Topic: Labour Thread * No Gaza *

[Nobby Reserve]

Whilst growing up in the southern county of Shropshire

Quite.

[Sangria]

Isn't that the guy who lodged a leadership challenge against Corbyn and got trounced? I'd take that with a pinch of salt.

Also, no matter what you think of Corbyn, if you believe that an ex-pharmaceutical lobbyist had to "sit down" and explain to somebody who had at the time been a Labour MP for 30 odd years, that welfare cuts would "hurt people" then you're allowing your prejudice to get in the way of rational thinking.

IIRC it was noted at the time that a number of Labour individuals had to coordinate efforts across Commons and Lords to defeat the government. The reports of this pre-dated the leadership challenge.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

It's a misnomer that the Corbyns were particularly rich. His father was an engineer and mother a maths teacher. He did attend a minor fee-paying grammar school, but only as a day pupil. The 'mansion' they moved into was ramshackle when they bought it, and the family were leftist-intellectuals, decorating the house more with books than posh furniture. His upbringing has been described as 'country bumpkin' and the kids generally looked scruffy.

His jobs upon leaving school included working at a pig farm (made him a vegetarian), a journalist for a local newspaper, and two years as a youth worker and geography teacher in a fledgling post-colonial Jamaica then travelling South America whilst doing some casual work (where he got experience of real poverty). On returning to the UK, he spent several years as a trade union organiser (and if you don't think that is 'real work' then you have no idea) before moving into politics.

I'd rather someone had that varied work history than 1) a uni degree in Gov'n'Pol; 2) job as a research assistant for a political party; 3) SPAD; 4) MP (which is the career path many MPs seem to take)

So he dossed about a bit. I started work when I was 16 then took a year off after I'd been working for 9 years and backpacked around Greece doing various jobs.

I think 'seeing' poverty and living in it are two different things. I lived in poverty as a kid and it's kind of remarkable where I am today.

Corbyn had a very privileged upbringing and for him to have been able to work where he did showed that he had resources.

For me to work around Greece, I had to spend all 9 years of savings and my redundancy to get by. I suspect he was funded and since then he's been funded.

He's a rich guy living in a £1M+ house in the richest city in the world.

Not sure why that's a problem for you?

[upthereds1993]

Islington North isn't the best in regards to training and eduction, but is in the top 1% in regards to poverty compared to other areas of the UK. It has one of the highest instances of private flats and maisonettes which are in the top 1% of prices in the UK.

I doubt his surgeries involved that many people who were desperate and in dire poverty.

And again, I'm not having a go at him. He lives in a rich part of the richest City and in the richest part of the UK surrouned by the richest people.

There's plenty of poverty in London, but there's also a lot of wealth. Grenfell tower was located in the richest borough in London after all.

I'm not an expert on MP surgeries as I've never attended one myself, but I'd presume that there's a good chance many of the people who do attend any surgery regardless of location would probably be desperate or feel as though they've exhausted all other options. It's my understanding that that's one of the main reasons they exist in the first place?

His constituency would have also changed a lot in the 40+ years he's been MP. The Islington of 1982 would have been a lot less gentrified than the Islington of 2023, so I'm in no doubt he's spoken to countless people who are struggling or in poverty - and still does.

[thaddeus]

Ok, that’s possible… but if the country is affluent, isn’t the clause still more to do with that country and the way it manages inequality?

Despite Tory ideology the UK has handled inequality ok-ish.  We have early years funding, universal education from 4-18, special provision for young people with additional needs, universal healthcare, children's and adults' social care, out-of-work and ill health benefits, housing benefits, in-work top-up benefits, child benefits, adult learning courses, state pension, free-to-access libraries, targeted help with utilities bills etc.  We can and should do better but that compares favourably with the US, for example, and hugely favourably with most poorer nations.

There is an underlying issue though that a higher proportion of wealth leaves the economy to foreign based companies and to wealth hoarders in the UK and overseas.  A lot of what I've listed above wasn't in place in the 90s but can you imagine the mess the UK would be in now without them?!

