And what do you think would happen to the private sector if the public sector didn't exist? The infrastructure and services of the public sector are a precondition for the private sector to succeed. I ask because you seem to focus on the necessity of privately generated wealth for the public sector, as if the public sector is parasitic on private businesses. It should be seen as a symbiotic relationship that produces wealth, and a key thing is to ensure that when profit is generated, taxes are paid on the profit to ensure proper working of the public sector. Too often the profits seem to disappear off-shore, taxes don't get paid (for a variety of reasons), and public infrastructure suffers.
No Fault Evictions
- Thread starter Ozi
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
You are somewhat out of touch here Terry!
Loss of jobs, de skilling, and/or lower wages has been a major concern since the industrial revolution, including agriculture.
It was then, it still is now.
It's a central theme of social history, endlessly written about and very well documented.
Book worth reading is "Blood in the Machine". A good read, not too academic. https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Blood_in_the_Machine/XzdTEAAAQBAJ?hl=en
Or for a longer read the great classic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Making_of_the_English_Working_Class
The biggest omission in the failure to embrace change is the idea that automation should free people from work. Not so long ago there was talk of 3 day weeks and endless leisure. Instead the unemployed are blamed for their fate, live in poverty, insulted and derided. Other workers are on low wages not enough to pay typical rents, with low job security.
Yes bring it on, long overdue.
Last edited:
John Brown
Freeloading Social media influenza
I don't need to, as I've already thought about the alternative - a super intelligent all-powerful being appearing out of nothing. I don't understand how you can keep ignoring this inconsistency in your thinking.
John Brown
Freeloading Social media influenza
Accumulate is a good word. So many people bang on about "creating" wealth. Very few do that, IMO.
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
Have you never heard of the tractor?
Massive machines nowadays with one operative doing the work of hundreds
One of the biggest UK demand change historically was sheep farming which led to massive social changes - particularly the highland clearances, where whole villages and communities were made unemployed and turfed off the land. Enclosure of the commons was another consequence. These led to mass immigration and the colonisation of large areas of the world.
Low wages, short term work, anti immigrant policies, cheap imports.
Last edited:
Automation or mechanisation has reduced the number of people required to do a given job and resulted in the loss of jobs which has been going on for decades. Farming is a good example, before steam animals pulled the plough and farms needed a lot of people to produce the grain and then came steam and the traction engine which reduced the number of farm workers further until today with the modern machinery that can plough, harrow and seed in one operation followed by the combine so not many people involved. This is how busineses increase the profit margins, they want less people with less skills to produce more by using technology to replace the need for a skill, ie push fit pipes and pre made roof trussses. So you can see how the gap is growing between the business owners and the workers, they get more profit and the worker has no grounds for pay progression as there is no need to be anymore skilled than they are and will at some point become to skilled as technology replaces them.
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
More than decades - since prehistorical times.
They are all labour-saving / productivity-increasing tools, from the first stone axes to automation, AI and the digital age.
Major social changes involved throughout the whole of history - the formation of unions, the Labour party itself (as was), wherever you want to look.
The biggest change being the expansion of human activity/population over the whole planet, even little excursions into space.
Last edited:
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
I would say they pre industrial revolution that we were still labour intensive, the biggest changes must have occured since the steam engine. A stone axe would have made a cavemans life easier but he could still only do the work of one caveman.
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
With an axe he could kill and butcher meat far more efficiently than another with only sticks and stones. Or chop wood, fight battles etc etc.
Increased productivity big time.
Next big steps being bronze - then iron, steel...etc
AJB Temple
Finely figured
Lots of emotion here. Unhelpful. AI will clearly replace a lot of what we currently think of as skilled work. It is already much better at some things than humans. Unemployment will rise and it will hit sectors not used to that (middle class). The real issue with AI it seems to me is who owns it. Most AI systems are run by non UK corporate giants. Presently they are largely immune from UK tax. The laws could change but the UK is small in global economic turns and the likes of Google etc wont worry much if they need to cut us out. If we are not very careful we could have a few very rich people like Musk, Gates, Bezos etc (plus Russian and Chinese equivalents) controlling everything with politicians blindsided and people suffering. The UK needs to get better control of it's technology needs and infrastructure.
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
Emotion? Can't say I've noticed, except a level of irritability from a nameless few!
The basic capitalism dilemma; who owns the means of production?
They are already highly influential and London is world leader in money laundering. https://www.theguardian.com/world/a...-laundered-in-london-and-uk-crown-dependenies
Yep. More state control - "for the many, not the few".
Last edited:
Does not go off sick.
Does not ask for payrises.
Will not go on strike.
Does not take holidays.
Does not spend time going to the toilet.
Is never late getting to work.
Should never need maternity leave.
Currently will be subservient.
Initially humans will believe they own and control it but at some point AI could well have ideas of it's own !
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
Tractors first became commonplace on farms during and shortly after WW2. Other agricultural machinery followed. A seasonal agricultural workers scheme also started in 1945 reflecting a shortage of UK labour - or that we Brits considered manual labouring on farms beneath us.
I agree some of the changes in the jobs market could have been handled much better - particularly in providing support to communities heavily impacted (eg: mining. shipbuilding).
Sadly the response to changing circumstances was strike and resistance. Whether the outcome would have been better with a more positive response is debatable. GDP per capita in the north east and Wales are materially lower than UK average but have close to average unemployment.
woodieallen
Established Member
Your confusing poverty with unemployment. They are most definitely not the same thing.
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
The reaction was to the losing of livelihoods, not just to "changing circumstances".
A large proportion of workers have always lived by the paypacket with little or no reserves to cope with unemployment.
Somewhat far-fetched idea. What sort of positive response would you have advised? Putting a brave face on it? Smiling in the face of adversity?
People join unions, and/or go on strike as a last resort, because it can be effective, when other negotiations have broken down.
Last edited:
The stone axe probably completely destroyed the livelihood of the beaver wranglers
One of the biggest causes of our issues is population - global population.
Year1624 550m 1724 870m 1824 2.52b 1924 6.14b 2024 8b
If this there is continued straight line growth (from the past 100 years) =c30% per century we get:
2124 10.1b 2224 13.5 2324 17.6b
At what point does the natural world not sustain life on earth?
Surely the solution is to limit population growth?
As we have readers of all political persuasions on this forum I am keen to hear thoughts on this, it seems to be the topic that never gets discussed.
Year1624 550m 1724 870m 1824 2.52b 1924 6.14b 2024 8b
If this there is continued straight line growth (from the past 100 years) =c30% per century we get:
2124 10.1b 2224 13.5 2324 17.6b
At what point does the natural world not sustain life on earth?
Surely the solution is to limit population growth?
As we have readers of all political persuasions on this forum I am keen to hear thoughts on this, it seems to be the topic that never gets discussed.
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
No it isn't. It's not how many there are, it's what they do with the natural resources available.
Most of the problems which beset large numbers of people were around just as much in the old days when populations were smaller.
In fact more so - the quality of life for most is now much better than it was say 150 years ago.
In any case the big problem of climate change is largely caused by our "first" world where energy consumption and CO2 generation is highest per capita but population growth is fairly low.
Last edited:
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
It's not politically correct to talk about it as the major increasing over population is Asian and African, not European or N. American.
