What will the UK look like with the new change in economics?

I am sorry, I have read the first one and it is just more of the same but talking of 2035 instead of 2020s. I then skim read the third, all 74 pages, again just the same old same old. I am sorry they are all of them a lot of hot air and puff, that say little or nothing at all that ahsn't been said umpteen times by other organisations.

It is not that there is anything wrong with what they say, some of it is quite sensible, if unoriginal but it is hidden in such a merangue of jargon and hype talk, that really is impossible to take any of it seriously.

Coronavirus has already caused jitteriness in the stock market.

If you're really interested in the future of work you could try reading this article (also by a researcher from the RSA):

www.thersa.org/discover/publications-and-articles/rsa-blogs/2019/03/what-will-the-world-of-work-look-like-in-2035

… or if you're really interested, you could read the 74 page report, which explains in more detail the envisaged "four futures of work":

www.thersa.org/globalassets/pdfs/reports/rsa_four-futures-of-work.pdf

GracesGranMK3 Yes, the reference I saw about Goldman Sachs and a 'Boris bounce' was in the Daily Telegraph on 1 December. It read: 'Goldman Sachs is betting on a “Boris boom” and a surge of foreign fund flows into Britain if the election delivers a clear outcome, propelling faster economic growth through the early 2020s than in the struggling eurozone.' Google shows other references since but I have not checked them all out.

I do not subscribe to Goldman's research but the option is available on its website. Without subscribing, you can see an update on the Eurozone if that is of interest.

I hazard a guess that GS UK predictions would not have changed significantly after the election result. Concern over the Conronovirus on China's growth and globally will, though, be a factor impacting on activity and economic forecasts worldwide.

This may give some insight to what he is suggesting although my life, like yours, does not depend on influencers so I am not really a good source on this.

I think it was obvious, from your first reply about the article, what you thought but you added nothing to the article.

Being an "influencer" is already a highly paid job. What I don't know, and it appears no one else on this thread does, is how this moves into shops. That we don't know is much more likely to be our problem than the guy writing the article's. Influencers are unlikely to be part of our daily lives while they are very much so for some younger people.

growstuff I quite agree about the RSA, my DD used to work there, but unlike many other institutions its title is not expressive and as I said it needs to write flashy articles that draw attention to keep getting its name in the news.

But I think this article does them no favours. It just states the very obvious in trendy language. It should be doing better than that.

I was working full-time in education ten years ago and they were more or less the same predictions.

Of course, jobs depend on a number of different factors, some of which are unpredictable. Nevertheless, it's essential that such predictions are made because planners need to think ahead, budget and train people. That's going to become even more important in the future because the UK won't have the flexibility to import the people it needs. The country is going to have to train them itself.

The RSA has been involved in such thinking for over a 100 years. That article is limited in its scope, but is nevertheless a useful addition to the argument because it uses properly researched data as its basis.

What could be more interesting/useful might be to look at predictions from a decade ago as to what new jobs would exist now. Just to see how well such predictions might hold up.

The RSA is and has been much more than a "prestigious" body. As a result of its work and having its finger on the pulse in vocational education, it was the first body outside universities to organise national public exams. Many people have sat RSA exams, which have now morphed into Cambridge Assessment.

I am sorry, GGMk3 I profoundly disagree with the whole of your last post. There is nothing in that article that tells us anything we didn't already knew, including the gender bias in many new jobs.

For this paper to be of any use it would have included discussion of what needs to be done to address the issues his statements of the obvious raise. How we can help those working in declining professions retrain for the new jobs that are arising. What do we need to do to encourage women into high tech industries. Just stating the obvious and known is pointless unless you go on to suggest ways forward.

GGMk3 My post was not getting at you at all, about this article. But I do think many of these groups need to produce articles like these to aimed at attracting media attention to keep up their public profile.

Anyway, shop assistants have always been influencers, especially in smaller shops, telling you how nice you look in clothes or suggesting alternatives, advising you on the best phone to buy for your purposes, drawing your attention to new goods that have recently come in.

Personally, I deeply suspicious of anyone who uses the word 'authentic' in any situation other than differentiating between an authentic Picasso (for example) and a fake.

I find it so sad that anything that does not, because the research cannot yet, tell you what you want to know NOW is written off as "nonsense". Sometimes we learn in small steps, very occasionally in large leaps, very rarely from people who write off others while not being able to enlighten us even to the same extent that the other can.

The article also points out the gender bias in the new jobs as many are seen as, originally at least, as "women" jobs Monica So yes, growth in some areas but many taking up these jobs will have come from the hollowed-out middle. Many fewer from the dying jobs will go into highly paid areas unless there are new, as yet are unrecognised by the likes of us and Mr Wallace-Stephens. That there will be these jobs I have no doubt. The question I would ask is how then, with inequality getting even wider, do we reward everyone across the different jobs without inciting another revolution.

It's certainly nicely airy-fairy. 'Influencers' are powerful because they use the internet and can, therefore, attract huge numbers from niche groups. I have no idea how you 'make' shop assistants into influencers but then I am old older so what do I know! It would be interesting to hear from Fabian Wallace-Stephens just what he means. They are obviously trying to bring this into the 'bricks' selling and marketing budget. I'm not sure if this helps.