Obviously globalisation didn't start in the 90s and the UK was undoubtedly a huge beneficiary of early globalisation (and is arguably still a beneficiary) but those benefits are unevenly shared out.  The internet is like steroids to globalisation and I don't think any government in the world has kept up - probably because the issues caused by globalisation need a global response and there's f-all chance of that.

The UK feels badly placed to cope in the future due to isolationist policies of the past decade, our huge dependence on imports of life's essentials, how little control our government has over those life essentials and a malevolent presence that looks at countries with no welfare state as a utopia the UK should be aspiring to.

(Sorry - nothing much in the way of unicorns, sunshine and rainbows.  I do think Labour are the best hope we have!)

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Whilst growing up in the southern county of Shropshire

I'd much prefer all our politicians to be Northern and for the South to be walled up and flooded, but we are where we are

[Andy @ Allerton!]

There's plenty of poverty in London, but there's also a lot of wealth. Grenfell tower was located in the richest borough in London after all.

I'm not an expert on MP surgeries as I've never attended one myself, but I'd presume that there's a good chance many of the people who do attend any surgery regardless of location would probably be desperate or feel as though they've exhausted all other options. It's my understanding that that's one of the main reasons they exist in the first place?

His constituency would have also changed a lot in the 40+ years he's been MP. The Islington of 1982 would have been a lot less gentrified than the Islington of 2023, so I'm in no doubt he's spoken to countless people who are struggling or in poverty.

Not compared to Liverpool mate.

[Sangria]

I think that there is a big difference between Thatcherite 'trickle down' economics and Blairite 'third way' economics.

The Thatcherite model is much more market orientated and associated with concepts of a smaller state/public expenditure. Basically the idea is that if you facilitate the rich getting richer, their wealth will trickle down through society by the means of the free market, without any need for the involvement of the state or public spending.

Third way economics (which is really what Andy is getting at) assumes a much greater role for the state and higher levels of public expenditure. So the government facilitates economic growth, even if that growth is unequal in distribution, in the expectation that the higher tax revenues can be used by the state to mitigate against those inequalities.

The main difference is the aim of growth. One model claims that increasing the pool of money increases tax revenue, so the most efficient way of increasing the pool of money is the way to go. The other model claims that increasing the number of tax payers increases tax revenue, so the most efficient way of increasing the number of tax payers is the way to go. I favour the second method.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

The main difference is the aim of growth. One model claims that increasing the pool of money increases tax revenue, so the most efficient way of increasing the pool of money is the way to go. The other model claims that increasing the number of tax payers increases tax revenue, so the most efficient way of increasing the number of tax payers is the way to go. I favour the second method.

Yeah seems reasonable.

The more people working and in good jobs means more people paying tax, but more importantly they have money for services and buy things, which drives business which drives the economy which increases the ability of the state to invest that money back into the things that drive the population.

The Tories seem to have forgotten all that and don't realise that giving some millionarire dickhead £50,000 does not drive the economy. They don't spend it. They squirrel it away.

A moderatly-poor to poor household spends the majority of their money on services and things that go straight into the economy.

I know I'm just some thick dickhead, but this seems obvious even if you are a bit stupid.

[Red-Soldier]

Not compared to Liverpool mate.

This might be news to you Andy, but the north doesn't have exclusivity on poverty.  There's plenty all over the country, unfortunately.  The North does have shitter weather though 

[Andy @ Allerton!]

This might be news to you Andy, but the north doesn't have exclusivity on poverty.  There's plenty all over the country, unfortunately.  The North does have shitter weather though 

Our weather is great lad. None of that boring Southern sunny shite for us

[Sangria]

Yeah seems reasonable.

The more people working and in good jobs means more people paying tax, but more importantly they have money for services and buy things, which drives business which drives the economy which increases the ability of the state to invest that money back into the things that drive the population.

The Tories seem to have forgotten all that and don't realise that giving some millionarire dickhead £50,000 does not drive the economy. They don't spend it. They squirrel it away.

A moderatly-poor to poor household spends the majority of their money on services and things that go straight into the economy.

I know I'm just some thick dickhead, but this seems obvious even if you are a bit stupid.

