Decline In Professional Jobs Fuels Increase In Downward Mobility

[MarkG]

Yet the article suggests that more high tech jobs is the solution, despite the fact that high tech in general eliminates more jobs than it creates- which it must if the idea of 'progress' is to mean anything at all.

Tech has created at least as much work as it's destroyed, because it frees up money to spend on other things. But you know that, because we've pointed it out to you many times before.

Of course, two of the things technology is best at eliminating are professions ('I have secret knowledge you must pay through the nose for' 'But I have Google, and it's already told me what I need to do') and middle managers ('I take this piece of paper from here, tick this box, and put it here' 'OK, that's two lines of code. Bye').

Edited November 10, 2014 by MarkG

[Si1]

Tech has created at least as much work as it's destroyed, because it frees up money to spend on other things. But you know that, because we've pointed it out to you many times before.

Of course, two of the things technology is best at eliminating are professions ('I have secret knowledge you must pay through the nose for' 'But I have Google, and it's already told me what I need to do') and middle managers ('I take this piece of paper from here, tick this box, and put it here' 'OK, that's two lines of code. Bye').

Rather explains the suspicion shown by management towards 'Best practice' in most IT areas I'm familiar with, properly analysed solutions would reduce the need for management, whereas thick as mince code monkeys amplify this need

[Sandwiches33]

Rather explains the suspicion shown by management towards 'Best practice' in most IT areas I'm familiar with, properly analysed solutions would reduce the need for management, whereas thick as mince code monkeys amplify this need

I actually think you could replace most of government with an app, a website and a couple of bits of software. Some sort of digital direct democracy. Really easy to implement, if we can vote on pop stars we could vote on anything. Couldnt be any less secure than what we have and certainly less expensive.

[goldbug9999]

Yet the article suggests that more high tech jobs is the solution, despite the fact that high tech in general eliminates more jobs than it creates- which it must if the idea of 'progress' is to mean anything at all.

After all if technological progress actually created the need for more human labor instead of less human labor it would fail a basic test of what 'progress' means, at least as most people understand the term.

A technology that created more work instead of less work would be kind of pointless.

So the dream sold to us by the technologists is that more and better technology will free human beings from the drudgery of work- but they seem to have failed to work out exactly what happens to the people who are 'freed' from their jobs- and the income those jobs provide.

The answer seems to be that they will become minimum wage earning drones- not quite the bright and shiny future we were promised.

I see someone rattled your cage again.

As usual your completely missing the point, namely that most things have a low price point threshold that enables new economic niches to become viable. A good proportion of todays businesses simply could not exist without super cheap internet and email for example. How many new business models will ubiquitous cheap 3D printing create for example when it hits the schene ?.

Edited November 10, 2014 by goldbug9999

[Timak]

I see someone rattled your cage again.

As usual your completely missing the point, namely that most things have a low price point threshold that enables new economic niches to become viable. A good proportion of todays businesses simply could not exist without super cheap internet and email.

Thank goodness for all that government investment that created it then.

[MarkG]

Thank goodness for all that government investment that created it then.

Ooh, it's lefty sound-bite time.

Back in the real world, government was a hindrance to the early development of the commercial Internet, because of 'no commercial use' policies on the government-run segments. In any case, the amount of 'government investment' involved was miniscule compared to the amount of commercial investment since that policy was removed.

[Neverwhere]

I actually think you could replace most of government with an app, a website and a couple of bits of software. Some sort of digital direct democracy. Really easy to implement, if we can vote on pop stars we could vote on anything. Couldnt be any less secure than what we have and certainly less expensive.

Totally agree, from a lay perspective a public key crypto/web of trust model seems like it would be at least as secure as our current system.

Could be a good idea for a public movement to just get on and do this unofficially in order to prove that it could be done securely, and to publish the results of unofficial digital plebiscites to highlight the differences between what the public want and what the politicians (who are supposed to represent them but generally sneer at those few who actually try to do so as "populist") actually do. It could operate like a lobby group on behalf of the public in general rather than any special/vested interest group...

[Sandwiches33]

I actually think you could replace most of government with an app, a website and a couple of bits of software. Some sort of digital direct democracy. Really easy to implement, if we can vote on pop stars we could vote on anything. Couldnt be any less secure than what we have and certainly less expensive.

