Free Trade and Globalization failing the working (80%?) class

GreatApe

Conrad wrote: »

Trump is correct to identify the fact American business has off-shored due to overly high taxation and overly burdensome regulations.

Business will come back if the balance is corrected.

In the end people will forgoe some employment 'rights' in return for the dignity of decent jobs.

Falling corporate tax rates could result not in less, but in more tax collected, as business comes back to America from Ireland et al.

In my view what you highlight is probably not that significant, what businesses actually went away and what quantity of jobs and what quality?

was it high quality jobs in the many millions?
Or was it low quality jobs in the not so many?
Did we get any jobs in return thanks to the lower prices or the ability of the country that received these jobs to now buy more uk products?
And even if they 'return' how long until they are automated away?

To give you an idea of an industry I used to know well that no longer exists in scale in the uk is textiles. As a guess if we imposed full restrictions on importing cloths/shoes/textiles (definitely uk factories would be created as cloths are a necessity) then it would create in the region of ~50,000 jobs. The higher prices for these necessities however would destroy in the region of 30-40,000 jobs (If people spend more of their income on cloths and shoes they have less to spend elsewhere so those sectors need to contract. The net impact would be maybe 10-20k additional jobs. To put that into perspective the last 12 months has seen some 500,000 additional jobs created. Then there are the secondary factors, if we are sending the poor countries £1-2 billion less to import cloths/shoes they have less money to buy western exports so the net 10-20k additional jobs will be lower still. Finally if we cherry pick restrictions and quotas what is to stop other countries doing the same and putting restrictions and quotas on our net exports?

The next question is then how long do these 50,000 textile jobs have before computers take over? My guess is 15-20 years some 90% of the manpower will be automated. To date its been difficult as textiles were fairly low run products. That is to say if we demanded one type of shoe in one type of size for 10 years so we had to make 1.5 billion of that shoe we could probably build a highly automated factory to make said shoe. But with 1,000 brands and 10 sizes and tasts changing every 6 months its more difficult as each run might be a few tens of thousands. However with machines now getting close to being able to accurately percieve the real world (that is to say they can see like humans now/soon) even lower run items like textiles are going to go to computers.


So from what I can tell, even what are quite huge industries like textiles cloths shoes are not huge numbers of jobs, somewhere around 50,000 and if we brought them back we would lose 30-40k jobs elsewhere due to the higher prices and even these 50k jobs some 45k of them will be lost to the robots in 10-20 years

GreatApe

whatmichaelsays wrote: »

The value of manual labour as a commodity is simply falling - it's not worth what it once was because it can be done cheaper by other means. This isn't something that we are going to reverse.

The solution is, has been and always will be education and skills. If you as an individual aren't prepared to bring yourself up to speed with the technologically skilled workforce upon leaving education then you are, quite frankly screwed for life. Sadly people don't appear to want to master technology or grasp skills - we live in the 'I'm not good at...' nation.

well said

I can see the allure of 'bringing back xyz' if you are a person who works with your hands and are unable or unwilling to learn new skills for new jobs. The problem is we did not export 10 million manufacturing jobs nor can we create 10 million by 'bringing them back'. The robots took maybe 9 of those 10 million jobs while cheap foreigners took the other 1 million.

A million lost jobs sounds quite significant but the lower prices has enabled maybe two thirds of that number in service jobs that would be affordable in the necessities cost more as they were built/made here.

Furthermore as you point out, worldwide even in the cheap countries automation is still progressing so each year the jobs that are repeatedly making widgets are worth less and less in value and in number

So back to my original thoughts. Why do people think making imports illegal or extremely difficult would be a net good for the majority of the people of the uk? Of course they dont phrase it like that they do a Conrad and talk about globalization being a negative force pushing down conditions and wages for the working classes just empty statements taken at face value leading people to be angry about nothing. Whats worse is that the Conrad groups then come and cry this is some liberal argument condescending their views and beliefs and they wont take it anymore and will vote trump/brexit to show they know best

GreatApe

Conrad wrote: »

Business will come back if the balance is corrected.