I see growth as people being able to function. The small holder model allows green growth, which is people being able to function in an economy that moves away from a purely capital-driven but ecologically damaging model, and towards an economy that is less ecologically damaging. As long as humans exist we will never be truly green, but the more people there are that are able to opt for greener solutions, the better the planet will be.

Hence I don't have much time for symbolic gestures and philosophical discussions.

[Robinred]

So everyone keeps telling us. But can the planet actually afford more "growth", if it means increased resource consumption, increased waste, increased habitat destruction? Which it does, generally, despite visions of some clean tech-future where we all wear VR masks and work in abstract creative industries.

We're facing a future of huge population displacement due to climate change, with all the attendant wildfires, rogue storms and flooding that comes with it. That's going to cost every economy in the world untold billions of dollars.

I think it's far more likely that most nations become economically "poorer" overall as a result of this future, than somehow entering into some tech-fuelled golden-age of economic recovery. Ultimately, economic wealth is entirely underpinned by the natural wealth of the planet. That has been clear to the sane since time immemorial and is increasingly clear even to those of us in the West sold fantasy visions of endless consumption. Whilst almost every government on earth goes on about "growth", what is actually needed is fair redistribution of wealth, and the prevention of huge wealth (and therefore power) disparities within populations. Healthy societies simply do not have these vast wealth divides that have opened up in modern nations - it is hugely damaging to democracy and justice to allow them. I'd like to see a government with the courage to address these realities instead of pushing the endless dream of "growth" in a time where every single piece of feedback we are getting from the planet is asking us to stop, please, as a species.

This doesn't mean poor people getting poorer - but that is what will happen under "growth" visions. As the planet's climate becomes more and more volatile, the "size of the pie" will shrink, not grow, and the only result I can see, without radical cultural changes, will be increased hoarding of vast tranches of the remaining wealth to a few individuals and their coteries. That, essentially, is very much already underway as they and their mouthpieces continue to sell us the lie of growth, to divert from the reality: there is plenty of wealth (if we don't all remain addicted to the consumerist model), it's just incredibly unevenly distributed.

Very thoughtful and salient post.

Unfortunately, political leaders of the major Parties feel the need to tell the electorate that in power, they will promote growth. Only the Greens appear to recognise the truth of what you describe.

[upthereds1993]

Our weather is great lad. None of that boring Southern sunny shite for us

Sunny & dry all tomorrow afternoon mate. Allerton manor beer garden will be heaving 

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Sunny & dry all tomorrow afternoon mate. Allerton manor beer garden will be heaving 

I have noted a weird yellowy object in a strange blue sky mate.

I believe that a pint may have to be quaffed forthwith

[Kenny's Jacket]

I have noted a weird yellowy object in a strange blue sky mate.

I believe that a pint may have to be quaffed forthwith

Typical Saturday is sunny 10c, Sunday matchday 8c and rain

 :'(

[Red-Soldier]

Our weather is great lad. None of that boring Southern sunny shite for us

I'll take the boring sun 

We've had a ton of rain though, recently.

[Ma Vie en Rouge]

Do people at the bottom really care about inequality at the top if the standard rises at the bottom? The last Labour government raised the base level by quite a bit. When you're at the bottom, and your standard of living rises, inequality at the top is a theoretical thing that doesn't affect you.

Aside from my earlier points about the general socio-economic effects of climate change that will catastrophically affect national wealth, I think this idea - which I've seen voiced before - seems to fail to take into account the actual effects of wealth disparity, which is: power disparity. When you have a handful of super-rich billionaires, they don't just have the money... they control the conversation, the resources, the philosophy of nations and continents. Witness Sunak fawning over Musk. Or the way a tiny minority of super-rich landowners control conversations around resource access, land access, rights to roam, placement of renewables, and so on. Or the way in which the super-rich control the outlook and narrative of millions of people via media-ownership that is entirely designed to promote the interests of the super-rich owners and their business "friends".

