Ot- May calls for election in June.

[swaledale]

With respect Swale, I spent a lot of time working with less able school leavers from about 1979 onwards, and even then it was very noticeable that there was a real crisis as far as employment opportunities for such young people were concerned largely as a, direct or indirect, result of increased automation.

Your comments about zero hours contracts being not 'that big an issue', 'underemployment' and unwillingness to re-locate surprise me and while I can understand that it suits some, the fact that it is regularly abused suggests that neither you nor I would be happy with such employment conditions and makes you sound alarmingly Tebbit like. (I imagine that 'accusation' is a first).

I agree there is much to be grateful for in terms of technology but it is, imo, something of a two edged sword.

With respect Anag, anecdotal evidence is not the same as well researched facts! Technology automation has not reduced jobs, yes jobs in sectors like agriculture, mining (though Scargill and Thatcher did that) heavy industry and manufacturing have declined to be replaced by jobs in the service sector, finance and technology, the fact that in some areas the labour market does not have the necessary skills for the jobs that are available is not due to technology and we are talking about today not the late 70's!

Technological advance is a fact of life, which is obvious otherwise you and I would be living in caves and be hunter gatherers! Anything humans do or organise has the potential for good or bad, but its not technology that is the issue, its its use and how systems are managed.

On the contrary Anag, all my work is contract, I choose which i take and if i want to, I would not want to be at the beck and call of a single employer again! I'm not sure that its regulary abused? What does that mean?, 30%, 60% of such contracts are used wrongly? Again many seem to favour lax employment laws and less powerful unions unless its their employment rights that are affected!

Well if a Uk citizen who is unemployed is not willing to retrain or move within the country to find work that suits them, why should they moan about immigrants who are willing to move countries? Unless one lives in a command and control economy, jobs will be where it is economically advantageous for them to be, nobody is going to relocate them for the benfit of the unemployed or the underemployed?

Tebbit was speaking when moving to find a job was pointless, because there werent any jobs to find, thats not the case today!

[ramAnag]

With respect Anag, anecdotal evidence is not the same as well researched facts! Technology automation has not reduced jobs, yes jobs in sectors like agriculture, mining (though Scargill and Thatcher did that) heavy industry and manufacturing have declined to be replaced by jobs in the service sector, finance and technology, the fact that in some areas the labour market does not have the necessary skills for the jobs that are available is not due to technology and we are talking about today not the late 70's!

Technological advance is a fact of life, which is obvious otherwise you and I would be living in caves and be hunter gatherers! Anything humans do or organise has the potential for good or bad, but its not technology that is the issue, its its use and how systems are managed.

On the contrary Anag, all my work is contract, I choose which i take and if i want to, I would not want to be at the beck and call of a single employer again! I'm not sure that its regulary abused? What does that mean?, 30%, 60% of such contracts are used wrongly? Again many seem to favour lax employment laws and less powerful unions unless its their employment rights that are affected!

Well if a Uk citizen who is unemployed is not willing to retrain or move within the country to find work that suits them, why should they moan about immigrants who are willing to move countries? Unless one lives in a command and control economy, jobs will be where it is economically advantageous for them to be, nobody is going to relocate them for the benfit of the unemployed or the underemployed?

Tebbit was speaking when moving to find a job was pointless, because there werent any jobs to find, thats not the case today!

All fair points Swale and I stand corrected as far as your personal circumstances are concerned although I suspect you are not talking about employment which is anywhere near the 'bottom' of the zero hours contract 'pile'.

My point about there being less opportunities for the less able is not entirely anecdotal though. There used to be plenty of fairly mundane but nevertheless worthwhile jobs for those with more limited academic ability/school achievement levels. I agree that technological advance is a fact of life but what I saw happening was that increased automation led to redundancy amongst certain occupations which in turn had a direct or indirect impact upon the availability of employment opportunities for the less able. This in turn had and has an impact on the attitude of many less able school pupils, particularly in Y10 and 11 who basically stopped believing that their efforts might ever lead to worthwhile employment. We may all dream of a happy, well earned retirement but work often remains a source of dignity and personal esteem. All I am suggesting is that technology may eventually replace the need for a great deal of employment and that we, as a society, need to be prepared for the knock on effects of that.

