Let's NOT give £350m extra each week to the NHS! A better idea....

[HawkEye244]

Same service, just cheaper, but with no options. In Russia, you had queues going round the corner for meat and potatoes. China had a one child policy, and anyone who dissents get locked up for trying to subvert the state. At least we have democracy, just a completely incompetent government, but communism professes to make everyone the same, except those in charge of course - blimey, sounds like capitalism at the end of the day doesn't it.

In a communist country you can spot corruption a mile away.. it's the lamborgini and the sprinkle system in the garden, when everyone else is driving a beat up old nova and has a garden full of old kitchen appliances and car tires. Places like London and the Uk in general, the corruption goes well hidden.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

driving a beat up old nova and has a garden full of old kitchen appliances and car tires.

Sounds like my local estate...

 

[Gerrydelasel]

by 2040 there will be half the amount of jobs there is today due to automation/mechanication, yet another few million people...

By that logic there are no jobs today at all, because of the bronze axe, the Spinning Jenny, the steam engine...

 

[HawkEye244]

By that logic there are no jobs today at all, because of the bronze axe, the Spinning Jenny, the steam engine...

We are talking rapid changes in the market

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world...awking/ar-AAj9Lok?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=mailsignout

My prediction is they will have to come up with some universal style minimum income for everyone (even those that don't work) - because there will not be the jobs to support the economy.

For a start the majority of jobs in finance will be gone within 15 years in my view, a good thing if you hate this type of job role but not good for the economy. We are a service economy (not good for us). I think sooner than that tax returns will be done directly with HMRC without any kind of intermediate (all online). So no option to pay an accountant to save a few quid, the government is broke it cannot afford it.

Same with the housing market, most properties will be marketed online directly from the vendor, people do not place 1-3% value on the estate agents especially since often they provide negative value, in otherwords a bad agent can lose you the sale or purchase of a property. This will wipe out the entire market for estate agents, that's many thousand of jobs lost, unless they can come up something to maintain their market share - unlikely.

Large corporations (e.g. amazon) use warehouses stocked with automated bots overseen by one humanbeing. Hundreds of thousands of jobs lost every year across all service sectors to efficiency savings, self service checkouts, online instead of at branch. Nobody talks about this but this is real. It is the beginning of the end of the system we currently have.

More and more people defaulting on debt/bad debt + more and more people being unable to pay tax demands because there is no job to pay the tax. It will no longer be a case of can pay won't pay, it will be can't pay, can't pay. Our system is built on debt, without people working to pay it back we have no system.

Last but not least - greed. Many massive multinationals are still spearheaded by dinosaurs (old men from a different era) that only understand a capitalist (only the strongest survive) style economy. These are the people that will cling on to their money the strongest and who will work hard at opposing even the idea of them paying a heavier tax on their billions. It is inevitable though, wealth distribution WILL have to happen - I just fear that the elite accept the changing face of our planet instead of oppose the change. If they don't accept it willingly, it will lead inevitably to class warfare.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

We are talking rapid changes in the market

Makes no difference. Increased automation and labour saving always leads to more production and greater wealth. You only have to look at the history of mankind to see this.

Large corporations (e.g. amazon) use warehouses stocked with automated bots overseen by one humanbeing. Hundreds of thousands of jobs lost every year across all service sectors to efficiency savings, self service checkouts, online instead of at branch. Nobody talks about this but this is real. It is the beginning of the end of the system we currently have.

In that case every technological advancement ever made has been has been part of 'the beginning of the end', and yet there are more people employed today, and in less arduous work, than at any point in the history of mankind. What are you suggesting? That we sabotage all the machines, thereby creating millions of jobs? Can you see how silly that sounds?

Don't feel bad. Thousands of people have made the same mistake before you. The error in your argument is to ignore all the other changes created by automation. One human being can now supply products at a lower price, his wages are higher since he is now more important, purchasing power is increased, which drives up demand, which creates more jobs for delivery drivers, which causes Amazon to open more warehouses, which creates more jobs for... it goes on forever. The only people who lose out are the original warehouse workers whose skills have been rendered obsolete, just like the cotton spinners, but they only lose in the short term. Machines increase and change the types of jobs available, but reduce the need to work. That's why today we have IT technicians working a 30 hour week, instead of wheat-scythers working a 100 hour week.

 

[HawkEye244]

Makes no difference. Increased automation and labour saving always leads to more production and greater wealth. You only have to look at the history of mankind to see this.

More production due to robotic input not from human input.. how does the man buy the goods that are produced if they have no means of income to buy the goods ????? Do you believe in the trickle down effect ? I don't.

In that case every technological advancement ever made has been has been part of 'the beginning of the end', and yet there are more people employed today, and in less arduous work, than at any point in the history of mankind. What are you suggesting? That we sabotage all the machines, thereby creating millions of jobs? Can you see how silly that sounds?

