Jeremy Corbyn (Vol. 3)

[768]

S1KRR said:

fiju said:

...

And all you Luddites need a slap. I'll tell you what will happen if/when you get replaced by a machine... You'll find a new job. How? The same way you found the one you just had. Oh but your 'skills'? You can retrain for new skills in a field that has demand. If you actually had any skills, you wouldn't have been easily replaced by a machine. Things move on. Move on with it.
What happens when all the menial jobs get taken over by machines? You'll all be long dead by then so I wouldn't worry about it.

I fking HATE this attitude you're displaying!

Not everyone in the country is a brain surgeon! Some people, all they can realistically expect to be in life is a customer facing role in a shop or similar. These people don't have a decent education. They probably have a couple of GSCEs at poor grades. But having them working for NMW in a secure job is better than having them on the dole pushing out ever more kids.

You seem quite happy to throw these people on the rubbish heap because they are replaced by a machine and simply cant retrain to be anything better.


fk everyone else yeah?

You don't seem to know what a Luddite is.

[Short Grain]

Who, besides the stupid Unions, have given the labour party £56M??

JC is NOT the Second Coming!! Thank God!

[Gecko1978]

Dr Jekyll said:

They could always become leader of the opposition.

There are plenty of people out there who left school with poor or no qualifications who have nevertheless recognised that nobody owes them a living, so acquired skills which were in demand and are making a good living as a result.

Machinery doesn't replace people, it equips them. So they produce more and as a whole we all get wealthier. The notion that producing more stuff somehow makes us all poorer has been proven wrong time and time again.

Just to challenge your point, using McDonald's as the example, perhaps in the 80s the tills were enhanced so they are no longer punch in numbers but touch screen speeding up the task of the employee. Now the screens are used by customers, removing the need for that employee.

That is the key difference technology has moved to the point of not enhancing the employee skill set but making them obsolete.

Or consider this today 10 people drive 10 vans, tomorrow Vans drive themselves an 1 person maintains the 10 vans, then next week one robot maintains the vans....

[ORD]

Low skill jobs are going to disappear over time. That’s incontrovertible. We need to stop tolerating that we have such a low skilled workforce.

[Mothersruin]

ORD said:

Low skill jobs are going to disappear over time. That’s incontrovertible. We need to stop tolerating that we have such a low skilled workforce.

I thought we had a highly educated university standard workforce, a large socially supported number and import all our low skilled workforce.

That's what the papers would tell us anyway.

[Dr Jekyll]

Gecko1978 said:

Or consider this today 10 people drive 10 vans, tomorrow Vans drive themselves an 1 person maintains the 10 vans, then next week one robot maintains the vans....

Or 10 people maintain 100 vans, then look after 100 robots maintaining 1000 vans. Obviously if once all human wants and needs are totally satisfied then there will be no need for more vans, more burgers, or anything else. But we are well short of that situation.

It isn't all that long ago that 90% of people worked on farms. I'm sure that if someone had suggested then that we could manage with 5% and a load of machinery, there would be plenty suggesting that 85% of the population would be unemployed. How could they ever hope to work in offices when most of them couldn't read?

The fact is we are all better off largely because that 85% can produce things we previously went without.

[ORD]

It’s not about the numbers. It’s about the skill level. We will make new jobs. But they will not be for low skilled workers.

[ChevyChase77]

The Li-ion King said:

NoNeed said:

Nicked from Fbook

BREAKING: Isis leader Al-Bagdadi is dead

Our thoughts are with Jeremy Corbyn at this difficult time

Has Corbyn made a statement yet? Or will it lose him some more votes?

[DanL]

ORD said:

It’s not about the numbers. It’s about the skill level. We will make new jobs. But they will not be for low skilled workers.

Not sure I buy that - usability and maintainability are key considerations for any new technology. 100 years ago you’d have said no one will know enough to maintain car engines, and all they can do is look after horses...

People adapt.

[A Winner Is You]

Dr Jekyll said:

Or 10 people maintain 100 vans, then look after 100 robots maintaining 1000 vans. Obviously if once all human wants and needs are totally satisfied then there will be no need for more vans, more burgers, or anything else. But we are well short of that situation.

It isn't all that long ago that 90% of people worked on farms. I'm sure that if someone had suggested then that we could manage with 5% and a load of machinery, there would be plenty suggesting that 85% of the population would be unemployed. How could they ever hope to work in offices when most of them couldn't read?

The fact is we are all better off largely because that 85% can produce things we previously went without.