I wasn't suggesting that an unwillingness to move away from one's home community in any way justifies moaning about immigrants, as I suspect you know.

[swaledale]

All fair points Swale and I stand corrected as far as your personal circumstances are concerned although I suspect you are not talking about employment which is anywhere near the 'bottom' of the zero hours contract 'pile'.

My point about there being less opportunities for the less able is not entirely anecdotal though. There used to be plenty of fairly mundane but nevertheless worthwhile jobs for those with more limited academic ability/school achievement levels. I agree that technological advance is a fact of life but what I saw happening was that increased automation led to redundancy amongst certain occupations which in turn had a direct or indirect impact upon the availability of employment opportunities for the less able. This in turn had and has an impact on the attitude of many less able school pupils, particularly in Y10 and 11 who basically stopped believing that their efforts might ever lead to worthwhile employment. We may all dream of a happy, well earned retirement but work often remains a source of dignity and personal esteem. All I am suggesting is that technology may eventually replace the need for a great deal of employment and that we, as a society, need to be prepared for the knock on effects of that.

I wasn't suggesting that an unwillingness to move away from one's home community in any way justifies moaning about immigrants, as I suspect you know.

There are many jobs available for the less academically able, what has gone are those relatively well paid jobs where people had particular skills, such as mining, steel works manufacturing etc. Thats where the real issue is and thats down to a changing world, those industries are never coming back, but there is still a place for people who have an ability and a willingness to do trades, automation will not remove the need for plumbers, electricians and so on.

The problem therefore is not that technology is removing jobs, it isn't, but it is changing the nature of the jobs available, nor is it that wages are lower, on average wages are higher and consumer spending has risen so that more people have cars, TV and holidays than has been the case before and that has always been the case.

Technology is not likely to remove the need for employment, because different jobs are created and the research shows that historically this is the case, now if properly applied this would mean a shorter working week for all and more wealth to be shared around, but as is evident, the additional wealth created has gone to an very tiny proportion of the population, so though most have improved incomes over the past 40 years, the few have benefitted disproportionally.

You are correct my rate is nothing like the average minimum wage contract, but the risk is still there and I spent many a long hour in my spare time gaining the necessary knowledge!

But for those young people who cannot be arsed to make the effort then its going to be supermarkets or maccie D's for them i'm afraid!

[ramAnag]

There are many jobs available for the less academically able, what has gone are those relatively well paid jobs where people had particular skills, such as mining, steel works manufacturing etc. Thats where the real issue is and thats down to a changing world, those industries are never coming back, but there is still a place for people who have an ability and a willingness to do trades, automation will not remove the need for plumbers, electricians and so on.

The problem therefore is not that technology is removing jobs, it isn't, but it is changing the nature of the jobs available, nor is it that wages are lower, on average wages are higher and consumer spending has risen so that more people have cars, TV and holidays than has been the case before and that has always been the case.

Technology is not likely to remove the need for employment, because different jobs are created and the research shows that historically this is the case, now if properly applied this would mean a shorter working week for all and more wealth to be shared around, but as is evident, the additional wealth created has gone to an very tiny proportion of the population, so though most have improved incomes over the past 40 years, the few have benefitted disproportionally.

You are correct my rate is nothing like the average minimum wage contract, but the risk is still there and I spent many a long hour in my spare time gaining the necessary knowledge!

But for those young people who cannot be arsed to make the effort then its going to be supermarkets or maccie D's for them i'm afraid!

I accept it's difficult to predict Swale and we obviously differ on this one. Imo however, many traditional occupations are going to be very susceptible to automation in the not so distant future. The impact this will have upon society and the economy is likely to be significant and is something we need to prepare for.

[Andy_Faber]

But for those young people who cannot be arsed to make the effort then its going to be supermarkets or maccie D's for them i'm afraid!

