Likely consequenses of brexit

jura2
Automation will not happen overnight- and if a gap is left, it will be filled. Always has... probably always will.

You answered your own question

Thank you Welshwife. Yes, this exactly.

Now it would be nice to hear from our Brexiter friends who believe (and I do see their point for sure) that low paid backbreaking jobs in terrible conditions, should be automated.

So I am waiting patiently? What do we do, in the very near future, with 50, 60, 70% of the population unemployable in the automated world.

That is a great worry Jura. UK already has literate people with skills finding jobs difficult to obtain in certain area of the country.
People who fail to be educated enough for whatever reason will need some support and it looks as if the workforce to support this will be smaller.

So here it is again: Automation will get rid of low paid back breaking jobs for sure- and yes, in many ways it is a good thing - but what do you do with... in a few years, 50% to 70% of the population who is unemployable and replaced by robots. Logan's Run?

I politely asked a question earlier, twice, so perhaps I will ask again in hope:

Automation will get rid of low paid back breaking jobs for sure- and yes, in many ways it is a good thing - but what do you do with... in a few years, 50% to 70% of the population who is unemployable and replaced by robots. Logan's Run?

The other issue is that there will always be people from war torn countries or dictatorships who will want to go to countries they perceive to have much better prospects, for themselves, their families and children - and be prepared to work for low wages and in awful conditions, as a stepping stone to better times. Automation will not happen overnight- and if a gap is left, it will be filled. Always has... probably always will.

As fast as the AI progress is made it is likely to be some years before driverless lorries are on our roads due to safety issues - they still have a way to go before things are are secure enough to be used despite what Musk would like people to believe. The vehicles may well be capable od negotiating journeys without a driver but most vehicles are fitted with a safety device, operated by a human, which would stop/park the vehicle if necessary.
Automation for other areas obviously will be much sooner.
I have very mixed feelings when it comes to trains without guards let alone drivers. People are being dealt with all the time and their behaviour can at times be unpredictable - and also it is good for passengers to be able to check things with a person and not just hope for the best.

There should always be work for people, as opposed to machines. Caring is a good example.

Good post Grandad 1943, I absolute agree, alas a quick look back in history shows that it was ever thus.
Each & every invention comes at a cost to another’s wealth & industry . Sadly Another man’s meat is another man’s poison. It will need exceptional effort & insight for all to benifit from ‘Progress’

In regard to the Allygran1 post @ 23:41 yesterday (22/07/18), I would concur with her thinking that technological change has since the industrial revolution been continually with us and in itself has brought forward new employment opportunities. However, I believe that the difference with the present introduction of Artificial Intelligence (AI) today, is the speed that this technology is being introduced into Britains workplaces.

One of the largest employers in the UK is the Road Haulage/Distribution industry. In that, the speed at which the introduction of automated pickers, driverless pallet trucks and even AI operated forklift trucks is progressing at a very high rate, displacing many low skill and semi-skilled positions. In that, it is difficult to visualise new employment opportunities opening up at anything approaching the speed at which AI is replacing manual positions at present in many distribution centres.

The above situation is being mirrored throughout the whole transport industry whether that be road, rail or air. Evidence of the above can be witnessed on Britains railways where technology has allowed the train driver to open and close the doors from the cab of the train negating the need for guards on the services.

The foregoing has created an industrial dispute with the representative rail unions that has been ongoing for many months, and anyone can visualise a similar situation developing in other industries were union organisation is strong. However, there are many in Britain who do not have representation in their employment workplaces and AI technology will be much easier to introduce in those situations which will bring forward large redundancy situations possibly very quickly into the future.

It can be stated that many low skill jobs are often repetitive and carried out in poor working conditions and are better done by AI as people should not have to work under such conditions. However, to many in Britain today those jobs pay the rent or mortgage along with all other essentials and keep many just about managing. Therefore I feel it is essential that this situation is thought through and addressed before the real impact of AI is brought on the country with all its unknown consequences.

As has been stated in this thread that new technology often brings new employment opportunities in its wake and that is undoubtedly true with AI. In my own company working out risk assessments and safe working procedures for AI robotics has created extra work in its own right and requires new skills to carry that out.

However, industrial safety is a low employment niche industry and I find it difficult to visualise such industries that will surround AI being able to in any way take up the employment numbers of those who jobs are taken by that technology.