But during the industrial revolution the choice was get a new job or starve to death, and conditions in said factories were appalling. So we were able to transition, but at a cost that would not be acceptable today

[Dr Jekyll]

A Winner Is You said:

But during the industrial revolution the choice was get a new job or starve to death, and conditions in said factories were appalling. So we were able to transition, but at a cost that would not be acceptable today

Conditions in farms were appalling, at least factory workers didn't have to share their accommodation with livestock. More to the point people became dramatically better off overall. Are you suggesting it would be preferable if the industrial revolution hadn't happened?

[SpeckledJim]

Dr Jekyll said:

Gecko1978 said:

Or consider this today 10 people drive 10 vans, tomorrow Vans drive themselves an 1 person maintains the 10 vans, then next week one robot maintains the vans....

Or 10 people maintain 100 vans, then look after 100 robots maintaining 1000 vans. Obviously if once all human wants and needs are totally satisfied then there will be no need for more vans, more burgers, or anything else. But we are well short of that situation.

It isn't all that long ago that 90% of people worked on farms. I'm sure that if someone had suggested then that we could manage with 5% and a load of machinery, there would be plenty suggesting that 85% of the population would be unemployed. How could they ever hope to work in offices when most of them couldn't read?

The fact is we are all better off largely because that 85% can produce things we previously went without.

This. This This This.

100 years ago the idea that a person who works as a cleaner could afford a gardener for their own home would have been ludicrous. Now it's not hard to imagine at all. Or that a person who works as a gardener could afford a cleaner...

In another 100 years from now, people like us with 'normal' jobs will be paying other people to do stuff that we currently would think totally, ridiculously, decadent. And those people we pay will be doing likewise.

All part of the march upwards in comfort and wealth that we're lucky enough to be a tiny part of. Very jammy generations, overall.

[A Winner Is You]

Dr Jekyll said:

A Winner Is You said:

But during the industrial revolution the choice was get a new job or starve to death, and conditions in said factories were appalling. So we were able to transition, but at a cost that would not be acceptable today

Conditions in farms were appalling, at least factory workers didn't have to share their accommodation with livestock. More to the point people became dramatically better off overall. Are you suggesting it would be preferable if the industrial revolution hadn't happened?

We are still reaping the benefits of the industrial revolution, but it took a long time for that to filter down to ordinary workers. You hardly have to be a raging communist to agree that progress came at a great human cost.

[djc206]

SpeckledJim said:

This. This This This.

100 years ago the idea that a person who works as a cleaner could afford a gardener for their own home would have been ludicrous. Now it's not hard to imagine at all. Or that a person who works as a gardener could afford a cleaner...

In another 100 years from now, people like us with 'normal' jobs will be paying other people to do stuff that we currently would think totally, ridiculously, decadent. And those people we pay will be doing likewise.

All part of the march upwards in comfort and wealth that we're lucky enough to be a tiny part of. Very jammy generations, overall.

I’m not convinced on this. The younger generation are now worse off than their parents generation and most households have to have two breadwinners to be able to own and run a house. I think our personal wealth has about peaked. You mistake paying a cleaner or gardener as progress, the reality is because two people have to work full time in a household it’s cheaper to pay a cleaner than it is to work a few hours less each week and use that time to do those menial jobs.

[SpeckledJim]

djc206 said:

SpeckledJim said:

This. This This This.

100 years ago the idea that a person who works as a cleaner could afford a gardener for their own home would have been ludicrous. Now it's not hard to imagine at all. Or that a person who works as a gardener could afford a cleaner...

In another 100 years from now, people like us with 'normal' jobs will be paying other people to do stuff that we currently would think totally, ridiculously, decadent. And those people we pay will be doing likewise.

All part of the march upwards in comfort and wealth that we're lucky enough to be a tiny part of. Very jammy generations, overall.

I’m not convinced on this. The younger generation are now worse off than their parents generation and most households have to have two breadwinners to be able to own and run a house. I think our personal wealth has about peaked. You mistake paying a cleaner or gardener as progress, the reality is because two people have to work full time in a household it’s cheaper to pay a cleaner than it is to work a few hours less each week and use that time to do those menial jobs.

There's some good stuff about Western Baby-Boomers along those lines that I won't disagree with. But the standard of living we enjoy now is going up, and isn't likely to stop any time soon for any reason I can see.

Globally, wealth, well-being and comfort are steadily and quickly improving, and that's being powered by the same things it has always been powered by - division of labour, mechanisation, automation, specialisation, and cheap, readily available energy.

The amount of 'stuff' we can buy for a unit of labour is ever-increasing.

(Yes, I've read The Rational Optimist, and a lot of it made a big impression on me )

[Earthdweller]

djc206 said:

SpeckledJim said:

This. This This This.