We are on the very cusp of the next huge 'industrial' revolution

The american tech people and companies, those liberals you hate so much, will crack narrow AIs over the next 1-10 years which will lead to the destruction of tens of millions of jobs and make us all richer but will make a small group immensely rich.

I wonder how you will react to this, when say the 285,000 HGV drivers (BBC article) in the UK are reduced to 2,850 fleet operators as the trucks drive themselves?

So much is going to change over the next 20 years manufacturing and even a lot of services are going to go the way of farming. Still there still growing more food than ever but employing so few people that its almost forgotten about. Even the service sector will be hit, I've already mentioned self drive tech but the software will also take your job as a mortgage broker/adviser and also the jobs of accountants and possibly solicitors too. A narrow AI which is as good as the top 1% of accountants will kill the accounting industry.

Your idea of the world looking back 30 years is not going to be applicable to the world going forward 30 years.

GreatApe

Manufacturing industry production services possibly 80% of all the jobs that exist today will go to the narrow AI software and computers over the next 30 years.

If general AI is invented increase that figure to 99.9% of all tasks done by computers, not of tasks today but all tasks ever.

This probably seems far fetched buts its a process that has been going on for 30 years and is a continious process that will continually work itself through the economy over the next 30 years. A modern car factory is mostly robots. The ratio is now close to 100 cars per year per employee for an efficient plant and some projections are that this will improve 10x again

The next big one is going to be self drive which will result in possibly over 1,000,000 jobs just within the uk disappearing. Not just the obvious driving jobs but lots and lots of secondary jobs. For instance think of the number of jobs in selling car insurance or sorting out crash legals or the medical injuries the doctors need to treat or the bumps and scrapes the garages need to fix or the silly people who put diesel in petrol and need someone to sort that out etc. All of that will go down 90-100%. This tech is very likely less than 10 years away

kabayiri

GreatApe wrote: »

In my view what you highlight is probably not that significant, what businesses actually went away and what quantity of jobs and what quality?

was it high quality jobs in the many millions?
Or was it low quality jobs in the not so many?
Did we get any jobs in return thanks to the lower prices or the ability of the country that received these jobs to now buy more uk products?
And even if they 'return' how long until they are automated away?

To give you an idea of an industry I used to know well that no longer exists in scale in the uk is textiles. As a guess if we imposed full restrictions on importing cloths/shoes/textiles (definitely uk factories would be created as cloths are a necessity) then it would create in the region of ~50,000 jobs. The higher prices for these necessities however would destroy in the region of 30-40,000 jobs (If people spend more of their income on cloths and shoes they have less to spend elsewhere so those sectors need to contract. The net impact would be maybe 10-20k additional jobs. To put that into perspective the last 12 months has seen some 500,000 additional jobs created. Then there are the secondary factors, if we are sending the poor countries £1-2 billion less to import cloths/shoes they have less money to buy western exports so the net 10-20k additional jobs will be lower still. Finally if we cherry pick restrictions and quotas what is to stop other countries doing the same and putting restrictions and quotas on our net exports?
...

It is clearly complicated as you highlight.

Perhaps we need to take a case study and have a frank, possibly brutal, assessment.

Re: textiles, you will know that a place like Oldham had a textile mill for every single day of the year. In the 60s and 70s we imported large numbers of migrant workers from Asia to work in these mills.

Just a couple of generations later and all those mills have gone, and the town is a mere shadow of it's former self.

The economics will not justify a return of mass textile work, but we can not ignore the social impact the changes have had.

Valued work does bring with it a measure of stability to the local community.

What we are seeing in the USA is rising political instability, because workers can no longer see a clear roadmap for the future.

I don't know the answer, but I do struggle with the idea of mass migration year after year alongside the inexorable reductions in labour brought about by technology.

GreatApe

kabayiri wrote: »

It is clearly complicated as you highlight.

Perhaps we need to take a case study and have a frank, possibly brutal, assessment.

Re: textiles, you will know that a place like Oldham had a textile mill for every single day of the year. In the 60s and 70s we imported large numbers of migrant workers from Asia to work in these mills.

Just a couple of generations later and all those mills have gone, and the town is a mere shadow of it's former self.