Yes, the reason why it was defeated in Switzerland. However, there was a substantial % who voted in favour- so in a few years, as automation takes over more and more- the concept may succeed.

o give all a minimum vital salary to all, irrespective of employment or none.
Would that work? What do you think?

I think with our general adherence to the Protestant Work Ethic that any hint of people apparently getting money for 'doing nothing' would go down in this country like a bowl of cold sick. We have enough of a problem with negative attitudes to people on benefits.

Though it really seems the only solution

There was a long article in yesterday's Guardian (under comment?) about the same problem in America. Unions starting to build up pressure, especially the truckers.

So, what do you do with the 50, 60, 70% who will become unemployable? I woud be very interested to hear about your solutions.

One being discussed, and there was even a Referendum in Switzerland recently which failed, is to give all a minimum vital salary to all, irrespective of employment or none.
Would that work? What do you think?

Ally your post at 23.46.51 is spot on.
I too think that the way we look at work as a society will change radically in the future, although we may well not be here to see it.I see it as an exciting change, not one to be worried or depressed about.

Apologies for typos. Trying to multi-task

The Government refused to publish the conditions for the Deals with India. But the Indians published them - it states clearly that in order to secure a deal, they want the UK to 'relax' the rules on food standards and chemical safety - as theirs are incompatible with EU Trade. And that probably for a very good reason.

For further information on this:

unearthed.greenpeace.org/2018/07/12/brexit-uk-india-trade-review-out-of-reach/

The implications of this for continuing trade with the Eu (as also are thei mplications of accepting lower standards in US food imports) are serious. The EU 27 would not be falling over themselves to accept UK food exports if there is a possibility that the food we were exporting to them could be in any way contaminated by foods we have imported which violate EU food safety standards.

Are we really willing to compromise the health of UK citizens by relaxing the food safety standards we're accustomed to?

Of course, we already know that India would want us to allow increased immigration from India as part of a trade deal.

This is an illustration of the point I keep making about trade deals involving some loss of sovereignty. A point made by Prof. Bogdanor in the interview transcript I copied & pasted somewhere in one of these threads.

Anyway, what is wrong in being an activist and fight for what you believe is right?

No the 'take back control' was totally and tragically sarcastic - as what I have been saying is that we are not taking back control from our EU partners and the rules and standards we hve together worked hard to secure for ourselves- but just giving them, locl, stock and barrel- to the USA and anyone prepared to give us any kind of deal. And Trump has now made it very clear any deal is off- of if it comes about, totally on his terms, not ours. Beggars can't be choosers.

We were not beggars with the EU, but partners- and one of the most influential of all, with huge concessions made to us no-one else had.

The Government refused to publish the conditions for the Deals with India. But the Indians published them - it states clearly that in order to secure a deal, they want the UK to 'relax' the rules on food standards and chemical safety - as theirs are incompatible with EU Trade. And that probably for a very good reason.

As for automation- oh yes I get your point. But the massive challenge the whole Western world face, is what will we do with those who do not have skills, do not have intelligence, do not have a backbone, and those who all want to be computer analysts but can't do even the most basics of maths- and those like my young neighbour, who can't get out of bed in the morning (oh yes, they exist even in Switzerland. Automation will get rid of low paid back breaking jobs for sure- and yes, in many ways it is a good thing - but what do you do with... in a few years, 50% to 70% of the population who is unemployable and replaced by robots. Logan's Run?

Jura Did you really write "take back control".

Your going to be accused of being an activist with that sort of comment.

"Grandad. Your point: All of us involved in setting up that safety regime thought on what the future held for unskilled workers into the future.

At the present time I cannot see a job in transport that is secure from artificial intelligence replacement if anyone thinks on the development of self driving vehicles etc."

How is this different from the argument put forward regarding computerisation in the 1970's?

You seem to be saying that everything you predict will come about quickly and you state in your second post
that you " do not believe that opposing AI in any industry will achieve anything." Yet in your next paragraph you fear
'our very democracy will soon be at stake in this and other countries throughout world."

