50% out of work-Who buys the goods?

There are many ways to read those different reports. One spoke of a fairly minor change the other spoke of a more apocalyptic 47% being affected. ‘At risk’ does not mean ‘will be destroyed’ it means only they they could be affected to some extent. Many of the roles that have been significantly affected during my working life  were roles that I watched over or managed, yet the biggest threat to my working life came not from those changes, but from the really crap moves of senior personal who demonstrated the Peter principal on a daily basis while combining it with a showing of why foxes should never manage hen houses.

At one point we had thousands of wagons moving goods behind one or more horses, the support industry for just the horses was huge, but automation did away with that. Railways automated longer distance haulage and motor vehicles then snipped away at the longer end while considerably modifying the local aspects. Incidentally in that case, employing more people albeit in different roles, vehicle drivers, mechanics, body repair people, time sheet sorters, pickers, etc.

We have lost thousands of other jobs,  e.g. telephonists, everyone is now their own telephonist while other jobs have chased the cheap labour, a fact that hit hard in the spinning and weaving areas of the country where we imported cheap labour, (I make no excuse for referring to those mistakenly imported like canon fodder as cheap labour) only to find that other countries could do it even cheaper so we lost the activity anyway and had a large number of unhappy, displaced people as a result. Previous ‘revolutions’ have been met with woe and disbelief yet out of the previous changes whole industries were first born, then flourished and then, as with all organisms either flourished or withered and died. Or in a few cases committed suicide, not always voluntary suicide there is evidence of crap senior management or silly government involvement causing at least assisted suicide. Were such cases natural deaths or corporate murder?

One trend that I have seen is how increasing skill levels, i.e. increased training demands are being made in many industries that previously relied more on ‘sitting with Nellie’ type training. Nursing is one such and police work is another, degree level training is either mandated or proposed. Who will do the training and, in these essentially people based activities are we yet getting the training to reach the required levels? I feel the evidence is not yet clear. For example, we have too many patients not being nursed, too many are being frankly neglected for a range of causes. The police can no longer deal with a large number of low level incidents. To me these suggest a situation of flux where changes are not yet fully understood and solutions are not yet effectively implemented. Should we put more effort into predictive initiatives and dare I say forensic style investigations of incidents. Both are ideally suited to improved AI style techniques where large masses of data are combed for patterns.

I have only picked on those two because news items have highlighted the changes and problems in those two industries.

Incidentally, many so called ‘manual and menial tasks’ did require skills that were learned on the job to overcome the deficiencies of machines or working practices. Too many of those who worked had considerably more capability for skilled work than their development path had recognised. The old shipbuilders who built riveted ships were either highly skilled or sadly dead. For a complex range of reasons the industry failed to move forward, lack of flexibility, restrictive practices at all levels of the business, shop floor to management suit. Oh and poor training, again from shop floor to management suit.

Will AI see some, (hopefully all) of the weaknesses addressed?

I would like to think so but I know I am unlikely to see either the fruits of success or the bitterness of failure

One of the problems is that the population of the world is expanding faster that our ability to feed, cloth and house them.  Agriculture has seen a rapid progression in automation in the last one hundred years.  This automation is necessary to match the demand, but it’s also true that ease of population movement and import/export of goods and services has degraded the basic framework which our economies have been built upon.

At the start of the 20th century, the UK produced a vast amount of goods which sustained the UK economy the surplus was then sold around the world.  People in the villages worked the farms and mills which supplied the towns where the manufacturing industries were based.  In turn, these factories supplied all levels of the economy.

During and after the wars population migration towards the town reduced traditional manpower for the countrysides forcing agriculture to look else where, whilst this was not the only affecting factor given the strides in mechanisation the newly unemployed were able to find employment elsewhere. This, of course, leads to the situation you see today where villages are now a retreat for those in the town to escape to whilst automation has lead to large scale farms being run by teams of 10-15 people instead of needing the additional 100+ summer workers.

Of course, the story does not end here, the EEC came followed by the EU and allowing freedom of movement and goods.  For better or worse this destroyed the industries we had as cheaper rival appeared on our doorstep unable to turn these goods away, forcing workers to diversify and improve their processes or fail completely.  There was some shock absorption from other manual labour trades building, transportation etc. To a large extent these industries have seen little in the way of AI taking their jobs, yes a computer loads the optimal route and tells them where to drive but ultimately the delivery drive of the 70’s is still with us.