The greater the wealth gap, the greater the power gap. No healthy nation (or one that intends to make itself healthy) should be complacent about that. A Labour government may (and indeed must!) lift many people out of the poverty they have fallen into under this Kleptocratic Tory party, but if the super-rich become ever more rich, they become ever more powerful, and the conversation around what is right or what is possible will continue to be very much on their terms, as will, ultimately, the distribution of diminishing resources.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Aside from my earlier points about the general socio-economic effects of climate change that will catastrophically affect national wealth, I think this idea - which I've seen voiced before - seems to fail to take into account the actual effects of wealth disparity, which is: power disparity. When you have a handful of super-rich billionaires, they don't just have the money... they control the conversation, the resources, the philosophy of nations and continents. Witness Sunak fawning over Musk. Or the way a tiny minority of super-rich landowners control conversations around resource access, land access, rights to roam, placement of renewables, and so on. Or the way in which the super-rich control the outlook and narrative of millions of people via media-ownership that is entirely designed to promote the interests of the super-rich owners and their business "friends".

The greater the wealth gap, the greater the power gap. No healthy nation (or one that intends to make itself healthy) should be complacent about that. A Labour government may (and indeed must!) lift many people out of the poverty they have fallen into under this Kleptocratic Tory party, but if the super-rich become ever more rich, they become ever more powerful, and the conversation around what is right or what is possible will continue to be very much on their terms, as will, ultimately, the distribution of diminishing resources.

How does that answer Sangria? Have you and your family ever been in a position of abject poverty?

[LuverlyRita]

So everyone keeps telling us. But can the planet actually afford more "growth", if it means increased resource consumption, increased waste, increased habitat destruction? Which it does, generally, despite visions of some clean tech-future where we all wear VR masks and work in abstract creative industries.

We're facing a future of huge population displacement due to climate change, with all the attendant wildfires, rogue storms and flooding that comes with it. That's going to cost every economy in the world untold billions of dollars.

I think it's far more likely that most nations become economically "poorer" overall as a result of this future, than somehow entering into some tech-fuelled golden-age of economic recovery. Ultimately, economic wealth is entirely underpinned by the natural wealth of the planet. That has been clear to the sane since time immemorial and is increasingly clear even to those of us in the West sold fantasy visions of endless consumption. Whilst almost every government on earth goes on about "growth", what is actually needed is fair redistribution of wealth, and the prevention of huge wealth (and therefore power) disparities within populations. Healthy societies simply do not have these vast wealth divides that have opened up in modern nations - it is hugely damaging to democracy and justice to allow them. I'd like to see a government with the courage to address these realities instead of pushing the endless dream of "growth" in a time where every single piece of feedback we are getting from the planet is asking us to stop, please, as a species.

This doesn't mean poor people getting poorer - but that is what will happen under "growth" visions. As the planet's climate becomes more and more volatile, the "size of the pie" will shrink, not grow, and the only result I can see, without radical cultural changes, will be increased hoarding of vast tranches of the remaining wealth to a few individuals and their coteries. That, essentially, is very much already underway as they and their mouthpieces continue to sell us the lie of growth, to divert from the reality: there is plenty of wealth (if we don't all remain addicted to the consumerist model), it's just incredibly unevenly distributed.

Fantastic post. You cannot continue to grow on a planet with finite resources and far too many of our politicians think we can. It's the same with pensions. We're constantly being told that we need more and more young people to finance the pension system. But the world is already over-populated and the reason that pensions are a problem is that they're effectively ponzi schemes. We need to re-think our models completely.

[Ma Vie en Rouge]

How does that answer Sangria? Have you and your family ever been in a position of abject poverty?

Firstly, yes, I have, not that that would qualify or disqualify me from talking about it. Not sure why you ask?

Secondly, the point being made was that growing wealth disparity does not matter as long as the people most in need are made less poor. What I wrote was an attempt to question whether that is true, because I think growing wealth disparity very much matters, for the reasons I briefly outlined. Inequality "at the top" is not just a thing that doesn't affect the poor. It is part of the reason that the system is the way it is at all, and why they are kept so very poor.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Firstly, yes, I have, not that that would qualify or disqualify me from talking about it. Not sure why you ask?

Secondly, the point being made was that growing wealth disparity does not matter as long as the people most in need are made less poor. What I wrote was an attempt to question whether that is true, because I think growing wealth disparity very much matters, for the reasons I briefly outlined. Inequality "at the top" is not just a thing that doesn't affect the poor. It is part of the reason that the system is the way it is at all, and why they are kept so very poor.