Don't feel bad. Thousands of people have made the same mistake before you. The error in your argument is to ignore all the other changes created by automation. One human being can now supply products at a lower price, his wages are higher since he is now more important, purchasing power is increased, which drives up demand, which creates more jobs for delivery drivers, which causes Amazon to open more warehouses, which creates more jobs for... it goes on forever. The only people who lose out are the original warehouse workers whose skills have been rendered obsolete, just like the cotton spinners, but they only lose in the short term. Machines increase and change the types of jobs available, but reduce the need to work. That's why today we have IT technicians working a 30 hour week, instead of wheat-scythers working a 100 hour week.

Yeah, absolutely ! Think about it. There are less people employed today on a pro-rata basis, a lot of jobs that involve a computer are only there because they have not yet been assigned to a robot, and this is the point.. in a bid to maximise profits and please shareholders companies have to sack off staff routinely to stay competative which means more people year on year are removed from the labour market. They don't just disappear, they have to continue living. It doesn't just mean there are different jobs as there were in history it means there are less jobs and more people. There are those who own the land/machiney and the technology, those that manage it (fewer and fewer every year), and those that don't, what happens to these people ?

There are millions more people now than there were 100 years ago, how do you think they are going to sustain themselves in a diminishing jobs market ? Makes no sense.

I'm merely pointing this all out I'm not making any suggestions as to the way forward besides the fact that some things, i.e. wealth distrubution MUST and WILL happen. Don't you see that ?

In the US something like 1% of the population controls 40% of the wealth and this is on the incline. These are the same people that use the old capitalist model, yet wealth inequality and poverty is worsening.

Governments are getting deeper and deeper in debt to these wealthy banking cartels year on year. The UK, for example, has progressively sold off more and more of it's utilites to private companies with pure profit incentive, prices go up and up.

I don't think you're getting it... we are moving into a system where all the land and resources is controlled by an elite few, anyone lucky enough to have a valuable skill set (where a robot cannot be used yet) will have a job, everyone else will not. How are millions/billions more people going to get jobs where they are constantly being outsourced to robots ??? The job no longer exists. So we are moving into an era of super-wealthy (super-eilite) and a baseline poor, with no middle class.. and historically societies without a middle class always end in ruin.

 

[Doggit]

My prediction is they will have to come up with some universal style minimum income for everyone (even those that don't work) - because there will not be the jobs to support the economy

But that's why we're in this current mess Hawkeye. Labour introduced the minimum wage, and now the conservatives have increased it, but for any economy to survive, there has to be winners and losers. Labour did it to prove how magnanimous they were (because they only ever get into power by promising to give money to those who haven't earned it) and Osborne thought he'd steal a march on Labours ideas. Except he forgot the ongoing implications of paying extra money to everyone, and the increased NHS wage bill etc for all the employers, so this is going to come back and haunt him.

A Labour government gives away money that we haven't earned, and a communist government would be even worse, but a Right wing government would be just as bad, just in other ways. You have to earn money before you can spend it or give it away, and that's why we always have a Labour government that taxes and spends, and then a Tory government that has to bring in austerity measures, till we get fed up with them and vote Labour back in. The trouble is, nobody bloody well learns the stupidity of what they keep doing.

When computers and robots came in 20 years ago, it was predicted to be the end of factories and typing pools, but people were needed to maintain the robots, and IT staff were needed to keep the computers going. Companies adapted, and staff retrained, and the same process will always go on - till Putin or the Taliban drop the bomb.

More and more people defaulting on debt/bad debt + more and more people being unable to pay tax demands because there is no job to pay the tax. It will no longer be a case of can pay won't pay, it will be can't pay, can't pay. Our system is built on debt, without people working to pay it back we have no system

And they're defaulting on debt, simply because that's how Brown expanded the economy, and the banks gave unlimited credit to those least able to handle it. Schools are starting to run finance lessons, and it might get better in the future, but I doubt it because you can't stop people being greedy, selfish, or stupid. But it's also a case of "why should I bother paying the money back", and that's a rather sad attitude of todays society that thinks they are entitled to everything. Our Grandparents would have happily done 2 or 3 jobs to make ends meet, but the overly generous welfare system has taught people that sitting on your arse all day, is an acceptable way to live.

But I always remember my uncle who was a staunch labourite, bordering on communist at times, and his view if life was that if his wife only had one fur coat, and the woman down the road had two, then she should give one to his wife - he just couldn't see that it was now unfair that his wife had two, and the other woman only had one.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

More production due to robotic input not from human input.. how does the man buy the goods that are produced if they have no means of income to buy the goods ?????