I suggest this because to see all the MPs outside parliament with cardboard boxes like the close of lehman bros would be ******ing priceless. I could give some talk to the news about protecting business and outsourcing and austerity while rows of MPS stood behind me with "sadface"

[wonderpup]

I see someone rattled your cage again.

As usual your completely missing the point, namely that most things have a low price point threshold that enables new economic niches to become viable. A good proportion of todays businesses simply could not exist without super cheap internet and email for example. How many new business models will ubiquitous cheap 3D printing create for example when it hits the schene ?

You are missing the big picture here- if technological progress does not result in less need for humans to work then it fails a basic test by which we define progress.

So if you think that technology creates as much work as it eliminates then you are in effect arguing that progress is impossible- that no matter how advanced we become we will still all be obliged to work 40 hours a week to live- does this strike you as a credible claim to make?

The idea that technology creates more work is quite an odd notion, given that the entire purpose of much technology is to remove the need for work. Yes it's true that on a micro scale technology creates new types of work- but on a macro scale that technology must reduce the overall amount of work that needs doing- if not then what's the point?

After all the idea that technology will result in a human race freed from the drudgery of work is one of our societies most cherished aspirations- so it's you who are expressing a fringe view, not me- I'm in the mainstream here.

[Austin Allegro]

I actually think you could replace most of government with an app, a website and a couple of bits of software. Some sort of digital direct democracy. Really easy to implement, if we can vote on pop stars we could vote on anything. Couldnt be any less secure than what we have and certainly less expensive.

I've just done self assessment for HMRC for the first time, after starting a small home business.

The whole thing is basically just an app. A human being presumably checks a few returns, but it can't be that many, because my mother got picked up for a mistake in hers, but the next year, she made the same mistake again and it wasn't picked up on.

[Austin Allegro]

I realised a few years ago that there's no need for most people to work, but the powers that be will never admit it or enable it, because it would mean freedom from property slavery. In the middle ages, people were slaves to the land. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, they were slaves to industry. In the twenty first century there's no real need to be a slave to anything - but the powers that be have ensured that most people are slave to debt, mostly via artificially high property prices. The solution is to avoid getting into debt - live frugal and free, as Benjamin Franklin said.

[goldbug9999]

You are missing the big picture here- if technological progress does not result in less need for humans to work then it fails a basic test by which we define progress.

So if you think that technology creates as much work as it eliminates then you are in effect arguing that progress is impossible- that no matter how advanced we become we will still all be obliged to work 40 hours a week to live- does this strike you as a credible claim to make?

Your conflating opportunity to work and necessity to work, although I cant work out whether this is through bloody mindedness or stupidity.

Progress reduces the necessity to work but maintains or even raises the level of opportunity to work. The former because less total effort is collectively needed to provide everyone with baseline living requirements, the latter is true because there is much more discretionary purchasing power swilling around (since essential living costs are lower).

[steve99]

Inevitable fallout from pumping the #1 biggest expense a person faces in life.

incredible the number of conservatives that harp on about the sanctity of the principle of 'equality of opportunities' whilst simultaneously supporting policies that increase dependence on inheritance.

As intended, after all it should be the landed gentries place in life to gift jobs and houses to their deserving offspring rather than have them compete with working class filth that believe that they are entitled to compete for the same goodies.

Even Australia where I now live is going through the same s*(t with the idiot prime ministers daughter jumping the queue for a $60,000 grant for a scholarship

http://www.news.com.au/national/classmates-express-fury-over-tony-abbotts-daughter-frances-being-awarded-60000-scholarship-to-whitehouse-institute-of-design/story-fncynjr2-1226926934506

So even if you can afford to give your kids everything for free, you make sure that they also get other peoples stuff for free also. There are no limits to greed and arrogance.

Even better Sydney's median asking price for houses (and they will get the asking price) is now $1Million which is more than GDP 500K. The 'haves' are crowing about this 'economic achievement'.. apparently it means we are all more wealthy and only negative, whinging detractors decry this wonderful achievement.

http://www.propertyobserver.com.au/finding/location/nsw/37678-sydney-s-median-asking-price-tips-over-1-million-mark-sqm-research.html?utm_source=Property+Observer+List&utm_campaign=dca56ee1fc-11_November_201411_11_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_a523fbfccb-dca56ee1fc-245358025

my comment underneath the article.