100 years ago the idea that a person who works as a cleaner could afford a gardener for their own home would have been ludicrous. Now it's not hard to imagine at all. Or that a person who works as a gardener could afford a cleaner...

In another 100 years from now, people like us with 'normal' jobs will be paying other people to do stuff that we currently would think totally, ridiculously, decadent. And those people we pay will be doing likewise.

All part of the march upwards in comfort and wealth that we're lucky enough to be a tiny part of. Very jammy generations, overall.

I’m not convinced on this. The younger generation are now worse off than their parents generation and most households have to have two breadwinners to be able to own and run a house. I think our personal wealth has about peaked. You mistake paying a cleaner or gardener as progress, the reality is because two people have to work full time in a household it’s cheaper to pay a cleaner than it is to work a few hours less each week and use that time to do those menial jobs.

Are the younger generation worse off ?

Or maybe they have different priorities?

When I grew up in the 70’s/80’s nobody had two cars, most people commuted by bus. There were no mobiles, Internet, gym memberships, fancy coffee shops, leased white Audis etc etc

When I left school unemployment in my home town was about 20% with all the factories and mills closing down

I think you are to an extent comparing apples with pears

My first car was a 20 year old Morris Minor that cost £200

If I wanted to make a phone call whilst out I needed a 10p piece

Society is richer now than ever and people’s expectations have never been higher

As a young PC in the 80’s I couldn’t afford a car I had to sell mine to pay my rent.

When I bought my first place I had no furniture for 6 months apart from a rock chair and a tv rented from radio rentals

Now, I look at my nephews and nieces and their friends with their £1500 mobile phones, gym memberships, fancy clothes, PCP’d or leased fancy new cars, multiple holidays abroad and Constant weekends away abroad I havd little sympathy for their bleating of poverty when they choose to spend so much on “lifestyle”

My holidays were in a tent in the Dales not in a 5* in Marbella .. I went abroad once in my 20’s

My first house cost me £70k a tiny terrace but I was earning £15k and I was left with shag all every month after the mortgage at 10-15%

It’s not meant as a grumpy old man rant ( I’m not old ) but times are very different now and expectations completely different

[stevesingo]

djc206 said:

I’m not convinced on this. The younger generation are now worse off than their parents generation and most households have to have two breadwinners to be able to own and run a house and live a lifestyle of their choice. I think our personal wealth has about peaked. You mistake paying a cleaner or gardener as progress, the reality is because two people have to work full time in a household it’s cheaper to pay a cleaner than it is to work a few hours less each week and use that time to do those menial jobs.

Choice. Both my wife and I work (me with two jobs). We both chose to work so we can have a nice(ish) house with our two kids and a dog, with a spare bedroom and more living space. We have three cars. We don't need to live in that house, we could live in a 3 bed. We don't need three cars, with us both working, we could get away with two or even one if only one of us worked.

We chose that lifestyle and so do many others.

[Garvin]

I see Corbyn has agreed to commit harikari!

[Dr Jekyll]

djc206 said:

I’m not convinced on this. The younger generation are now worse off than their parents generation and most households have to have two breadwinners to be able to own and run a house. I think our personal wealth has about peaked. You mistake paying a cleaner or gardener as progress, the reality is because two people have to work full time in a household it’s cheaper to pay a cleaner than it is to work a few hours less each week and use that time to do those menial jobs.

But those two breadwinners have a standard of living far higher than their grandparents generation with a single breadwinner. If they made do with a single car, something like Morris Minor or Austin A35. No freezer, one small TV with only freeview channels, and confined holidays to coach trips to Bognor once a year then a single breadwinner could well be sufficient.

Having the option of paying a cleaner or gardener IS progress. It might be cheaper to pay a cleaner, on the other hand it might be that people actually prefer working to staying at home all day doing 'menial jobs' at home.

Time traveller to 1950s housewife: "In 60 years time your granddaughter will be able to afford regular long haul flights for holidays, and also go skiing every year. She will own a car that makes a 1950s Jaguar look like a Model T, and be unable to imagine living without a phone, a freezer, or multiple colour TVs."

1950s Housewife: "Sounds wonderful, but what's the downside?"

Time traveller: "She won't stay at home doing cleaning and laundry, instead she will have an interesting career and rely on machines and staff for all the menial jobs."

1950s Housewife: "But what's the downside?"

Time traveller: "Well there will be all the pessimists on something called Pistonheads".

[Burwood]

Corbyn caves under pressure. Apparently the EU extension satisfies his Red line. He showed em. Dairy free yet has egg on his face