MaizieD It is interesting to go to the siteGGMk3 flags up.

There is a bar graph showing the 20th fastest growing occupations 2 is 'other adminisitrative occupations', 4 van drivers, 6 nursery and early years teachers, 7 kitchen and catering staff, 8 care staff. Included in places 10-20 are nurses, nursing auxilaries, nursery workers and all kinds of managers of services that may use IT but are not in IT. All these managers will need people to manage.

What it doesn't include is how many people work in these positions at the moment. A profession of 100,000 that doubles in size employs 200,000. A profession with 1 million employees that increases by 10% (caring professions of all kinds, for example) also leads to 100,000 extra jobs.

As a guide to where the jobs will be in the 2020s, it actually says very little except more than the same. Ditto the quote from it above. It is one of those jargon written documents meant to impress other jargon writers and be incomprehensible to the man or woman in the street. All you need to do is push a pin into it and it shrivels up like a balloon. It is a lot of words stating nothing but the bleeding obvious

It is just another of those nonsense reports produced by prestigious bodies that have very little purpose other than being prestigious - in this case the Royal Society for the Arts.

" . . . while retail workers pivot to become “in-store influencers” who are highly knowledgeable about brands and able to deliver authentic experiences." means they are specially trained to sell you what they have decided you should have you want.

and able to deliver authentic experiences.

Oh dear, GGMK3. My heart sinks. What on earth does that mean?

From an intersting article relating to what we are discussing headlined What new jobs will emerge in the 2020s?

These are the areas where they see growth but the full article starts with recent areas of expansion and ends with how workers can be helped through the changes.

The Big Tech Economy: technology develops rapidly, leading to widespread automation and tech companies tightening their grip on traditional industries. More coders and agile project managers are needed. New jobs in the tech ecosystem would also emerge; for example, lawyers who deal with claims against driverless cars. There may even be drone delivery drivers and virtual reality experience designers.

The Precision Economy: technological progress is moderate, but sensors are widely adopted by businesses. Resources are allocated with much greater precision. Workers are subject to new levels of algorithmic management as gig platforms break into new sectors. This expansion of big data calls for more analysts to crunch the numbers, while behavioural scientists and gamification experts design addictive apps to squeeze every last drop of juice out of workers.

The Exodus Economy: another economic recession causes technological progress to stall. Alternative economic models gather interest as people give up on consumer capitalism in search of more sustainable lifestyles. Job losses are felt in industries underpinned by consumer spending. But occupations such as upcycled clothing designers and community energy managers go mainstream.

The Empathy Economy: technology is stewarded responsibly. Dirty, dull and dangerous jobs are automated as emotional work becomes more important. Jobs growth is seen in traditional ‘empathy’ industries such as education, care and entertainment. New roles emerge, including personal brand and digital detox consultants to help us manage our relationship with social media, while retail workers pivot to become “in-store influencers” who are highly knowledgeable about brands and able to deliver authentic experiences.

I sincerely hope that doesn't happen Nezumi, but I must admit I'm not that optimistic.

(I wouldn't have written "... or something" personally.)

I suppose we could become a money laundering centre or something

There’s so much of Brexit I find utterly depressing. The concerns about access to meds (very relevant to my family), the loss of freedom of movement, the loss of a Erasmus. The economic problems are surely just going to lead to us selling ourselves to the highest bidder. Most of us will become poorer and the super rich will become richer.

Cunco Do you have a link to anything about Goldman Sachs and a "Boris Bounce"? The only references I can find are dated before the election, when a bounce was predicted, and immediately after the election, when there was a temporary boost.

There is some evidence that foreign property investors are investing in London property, but that's not going to benefit the economy in general.

Deutsche Bank made 900 London staff redundant last July and more are expected.

I wouldn't use the word positive to describe what the CEO of Deutsche Bank said at Davos. He didn't commit himself to anything and it was obvious that any future plans will depend on a UK/EU trade deal.

www.marketwatch.com/story/deutsche-chief-executive-on-brexit-britain-pulling-in-the-right-direction-2020-01-24

I could not agree with your last paragraph more Nezumi65, but I don't see any party offering a plan for "a new economy focussed on local trading, community relations - a sort of eco/green revolution" yet. I do see the crumbling of neo-liberal capitalism but a green and social capitalism is yet to show its colours.

If anyone has seen it perhaps they could tell us where and what is happening before Trump gets what Trump (and quite a few anti-EU voters) wanted and swallows us up.

I have a friend who works in hedge funds and has said Brexit will just lead to slow move away from London. It will start with a small registered office somewhere to allow the company to trade in the EU, then gradually, slowly everything will move across.

I wouldn’t mind so much if the plan was for a new economy focussed on local trading, community relations - a sort of eco/green revolution. But I don’t believe that is part of Johnson’s plans We’re just going to become a vassal of the US. Taking back control my backside.

Apologies the my above post should read "eight hundred billion", "not eight hundred million".