AI will play a bigger part in our lives and it does need to, the latest farms are now far more efficient thanks to self-driving GPS guided tractors, automated milking machines not only collect the milk but scan for health issues and regulate food intact to ensure we’re producing it in the quantities needed to sustain our economy.  I largely suspect the 47% unemployment will be attributed in America to the protecting the unions that have fought off the rise of the robot.

“Make America Great Again” was Trump’s slogan and certainly when you look at it Trump has the capacity to bring all though imports back to the US, and back to the workers who will become unemployed if that statistic is to be believed.  Whilst many disagree with Canada and Australia’s immigration policy they put the jobs of their citizens first, something the EU does not.

Whilst we have considered the impact that AI and automation have had on our futures, it is unlikely that the EU has.  For example, if we automate fruit picking to an AI controlled robot and prototypes do exist. Who will employ those Eastern European Workers?  Will the EU outlaw the use of such devices to protect their rights?

Inwards looking, in this case, may be our only chance of survival.  If we shut the door to the rest of the world as others have we can protect these jobs, force the unemployed to pick fruit and work the fields will they aspire to work in better conditions and climb the ladders did as our ancestors did too.  Remember at the start of the 20th century we world a world power, not something that can be said now.

We have to forget about ‘we was a world power’, as we was them as we was more advanced than nations, (and america was inward looking and let us).

By the time we advanced as far as the atom bomb , we had no advantage over anyone , so our small island with limited numbers can no longer force our will on people . So we will never rule the world again. We was just “lucky” we [European nations ] advance quicker than the rest . And also that the usa didn’t want anything to do with Europe.

I read this and wondered if world trade is going into reverse:

https://tinyurl.com/zmtg32d

Chinese jobs go to the USA? WTF? :scratch:

A bit harsh Bob , my two favorites meals would be no more .

Richard atm I think the train striles are not only for the drivers , I think we underground (London ) run automatically, and just have a driver sat in (madness ), but the current arguments are also about conductors and who should be in charge of closing the doors.

Which I find stange as on the north west as soon as button oppersite doors became a thing the passenger opened and closed them . The guard just locked them via a maim terminal prior to blowing his whistle

A job that isn’t needed today, but is me}t because of unions.

Now I understand the need to keep people in employment , as 1. It’s cheaper for the gov, 2. it give the peropn more spending power with the economy. And I don’t know who owns these trains, but who ever it is, the cash is better off in an employees hand and circulating the economy , than going into a huge back account overseas .

So even though I think the whole union thing , of its always been like this so we refuse to change, even if our roll is redundant, I’m sort of also on there side. Or at least the side of keeping the money within our economy.

Tbh if it was privatised ,and they could all run totally unmannedc is becall for that as the profits could go to supporting those inanle to work.

Today we should never privatising everything , hostile takeover , make it all as I’m manned as possible, and start the future axcomomy where the government looks after those that can’t find work.

It’s a hard balancing act as you want every one that can provide the knowledge and skill , to want to work, while not making them think F-that, im gonna say home and watch TV all day.

I think the start of it, is 1. Privatisation , 2. Reduced hours, heads of companies could work as long as they like, but if we moved to 3 day weeks , whoe all getting tax credits , is better than only have)fvas many doing 6 day weeks, reciving less tax credits, bit more implement Benefits.  there is a health issue is to , to not working.

Also I’d like people to stay on school longer, start later, around 7 and stay to about 20-22, basically integrate college into schools , also then if you don’t go on to higher education, you go into the forces for 4 years ,with the option to stay. If you fail at higher education, you have to go into the armed forces.

But my armed forces , wouldn’t be infantry, it would start with basic training techniques, get them obodeant, bit then win there 4 years, move them around form soldering, driver, mechanic, building/trades. Basically an army come Polly technic.

All the trades we would still need, and not yet automated . So when you turn 26-28. 1. You’ll have an idea what your good at/like and 2 you’ll have the basics to fulfill that roll . All wholl keeping the under 28 I’m almost full time employment, or almost at zero unemployment, would be a better reflection .

Then when you exit the army, you would enter one of your chosen feilds , (hopefully ), and work a 3 day week, untill your pretty high up the chain and there are less people to cover 2x3dau weeks, all paid at around the same rate.

Basically discrinong a form of communism. However that would seem to go totally against what I put forward earlier, bit of want this on a global scale , or at least on a European one to begin with. Or on an American federal level.

As if a single nation does this, goes all commy, and closes boarders, it doesn’t work , as your economy stagnates while others grow, and given no contest can survive with no imports, you’ll go bust on 50 years, and the people will slowly suffer bit by bit , year by year.

But if you could get America and the EU to do it, that is enough of the world’s spending power, (economy frozen ) to stop the rapid growth of China, and the inevitable growth of India and Africa, which will come as soon as China gets a little too expensive for us.