The economics will not justify a return of mass textile work, but we can not ignore the social impact the changes have had.

Valued work does bring with it a measure of stability to the local community.

What we are seeing in the USA is rising political instability, because workers can no longer see a clear roadmap for the future.

I don't know the answer, but I do struggle with the idea of mass migration year after year alongside the inexorable reductions in labour brought about by technology.

maybe one of the problems is the idea of a constant in life.
Does it make sense to slow or stop progress to a human lifetime scale? With my example of the steel plant I used to work at which had 30,000 workers 25,000 of them doing FA should the process to reduce to 5,000 workers have been done over 50 years rather than 15 years? Is there a moral or economic argument for a slower process in getting rid of the 25,000 people who turned up to work to play cards or sleep?

I am familiar with the textiles industry it did see some automation but nothing like most manufacturing and towards the end of the industry in the 1990s it was still labor intensive. However the idea that the work was well paid or high status or anything like that is a joke it was the opposite it was low pay manual labor for the most part somewhat offset by the ability to do more hours than a typical 37.5h/week. Do I want my kids to work in textiles like my parents did, no definitely not. If the industry did return if Conrad/Trump type policies made importing them impossible it would again be low pay low status however I do think now it would also be rapidly automated within the rich countries. Especially in the USA they arent going to pay 300,000 people $40k = $12B a year to sit in front of a sewing machines when they can write some software and get the machine to do 9/10ths of the labor. So even if it returned its going to go within 5-15 years

Thrugelmir

GreatApe wrote: »

Is the working class worse off now vs the past? Really think hard are they? If yes why?

How they are treated perhaps. Uber recently lost a court case. Today appears Amazon are underpaying their sub contracted delivery drivers. Employers in the main used to respect their employees. After all a happy contented workforce is more productive etc. Globalisation is driven by profit, that benefits the relatively few. Not even the shareholders of the companies. Executive pay levels sum up the situation very well. Top bod should earn 20 times that of the lowest paid employee in the organisation. That at least would be equitable, and reward people for their contribution to the business. A salary of that level is more than adequate for a very comfortable lifestyle as well.

spadoosh

Not sure what your trying to ascertain.

Are you suggesting a country should aim to only have workers doing jobs like banking, doctors and IT?

I understand some jobs have a higher 'prestige' but you do seem to undermine quite a few vital sectors.

I work closely with the care industry. Care workers are paid close to minimum wage. Its hardly the most dignified job, quite a few workers do the job because it pays the bills, i would say the majority do so because it pays the bills and because there is dignity in caring for someone who needs it. Largely uneducated workforce (in that its rare to get someone whose been to uni). They could earn more working in a supermarket, yet they choose not to.

I also think youre wildly optimistic with the invention firstly of AI and secondly the roll out process of it all.

Also you seem to be above all (and this is where your true priviliged liberal colours shine through) deem that profit margin is the be all. And this is ultimately where globalisation has failed. The companies that represent globalisation dont care for the countries or the people that work for them. Their goal set by shareholders is to make as much money as possible, ok theyll have a few sideshows of trying to look inclusive as to not completely destroy customer relations but for the most part their purpose is to benefit the people who put money in with the customers reliant on products, the staff reliant on wages, the suppliers reliant on income an after thought, a distant one at that.


Going back to your original question is the working class worse off now, there are many factors to consider. They get better rights in terms of employment laws, arguably better pay (probably offset by increased costs for the most part) and a few other perks. The biggest thing that seems worse off to me is security. For the most part historically you got a job upon leaving school and was in that job till quite late on in life. I would willingly lose quite a lot of benefits to ensure my job was secure and i could provide for my family.

I was made redundant from a shop earlier this year. Considering we're a nation of shopkeepers and store closures are more and more prevalent thats a huge workforce that is about to lose out. But a workforce that has been essential for development and growth serems a bit uncouth to suggest now they shouldve gone to university. Theyve been doing a job that was needed. Because some person who did go to university has decided their job is obsolete they are no longer needed and shouldve gone to university.

