Yellow jacket freedom fighters spreading to London

badgerhead

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

I saw a film once, In the meantime the intelligent ones were the ones being forced to pay for the dumb ones breeding so could not afford to have kids. It resulted in a far lower intelligence across the population.

The frightening thing is I could see this happening unless people are forced to take responsibility for their actions.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

itwasntme001 wrote: »

Politics is about sugar coating the truth, so no it wont be a winning strategy.

Ah.

So Leave can only win if they lie.

Good to know...

MobileSaver

kabayiri wrote: »

For half a dozen years after the GFC, some 80% of the jobs created were the lowest income type.

Is this the sort of work you are celebrating?

When the alternative is 2,000,000 more people without a job then absolutely yes it should be celebrated.

kabayiri

MobileSaver wrote: »

When the alternative is 2,000,000 more people without a job then absolutely yes it should be celebrated.

I just see these as short term.

Come some serious competition from afar, or a recession, a lot of these will be washed out of the system.

Having said that, if a sweatshop style section of the economy is useful, then we should be looking for the cheapest workers from wherever. I prefer automation, but I can see the logic of very cheap resource.

itwasntme001

MobileSaver wrote: »

I'm with Hamish on this, I'm old enough that all through my working life I've heard that people's jobs will be replaced by:

• Computers
• The internet
• Robots
• Drones
• AI

Yet here we are 30 years on and there are more jobs for people than ever.

Ignoring the silly "end of the world" doomsayers about how everyone will lose their jobs, technological advancements has caused a lot of jobs losses, but there have also been many new jobs being created, hence the (relatively) low unemployment.


Computers and the internet have indeed destroyed jobs in retail, travel, hotel, engineering, the list is almost endless.


It has also created jobs in the typical "zero hour contract" type jobs such as uber drivers, delivery people as well as professional jobs such as programmers, data scientists, CAD designers, game developers, the list is almost endless as well. It has also made it easier for anyone to set up a business and be self employed. Even though many businesses wont be making any money, they are still employed....


The real question you got to ask is how has productivity changed since the advent of the computer and how is it split between labour vs capital? My guess is that productivity has shifted towards capital rather then labour.



Then you got to wonder what will happen once AI and robots go mainstream? That is where it will get very interesting if it advances enough. For example driver-less cars going mainstream will wipe out the need for taxi/uber drivers.

Herzlos

An interesting point I'd seen raised earlier is that if automation is good enough it becomes self defeating.
Take a robotic workforce, with the ability to maintain/repair/replicate/supervise itself, able to eliminate the jobs of 90% of the population. Now with 90% of the population unemployed, even with a generous state benefit system (funded somehow), who's going to buy all of the stuff produced by the robots? No-one but the super rich have any available money. Without a good state benefit system (Universal Income) or some money-less society, the few working won't be able to fund everyone else, and everyone else won't be able to afford anything. You'll have a small section of society living the high life* with robot servants, whilst the bulk of the population is relegated to the dark ages.



There have been technical advances for millennia that have threatened to wipe out a vast swathe of jobs (often successfully), but different jobs always emerge. Steam engines, traction engines, wind/water mills, electricity, goal, petroleum, telephone, television, radio, cars, and so on.


I can see automation taking over a lot of current menial jobs, warehousing, manufacturing, mining, etc, but I can also see it allowing other jobs to take over. There have always been menial jobs, so there's no point complaining that new jobs are unskilled minimum wage.





*Whilst there's still money going round the system.

zagubov

kabayiri wrote: »

There is no 'could' about it.

Technology has given a relatively small few the immense ability to affect the way we live our lives today.

If you look at the plans behind the ambitions of people like Jeff Bezos, they do not centre on the mass increase of manual jobs. It's the ambition to use technology to change the way we do things. Layers are taken out of processes, and the simplification sold to us as a benefit. Often those layers involved people.

By comparison, the vision of politicians is trifling. They prefer to look back, than look forward.

Division of labour could become a really hot topic in the decades to come, and tbh, we are not that good at change in an equitable manner.

I reckon the US could do worse than look at some of this guy's policies when the next election comes up.

AG47

The freedom fighters are planning on doing a bank run every month until the banks collapse.

It's simple get as many people as possible around the world to withdraw everything from the system, and hold it in hard cash

antrobus

Herzlos wrote: »

...
Take a robotic workforce, with the ability to maintain/repair/replicate/supervise itself, able to eliminate the jobs of 90% of the population. Now with 90% of the population unemployed, even with a generous state benefit system (funded somehow), who's going to buy all of the stuff produced by the robots?....

Nobody will buy anything. Everything will be free.

Welcome to the Star Trek economy.

antrobus

AG47 wrote: »

The freedom fighters are planning on doing a bank run every month until the banks collapse.

Do these freedom fighters of yours have enough money deposited with any one bank to make that happen?

AG47 wrote: »

It's simple get as many people as possible around the world to withdraw everything from the system, and hold it in hard cash

Tricky. There ain't really enough hard cash around to achieve that aim.

Besides, wouldn't it be simpler if they all just voted for a government that they wanted?