As for capatalism to work , it always needs a winner , (a hand full of power full super rich families ) and nations of loosers. ATM the loosers is the Chinese people , the Indians and Africans , even more so but to a lesser degree.

But as soon as China gets richer, and need to charge more for it’s goods, India will be the next production hot spot. It is already a big provider of highsteet clothing . Elaborate numbers for £3!

Eventually the China’s and India’s , will become rich , and production will return to us, bit that won’t because good thing . Capatalism is a big circle of winners and lots of loosers . we need to get off this train .

Socalism is a good way to make and share wealth equally, but doesn’t permote  growth . Today with stocks,shares, intrest we are obsessed with growth.

IMO once business is floated , and is run for growth , the business is a time bomb. Forever chasing growth to please investers. Instead of the compamy just being satisfied with the nice profits . The profits don’t matter, growth is king. A tryrant of a king.

Now I’ve just thrown up on the forum , alot of it touay say is hypocritical, as actually works against each other. I never said I had the answers, I think a whole new economic mimdset os needed. I can see the issues, or at least the blinding ones. And think I have seen good questions , with bad answers. but non the less answers that should make us all think .

Inward nationalism isn’t the answer, full employment, isn’t the answer. The answer is Star Trek like utopia. I’m assuming they are a communist globe, where you work for the lifestyle , and betterment of yourself and your people.

All great but how to get from here to there , is one huge question? If you made it this far hello.

Robin Long wrote:

For me as a former driver and ASLEF member, I would rather have a guard on board, and it’s an additional number in the event of things going wrong. That’s OT though. automation of train functions ie. doors etc. is not mandatory in fact certain trains HST’s and alike have to have a guard since doors cannot be operated from the cab. The real issue here is automation via AI of jobs and the effect on employees, it’s not fair to simply blame lack of workforce or financial savings for the introduction of the AI employee. In most cases, the AI employee has been introduced because it’s either more efficient or people just do not want the jobs.

I agree with your writings, though this is not so much to do with AI  and the future of employment.

There are two situations that cry out for AI or actually simple automation; where people have a poor track record, e.g the jobs are  mindlessly boring, (e.g. a Croydon tram driver), are in hazardous situations, where the use of a human would be immoral and where there are few if any suitable candidates.

Sometimes a tiny bit of automation can have profound effects on service, (I know that to some ‘service’ appears to have become a dirty word). Years back I introduced a semi automated process, it did no one out of a job but it did check that a process had been followed. For the first week or so a box of fanfold station was consumed printing out the exceptions and service complaints continued to be a serious daily issue. After a drains up, the fog cleared and the complaints dropped from double or triple digits per day to one or two a quarter.

I have said before about my concern that no levels of workers, from top to bottom are immune from being unsuited to their roles, all levels suffer poor training, attitudes and skills. However ‘leaders’ of the RMT proudly spouting they want to overthrow the UK government should give pause for thought.

I wonder how that would fly if someone suggested overthrowing thug Putin on RT?

The Duke wrote:

I’d imagine the other throwing of Putin has been discussed by Nato and the EU , and of it was so powerful would of been done some years ago.

Steve, we know what happens even if a Russian does not go on RT to denounce him but does not exactly laud him in other places. They get gaoled or killed polonium cocktails anyone?

People in secret conclaves do not count, however, I doubt that NATO have ever discussed the assassination of putin except to suspect that the world might be a better place without him. Sadly they would recognise that removing him would be ‘unproductive’ given the otherwise unstable state of Russia. The mess could very easily get far far worse as the replacement would be an unknown guess game contestant. That game is best not played.

It chills me to the bone when MP’s and former British Military Intelligence chiefs say that the mistake was not “putting boots on the ground” in Syria. What kind of idiocy prompts this? In some quarters, there have no lessons been learned from two Gulf Wars and Afghanistan. British troops in Syria would have been hostages. What if British troops fighting with, and for, the forces opposing Assad, had met Russian forces fighting for Assad? What if the Russians had carried out air strikes against “terrorists” who happened to be British forces?

Thanks to CameRants Defence cuts, there are not enough troops left in the British Army to constitute a sizeable enough force. I very much doubt that Obama would have sent American forces into that hellhole. It would have been ten times worse than other situations in which the British Army could never distiguish friend from foe. There are so many different groups of belligerents, all with their own agenda, that it would have been a military and logistics nightmare.

What is to become of the world when the two new Best Friends, Putin and Trump, are finally able to put their heads together? First signs are that China may become a target for both their efforts.