We disagree on two important areas in this discussion, one is the threat to democracy, which I find rather fanciful and over the top, and second the speed at which AI will start to affect jobs. As with computerisation the change was slow, it did change the industrial outlook, as you and I realise AI will
in the fullness of time do the same, as it must. However, where we diverge is that you believe that new opportunities must "quickly present themselves", I believe that AI will evolve taking about the same time to bring about change and other work as did computerisation which was about 20 years plus.

My view is also that AI will force a new way of looking at work as part of social norms. I believe that within the next twenty years we will see the introduction of BUI, Basic Universal Income, and this will be the start of looking at the way society functions for the twenty first century in a very different way than we have ever known. AI will make this possible, indeed essential in my view.

So Grandad we are not a million miles apart on this. Just a couple of differences but not that different.

As for your comments about my post's try to resist the lecture. Concentrate on what I say, and not on how much I say. If you can't that's fine. As I have said to others, once I turn this machine off you cease to exist as I do for you, so let's be polite. If not it doesn't really matter, but kindness and good manners make the world go round don't you find!

You are clearly still working, and from what you say I guess you enjoy your work. I haven't worked for a long time, however, that does not mean that I am not up to speed on most things, as Maizie say's sometime I don't "keep-up", but then none of us are perfect.

Jura, so you are happy that EU citizens who are unemployed in the EEA are employed doing jobs in the UK that are low paid, back breaking and means that workers have to live in poor conditions for the picking season. They work long hours with little control from the authorities. The sooner those sorts of job's are no longer available to humans the better. No one should be expected to work that hard for a pittance, even a legally approved pittance.

If what you have reported Jura is true about the Eastern Europeans working and living conditions, then roll on automation. Hopefully then those people will be retrained in the EEA and have jobs where they are treated properly paid well and live in decent homes.

Modern agriculture is automation. It creates more jobs in the manufacturing industries with more sales of modern agricultural machinery.

Automation in some industries like agriculture makes society look at the type of work that we expect some people to do. It means that the unemployed Eastern Europeans take low paid work because it is always available and easy to move into and out of. Can you blame some people with choices for not taking that sort of work?

Allygran, I do not believe I put forward an argument in regard to opposition to artificial intelligence if you read my above post. I stated in that post how all of us involved in setting up that safety regime at that distribution centre though on what the future held for unskilled workers into the future.

I do not believe that opposing AI in any industry will achieve anything. However, I do believe that unless new opportunities do quickly present themselves for workers displaced by AI, then our very democracy will soon be at stake in this and other countries throughout world.

That stated Allygran, as you place such long posts on this forum as you do in which you undoubtedly expect others to take the trouble to read, please pay respect to others in " thoroughly" reading what those forum members state in their contributions.

This reminds me of the time when during Harold Wisons Government, the argument's throughout industry and with Trade Unions was about computerisation taking the jobs of unskilled worker, as well as skilled workers. The Unions argument, that there would be mass redundancies, with computers taking over from people. As we now know computerisation would bring more jobs, different jobs, different skills, enabling the growth of new technologies in hundreds if not thousands of Industries across the globe.

The argument you put forward Grandad is exactly the same resistance to change as was shown in the 1970's with computerisation.

Where would we be without the computer industries, the computer components, in almost all technology we use either at home, Hospitals, aerospace automotive, handheld technologies, laptops, military, you can go on and on. The world changed because of the computer chip. Just as the world is going to change with robotics technology.

We did not see mass unemployment then and we will see it now. Other employment opportunities arise from the growth of new technology and AI will be the same. People are trainable and mostly do adapt. These sort's of changes may also open up different way's of looking at how people use their time, how people are sustained financially. So many social opportunities can come from this.

I feel that there is no stopping artificial intelligence in industry taking over jobs at present carried out by humans.

Of recent my company were involved in setting up the safety regime at a large new distribution centre in the midlands. A large amount of the risk assessments we worked out surrounded the operation of artificial intelligence picking machines and the safe working practices surrounding them.

That distribution centre will employ no more than one hundred workers, replacing one which employed over four hundred and fifty workers mostly female employed in the picking operation.

All of us involved in setting up that safety regime thought on what the future held for unskilled workers into the future.

At the present time I cannot see a job in transport that is secure from artificial intelligence replacement if anyone thinks on the development of self driving vehicles etc.

sorry about typos - and of course '47% of agriculture jobs could be automated'