I think the problem here is that it's being framed as 'a thing' - but it's not 'a thing' - it's many, many things.

The entire network of strands that have been built up for decades have been cynically, deliberately and completely torn away and discarded. Even if Labour could restore the offices and buildings, the knowledge, experience and people are gone.

I'd like to say there is a quick fix and that things can be turned around in this manner or that. But the Tories literally evil intent is to make the UK a hopeless place where nothing works. I have no idea why this is their goal. I'd say they are actual traitors to the country. The madness is that they have not only got away with it, but that they won't stand trial for what they have done and they have supporters.

Every journey - even massive ones - begin with the first step. Labour have hundreds of 'first steps' to make.

[Nobby Reserve]

Firstly, yes, I have, not that that would qualify or disqualify me from talking about it. Not sure why you ask?

Secondly, the point being made was that growing wealth disparity does not matter as long as the people most in need are made less poor. What I wrote was an attempt to question whether that is true, because I think growing wealth disparity very much matters, for the reasons I briefly outlined. Inequality "at the top" is not just a thing that doesn't affect the poor. It is part of the reason that the system is the way it is at all, and why they are kept so very poor.

Excellent points (in each of your three recent posts in the thread)

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Firstly, yes, I have, not that that would qualify or disqualify me from talking about it. Not sure why you ask?

Secondly, the point being made was that growing wealth disparity does not matter as long as the people most in need are made less poor. What I wrote was an attempt to question whether that is true, because I think growing wealth disparity very much matters, for the reasons I briefly outlined. Inequality "at the top" is not just a thing that doesn't affect the poor. It is part of the reason that the system is the way it is at all, and why they are kept so very poor.

I didn't suggest it would stop you saying what you like.

I was interested because there has been a lot of discussion from people here that were not affected by Thatchers reign of Terror on the British people.

They were either too young or insulated from her actions by their families position.

When you have suffered under her evil, then a lifting of the veil really made a difference to those at the bottom.

[Red-Soldier]

Firstly, yes, I have, not that that would qualify or disqualify me from talking about it. Not sure why you ask?

Secondly, the point being made was that growing wealth disparity does not matter as long as the people most in need are made less poor. What I wrote was an attempt to question whether that is true, because I think growing wealth disparity very much matters, for the reasons I briefly outlined. Inequality "at the top" is not just a thing that doesn't affect the poor. It is part of the reason that the system is the way it is at all, and why they are kept so very poor.

I agree.

Inequaity is a big a threat to society as climate change and biodiversity loss.  They are all linked, of course.  Each being driven by our own economic activity.

We need to ditch the 20th century economic models, that our politicians seem to be obsessed with, and build an economy that meets our societal and planetary needs.  Currently, it's all back to front.

Of course, the only possible hope of addressing these issues, is under a Labour government.

[Nobby Reserve]

I agree.

Inequaity is a big a threat to society as climate change and biodiversity loss.  They are all linked, of course.  Each being driven by our own economic activity.

We need to ditch the 20th century economic models, that our politicians seem to be obsessed with, and build an economy that meets our societal and planetary needs.  Currently, it's all back to front.

I think, as AI increasingly develops, the only rational and equitable economic model will be a form of planned economy, with the entire AI function under state ownership & control.

The alternative is that ownership and control of AI will be in the hands of a relatively tiny number of super-rich and super-powerful people, with the vast majority having to live in an era of mass unemployment as more and more of the productive function is undertaken by AI.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

I think, as AI increasingly develops, the only rational and equitable economic model will be a form of planned economy, with the entire AI function under state ownership & control.

The alternative is that ownership and control of AI will be in the hands of a relatively tiny number of super-rich and super-powerful people, with the vast majority having to live in an era of mass unemployment as more and more of the productive function is undertaken by AI.

People said that when computers appeared they would take jobs away from everyone and there would be mass unemployment, but the computer industry and those things around it created more jobs than any other industry in history.

There are many examples of technological progress progressing the job market.

[Sangria]

I think the problem here is that it's being framed as 'a thing' - but it's not 'a thing' - it's many, many things.

