The 4th Industrial Revolution

Look forward to discussion Maizie.

Have a nice day!

1 The internet has transformed communication. There are calls for democracy to be 'direct' by being 'virtual'. If you've been following the infighting in Momentum, one of the issues is about direct democracy. Jon Lansman and younger members want to abandon traditional structures, such as meetings and committees, and conduct most of its business online. The traditional (mainly older) members and so-called entryists want to continue with meetings and committess, because they've learnt how to dominate them. Social media has been a major contributing factor to populism.

2 The kind of work available will affect politics. Since the 1960s, there has been a decline in the number of manual jobs and a corresponding loss of purpose for the Labour Party. With the 4th IR, it is likely that there will be more jobs for creative people, who are highly skilled in IT and 'soft' skills such as management and managing finance. Although there will almost certainly still be low-skilled jobs, many of them will be in areas such as care work and cleaning. These are generally not well-paid and not respected that much by society. In my lifetime, I have already witnessed the wholesale loss of jobs for people such as shorthand typists and bank clerks. Retail jobs are already being lost. The choice is to upskill the people losing jobs (but where do they go then?), for them to do more menial (worse paid) jobs or be unemployed. Current political parties aren't addressing these people's needs - hence the rise in support for Ukip (maybe).

UBI is an interesting idea and it will be interesting to see how trials work out. However, current thinking on both the left and right seems to be that it's a non-starter. Some people who don't need the money would receive it. More importantly, it would have to be set at a level much higher than the current JSA to provide a genuine living wage. The figures involved really are fantasy.

What, other than the affect on work would you like to discuss?

Well, GG,

I, for one, wouold be interested to discuss necessary changes in values from the deeply ingrained 'Puritan work ethic' and the way this alternative society could be organised.. but I have to go out now.

though = though

In the future we must look at what we have to live on though dd and I agree that may not be 'work' as we know it.

Revolutions, in the past, have been made on the backs of the poor and vulnerable so I do believe that we have to be a step ahead to ensure this does not happen. I have not heard of any other suggestion than the UBI but would be very interested to hear any other suggestions. In one dystopian novel I read the government had a list of jobs so if one ended you were simply sent to another which made everyone believe they were 'working'.

What, other than the affect on work would you like to discuss? It would be interesting to know how democracy could reflect the needs of all when there is a possibility for some to be grossly rich and an underclass formed to support that. At the moment democratic government cannot address the manipulation by global companies and those paying themselves excessively so I am not sure how we could make it work against riches collected at higher amounts, possibly in even fewer hands.

Oh I am sorry I missed the Radio 4 prog this morning. Must catch it on iPlayer. At a friend's 70th lunch party last week she was telling me how she and another member of her Philosophy class had been to Dagenham the night before to hear him speak. Dagenham seemed especially relevant in the light of a possible reduction in car manufacturing in this country.
The question about salary was quoted too.

Why do you think the governemnt closed the Remploy factories?

I dont know. I would love to know the answer. I asked myself that very question when I was looking in our area and beyond for work opportunities for someone with autism.

As the OP of this thread, it wasn't intended to be just about work. The 4th Industrial Revolution is likely to have implications for society and democracy itself,just as previous industrial revolutions have.

No, I would not have worked at the job I did. Of course, I miss the money and struggle financially, but my quality of life is a million times better and I'm healthier.

Do you remember Remploy Ankers? It still exists, but its own factories/workshops were closed by the coalition government. Now it only provides advice and training. Most of the people who were employed by Remploy haven't found work. Why do you think the governemnt closed the Remploy factories?

It is a resounding yes from me.
I ask myself that question pretty much every day, as the sector I am in is not very profitable at the moment[but getting better once more, but who knows for how long].
So yes yes yes.
It was even yes when the business was in negative.

One of the questions asked on the broadcast I linked was "If you were given your current salary would you work at the job you do"? It's and interesting one to think about as the changes happen.

I am not suggesting anyone should not be allowed to work Ankers

Good, but they should still have the choice[as you did] to work if they want to. Plus structures to allow them to do so[which they have not really got at present].

And as I say, this is actually what the thread is partly about. Providing work.

The next group of people to effectively not be allowed and able to work will be the unskilled[some of them] and even skilled workers too.

I am not suggesting anyone should not be allowed to work Ankers but getting back to the topic, I did say earlier that I thought we needed to review what work means.

I am retired and I have all the things you are stating can only be proved by 'work'. I do not believe there is only on definition of this.

If you read the link about Rosa Monkton's daughter, they want to work, at least some of them.
Let them!
Stop putting so many restrictions on the situation that they cannot.
Cruel and heartless.

Cant you see that?

Aren't we getting a bit diverted from the topic under discussion? Which is about the need to work being significantly diminished (or non existent) because of technological advances.

That is what is being discussed. But it is always the lower down in society who suffer first with so called advances.

What is it that you feel only work can provide for people?

Structure. A purpose. Enjoyment. Social aspects. The list is endless.
A sense of belonging. Fresh air.

Why shouldnt they be allowed to work GracesGran? If they want too?
To deny them the chance to work if they want to, is cruel in my opinion.

Aren't we getting a bit diverted from the topic under discussion? Which is about the need to work being significantly diminished (or non existent) because of technological advances.

The big question for me is, if we're not 'earning' money by working how does the population get supplied with the life supporting resources we are accustomed to? Food, clothes, phones, furniture, hobbies etc. etc. This is a Brave New World, surely? (and no, I'm not referring to the novel of that name)

(P.S. I suggest not feeding trolls)

Ankers how interesting that you - new I believe - remember Soontobe's post. On the page you link the only person who talks about 'liking' robots is you Soontobe.

I dont, but many want to. And why shouldnt they?

What is it that you feel only work can provide for people?

Maw how lovely that your cousin's daughter hasn't been limited by old fashioned ideas of a) what people with disabilities can do and b)what work is. I know I would feel a great deal of worth bringing beauty into the world.

Actually, my original statement does still hold true in my opinion, but the above is better.

Perhaps I should have put "it is attitudes like yours which stop some being able to work".

If anybody has read my post about our cousin's daughter, who has Down Syndrome you would see that far from trying to stop her having a job, our concern has been for her to find a *safe, caring environment" in which to work. She has found one, works in a studio hand painting beautiful silk scarves.
She is a highly intelligent and artistic young woman and certainly capable of more than "repetitive mindless tasks", but she needs to be with people/colleagues who are patient and sensitive to her needs.
So I think the comment it is attitudes like yours which stop them being able to work as well as being untrue and unjustified , is, in our personal circumstances, extremely offensive.

There is another thread where dj likes robots too. Though I cant be bothered to find it.

Why do I believe those with learning disabilities must work?

I dont, but many want to. And why shouldnt they?