Before i started university the job im doing now was paying £25k per year, 10 years later its paying £16k, i could earn a bit more in other areas of the country but the comparisons are like for like.

A question to you if you dont mind? What jobs can we expect in the future if AI is going to take over most jobs. You are either an AI technician or a politician? I can imagine AI wont be a PM for quite a while. Where is the job market going?


At least with isolationism you have to rely on the people you have to do jobs that are needed. The problem with a global economy is it would make the UK obsolete (hence why its often said about little englander etc). Italy grows better tomatoes, france grows better wine, china can produce thigns quicker and cheaper, korea can mine minerals we dont have, russia has a tonne of gas, middle east has the oil. So what are we good at banking and intellect? Hardly jobs you can stop other countries from doing.

We're at a stage where we simply can not compete with other markets at the expense of jobs in the UK. Ie UK people buy sweaters from taiwan that we where making 40years ago. We cant compete with the cheaper labour (that is forced by governments) we cant compete with different working practices (set by government). So someone is out of a job here and the people who where paying for that persons job are now paying for someones job in thailand, they might be paying a bit less for the product, but essnetially the staff arent getting paid more (considerably less) so where does the money go to those clever clever people that bought a certificate (get it doesnt work like that). Jack up the prices a bit of thai jumpers and suddnely uk jumper maker can compete. Uk jumper buyer can pay uk jumper maker for the product. The added benefit of this is theres no need to ship a jumper half way around the world with a pretty extreme ecological footprint it entails.

wotsthat

Thrugelmir wrote: »

How they are treated perhaps. Uber recently lost a court case. Today appears Amazon are underpaying their sub contracted delivery drivers. Employers in the main used to respect their employees. After all a happy contented workforce is more productive etc. Globalisation is driven by profit, that benefits the relatively few. Not even the shareholders of the companies. Executive pay levels sum up the situation very well. Top bod should earn 20 times that of the lowest paid employee in the organisation. That at least would be equitable, and reward people for their contribution to the business. A salary of that level is more than adequate for a very comfortable lifestyle as well.

The consumer decides. They want a cheaper taxi ride, stuff off Amazon and cheaper clothes. They only care when asked (because otherwise they'd look horrid) and then rush off to find the cheapest option available.

Mike Ashley taking a pay cut won't make a difference.

There's no value in being poorly educated and low skilled. In the good old days maybe there was but those days have gone and aren't coming back.

The uneducated and low skilled need to hear the message that's coming loud and clear from the consumer - we don't care about you. The issue isn't they've been failed by free trade and globalisation; the issue is they're uneducated and low skilled.

Falling immigration might be a temporary reprieve but if someone's holding out for a £15/ hour pouring coffee they're in for a long wait.

spadoosh

wotsthat wrote: »

The consumer decides. They want a cheaper taxi ride, stuff off Amazon and cheaper clothes. They only care when asked (because otherwise they'd look horrid) and then rush off to find the cheapest option available.

Mike Ashley taking a pay cut won't make a difference.

There's no value in being poorly educated and low skilled. In the good old days maybe there was but those days have gone and aren't coming back.

The uneducated and low skilled need to hear the message that's coming loud and clear from the consumer - we don't care about you. The issue isn't they've been failed by free trade and globalisation; the issue is they're uneducated and low skilled.

Falling immigration might be a temporary reprieve but if someone's holding out for a £15/ hour pouring coffee they're in for a long wait.

Are you expecting bankers to pour their own coffee?

What is with the attack on the uneducated (riddiculous term, not university educated maybe, lets go old school and call em cannon fodder)? They are absolutely vital to the economy and have been mocked for too long. Standing up and voting brexit/trump. This is a government failing because theyve done nothing to stop it. Easily stopped by saying o yes you can sell your 10p thai clothes here theyll be charged at 400% vat. Little old brit sewer person can knock her jumpers out for about £40 fair competition. And absolutely no need to get a degree.

Do you really think everyone in the country can have a degree and use it productively? Theres a decent sized minority of university educated people who are the uneducated people you infer about ie the baristas, shope workers simply because there isnt the highly educated jobs available or they arent suitable (maybe personal failings maybe educational failings i dont know, different argument).