There will never be full employment again

Tell me I am wrong,but with the advent of technology and robotics I see no chance of reducing unemployment.

The only way I see society working is if the working week is reduced.:|

 

[MOIC]

Tell me I am wrong,but with the advent of technology and robotics I see no chance of reducing unemployment.

The only way I see society working is if the working week is reduced.:|

.....................And the robots work 8 days a week!

There are many factors that cause unemployment, and the most important is that women are prevalent in the working place where 50 years ago, this was not the case.

Society evolves and it's a case of adapting to changing times.

Perhaps, if companies using robots are taxed for each robot, they will help subsidise the unemployed whose jobs they are taking.

It doesnt help that successive governments sometimes make it more attractive to not find work.

There is never a 'right" solution and this makes society what it is.

 

[beasty]

Yes there will be, just needs redefined, simple

 

[The_Bag_Supplier_Ltd]

Interesting views above, I particularly didn't like the one distinguishing working women as a reason for high unemployment!

'Labour Saving Devices (LSD's)'<<< Now there's a phrase which might be worth investigating!

I would argue that LSD's within business are largely about saving time and money, and, that LSD's in the Working Family home are all about saving personal time and energy.

Are Working Families driving down prices in order to make the most out of limited time and energy, thereby encouraging businesses to become more competitive and productive?

Or are businesses so competitive with each other that they have little other choice than to produce faster and cheaper in order to gain a market share in a money limited sector?

The answer is, in my view, probably not one or the other but, rather, both. They both pivot on 'MONEY'.

The Unemployed survive on little money and have plenty of time, they are possibly the answer to the needs of both business and working family homes. So why are LSD's favoured instead?

Lack of personal freedom may be the answer...

Unemployment in the UK may be a problem due to the fact that we have a Minimum Wage which encourages prospective employers to look for cheaper mechanical means to produce goods and services rather than use a comparatively expensive labour force.

If the minimum wage was removed then it is possible that many of the Unemployed would take up low paid jobs. These low paid jobs would enable businesses to compete using an inexpensive Labour Force and would enable Working Family Homes to take on help. As a result, the need for LSD's could somewhat decrease and employment opportunity increase.

Perhaps China might be an example of how a cheap labour force could operate and how this might affect Unemployment Rates?

I would argue that the 'Social Impact' of removing the Minimum Wage could be overwhelmingly positive too.

"Idle Hands Are The Devil's Playthings" is a phrase which springs to mind. I would guess that the Mental Health of the Nation would improve and Crime would go into decline as result of considered and reasonable removal of the Minimum Wage?

I don't think Machinery is causing Unemployment, I think that Unemployment is causing Machinery.

Women working? Really, is there anyone out there who really believes that Women Working is the cause of Unemployment? It appears so, but not in my view. Women working are an asset, an asset which we could ill do without.

 

[MOIC]

Women working? Really, is there anyone out there who really believes that Women Working is the cause of Unemployment? It appears so, but not in my view. Women working are an asset, an asset which we could ill do without.

You missed my point, my intention was not that working woman are the "cause" of unemployment.

If there are are 100 jobs and 200 people after the same job, then 100 are left unemployed. 50 years ago (and more) the majority of the workforce were men. Women, for the most part were looking after the home, where now it is evenly distributed.

Yes, ofcourse I agree that women working are an asset, as they offer a different perspective in certain positions which they are more suited to.

Time evolves and so do working peoples habits...................and yes, the day of robots doing what robots are better at doing, will increase in the workplace.

 

[beasty]

Developing countries have lower labour costs and labour intensive work therefore over time goes there, it is Comparative advantage a very easy to follow economic theory in practise.

The UK cannot compete for this work, we need to aim at services, technology, science, medicine, engineering etc

IMO.. we have too many graduates we need to push the best harder as we compete on worldwide scale and not just with countries nearby, success at the top means global success means employment in non sweatshop type jobs

 

[The_Bag_Supplier_Ltd]

I understand the reasoning behind the argument, above, that Women working allegedly explain Unemployment because history once discouraged women from working, however, I do not agree with your reasoning. I believe it is a matter of correlation=cause confusion.

Historically, women 'worked' in the home as a largely 'unpaid' workforce. I would argue that they contributed immeasurably to the state of the economy as a result of this. These days women are largely paid for their work outside of the home and still remain to contribute greatly to the economy. All that has really changed is their 'geography' (for want of a better word).

Historical gender absences from the external work place do not explain the high rise in Unemployment now. A person's absence from the home arguably would create an employment opportunity for someone within the home, yet this employment opportunity has not arisen and been taken by the Unemployed, instead it has been inadequately filled with Labour Saving Device's.