Sorry folks you wont escape the UKs mess by moving to Aus or NZ.

[Sandwiches33]

As intended, after all it should be the landed gentries place in life to gift jobs and houses to their deserving offspring rather than have them compete with working class filth that believe that they are entitled to compete for the same goodies.

Even Australia where I now live is going through the same s*(t with the idiot prime ministers daughter jumping the queue for a $60,000 grant for a scholarship

http://www.news.com.au/national/classmates-express-fury-over-tony-abbotts-daughter-frances-being-awarded-60000-scholarship-to-whitehouse-institute-of-design/story-fncynjr2-1226926934506

So even if you can afford to give your kids everything for free, you make sure that they also get other peoples stuff for free also. There are no limits to greed and arrogance.

Even better Sydney's median asking price for houses (and they will get the asking price) is now $1Million which is more than GDP 500K. The 'haves' are crowing about this 'economic achievement'.. apparently it means we are all more wealthy and only negative, whinging detractors decry this wonderful achievement.

http://www.propertyobserver.com.au/finding/location/nsw/37678-sydney-s-median-asking-price-tips-over-1-million-mark-sqm-research.html?utm_source=Property+Observer+List&utm_campaign=dca56ee1fc-11_November_201411_11_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_a523fbfccb-dca56ee1fc-245358025

my comment underneath the article.

Sorry folks you wont escape the UKs mess by moving to Aus or NZ.

Yes my NZ family are really disheartened and furious about the "importing" of british houseprice madness. I have listened to many rants about "fffing pommes coming here now a fffing block if cheese it ten dollars and its impossible to buy a house, we need to close the fffing borders" LOL

[MarkG]

The idea that technology creates more work is quite an odd notion, given that the entire purpose of much technology is to remove the need for work. Yes it's true that on a micro scale technology creates new types of work- but on a macro scale that technology must reduce the overall amount of work that needs doing- if not then what's the point?

I am just shocked--shocked, I tell you!--by the suggestion that people who want resources that others could more profitably use might have to do something useful to justify their own use of those resources. How could that possibly be? Why won't other people just give us their stuff for nothing? It just isn't fair!

[wonderpup]

Your conflating opportunity to work and necessity to work, although I cant work out whether this is through bloody mindedness or stupidity.

Progress reduces the necessity to work but maintains or even raises the level of opportunity to work. The former because less total effort is collectively needed to provide everyone with baseline living requirements, the latter is true because there is much more discretionary purchasing power swilling around (since essential living costs are lower).

I define work as activity that is deemed necessary- for whatever reason- even if it's undertaken to achieve a lifestyle above baseline requirements. So this arbitrary distinction you make between need to work vs opportunity to work has no meaning.

If work is the only means by which I can achieve my aim then that work is by definition necessary to me, because without it I will be unable to achieve my aim- whatever that aim may be.

What technology is supposed to deliver is not the 'opportunity' to work,but the ability to achieve my aim without needing to work at all.

So when you argue that technology creates as much work as it removes you are in effect arguing that progress is impossible- if progress is to be defined as removing the necessity to work.

Take the cartoon example;

You have a magic printing press in your home that you can use to create money directly, with no chance of ever being discovered- if you need money at any time you could simply print it at the touch of a button.

At this point you do not lack the opportunity to work- but you do lack the necessity to do so.

Question; do you ever work a day in your life again? I suspect the answer is no.

So it turns out that the 'opportunity' to work and the necessity to work are the same thing and cannot in reality be separated. Work is only an 'opportunity' if it is the only means of getting what I want- if another means became available-say a magic printing press- then that 'opportunity' would become a pointless chore.

[wonderpup]

I am just shocked--shocked, I tell you!--by the suggestion that people who want resources that others could more profitably use might have to do something useful to justify their own use of those resources. How could that possibly be? Why won't other people just give us their stuff for nothing? It just isn't fair!