Ironically it may NOT be Maccie D's for them for much longer, the march of automation impacts fast food joints too - MacD's latest innovation in Derby stores is touch-screen self-ordering, so another member of the counter staff gone.

Regarding your views on immigrant labour, there are two 'leaks' from your theory (and I have as little sympathy for CBA's as you):

First, there is actually a group of people who's intellect regretably doesn't allow them to attain or aspire to anything better than burger flipping, and seeing their opportunities limited by non-UK competition must be galling

Second, non-UK workers who work long hours in poor conditions on minimum wage and live in squallor, as part of a short-medium term strategy to generate a fund for repatriation to their (low cost of living) homeland to 'set them up' are driven to short-term sacrifice of distance and living conditions precisely by that goal. Its a goal unavailable to the equivalent UK person (unless they themselves become immigrants in, lets say, Dubai)

[RedBasie]

So you're suggesting that there was no difference in philosophy between the Blair Governments of 1997-2007 and those of Major, Cameron and May. Sorry, but that, imo, really is rubbish.

I don't think there is. All of them pursued policies of welfare capitalism which failed when worldwide the bankers had to be bailed out and a worldwide epidemic of tax dodging came on the scene. If Blair had come on the scene after Cameron he would have gone down the austerity path also.

[ramAnag]

I don't think there is. All of them pursued policies of welfare capitalism which failed when worldwide the bankers had to be bailed out and a worldwide epidemic of tax dodging came on the scene. If Blair had come on the scene after Cameron he would have gone down the austerity path also.

Can't agree. The Whitehall mandarins may have too much power and successive governments may not have done enough about organised tax evasion however philosophy is everything. The last five Tory PM's have shown little other than contempt for public services but look at the improvements made or put in place for hospitals and schools between 1997-2010. Labour has many faults but, for those who care about Education and the NHS, a Tory government with a bigger majority is really not an option.

[Andy_Faber]

Can't agree. The Whitehall mandarins may have too much power and successive governments may not have done enough about organised tax evasion however philosophy is everything. The last five Tory PM's have shown little other than contempt for public services but look at the improvements made or put in place for hospitals and schools between 1997-2010. Labour has many faults but, for those who care about Education and the NHS, a Tory government with a bigger majority is really not an option.

But regretably I think a Conservative landslide is what we will get.

As a matter of interest, did you vote in the Labour leadership election? The reason I ask is that I have observed, and eventually stuck my ample nose into, a number of discussions dominated by folk who 'want' the Conservatives out of power, see Corbyn as the biggest obstacle to that, but couldn't be arsed to do the obvious thing about it, join the Labour Party and vote him out. Anyone who espouses socialist/welfare-focussed ideals yet didn't take the golden opportunity to make their vote REALLY count (in 2015 and even more so in 2016) only have themselves to blame for possibly a generation of 'never kick a man unless he's down' government.

This doesn't give any indication how I will vote by the way, its just an observation!

[ramAnag]

But regretably I think a Conservative landslide is what we will get.

As a matter of interest, did you vote in the Labour leadership election? The reason I ask is that I have observed, and eventually stuck my ample nose into, a number of discussions dominated by folk who 'want' the Conservatives out of power, see Corbyn as the biggest obstacle to that, but couldn't be arsed to do the obvious thing about it, join the Labour Party and vote him out. Anyone who espouses socialist/welfare-focussed ideals yet didn't take the golden opportunity to make their vote REALLY count (in 2015 and even more so in 2016) only have themselves to blame for possibly a generation of 'never kick a man unless he's down' government.

This doesn't give any indication how I will vote by the way, its just an observation!

Fair question and I didn't Andy...no, because I'm not and never have been a member of the Labour Party...never have been a believer in towing any party line. I do wonder how many people took that opportunity to join Labour on the cheap just to screw things up or is that just another conspiracy theory? Certainly can't ever remember a time when any leader has been quite so out of step with the parliamentary party but although my views are broadly centre/liberal left, not being a Party member I didn't feel I had a right to vote.

[Oldtimeram]

I know i should probably take an interest, but politics bores the pants off me and I think the majority of politicians are parasites and are downright dodgy.