Part of my previous argument is that Unemployment is fuelled by lack of economic freedom and not by changes in gender freedom to work and get paid for it.

I would argue that Women working contribute greatly to the creation of jobs rather than the other way around. This is true both of employment opportunities externally in the work place and within the home.

I would say that Labour Saving Devices, in the work place and at home, are a considerable factor to be considered when discussing the causes of unemployment. And, it is the lack of economical freedom that is driving people to decide upon machine when making the choice between person or machine.

Expense may be more of deciding factor than convenience in these times of austerity?

Plus, of course, restrictive and stifling red tape.

I think that choosing Women working as the potential reason for Unemployment is perhaps a little ill thought out. Correlation=Cause confusion is good start for debate but perhaps can too easily be disproved by adding more premise to be a good conclusion.

I agree, however, that there are many contributory causes to Unemployment not just one. And, increased machinery being used at a time of decrease in employment could as easily be correlation=cause confusion too.

Good to discuss it though eh?

 

Missing the point.this is inevitable.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/...s-could-be-automated-within-the-next-20-years

 

[Billmccallum]

50 years ago large companies employed 50 people in an accounts office processing payments, now they have epos systems and one or two real people.

Car makers employed thousands on each assembly line, now it's 100's, alongside robotic systems.

the reality, as stated in the OP, is that we are reducing the need for people to work.

at the same time we are increasing population....do the maths....

 

[MASSEY]

Good, who wants to work all week every week? But i can see it being an issue for low skilled jobs that already pay pretty badly.

Maybe there needs to be less monkeys and more organ grinders in the future uk economy?

 

[The_Bag_Supplier_Ltd]

Employment in Machinery manufacture is the way forward then?

 

[The_Bag_Supplier_Ltd]

I agree, re: not having to work all week.

Maybe the Unemployed in the UK have got it right and, surprisingly, industry is there to provide for them for free or little money.

It is an interesting Social Model, that is, those who work to make and control the machinery are the 'slaves' to those who do not.

Not much of an incentive for entrepreneurship though I guess.

Okay.. there's the answer... build more machines and abolish work for the vast majority altogether. Then there will be no such thing as unemployed. Problem solved.

SIMPLES!

 

I agree, re: not having to work all week.

Maybe the Unemployed in the UK have got it right and, surprisingly, industry is there to provide for them for free or little money.

It is an interesting Social Model, that is, those who work to make and control the machinery are the 'slaves' to those who do not.

Not much of an incentive for entrepreneurship though I guess.

Okay.. there's the answer... build more machines and abolish work for the vast majority altogether. Then there will be no such thing as unemployed. Problem solved.

SIMPLES!

Its simpler than that machinery and robots were designed to make life better for all,not just the few as is the case now.

as said many times "there is enough for the needy but not enough for the greedy"

 

[GeorgeM]

The big change has been the arrival of so-called open markets. The UK may have a population of circa 80 million, but it now exists within a trade zone (the EU) of some 300 million, and around 7 billion worldwide.

That means there are a much larger number of people competing to do the same work than say even 30 years ago. Hence the pressure on jobs.

This makes it much harder for Governments to manage their economies - because they can no longer control labour and capital - both of which now freely moves around.

 

[The_Bag_Supplier_Ltd]

I agree George M. So what (or who) is stopping us being competitive?

 

I agree George M. So what (or who) is stopping us being competitive?

Capitalism is.

We need to make and grow the things the world needs and stop concentrating on making money.

 

[The_Bag_Supplier_Ltd]

I think that eventually it may come to this again SirEarl. Communism (Socialsim) has been seen not to work either. Do you think that 'Selfism' is the answer or is that 'Capitalism' under another name?

 

I think that eventually it may come to this again SirEarl. Communism (Socialsim) has been seen not to work either. Do you think that 'Selfism' is the answer or is that 'Capitalism' under another name?

No idea what a new system should be,but I would hope it was based on humanitarian principles.

Can not be reasonable let alone safe that 1% of the population own 99% of the worlds wealth.

 

[Core List]

The only way I see society working is if the working week is reduced

With the increased efficiency, we are paid the same and have a 3 day weekend. Amen to that.
John

 

[GeorgeM]

I agree George M. So what (or who) is stopping us being competitive?

Our UK politicians don't seem to understand that open markets has put every trading economy on a path to 'economic war' with each other. Better than real wars - but it will still hurt many people. More like a slow death than a quick one. It may be all lovey dovey at the UN - but in reality its economic war!

As a result the UK will have to re-invent itself, economically, and our politicians don't understand (or care) just what a hugh challenge that is - taking circa 20+ years at least. In the mean time we face more competition, and growing hardship for many people.

