigafan2003 said:
Nope.
Click to expand...

what makes you say that?

edit:
For example - what data do you expect will allow you to determine when a particular particle decays rather than simply being able to to give the probability of it decaying within a unit of time?

What data would allow you to predict where an individual electron will land on the screen in the double slit experiment?

Your statement only holds true in classical physics.
 
Last edited:
amigafan2003 said:
With enough data and computing power, nothing is unpredictable.

Besides, humans aren't great at dealing with the unpredictable anyway.
Click to expand...

So why don't we just build a machine that's going to tell us which horse is going to win the Grand National every year? Then we can all be rich. Nothing is unpredictable right? Or even one that's going to tell us when and where the next major earthquake will occur - save thousands of lives.

You can have the cleverest guy in the world building robots but us humans have so much knowledge that we just take for granted. Some things I think will always need to be done by people...

 
scorza said:
So why don't we just build a machine that's going to tell us which horse is going to win the Grand National every year? Then we can all be rich. Nothing is unpredictable right? Or even one that's going to tell us when and where the next major earthquake will occur - save thousands of lives.
Click to expand...

Because we don't have "enough data and computing power" yet. Pretty obvious really... :rolleyes:

Not sure what that video is trying to prove either, I too could build a robot that fails to squirt ketchup without making a mess; it would have no bearing on whether it's actually possible to build a robot that can squirt ketchup without making a mess.

Here's a video of some car crashes:


Those cars are all driven by people. If we're going by the same use of evidence as yours, then this categorically proves that people can't drive without crashing, and we should leave it to the machines.
 
Last edited:
BDEE said:
Who is "we". Humans? Or just those of us alive now?


Who cares is those of us with kids and grand kids who at the moment many people are wondering how on earth they will make a way for themselves in this world.
Click to expand...

easy. tell your kids to study something in IT or related to IT.

infact, in 100 years time, not even our kids born as of today will be alive so again who cares?

like i said, so long as we leave this planet in a healthy state then whats the problem investing in tech ?

Like i said, Tech could save this planet.

Saving the planet is more important then getting rid of 50,000 jobs...
 
glen8 said:
Just to add, our local Natwest branch has just undergone a major refit. They have done away with the entire cashier desk and replaced it with new cashpoint terminal computers. There's a couple of staff on hand for technical queries, but you can do pretty much everything on them now.
Click to expand...

Our local Barclay's bank recently done this,Gone are the helpful people at the desks,Now there are a load of terminals and only 1 large help desk with one or 2 people behind it..thats it.
 
jonneymendoza said:
easy. tell your kids to study something in IT or related to IT.

infact, in 100 years time, not even our kids born as of today will be alive so again who cares?

like i said, so long as we leave this planet in a healthy state then whats the problem investing in tech ?

Like i said, Tech could save this planet.

Saving the planet is more important then getting rid of 50,000 jobs...
Click to expand...

You seem to think that for every person made redundant through technology, as new position will be created in IT. That's not the case. Yes more people will be working in IT, but not as many as those made redundant.

so what is going to happen? more people unemployed, higher taxation for welfare? 4 day working week (possible)

if technology reduces general expenditure, then one could assume the current standard of living from a 4 day working week. Like a previous poster said, it's the bit inbetween that's the issue.

How many people did it take to design the new cashpoint currently being installed in banks? 100? How many staff does it need for ongoing support and maintenance? How many people have been made redundant because of them?
 
Last edited:
and another one

http://www.mirror.co.uk/money/natwest-shut-32-branches-hundreds-7753833

“Where there are job cuts this is clearly difficult news for staff affected by these changes. We are doing everything we can to support them, including seeking redeployment opportunities wherever possible and ensuring that compulsory redundancies are kept to a minimum.”

In February, The Mirror reported expectations that RBS will close hundreds of bank branches over the coming years . RBS has 1,600 branches, down from 2,200 in 2010.
 
Last edited:
the problem with all of this at the moment, is all of this labour saving should be funding the general populous working less, but all its currently doing is continuing to keep companies showing growth. making shareholders richer. which is where the government needs to step up and re-address where developed countries are going.
 
glen8 said:
You seem to think that for every person made redundant through technology, as new position will be created in IT. That's not the case. Yes more people will be working in IT, but not as many as those made redundant.

so what is going to happen? more people unemployed, higher taxation for welfare? 4 day working week (possible)

if technology reduces general expenditure, then one could assume the current standard of living from a 4 day working week. Like a previous poster said, it's the bit inbetween that's the issue.

How many people did it take to design the new cashpoint currently being installed in banks? 100? How many staff does it need for ongoing support and maintenance? How many people have been made redundant because of them?
Click to expand...
Who's gonna maintain that cashpoint when it breaks?

IT guys move onto the next project, simple as that. There are plenty of demand for IT people but not many are geek enough to sit in front of the computer all day looking or designing or writing code.

too much huff and puff over this when we have far greater things to be worried about in 100 years time.

The O-Zone layer , the endangered species etc etc are far more important then people losing jobs.

Those who lose jobs should take up a new career then. for every job a piece of tech controls, there is like 2-3 more job openings.
 
jonneymendoza said:
Who's gonna maintain that cashpoint when it breaks?
Click to expand...

Probably 2-3 engineers covering a large geographical area containing thousands of cashpoints. Certainly not the same number as the bank counter assistants they would have replaced.

jonneymendoza said:
IT guys move onto the next project, simple as that.
Click to expand...

Exactly, so that same group of 10-20 developers then move onto another piece of automation to get rid of another few thousand jobs.

jonneymendoza said:
Those who lose jobs should take up a new career then. for every job a piece of tech controls, there is like 2-3 more job openings.
Click to expand...

Really? So in the example of self service checkouts I gave earlier, there are 2-3 new jobs created for every single self service checkout installed? So that's 1 million new jobs in the UK (1.5 million apparently created - 500,000 checkout operator jobs gone). Why don't we just get rid of checkout operators completely, make them all self-service, and solve unemployment overnight!!
 
dowie said:
what makes you say that?

edit:
For example - what data do you expect will allow you to determine when a particular particle decays rather than simply being able to to give the probability of it decaying within a unit of time?

What data would allow you to predict where an individual electron will land on the screen in the double slit experiment?

Your statement only holds true in classical physics.
Click to expand...

Please tell me how your example is of relevance here.

I am only a lowly physicist after all and cant comprehend how quantum mechanics has an effect on whether google maps car will hit my lamp post.

All well and good saying we cant know everything but that example is literately of no relevance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom