nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

What will happen when all the low skill jobs are gone?

eeguy

So Enda Kenny came under fire for calling the people of Castlebar whiners when they said there was no recovery in the west of Ireland.
Castlebar has had a series of factory closures since 2008 and the service industry has suffered too as a result.
Up and down Ireland (and the UK), factories in small towns are closing and will never be replaced. Any factories that have opened in recent years are in or around cities and are heavily automated, having only a small core staff to maintain production.
In the next 2 decades automation is going to really take off replacing traditional low skill jobs in manufacturing, transport and retail.

So what happens when thousands are made redundant through automation?
What happens when anyone who drives or does any repetitive task is made unemployable as it's cheaper and more efficient to automate the process?
Is it the end of civilisation as we know it?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

eeguy

_Brian wrote: »

The total automation of such tasks will take a generation from now if not more. The technology is in its infancy.
The key is that in 20/30 years that no one is hoping to have a job in such fields. They would be condemning themselves to compete with robots.

20/30 years is no time at all, when people are expected to work for at least 45 years till retirement.

Tens of millions of people drive for a living around the world. If those jobs disappear in the space of a decade, there'll be a huge burden on states to provide for these people if they cannot find alternative work.

Look at the impact Uber has had in the space of 3 years. There was protests worldwide from traditional taxi companies who are being undercut.

Imagine an Uber with autonomous cars.

_Brian

eeguy wrote: »

20/30 years is no time at all, when people are expected to work for at least 45 years till retirement.

Tens of millions of people drive for a living around the world. If those jobs disappear in the space of a decade, there'll be a huge burden on states to provide for these people if they cannot find alternative work.

Look at the impact Uber has had in the space of 3 years. There was protests worldwide from traditional taxi companies who are being undercut.

Imagine an Uber with autonomous cars.

20/30 years is a hell of a long time for people to see the writing on the wall and do something to set a path for themselves.

There's not a hope of driverless technology being predominant within that time. Anyone in that line of work should be making plans and there is plenty of time to do it.

In reality it's only those from 45 and down who need worry about being replaced.

SeanW

As a Libertarian, I am extremely fearful of the idea of machines taking over everyone's jobs. I remember a scene from the movie Dr. Zhivago, in the Soviet era when Yuri's still-living brother goes to visit some hydroelectric construction project or another, ostensibly to discuss something with the project director (but really to find his long lost niece and tell her the story of her father) during the initial coversation with the project director, he reveals that he asked Moscow for a whole load of machinery (which didn't exist as Moscow's production figures were fiction). Infused with wonderful Marxist revolutionary ideology, this director considered it immoral to use the proletariat to do a hard/dangerous construction job by hand when all those machines could be doing the job faster and the people benefiting from getting the job done faster and safer. Seems like a good idea until you realise this was the Soviet ****ing Union. A place so messed up you had to queue for days outside some warehouse to buy a loaf of bread, where famines were the norm as collectivised systems of agriculture fell apart, where society was dominated by a Politburo whose every statement was ridiculous propoganda totally disconnected from reality, where everything they touched turned into an omnishambles. They even managed to take a safe and beneficial force, nuclear electricity, and cause a massive catastrophe that contaminated half a country despite clear evidence at every point for years leading up to the event that they were on the road to making a spectacular omnishambles of absolutely epic proportions. Yet that seems to have been the last time anyone seriously thought that automation was a great thing because it would serve all of humanity, rather than mainly those at the top.

By contrast, the Western world became great because it provided room for all of its people, at all wealth and education levels, to find a productive role for themselves, a rising tide always lifted all boats. Up until the 1950s perhaps, mechanisation normally created more jobs than it destroyed, and many of those new jobs required very little. For example, the Industrial Revolution destroyed jobs on farms and in artisan workshops, but provided many more jobs, often well paid, in the new factories, not to mention masses of goods that were much cheaper because of mass production. Little or no education was required for the first factory jobs and that continued well into the 20th century. Steam engines again might have displaced some jobs, but created vast numbers of them in railroads and shipping, to say nothing of vastly better transportation service to society as a whole. For much of modern history, most types of large organisation require huge armies of filing clerks, operators, secretaries and so on. These jobs might have required a second level qualification, if even that.

A person could easily find a place for themselves in this kind of environment.

Permabear wrote: »

That said, automation is a great thing. Too many people spend their lives doing mindless, repetitive tasks -- and if those jobs can be automated, it frees up people to do more rewarding and challenging work.

I'd like to think so, but I fear this is fanciful. Work must be productive first, "rewarding" and "challenging" are luxuries that are subordinate to the first. Modern work requires a much higher level of education than that of the past and jobs are more scarce generally, this I think is because the level of automation has reached a "tipping point" where it is out of control. Not everyone has a good enough education because of circumstance, and some people simply aren't bright enough to get the education to get them onto the modern ladder, let alone a future ladder most of the rungs have been knocked out. I worry that large numbers of people are simply going to be left behind, and that will cause all kinds of social ills.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

A guaranteed income for everyone paid by the state is inevitable at some point in the future. As food and goods become easier to produce.

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

New jobs will be created. Eventually we may get to a point where basic income is introduced so people can afford to become qualified in an area or help the homeless.

The idea that this may be (considered) necessary also terrifies me even more because I have zero faith in governments, and human nature along side this, to believe that a "universal basic income" or any related concept could work.

It has been truthfully said that "a government big enough to give you everything you want, is also big enough to take everything you have". Even in democracies, to say nothing of hellholes like North Korea, China, ISIS etc, strong governments are always at the behest of the dominant power blocks in society and will always do their bidding, wheter such block is a vested interest or an ideological group. I do not believe that objectively good government is possible in any but a small number of areas so I believe that we should aim for a "night watchman" state. Human nature is also one of competition, less so of sharing, societies have only ever been built by rewarding individuals for productive work. The opportunities for which are now (as above) shrinking.

The real question here is whether education systems can keep pace with these changes. There's a need for schools to begin focusing more on problem-solving skills, STEM skills, analytic thinking -- which raises the question, why, in 2016, are our schoolchildren spending so much time on religion and Irish? So they can be unemployed?

That's a question for any last straggling political candidate who might come knocking at the door tonight.

I agree with this, but I fear that even if we introduced more 21st century subjects and abolished Irish, religion etc, that it would be at best, running to stand still, at worst, too little too late.

I hope to be proven wrong.

eeguy

SeanW wrote: »

Not everyone has a good enough education because of circumstance, and some people simply aren't bright enough to get the education to get them onto the modern ladder, let alone a future ladder most of the rungs have been knocked out. I worry that large numbers of people are simply going to be left behind, and that will cause all kinds of social ills.
.

Fantastic post.
This is the point I'm getting at.

If you've only got a basic education you'll be hard pressed to ever get off minimum wage unless youre lucky to find something you have a talent for. And these are the jobs that automation is targeting.

We already have a situation where no one with a leaving cert would be considered for any half professional job, which is totally the opposite of 30-40 years ago.

There will always be people who for whatever reason cannot meet the minimum standards and if these standards are constantly being raised then we will have a worldwide unemployment problem.

Personally I'd like a bit of common sense in the curriculum, where students learn subjects that are actually beneficial in the current environment and are not just learning for learnings sake. The classical education has little relevance any more.

Eugene Norman

Lots of people argue that this won't new wave of automation wont have any effect because we've had Luddite arguments before and we got to full employment subsequently. The answer I would give to that is the state employs vastly more people than it used to 100 years ago and it can't grow like that again.

ScumLord

SeanW wrote: »

As a Libertarian, I am extremely fearful of the idea of machines taking over everyone's jobs.

Automation is available to everyone, governments won't be in control of automation.

By contrast, the Western world became great because it provided room for all of its people, at all wealth and education levels, to find a productive role for themselves, a rising tide always lifted all boats.

That's not really true, it's the theory but in practice it only lead to less poverty than communism it didn't eradicate it. The American dream only lasted for a few decades after the war, then it became untenable as there weren't enough jobs to go around, especially as the rest of the world caught up and surpassed America's manufacturing. The rich still got richer and the poor stay relatively poor. But we did all have more stuff.

Up until the 1950s perhaps, mechanisation normally created more jobs than it destroyed, and many of those new jobs required very little. For example, the Industrial Revolution destroyed jobs on farms and in artisan workshops,

Maybe in America, for a while. Americans thought they had a culture in their factory worklife. But a we can see now in any developed country artisans are coming back in a big way.

Mechanisation made everything more accessible. Two men can do the work of a thousand in half the time. Whenever I see a truck driving down the road I have to be a bit in awe, 500 years ago it would have taken the infrastructure of a government, a couple of thousand men and probably a few weeks to do the work that truck can do in one hour with one man.

See four or five guys building a house, doing the work of a few hundred men to a standard ancient people would have thought was magic.

We're always going to be making life easier, that's never going to change and it's not like the human race couldn't be doing better things. There's a whole universe to explore and all the problems that come with that.

I think there's no way of avoiding the fact that democratic capitalist societies won't make sense in the future. Democracy see's us hiring inexperienced people out of population to do the most important jobs in the country. Capitalism sees us turning valuable resources into stuff we don't need or want. Once the jobs get too difficult for the uneducated and we run out of easily accessible resources we'll have no choice but to change.

Ice Maiden

SeanW wrote: »

As a Libertarian, I am extremely fearful of the idea of machines taking over everyone's jobs. I remember a scene from the movie Dr. Zhivago, in the Soviet era when Yuri's still-living brother goes to visit some hydroelectric construction project or another, ostensibly to discuss something with the project director (but really to find his long lost niece and tell her the story of her father) during the initial coversation with the project director, he reveals that he asked Moscow for a whole load of machinery (which didn't exist as Moscow's production figures were fiction). Infused with wonderful Marxist revolutionary ideology, this director considered it immoral to use the proletariat to do a hard/dangerous construction job by hand when all those machines could be doing the job faster and the people benefiting from getting the job done faster and safer.

But shur wasn't Thatcher mad for the auld machines taking over, and wouldn't the economic left be all about keeping the workers employed?

gctest50

Deleted User wrote: »

The mechanisation of the manufacturing industry isn't a certainty! Some manufacturers have had to retreat in some areas.

There's some hope for the semi-skilled & dexterous people.

http://www.theguardian.com/technolog...assembly-lines
Bucking modern manufacturing trends, Mercedes-Benz has been forced to trade in some of its assembly line robots for more capable humans.
The robots cannot handle the pace of change and the complexity of the key customisation options available for the company’s S-Class saloon at the 101-year-old Sindelfingen plant, which produces 400, 000 vehicles a year from 1,500 tons of steel a day.
The dizzying number of options for the cars – from heated or cooled cup holders, various wheels, carbon-fibre trims and decals, and even four types of caps for tire valves – demand adaptability and flexibility, two traits where humans currently outperform robots.
Markus Schaefer, Mercedes-Benz’ head of production told Bloomberg: “Robots can’t deal with the degree of individualisation and the many variants that we have today. We’re saving money and safeguarding our future by employing more people.”

Until the robots get too temptingly good and cheaper than humans

Then it will be "super lazer guided stitching" etc

Teyla Emmagan

They'll all be sorry then they didnâ€™t study at school.

[Deleted User]

ScumLord wrote: »

Automation is available to everyone, governments won't be in control of automation.

That's not really true, it's the theory but in practice it only lead to less poverty than communism it didn't eradicate it. The American dream only lasted for a few decades after the war, then it became untenable as there weren't enough jobs to go around, especially as the rest of the world caught up and surpassed America's manufacturing. The rich still got richer and the poor stay relatively poor. But we did all have more stuff.

Maybe in America, for a while. Americans thought they had a culture in their factory worklife. But a we can see now in any developed country artisans are coming back in a big way.

Mechanisation made everything more accessible. Two men can do the work of a thousand in half the time. Whenever I see a truck driving down the road I have to be a bit in awe, 500 years ago it would have taken the infrastructure of a government, a couple of thousand men and probably a few weeks to do the work that truck can do in one hour with one man.

See four or five guys building a house, doing the work of a few hundred men to a standard ancient people would have thought was magic.

We're always going to be making life easier, that's never going to change and it's not like the human race couldn't be doing better things. There's a whole universe to explore and all the problems that come with that.

I think there's no way of avoiding the fact that democratic capitalist societies won't make sense in the future. Democracy see's us hiring inexperienced people out of population to do the most important jobs in the country. Capitalism sees us turning valuable resources into stuff we don't need or want. Once the jobs get too difficult for the uneducated and we run out of easily accessible resources we'll have no choice but to change.

Capitalism is basically a race to the bottom, with standards and quality of products often taking a nose dive, while still costing the consumer the same in terms of purchasing, ensuring enormous profit for the parent company.

The movement of jobs from the U.S. and Europe to low cost countries has nothing to do with anything other than profit. It's not just traditional manufacturing that this takes place, but also what would be considered high skilled jobs such as software development.

In consumer goods its also lead to a throwaway society as most of the goods we buy either designed not to be repairable or we consider them so cheap as not worth the bother to repair them. This is our fault for swallowing the cheap quick fix fast food way of doing things when we're only really fooling ourselves.

We often make the mistake of believing automation means quality it unfortunately does not. My dad was a master carpenter and cabinet maker. The furniture he has made will last generations, while the Ikea equivalent will be lucky to last ten years.
People automatically go to Ikea because it's cheaper than what a craftsman can produce due to automation and mass production, but this is a false economy as starting with the materials alone the quality just isn't there.

This can also be seen in construction. While advances in technology have made building a faster procedure, nothing is built to last.
it is evident that building codes and standards are not enforced, and that so many corners are cut so buildings can be erected so faster.
While every building requires maintenance, a lot of the housing stock that was built during the boom had so many short cuts that a lot of people who bought them will have massive bills in the future just to keep their house liveable in.

A lot of this is due to the fact that the work was not signed off by the appropriate inspectors and allowed to continue to sale, or was rubber stamped perhaps due to an envelope passing hands, and unfortunately we're going to see a lot more incidents like priory hall.

For example I was looking at some new housing being built on the south side of Dublin about twelve years ago for my first house. I brought my dad for his opinion and he noticed that the firewall had not been built in a row currently under construction. This basically means that a fire in one house once it reaches the attic will spread to each house in the row. Just in case it was simply a fact that the firewall hadn't been built yet, when we got to the show house we went after some argument with the agent into the attic and in my dad's opinion the only thing between the houses that were finished and for sale was plasterboard, if the show house was anything to go by.

While automation has lead to some great advances and achievements such as medical devices and are to be applauded, for somethings in my opinion it's worth the extra money to have something made by a skilled crafts person.

Wibbs

DubInMeath wrote: »

In consumer goods its also lead to a throwaway society as most of the goods we buy either designed not to be repairable or we consider them so cheap as not worth the bother to repair them. This is our fault for swallowing the cheap quick fix fast food way of doing things when we're only really fooling ourselves.

Quoted for truth IMH. As you say furniture is a very good example. IKEA and the like are cheap and great for people starting out or with little money and far more accessible than a couple of generations ago, but investing a little more can get you something that lasts for a lot longer. Centuries in some cases. You can see in items like very old chests of drawers where the drawer runners and feet are designed to be replaceable.

Consumerism doesn't want that mind you, so fashion and the like will play a part. Our society now depends on such rapid turnovers of "stuff" and not just the small things either. Cars would be a big item that have obsolescence going on. Must buy new car every x years. Made sense in say the 1970's when most cars would be lucky to do big milage before falling apart(though they were cheaper relative to earnings too), whereas today you could build a near lifetime car easily enough. I seem to recall reading about Germany I believe where after reunification of east and west the old Commie fridges were sought out as they lasted for decades. They had to under communism. That's the other extreme of course and we don't want that either. A balance would be nice.

Building another area as you note. Scumlord mentioned four or five people building a house that would impress ancient people. I'd disagree with hime when he reckoned they'd be impressed with the standards of building itself.

DanielODonnell

I don't know how people can call factory work low skilled, it is obvious these people have never been in a factory. I have had to leave some factory jobs as the work was that hard

JustShon

DanielODonnell wrote: »

I don't know how people can call factory work low skilled, it is obvious these people have never been in a factory. I have had to leave some factory jobs as the work was that hard

Question: (and this is a genuine question, not a disguised dig) Is it hard to do or hard to comprehend? There's a difference between it being a skilled job and it being a hard job. I used to take in stock for a cinema and it was back-breaking work (popcorn is heavy before you pop it) but I'd certainly not call it skilled work.

ScumLord

DubInMeath wrote: »

Capitalism is basically a race to the bottom, with standards and quality of products often taking a nose dive, while still costing the consumer the same in terms of purchasing, ensuring enormous profit for the parent company.

Capitalism has started a downward spiral alright. Although, companies generally don't go out of their way to make a worse product. They try to satisfy the demand and often make most their saving by upgrading production lines and other changes in the way they do things rather than just making the product out of less material. They don't try to make a crappy hinge that would break, they probably make a range of hinges, ones that meet a particular price bracket and ones that will last for ever. We the consumer choose to buy the one in a particular price bracket. every person needs to accept they're a large part of the problem, it's just not fair or logical to blame companies for meeting the demand of the market.

In consumer goods its also lead to a throwaway society as most of the goods we buy either designed not to be repairable or we consider them so cheap as not worth the bother to repair them. This is our fault for swallowing the cheap quick fix fast food way of doing things when we're only really fooling ourselves.

This probably won't change either, as Wibbs pointed out it's entrenched in our society. There isn't even any point in making houses that will last more than 30 years because in thirty years no one will want to live in them. So no one's going to spend the money building them. It may change in time, fashions are just running around in circles at this stage. But it's always new to the next generation.

We often make the mistake of believing automation means quality it unfortunately does not. My dad was a master carpenter and cabinet maker. The furniture he has made will last generations, while the Ikea equivalent will be lucky to last ten years.
People automatically go to Ikea because it's cheaper than what a craftsman can produce due to automation and mass production, but this is a false economy as starting with the materials alone the quality just isn't there.

I wouldn't really accept that. Automation will make the exact same piece over and over again, it will make it to whatever quality you set in the design brief. Your father also can't meet that much demand, it's always going to make what he produces rare and expensive, he can put a table in a couple of dozen homes over his lifetime, Ikea brings functional products to the masses so that everyone can have a table. I've also watched a megafactories type show on Ikea recently and there's nothing wrong with their quality. They make products with a narrow set of restrictions to meet a particular demand. There's nothing wrong with that.

Capitalism and trying to make affordable products has brought some huge advantages. It's made technology available to more people because they've found ways of making things cheaper, coming up with more efficient manufacturing processes.

Wibbs wrote: »

Building another area as you note. Scumlord mentioned four or five people building a house that would impress ancient people. I'd disagree with hime when he reckoned they'd be impressed with the standards of building itself.

I'm pretty sure they'd be in awe. They may not realise the building will be falling apart in 30 years time where as something they build may last for 1000, But if saw us build something with glass walls, central heating, no damp problems, lighting, and how quickly it can be erected they'd be gobsmacked. A modern concrete and steel style office block would definitely look like magic to them. Even a cheap internal finish would look so alien to them that they'd be impressed by it.

Most ancient buildings were just internal spaces, other than being status symbols or monuments they're pretty useless, even the apartment blocks of the romans where just rooms that people crammed into to sleep. They still needed to go out to eat, wash and socialise.

Maximus Alexander

ScumLord wrote: »

I'm pretty sure they'd be in awe. They may not realise the building will be falling apart in 30 years time where as something they build may last for 1000, But if saw us build something with glass walls, central heating, no damp problems, lighting, and how quickly it can be erected they'd be gobsmacked. A modern concrete and steel style office block would definitely look like magic to them. Even a cheap internal finish would look so alien to them that they'd be impressed by it.

Not to mention that their equivalent of the houses we throw together have not have lasted thousands of years; probably didn't last 30 for that matter without constant maintenance.

The same societies that brought us the ancient structures which have lasted through the ages generally lived in wooden shacks or wattle and daub huts. What they left behind were structures that generally weren't built for habitation and would have been the product of decades of a work as the focal point of a tribe, or even civilization. They generally built these things to last because they were used to worship their gods or act as mausoleums for their deified elite.

We tend to be a bit more practical these days and build things that are fit for purpose rather than to outlive our societies. If we set out to build a structure to last 10,000 years could we do it? Yes. But to what end? I'm sure there are things we have built that will inadvertently survive for millennia despite requiring a fraction of the effort.

ScumLord

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

They generally built these things to last because they were used to worship their gods or act as mausoleums for their deified elite.

I wonder were they specifically building for longevity though. they were obviously aware that stone and brick could last a very long time, but it was also pretty much all there was available to them other than timber. Stone is labour intensive but it would have been a well known material, if you want to build something monumental it had to be made of stone. Most people from the time would probably have known that brick is a cheap and cheerful alternative and wouldn't have been as impressed. Stone buildings are always impressive because you know each individual stone was hand crafted specifically for that building. The labour is what adds the value.

We tend to be a bit more practical these days and build things that are fit for purpose rather than to outlive our societies. If we set out to build a structure to last 10,000 years could we do it? Yes. But to what end? I'm sure there are things we have built that will inadvertently survive for millennia despite requiring a fraction of the effort.

We have built some long lasting buildings that may be around in ten thousand years. They serve a practical purpose of course. Namely the seed banks set up around the world like the one in Norway. https://www.croptrust.org/what-we-do/svalbard-global-seed-vault/

StupidLikeAFox

We are all doomed, doomed I tells ya!

Maximus Alexander

ScumLord wrote: »

I wonder were they specifically building for longevity though. they were obviously aware that stone and brick could last a very long time, but it was also pretty much all there was available to them other than timber. Stone is labour intensive but it would have been a well known material, if you want to build something monumental it had to be made of stone.

Well yeah, to be fair, I am making assumptions about their intentions. It's reasonable in my mind that large scale structures built for worship or reverence were intended to last. I mean, building out of stone certainly doesn't guarantee lasting for millennia! But, on the other hand, you have a point - they probably didn't know how to make huge, impressive structures in a more delicate or elegant fashion anyway.

Wibbs

Sometimes they did think of longevity, certainly with religious structures, but for others too. There's a hall in Cambridge or Oxford, can't recall which, where back in the 16/1700's the builder planted a stand of oak trees because he knew that in a few hundred years some of the oak beams would need replacing so was growing the "spares" planning for that.

I also recall reading of the project the Long Now, where they're attempting to build a clock that will run for 10,000 years and one of the engineers noted that we know remarkably little about the longevity of most modern materials beyond a century, which was an issue for them, when choosing materials. *aside* If I was building such a clock I'd not be making it mechanical, rather build another sun/moon/star "powered" Newgrange type affair inside a mountain. With allowances for procession. Outside of tectonics collapsing the structure, such a "clock" could run for many thousands of years without interference. And there would be nothing to steal or move. The mountain and the engineered space within would itself would be the mechanism.

gormdubhgorm

eeguy wrote: »

So what happens when thousands are made redundant through automation?
What happens when anyone who drives or does any repetitive task is made unemployable as it's cheaper and more efficient to automate the process?
Is it the end of civilisation as we know it?

The foreigner's "taking our jobs" will go home. There will be demonstrations about foreign machines "taking our jobs".
The disgruntled vote will increase resulting in more vote's for Sinn Fein, AAA, PBP and the like.
The number of engineering/science/IT jobs will increase as there will be a need to manage the automated machines and create more efficient ones.

The fellas who left school early and "hung around with the wrong crowd" will feel deep regret.

ScumLord

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Well yeah, to be fair, I am making assumptions about their intentions. It's reasonable in my mind that large scale structures built for worship or reverence were intended to last. I mean, building out of stone certainly doesn't guarantee lasting for millennia! But, on the other hand, you have a point - they probably didn't know how to make huge, impressive structures in a more delicate or elegant fashion anyway.

I'm sure they had a sense of pride in the knowledge their building would last basically forever, with maintenance (stone buildings do still require maintenance) and if they built it right, there are plenty of buildings that just collapsed and I remember hearing that the likes of Machu Picchu where built by hand, not because they didn't have the technology to use time saving things like wheels and crains but because they took pride in building it by hand. It was part of the religious sacrifice to be as involved as possible in the building process.

There are very ancient cities that are probably a better comparison to modern buildings, because there are the homes of normal people and things like workshops. Generally well thought out when it comes to making a building that would be cool in very hot climates but very basic at the same time. Usually one room and very basic heating and cooking facilities. No place to clean yourself and maybe some running water. More or less just a place to sleep, but given that those cities were probably more cooperative comunes than what we understand as a city I don't think they would have suffered much. It would be a case of get up, head off to whatever your job is, get feed there because that's how they got paid, in for a few prayers after work off to the tavern for some entertainment then home to bed. They didn't need to have everything in house like we do.

KomradeBishop

This does a good job of explaining the link between economic growth and growing energy use:
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/can-economic-growth-last/

As partly described by others earlier in the thread, this link means that we can't have economic growth forever - which means our current economic system (which depends on neverending economic growth) has to change.

When all low skilled jobs are gone, people can just be trained into higher skilled jobs - to pick just one example of work which has no automation limits, scientific research is a field of work that is effectively infinite and will never end.

Until the human mind is effectively replicated, there's not really any limit to the work people can do, if trained into it.

ToddyDoody

eeguy wrote: »

So what happens when thousands are made redundant through automation?

Upskilling that little bit would be the name of the game. Get a weekend diploma in cosmetic surgery, for instance at Trump University.

[Deleted User]

ScumLord wrote: »

I wouldn't really accept that. Automation will make the exact same piece over and over again, it will make it to whatever quality you set in the design brief. Your father also can't meet that much demand, it's always going to make what he produces rare and expensive, he can put a table in a couple of dozen homes over his lifetime, Ikea brings functional products to the masses so that everyone can have a table. I've also watched a megafactories type show on Ikea recently and there's nothing wrong with their quality. They make products with a narrow set of restrictions to meet a particular demand. There's nothing wrong with that.
.

My dad and many like him built stuff that lasts from real wood, but it would be the case that he had some repeat customers due to the lady of the house wanting to change the style of a piece. He was also known locally as someone who would help out those starting out by making a piece from his off cuts bin and only charge them for his time. Just the way he was when working as he was always willing to help someone out from knowing hard times himself.
As an experiment and not really bashing Ikea here, they do have a place, as plenty of other furniture chains sold less than remarkable items at high prices for a long time, we did a strength test one day between an old pine book case he made in 1972 aparently for one of my aunts, and a similar size one from Ikea that was replaced by one of his for a customer. The Ikea one collapsed after adding a total of 45KG, over each of the shelves, his took 100KG before biting the dust.
I agree fashions change and come around again, but to me building a structure to last only 30 years is a shocking indictment of ourselves for wasting valuable natural resources.

The race to the bottom has affected some companies reputations with Stanley being an example. Look on eBay and you will see people paying more for a rusted 70 plus year old no4 plane, than Stanley's current version of the same plane. The reason for this is the poor quality of the components Stanley have used since the 1980s (old earlier some would argue) in order to increase profitability, which in turn had actually resulted in most carpenters shunning them like the plague.

In the I.T. arena, IBM for example are suffering from a growing customer dissatisfaction for more than one of products due to the company laying off most of its U.S. based developers and moving these jobs to China and reducing the overall numbers of staff in order to try and improve its share price.
It's not just the quality of the products that are suffering due to this, their customer base is mainly EMEA and U.S. centered and the difference in time zone, language ability and cultural differences are resulting in further loss of sales, which in turn reduces their share value.
The same could be said of Microsoft.

Disclaimer: I admit that my tastes go to more antique items and architecture, but I do appreciate modern designs when done well.

eeguy

KomradeBishop wrote: »

When all low skilled jobs are gone, people can just be trained into higher skilled jobs

My point in starting this thread is that as low skill jobs continue to disappear there is a growing number of people unable or unwilling to up skilling to the higher and higher levels required to get a good stable job.

30 years ago a leaving cert was enough to get a start anywhere, degrees were exceptional.
Currently those higher degrees are the norm and masters/PhD are exceptional. Those without adequate qualifications to get a "professional" job are largely employed in areas ripe for automation such as transport. (I know there are many exceptions to this rule).

How will the job market look 30 years from now?

Will workers be required to fund vast social welfare systems for those who can't make the academic grade and who's usual go-to jobs have been replaced by a machine?

Is there any solution to an impending crisis where there are many more people than jobs?

[Deleted User]

Wibbs wrote: »

I seem to recall reading about Germany I believe where after reunification of east and west the old Commie fridges were sought out as they lasted for decades. They had to under communism. That's the other extreme of course and we don't want that either. A balance would be nice.

I seem to recall that East German engineers were given a mandate to design them (and other stuff) to last 25 years.

ScumLord

DubInMeath wrote: »

My dad and many like him built stuff that lasts from real wood, but it would be the case that he had some repeat customers due to the lady of the house wanting to change the style of a piece. He was also known locally as someone who would help out those starting out by making a piece from his off cuts bin and only charge them for his time. Just the way he was when working as he was always willing to help someone out from knowing hard times himself.

But there's still only so much he can do. If people were depending on him to provide furniture he'd be flat out all the time and there probably would be a reduction in the quality of his work as he works faster to keep up with demand. If anything the likes of Ikea allow for artisans like him. There's no pressure on him to meet the market's demand. People buy functional furniture to get them going then when they see something they love, like one of your fathers tables they will probably have the money to buy it. But I'll come back to this on the Stanley issue.

As an experiment and not really bashing Ikea here, they do have a place, as plenty of other furniture chains sold less than remarkable items at high prices for a long time, we did a strength test one day between an old pine book case he made in 1972 aparently for one of my aunts, and a similar size one from Ikea that was replaced by one of his for a customer. The Ikea one collapsed after adding a total of 45KG, over each of the shelves, his took 100KG before biting the dust.
I agree fashions change and come around again, but to me building a structure to last only 30 years is a shocking indictment of ourselves for wasting valuable natural resources.

I don't think we're really running out of building materials though. Concrete, brick, mortar, timber are there in abundance. It may be the case that's it's as economical to tear down an old building and build it to the current standards than it is to try and maintain a dilapidated building. Getting an old stone cottage to a livable level can be a nightmare for example, you only do it if you really want to live in an old stone cottage.

The race to the bottom has affected some companies reputations with Stanley being an example. Look on eBay and you will see people paying more for a rusted 70 plus year old no4 plane, than Stanley's current version of the same plane. The reason for this is the poor quality of the components Stanley have used since the 1980s (old earlier some would argue) in order to increase profitability, which in turn had actually resulted in most carpenters shunning them like the plague.

But the problem is they were probably more or less forced to do that by the market. If your competition can produce something similar for a reduced cost because their factory is in China you kind of have to do something about it or go out of business.

But, this does allow for more artisans. Like you say people will go looking for the good stuff and you'll eventually get a person who knows their stuff and starts producing their own low volume (expensive) products, which people will buy after spending years buying crap. Automation progress has allowed these small time producers to lower their costs, produce more and be a more viable business without going large scale. So while automation allows the big companies to produce crap cheaper, it also allows artisans to produce quality cheaper and make it more accessible.

Big corporations have actually ended up stuck in the mass produced market. They're too big to bother with low volume, it's hard for them to adapt, they become desperate for sales because small percentage changes can have huge effects. What they're making is lowest common denominator products, something that will appeal to someone who maybe doesn't need to use the product more than once and if it fails it's no big deal. But that means that they don't appeal to enthusiasts and professionals, or basically anyone who knows better.

Wibbs

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't think we're really running out of building materials though. Concrete, brick, mortar, timber are there in abundance..

Yes SL, though with the exception of wood, extremely polluting and energy intensive to produce. Even with wood, how many units of hydrocarbon power is required to plane down one plank? An older dwelling has already paid its share so to speak. Yes it may require upgrading and maintenance, but not close to the costs involved in building a new dwelling.

This idea of consumer economics is very engrained mind you. We see it with cars. A BMW is extremely resource expensive to produce but once it rolls out of the factory after that it's down to the HC's it uses to get around. A 20 year old BMW is "greener" than a new one and that includes electric ones BTW. Don't get me started on how dodgy lithium is to mine and get into batteries… An electric car is going to have to run for a very long time to offset the production costs in energy and other resources. The manufacturers can bleat on about recycling of bits and bobs and it's a step in the right direction, but is only barely scratching the surface of the actual costs, no matter what the marketing types may claim.

Do not get me wrong I'm well stuck in the middle on this stuff. I like both perpetual motion machines and the amazing tech that comes along with new stuff and pretty much all of that is down to the consumers need for their new fix. I have a big plasma TV and would not want to go back to a 1970's faux wood 18 inch screen.

I suppose in my ideal world and to take the car analogy, I'd be driving a 63 split window Corvette, with a hybrid engine, modern suspension and brakes(and the steering wheel on the correct side

[Deleted User]

I understand what your saying, but the other side would be that he would also be providing employment through training apprentices, if he was still working that is.

He didn't want me to go into the trade due to the fact that he understood that his type of furniture is more a select commodity, and while there are good wages to be earned on site work during a boom, in a recession your in for very lean times, even if you have good connections. Hence after a number of physical jobs including farm and site labouring while still in school, then security while waiting to see if I got into the guards, then collage at night to end up where I am working in I.T. which I love and also used to teach and would love to do so again in the future, but my masters in I.T. Security and a move into this area full time will need to be done first.

I did learn a lot and continue to do so from my dad as well as on my own, both for my own enjoyment and self sufficiency.

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't think we're really running out of building materials though. Concrete, brick, mortar, timber are there in abundance. It may be the case that's it's as economical to tear down an old building and build it to the current standards than it is to try and maintain a dilapidated building. Getting an old stone cottage to a livable level can be a nightmare

But the problem is they were probably more or less forced to do that by the market. If your competition can produce something similar for a reduced cost because their factory is in China you kind of have to do something about it or go out of business.

The bricks, motor and paints use up a lot of oil, water and other chemicals both in their production and the actual building process. These are the resources we are wasting by building structures that are crumbling within a short timespan.

In relation to Stanley, their competers also went to China and produced rubbish also and kept their prices high for the end consumer, but there are a number of companies now producing quality tools that obviously cost more but will last a lifetime or longer and most serious carpenters use these rather than the cheap Stanley etc. This obviously refers more to hand tools than machines, while my dad used machines he preferred hand tools as they produced a better finish and are much safer to use.

True regarding making a cottage more modern, I've done it with our 70 year old
farm house and while there is still more work to be done, its was a lot cheaper to buy than a new build in an estate and I know the basic house is more stable than most of the estate housing stock produced in the last 20 plus years.

KomradeBishop

eeguy wrote: »

My point in starting this thread is that as low skill jobs continue to disappear there is a growing number of people unable or unwilling to up skilling to the higher and higher levels required to get a good stable job.

30 years ago a leaving cert was enough to get a start anywhere, degrees were exceptional.
Currently those higher degrees are the norm and masters/PhD are exceptional. Those without adequate qualifications to get a "professional" job are largely employed in areas ripe for automation such as transport. (I know there are many exceptions to this rule).

How will the job market look 30 years from now?

Will workers be required to fund vast social welfare systems for those who can't make the academic grade and who's usual go-to jobs have been replaced by a machine?

Is there any solution to an impending crisis where there are many more people than jobs?

Well, up to now we've relied upon markets to supply enough jobs - but we can see that this leaves long gaps in time, where there are not enough jobs supplied.

So if a high level of joblessness becomes a permanent feature in the future, people will just have to get past the taboo of using non-market solutions (i.e. the state) for providing jobs (and scientific research is a pretty good area for this).

There's already a good template for this. Instead of giving people free money (a Basic Income), they would actually be put to good productive use - adding value to the economy.

It's not actually hard to solve, it just involves changes that are abhorrently anathema to people who defend the current economic order - there are a lot of people who don't want these problem solved.