You're thinking too small here- in a world where technology does the work no one need justify their existence in terms of their productive value , since they would have no productive value, that function having been automated.

The utopian aim of technology is to render human beings worthless in economic terms- that is what we call 'progress'.

In the future we might admire people not based on the quality of their productivity but on the verve and creativity of their consumption- given that in an automated society the one function that could not be automated would be consumption.

[Qetesuesi]

You're thinking too small here- in a world where technology does the work no one need justify their existence in terms of their productive value , since they would have no productive value, that function having been automated.

The utopian aim of technology is to render human beings worthless in economic terms- that is what we call 'progress'.

In the future we might admire people not based on the quality of their productivity but on the verve and creativity of their consumption- given that in an automated society the one function that could not be automated would be consumption.

All perfectly true, bar your final comment which is breathtakingly philistine and materialistic What could be better fitted to asset-stripping the planet in double quick time, than to multiply robots to do it for us a million times more than at present?

[cock-eyed octopus]

You are missing the big picture here- if technological progress does not result in less need for humans to work then it fails a basic test by which we define progress.

So if you think that technology creates as much work as it eliminates then you are in effect arguing that progress is impossible- that no matter how advanced we become we will still all be obliged to work 40 hours a week to live- does this strike you as a credible claim to make?

The idea that technology creates more work is quite an odd notion, given that the entire purpose of much technology is to remove the need for work. Yes it's true that on a micro scale technology creates new types of work- but on a macro scale that technology must reduce the overall amount of work that needs doing- if not then what's the point?

After all the idea that technology will result in a human race freed from the drudgery of work is one of our societies most cherished aspirations- so it's you who are expressing a fringe view, not me- I'm in the mainstream here.

I've been saying this for ages.

It's all a matter of how you define 'work'. For me, it means performing a task I don't want to do in order to survive. Didn't Orwell write about men performing feats of endurance, in terrible conditions, in pursuit of a hobby? Something they'd never countenance at work.

It's the fundamental problem of our age; how do we apportion the enormous wealth we now produce with any degree of equity? It's clearly not happening at the moment. All that is occurring is that more & more of us only function as consumers, & as such we're not going to see anything much above subsistence.

Perhaps some sort of citizen's wage is the answer. But how do we reward the people who do hard, necessary, real, work? If you pay them much more than CW, can you imagine the outcry? Would you trust politicians to get the balance right? What do we do about immigrants - legal & illegal - then?

I'm not saying the problems are insuperable, but it's a bloody long way from here to there.

Meanwhile I just hope my job lasts till I retire. Mostly selling Ronco Fartcatcher equivalents to bored housewives. oh that it's come to this .......

[Sandwiches33]

I've been saying this for ages.

It's all a matter of how you define 'work'. For me, it means performing a task I don't want to do in order to survive. Didn't Orwell write about men performing feats of endurance, in terrible conditions, in pursuit of a hobby? Something they'd never countenance at work.

It's the fundamental problem of our age; how do we apportion the enormous wealth we now produce with any degree of equity? It's clearly not happening at the moment. All that is occurring is that more & more of us only function as consumers, & as such we're not going to see anything much above subsistence.

Perhaps some sort of citizen's wage is the answer. But how do we reward the people who do hard, necessary, real, work? If you pay them much more than CW, can you imagine the outcry? Would you trust politicians to get the balance right? What do we do about immigrants - legal & illegal - then?

I'm not saying the problems are insuperable, but it's a bloody long way from here to there.

Meanwhile I just hope my job lasts till I retire. Mostly selling Ronco Fartcatcher equivalents to bored housewives. oh that it's come to this .......

Depends on the job, I know for a fact I would still do my job even if I won lottery. I might take a break, start my own company and do my own job but for rmyself instead of others. Not many jobs are like this but our society at the moment doesnt reward work anyway. Maybe a citizens wage provides a basic income but what you earn over and above is reward. I have a few really new ideas too but I cannot pursue them and my company cannot afford experimental time maybe citizens wage would free me a little to do more experimental work, blue sky thinking. I am sure innovation would increase massively. I would relish the heat been taken off me a little so I could enjoy my work to a higher standard and innovate more.