But he does get an income, just not from his original job. Instead he must transfer to one of the many different jobs created by the overall process of automation. And because the goods got cheaper, he doesn't even have to work as many hours as he did before, to afford the same items.

a lot of jobs that involve a computer are only there because they have not yet been assigned to a robot

And a lot of jobs involve a canal boat only because they have not yet been assigned to a train;
And a lot of jobs involve driving a horse only because they have not yet been assigned to a canal boat;
And a lot of jobs involve a wheelbarrow only because they have not yet been assigned to a horse...
Same argument, same fallacy, back through history.

It doesn't just mean there are different jobs as there were in history it means there are less jobs and more people. There are millions more people now than there were 100 years ago, how do you think they are going to sustain themselves in a diminishing jobs market ? Makes no sense.

Then how did we get here at all? In 1850 there were 1.2 billion humans; today there are 7 billion. So why aren't 5.8 billion people currently unemployed? Answer: Because it is those very same technological advancements that make the increase possible. The world of 1850 could not have supported 7 billion people, just as the world of today could not support 14 billion, but it will in a hundred years time. If it couldn't then it wouldn't get that way in the first place, ipso facto. You are making the mistake of assuming there is a fixed amount of work to go round.

what happens to these people ?

The same thing that happened to the barrow boys, and the horse drivers, and the canal men... where did they go? Where are the millions and millions of out-of-work barrow boys?

I'm merely pointing this all out I'm not making any suggestions as to the way forward besides the fact that some things, i.e. wealth distrubution MUST and WILL happen. Don't you see that? wealth inequality and poverty is worsening.

No I don't see that. You seem to be arguing for socialism or communism, or something? Both failed concepts. The poor today are richer than they were yesterday. The rich are richer too. Whether the gap between them widens or not, is not especially important, as long as everyone keeps getting richer. If you could suddenly make the poor poorer, but also make the rich equally poor, would you do it? Why?

anyone lucky enough to have a valuable skill set (where a robot cannot be used yet) will have a job, everyone else will not. How are millions/billions more people going to get jobs where they are constantly being outsourced to robots ??? The job no longer exists.

Again, where are the millions of unemployed barrow boys?

 

[Doggit]

I'm merely pointing this all out I'm not making any suggestions as to the way forward besides the fact that some things, i.e. wealth distrubution MUST and WILL happen. Don't you see that

And then what happens when the wealth has been distributed, then there's no capital left to rebuild the wealth, and because everyone has a comfortable life, no one has to bother working hard, so the economy goes to pot. This is why communism is a utopian ideal that always gets thrown out at the end it's trial period. Russia's given it up, even Chinas has backtracked on it. Cuba and Venezuela economy is in the doldrums, so whilst communism is a nice ideal, it's very impractical, so why do people always think it'll solve everything.

poverty is worsening

Poverty isn't actually getting worse, it's just that a lot of rich people are getting richer, so the rich to poverty gap is widening, so statistically, it appears to be getting worse, when it's hasn't changed at all.

 

[JohnD]

And then what happens when the wealth has been distributed, then there's no capital left to rebuild the wealth

When you say "wealth" and "capital" you seem to mean money at first. And then you seem to mean something else. Possibly "goods," possibly "the means of production."

If you distribute money, people will spend it or save it. You can't eat money.

If they spend it, the shop, dairy farm or plumber now has more money, and can spend it on something else, possibly the acquisition of capital goods such as another cow or a pair of stilsons. So accumulating capital.

If they save it, the bank can lend it to the dairy farmer, perhaps to buy some land, or to the plumber, perhaps to buy a van.

It's been done.

Look up das Wirtschaftswunder.

It worked very well.

 

[wobs]

Extreme poverty is at a smaller % of the world population than at any time in history. This is partly down to technology, as it has enabled people to generate wealth far easier than previously.
The wealth gap has increased, and this causes a great deal of stress in many areas, but there is far more wealth, far more people living above extreme poverty than ever, and the world is continuing on this path.

Technology does not just help generate wealth and jobs though, it also ends up creating new job titles. There are App Developers, Educational Researchers... Although there are employers such as Amazon which are not necessarily desirable to work for. The UK will probably end up with motorways lined with distribution centres for hundreds of miles, but there has to be people wealthy enough to buy those goods, and we do have them (for now), as we have a great deal of diversity.

 

[noseall]

Not public services. For a start, London is the most corrupt city in Europe, billions of money is laundered every year because it's easy for these criminals to hide their money.

Do you think the Iraq war and subsequent wars you've paid for have helped you, you halfwit ?

A non-answer then.

 

[noseall]

Your trolling really irritates me at times.

And you are a luddite fruit loop.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Labour introduced the minimum wage, and now the conservatives have increased it, but for any economy to survive, there has to be winners and losers.

The winners were the bosses paying low wages which were then topped up by the tax-payer.

That was/is a ludicrous situation.

 

[Roger928]

we are moving into a system where all the land and resources is controlled by an elite few

We've been in that system for about 40 odd years now. Its called the eu.
If all goes to plan we should be moving out of it soon.