 

[Moneyman]

Sir earl,
oh dear are you really taking predictions from a survivalist website. I see they are doing cheap freeze dried food...better stock up.

I remember as I constructed my first computer ( no screen 1k memory and a hex keyboard.) my economics teacher was trying to get us to calculate digitally the analogue models of the economy that have been used for decades. Computers were going to do the work of 10 men (or women more likely as they were the typists etc). THE WORLD AS WE KNEW IT WAS GOING TO COME TO A BIG BUMP AND CRASH.

IT Didn't, as it happened. we just did more work. The economics that you are talking about has a finite amount of work available. millions of people in the telephone industry putting through calls and typing letters has morphed into app developers and so on. I farm with 4 guys the same land as my dad did with 20! progress.

full employment never existed in a time of expansion and can never exist without inflation and chaos.

 

[The_Bag_Supplier_Ltd]

I guess it is fair to say that most 'wars' have given rise to innovation and invention in weaponry alongside death, doom and despondency.

Innovative and inventive times ahead then eh?

 

[Nuno]

Moneyman, your point about agriculture might be the nub of it. The technological change happening now, (which began at the time of your first computer), might be as large an economic tectonic shift as was the move from agriculture to manufacturing.

If so it will cause huge dislocation for a generation or so, but as you say, jobs will change and new ones will replace the old.

An interesting book on this says about the possible new types of jobs:

(There will be)jobs for people who can increase the productivity of machines/computers, and (no jobs) for those who will be replaced by them

Average is Over, Tyler Cowen

 

[The Byre]

Missing the point.this is inevitable.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/...s-could-be-automated-within-the-next-20-years

That article and this debate is based around the old chestnut 'A Lump of Labour'.

'The Lump of Labour' argument is of course a well-known fallacy in economics and only nut-jobs and the economically illiterate still cling to the idea. It is closely related to the Luddite Fallacy, that an increase in productivity leads to unemployment.

The idea that robots will do everything and we will either just sit around all day or all be unemployed is the sort of discussion best suited to the primary school playground.

 

The idea that robots will do everything and we will either just sit around all day or all be unemployed is the sort of discussion best suited to the primary school playground.

I take it you have never seen Ocado's distribution centers.

 

[Simply Business]

A different way of looking at things:

An interesting fact -
10 of the most wanted jobs in 2013 did not exist in 2004.

It seems that as the world grows with technology this will inevitably create new job roles that do not exist yet and the "robots" will have always have upgrades and they cant build themselves.

Kristina

 

Parkinsons law,but I doubt it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson's_law

 

[MOIC]

A different way of looking at things:

An interesting fact -
10 of the most wanted jobs in 2013 did not exist in 2004.

It seems that as the world grows with technology this will inevitably create new job roles that do not exist yet and the "robots" will have always have upgrades and they cant build themselves.

Kristina

Very valid and worthwhile point.

Technology and green energy are areas that will surely bring a wealth of jobs that man will initially have to carry out (yes, with the aid of machinery...and dare I say.....robots eventually)

 

[greengecko]

Depends how you define 'Full Employment', if it's 0% unemployment then no it will never happen again unless you're running some sort of communist state.

It is in everyone's interest to have a certain level of unemployment.

 

[beasty]

Depends how you define 'Full Employment', if it's 0% unemployment then no it will never happen again unless you're running some sort of communist state.

It is in everyone's interest to have a certain level of unemployment.

FULL employment?

There is no such thing, there is Economic theory that considers it and it usually means 2% of the workforce are not actually working at any given time, due to cyclical demand for certain jobs.

The Government does not understand?
The Government does understand, you cannot massively influence the global economy, we are not a manufacturing nation, we WERE but times have changed and our economy needs to be based on brains and not stuff (You cannot compete with China on labour, you cannot compete with the others on many other levels of natural resource)

There is a natural economic order to the world, the UK has had a head start as one of the innovative nations in the past but now that technology is global and not just in the first world, many jobs and outputs cannot be done here (comparative advantage), the UK needs to Make the technology that the others use to produce the high volume goods, it needs to create the services and soft skills that competing rich in human resource and natural resource countries want to pay for to market their outputs.

It is a funny topic as without some actual economic theory it is very easy to be way off base here.

If you are talking Global Economics, maybe read a little about it first, trying to increase educational standards is a major defense to the UKs wealth, pushing more people to Uni was the plan, sadly this is not working IMO and we should encourage LESS to go and aim for excellence and market skills based learning better as less of a thickos choice (for want of a better expression)

innovation and services are the future of a successful UK economy not trying to manufacture stuff, we did that not others are doing it.