The entire network of strands that have been built up for decades have been cynically, deliberately and completely torn away and discarded. Even if Labour could restore the offices and buildings, the knowledge, experience and people are gone.

I'd like to say there is a quick fix and that things can be turned around in this manner or that. But the Tories literally evil intent is to make the UK a hopeless place where nothing works. I have no idea why this is their goal. I'd say they are actual traitors to the country. The madness is that they have not only got away with it, but that they won't stand trial for what they have done and they have supporters.

Every journey - even massive ones - begin with the first step. Labour have hundreds of 'first steps' to make.

Exactly. If we put everything together into a universal theory, it's going to alienate many people in one form or another. If you need the complete package or nothing at all, you're going to lose dribs and drabs at every turn, which means Labour loses, which means the Tories win. If you do better here and there as is possible with the electorate, then you can do better where you can, and the longer you can do better, the more you can do. Over time, doing better for longer without pushing a universal theory trumps trying to revolutionise but losing out to the Tories.

[Sangria]

I agree.

Inequaity is a big a threat to society as climate change and biodiversity loss.  They are all linked, of course.  Each being driven by our own economic activity.

We need to ditch the 20th century economic models, that our politicians seem to be obsessed with, and build an economy that meets our societal and planetary needs.  Currently, it's all back to front.

Of course, the only possible hope of addressing these issues, is under a Labour government.

Funnily enough, we have someone in the establishment who has been pushing that as a career. But he's not popular amongst the left, not even the centre left.

[Red-Soldier]

Funnily enough, we have someone in the establishment who has been pushing that as a career. But he's not popular amongst the left, not even the centre left.

Not sure who you mean.  The ideas I'm talking about are very much from the progressive part of politics.

I'm currently reading a book written by an Oxford academic, on this very thing.  She has been cited many times in progressive circles.



Here's another idea/book:

[Sheer Magnetism]

People need to remember that wealth inequality is not just about money, it's about power, which is often the thing that impacts people in disadvantaged groups directly.

Whether it's a company or a person doesn't matter: if you're rich, you can throw your weight around and access powerful people you can persuade (or 'persuade') to do your bidding, regardless of how many citizens you need to ride over to do it. To give just one obvious example, if you're poor, you can get jailed for tax evasion. If you're rich and you're caught, you can just negotiate to pay less.

This is generally what enrages ordinary people, the knowledge that they're second class citizens and governed by people who see them as subjects and the rich as peers (or even masters). Right-wingers already understand this, which is why they're so keen on rhetoric about 'elitists' trying to bring in rules that push ordinary people around. Elitist politicians spending your tax money on their vanity projects/throwing the doors open to masses of immigrants/introducing red tape to strangle small businesses/etc, etc.

And the common factor in all these things is that at heart, they're about a populace losing control: remind me, what mass movement had 'Taking Back Control' as its slogan? What leftists and centrists need to do is make changes to the powerlessness which is causing the resentment. Not what they've been doing, which is to tell everyone: 'Anyone telling you this is an evil populist, now vote for us and shut up because we always know best'.

[Sangria]

Not sure who you mean.  The ideas I'm talking about are very much from the progressive part of politics.

I'm currently reading a book written by an Oxford academic, on this very thing.  She has been cited many times in progressive circles.

KC3. He might not have made green economics practical, at least not in the solutions he's pushed. But he's made it fashionable, which is probably more than any other royal family member has ever done for progressive politics. Maybe it's not him alone, but he's not harmed the cause of getting support for green economics among the right of centre. Given that we live in a democracy, scientists pushing practical solutions might be less practical help than establishment figures garnering popular support for them.

[Red-Soldier]

KC3. He might not have made green economics practical, at least not in the solutions he's pushed. But he's made it fashionable, which is probably more than any other royal family member has ever done for progressive politics. Maybe it's not him alone, but he's not harmed the cause of getting support for green economics among the right of centre. Given that we live in a democracy, scientists pushing practical solutions might be less practical help than establishment figures garnering popular support for them.

I don't agree with the monarchy, but at least Charles is a high profile "environmentalist".  If we're going to have a king, best it be one who does care about these things.

And you're right, public support and profile matters.

[Elmo!]

Not sure who you mean.  The ideas I'm talking about are very much from the progressive part of politics.

I'm currently reading a book written by an Oxford academic, on this very thing.  She has been cited many times in progressive circles.

It's early days but the Scottish Government are doing lots of work on creating a circular economy, Lorna Slater, the Green MSP is the Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity, and the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill is currently going through parliament.

https://www.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws/bills/circular-economy-scotland-bill/overview#:~:text=The%20Scottish%20Government%20has%20introduced%20the%20Bill%20to,tackle%20the%20climate%20emergency%20and%20the%20biodiversity%20crisis.

[Nobby Reserve]

People said that when computers appeared they would take jobs away from everyone and there would be mass unemployment, but the computer industry and those things around it created more jobs than any other industry in history.

There are many examples of technological progress progressing the job market.

Is the bit in bold actually correct?

The amount of white collar jobs that have been replaced by 'computers' (in the broadest sense) is enormous. I used to work for the Inland Revenue in the 90's and saw first hand how more and more functions - especially data-input roles - were lost to 'computers'. That was common across swathes of white collar roles in both the public and private sectors.

I don't think the number of jobs created by directly working in the computer industry comes remotely close.

Anyway, AI will - if many of the more enthusiastic experts are to be believed - be like that but on steroids.

You may be right and there's nothing to worry about, but I've read enough from both sides of the AI fence (both those that support it and those fearful of its impact on jobs) to give me some concerns.

This current iteration of AI is just a stepping stone, too. Further advances in AI not yet even conceived will expand AI automation.

Imagine a society where all AI-able jobs are automated. The AI is owned by the state. All the 'profits' from it are used to provide everyone with a universal income in return for undertaking public service jobs that cannot be done by AI (medical, care, etc). This sits alongside a private sector manufacturing & selling products and providing services to the general public.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Is the bit in bold actually correct?

The amount of white collar jobs that have been replaced by 'computers' (in the broadest sense) is enormous. I used to work for the Inland Revenue in the 90's and saw first hand how more and more functions - especially data-input roles - were lost to 'computers'. That was common across swathes of white collar roles in both the public and private sectors.

I don't think the number of jobs created by directly working in the computer industry comes remotely close.

Anyway, AI will - if many of the more enthusiastic experts are to be believed - be like that but on steroids.

You may be right and there's nothing to worry about, but I've read enough from both sides of the AI fence (both those that support it and those fearful of its impact on jobs) to give me some concerns.

This current iteration of AI is just a stepping stone, too. Further advances in AI not yet even conceived will expand AI automation.

Imagine a society where all AI-able jobs are automated. The AI is owned by the state. All the 'profits' from it are used to provide everyone with a universal income in return for undertaking public service jobs that cannot be done by AI (medical, care, etc). This sits alongside a private sector manufacturing & selling products and providing services to the general public.

I've worked in the IT industry for 40 years. I know something about it.

This is an interesting place to start: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/aug/17/technology-created-more-jobs-than-destroyed-140-years-data-census

[TepidT2O]

I've worked in the IT industry for 40 years. I know something about it.

This is an interesting place to start: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/aug/17/technology-created-more-jobs-than-destroyed-140-years-data-census

People said the same about the spinning Jenny too

[Andy @ Allerton!]

People said the same about the spinning Jenny too

Yep. There certainly will be jobs lost. But do we want humanity to do pathetic crap jobs for little money when they can self-actualise with work they want to do?

AI can bring a lot to the table and it can take a lot away.

Depends on your point of view. I doubt a killer AI will murder us all, but it might well transform society.

Our society has been transformed quite a few times over the last 2,000+ years.

I'm optomistic

[Andy @ Allerton!]

I mean don't forget, 2000+ years ago we had dickhead emperors and arseholes and life was worth shit for the vast majority of mankind.

[TheShanklyGates]

I mean don't forget, 2000+ years ago we had dickhead emperors and arseholes and life was worth shit for the vast majority of mankind.

We used to have empires ruled by emperors and kingdoms ruled by kings. Now we have countries...