Im sure many would just sit around drunk but they do anyway we would need a social change where laziness is seen as a drain and morally bad like drink driving. muck in or ****** off should be the general attitude whereas at the moment laziness is seen as an achievment. Still if the system is shit why not strive for laziness? Maybe if there was great potential in work then people would get off there ****. I imagine its hard ot motivate for a zero hours contract.

I am for citizens wage if only to do away with the entire benefits system and all the jobs and bloated admin that comes with it. I reackon it would be cheaper, no housing benefit, no tiers or stupid forms just age 16 there you go. I heard anyone that earns less than 27k earns nothing for the country so why not a citizens wage? It makes no sense to maintain the entire benefits system.

Unfortunately I believe for any radical new ideas to be looked at we need a huge and catastrophic collapse. Maybe osbourne is tyring for this or do I give him too much credit?

[MarkG]

You're thinking too small here- in a world where technology does the work no one need justify their existence in terms of their productive value , since they would have no productive value, that function having been automated.

If technology does all the work, there'll be no need for humans. But you can bet that the AIs doing the work won't be giving free shit to workshy AIs that believe they have a right to it while giving nothing in return.

[goldbug9999]

If technology does all the work, there'll be no need for humans. But you can bet that the AIs doing the work won't be giving free shit to workshy AIs that believe they have a right to it while giving nothing in return.

Exactly, an artificial intelligence that is sophisticated enough to be able to replace a human is likely to exhibit many of the same traits: free will, ego, laziness, boredom, seflishness etc, the idea that will be perfect hardworking slaves is just a falacy perpetuated by sci fi authors who have no real grasp of the subject.

[BalancedBear]

You are missing the big picture here- if technological progress does not result in less need for humans to work then it fails a basic test by which we define progress.

So if you think that technology creates as much work as it eliminates then you are in effect arguing that progress is impossible- that no matter how advanced we become we will still all be obliged to work 40 hours a week to live- does this strike you as a credible claim to make?

The idea that technology creates more work is quite an odd notion, given that the entire purpose of much technology is to remove the need for work. Yes it's true that on a micro scale technology creates new types of work- but on a macro scale that technology must reduce the overall amount of work that needs doing- if not then what's the point?

After all the idea that technology will result in a human race freed from the drudgery of work is one of our societies most cherished aspirations- so it's you who are expressing a fringe view, not me- I'm in the mainstream here.

I don't think technological progress is about doing much less work, but making the work done more productive and freeing up time to do other work. If we look back in human history, when humans were all subsistence farmers, most time was spend doing work just to stay alive and have enough to eat. When commercial farming started, it meant people did not need to spend as much time growing food, but could spend time making clothes and building better houses etc. Fast forward to the last 100 years and machines have allowed much more to be done more easily. For example the Irish navies digging railway cutting by hand. The "hard work" of digging is now carried out by a driver in an excavator. Much more can be done more quickly. It is also less back breaking.

At the end of the day, most people do want to do something to keep themselves busy. New technology is creating new and different jobs. The minimum wage and tax credits is in many cases propping up jobs which are no longer viable and would be done more efficiently by machines if there were no subsidy for cheap labour.

As humans always strive to get more, there is an infinite number of things which could always be done.

Edited November 12, 2014 by BalancedBear

[Snugglybear]

I don't think technological progress is about doing much less work, but making the work done more productive and freeing up time to do other work. If we look back in human history, when humans were all subsistence farmers, most time was spend doing work just to stay alive and have enough to eat. When commercial farming started, it meant people did not need to spend as much time growing food, but could spend time making clothes and building better houses etc. Fast forward to the last 100 years and machines have allowed much more to be done more easily. For example the Irish navies digging railway cutting by hand. The "hard work" of digging is now carried out by a driver in an excavator. Much more can be done more quickly. It is also less back breaking.

At the end of the day, most people do want to do something to keep themselves busy. New technology is creating new and different jobs. The minimum wage and tax credits is in many cases propping up jobs which are no longer viable and would be done more efficiently by machines if there were no subsidy for cheap labour.

As humans always strive to get more, there is an infinite number of things which could always be done.

There may an infinite number of things which could always be done. The trick is arranging matters so that people get an income on which to live for doing them.