The 4th Industrial Revolution

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

though = though

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.

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.

Look forward to discussion Maizie.

Have a nice day!

Social media has been a major contributing factor to populism.

I have been wondering this. Doesnt democracy on the internet work the other way too?
Though I have to say, when seeing how some people run their lives, [because you "see" more of the person on the internet than perhaps you would do in real life] it can make you start to think more about your democratic choices and which box you might like to put the X in.

I dont think that politicans have cottoned on to this yet! Both about themselves and the supporters in their area, and for their party!

I'm not sure I could put forward much of a discussion Maizie as the very words "ingrained 'Puritan work ethic'" tell me we might agree

DD 1. I didn't know! First bit of learning please. If the young are not the "entryists" who are? I am not well up on Momentum and wouldn't know how to follow what they are saying but am interested in all the debates of all those with political opinion. I can see the battle positions on this. My first thoughts that using the internet would be both more inclusive for some of the currently excluded and more exclusive for some of the currently included but going forward much more inclusive.

DD 2 I would agree with your thinking (including the maybe) re the way politics is moving and why. It is intensely difficult to awaken those who believe that the work they once did or expected to do should always be available and even more that it may be a good thing that some people may be paid whether they work or not.

Do you know that one theory about the Garden of Eden is that it was a land in the delta of a river and no one had to work to any extent in order to provide for themselves as it was so fertile. When the delta dried up the people thought they had been evicted from the G of E because they had to work at providing their food, etc. I have a feeling we are so brainwashed by the Puritan work ethic that Maizie mentioned that it will be difficult for some to accept that wealth being shared by all would mean that, with enough for basic needs, you could choose to 'work' at caring, learning or making or nothing.

^ you could choose to 'work' at caring, learning or making or nothing.^

for your whole life?

That is what was different with the scenario you presented about being retired and not having worked at all.

Different lazing around after having worked for 40 years, and now in your 60s, to being in your 20s and not working and with no prospect of work.

Now, granted, I expect we all know some who would like that.

And some could manage it probably, if they had to.

But for some, and I know many, I suspect it would give some of them at least mental health problems.

Which, as I was writing that, a lightbulb went off.
That is why I think, that someone I know has succumbed to bad mental health. No permanent work to go to.

This episode of the Public Philosopher is a really interesting examination of this topic, well worth listening to if you have a spare 44 minutes or while you're multitasking (since you don't yet have your own robot)

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08gxndc

Will listen to it later, varian.I don't have 44minutes to spare at the moment.

GG 'Entryism' in political terms refers to people who try to infiltrate an organisation and take it over. That's what Trotsky did, which is why such people are often called 'Trots' (even though they're not really Trotskyists, but from a a number of different ideologies).

According to my DD and DS, both of whom have attended Momentum meetings, there are is a handful of entryists, who thrive on physical meetings (along with more traditional left-wingers) because they're bullies and try to intimidate the younger people, who are keen but politically naive. The bulk of younger people who joined Momentum don't have the time or will to sit through endless debates about organisational structure and ideology.

Ankers You are talking about paid work, as though all the work people do for no pay doesn't matter.

Ankers People such as Charles Darwin never 'worked' for an employer, but his 'work' has greatly influenced the lives of all of us.

Some of the great nineteenth century philanthropists (such as the Rowntrees) inherited wealth. Although most of them were involved with their family businesses, their wealth gave them time to research and they greatly influenced social reform.

Millions of mothers and carers have never 'worked', but life wouldn't tick over without them.

There is more than enough work which could be done to improve society, but society isn't always willing to pay the people who do it.

I would have chosen to learn for my whole life, but couldn't have afforded it. I can think of nothing about paid work which I miss, apart from the money, of course.

Ankers You are talking about paid work, as though all the work people do for no pay doesn't matter.

Oh good grief. Not another poster who twists words. Or feigns the wrong assumption whilst not looking at the actual words properly.

Ah. But actually it is a diversion to aid GG. That is what some of you lot do.

Got it now!

Maybe I was a bit harsh there, but seriously, whatever did I
say to lead you to that conclusion? Nothing.

Please read my words more carefully in future.

Clearly a conspiracy

When shall we three meet again?
In thunder, lightning, or in rain?

When the hurlyburly's done,
When the battle's lost and won.

What are you going on about Ankers?

PS. Maw, GG and I seem to have been cast as the three witches!

Seriously..

I was trying to suggest that 'work' and the people who carry it out are more than 'factors of production', which is how an economist sees it.