I think the only reason more things haven't been automated is because a lot of people from older generations still don't like doing things online or using computers, in 10-20 years this will be less of an issue and we'll see more jobs no longer needed
Lloyds Bank to axe hundreds of jobs / and now RBS
- Thread starter glenimp617
- Start date
Ah yes I recall quite vividly in the 1970's being told that technology would give us all more free time to pursue our hobbies. But when that technology arrived, such as phones, email and the internet, what it actually meant was my job changed into a 12 to 14 hour per day monster and being expected to answer the phone 24/7 including Christmas day. My colleagues were then let go due to "efficiencies and cost cutting" and the remaining staff picked up half their work.
I agree with this, although as those industries mature we will probably find most people can't earn enough to keep doing it and a few people come to the fore and take over. For example quite a few of the youtube channels nowadays are actually owned by companies that pay people to present their content as if they were running it. By doing that a company "owns" quite a few youtube channels but you think you're following one person. I realised this recently when someone left their channel and was replaced. She explained that she wanted to go her own way rather than present other people's content. I bet there are more channels like this than people realise. All industries start with a small number of people pushing the frontiers, followed by a large influx of people, before coalescing into a smaller number of stable companies. It's happened repeatedly through history.
but people have been claiming that same thing for centuries yet so far the 'fallacy' has been people voicing your view not the other way around
You seem to be challengingly a point that I didn't make in that post. Is this another Dowie setup for a circular argument with lots of posts about who is failing in their comprehension?
All these things are highly skilled. The jobs at immediate risk are those that are low skilled and/or manual
not really, perhaps you can clarify then? I was assuming you were of the opinion that new technology will lead to mass unemployment, if that isn't the case then my post doesn't apply to you and was perhaps misplaced
Last edited:
Posts 258 and 262 responding to Dis86. The point I was making is that if a large number of people lose their jobs due to next generation software and robots, even if they retrain to write software or service robots there won't be the demand for them all to find replacement jobs doing this.
you need vastly more consumers than producers though so content creation will always be a very small sector of employment.
and with the rise of software bots we could start seeing lots of redundancies there as stuff starts to be done by machines, such as graphics, special effects and music.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 26,476
- Location
- Lorville - Hurston
Lloyds wil invest in IT jobs
Can't see it happening, certainly not in the UK (I worked there for 20 years and have since worked at two other banks). There may be a handful of new jobs here and there. But banks have no financial appetite for large scale investment in IT people.
In India yes, UK is going to be downsizing
The robots are taking over. It's only a matter of time!
I seem to have missed this previously but this basically is the same argument that could have been (and was by some) applied to the introduction of say steam engines etc.. in the industrial revolution. Of course 'this time' it will apparently be different.
Take a look at the video in my post 270 as to how it is indeed different this time.
"our jobs are being taken over much faster than in the past"? What is that based on? A cherry picked GM/Google comparison is rather disingenuous, given we've already been experiencing this 'new' automation for years surely we'd see these job losses reflected in unemployment figures... yet as far as say the UK, Germany, the US etc.. are concerned we're not seeing a big issue... where is the evidence?
this new argument is seemingly going for the AI/ML hype and presenting a handwaving argument that ML is great therefore this time it will be different, honest...
The video uses employment data in the US to show that the total hours worked in the country has remained static recently despite an increase in population size. If the number of hours per person had not reduced then the total hours would increase with the population. It shows that on average each person is working fewer hours.
We can also see this in the number of people on zero hours contracts. They aren't unemployed so don't show in those statistics. But many won't be working a full week.
re: zero hours contracts you're referring to the UK where the majority of new jobs created aren't zero hours contracts
the argument previously was re: jobs being lost, now you're shifting it to jobs changing - fact is, at the moment, more jobs are still being created, despite having several years of this new increased automation we're not seeing a big dip in unemployment quite the opposite. The bigger impact has surely been the fall out from the financial crisis over the past few years and the impact of austerity... not automation or machine learning.
Nope. I'm not shifting to jobs changing. That's not what I wrote at all. I wrote that people are working fewer hours on average, regardless of what the employment statistics say (they simply count how many people are working/not working).
which is what I was referring to as jobs changing, working fewer hours is a 'change'
this is different from what I was referring to which was jobs being lost