Brexit matters

[Yew]

The reason for automation for most businesses is to increase profits and to **** with the workers’ quality of life. For that matter, to **** with the workers as well, unless they can be turned into consumers.

And yet, whenever automation is introduced, the overall standard of living and income of the nation improves. I agree we should be much much better at providing for displaced workers (our unemployment services are abysmal compared to those in France, who focus on finding people careers, rather than just getting them off the dole into whatever unsuitable job comes up first), but the benefits of automation on our standard of living are undeniable.

 

[py_megapixel]

The reason for automation for most businesses is to increase profits and to **** with the workers’ quality of life. For that matter, to **** with the workers as well, unless they can be turned into consumers.

I wasn't saying businesses seeking to automate were necessarily doing so for the reasons I mentioned. I was saying turning monotonous, low-skilled jobs over to machines should be a good thing overall (at the moment in this country it arguably isn't, which I am willing to accept, but I think we should be working on getting towards a point where it is)

A commonly-cited example of this is automatic washing machines. The ability to put some clothes in a machine, push a few buttons and then come back in a couple of hours to clean clothes means that it's no longer necessary for people to spend hours doing laundry. This freed up time for other, more productive things (with consequent benefits to gender equality, as it would overwhelmingly have been women doing laundry).

It is human nature to invent things that make jobs easier or less labour-intensive, and when we succeed in automating a new task, the need for humans to do it is removed. Having people continuing to do work - particularly if that work is tedious, unpleasant or otherwise unenjoyable - that no longer actually needs to be done by humans, simply because we have structured our society in a way that forces them to in order to survive, is entirely nonsensical.

 

[nw1]

I wasn't saying businesses seeking to automate were necessarily doing so for the reasons I mentioned. I was saying turning monotonous, low-skilled jobs over to machines should be a good thing overall (at the moment in this country it arguably isn't, which I am willing to accept, but I think we should be working on getting towards a point where it is)

There have to be the new jobs available though. If you're going to automate things and put people out of work, there needs to be new work for people to get. Otherwise you just end up with more unemployment.

For example, there's increasing automation when buying products at shops, ordering food and drink in restaurants, cafes, etc. Where do the new jobs come from for the people you're putting out of work as a result?

I can obviously see why businesses are taking such steps, as they increase profit - but as a result, the state needs to carefully check the situation and ensure we don't end up with an unemployment crisis.

 

[py_megapixel]

There have to be the new jobs available though. If you're going to automate things and put people out of work, there needs to be new work for people to get. Otherwise you just end up with more unemployment.

For example, there's increasing automation when buying products at shops, ordering food and drink in restaurants, cafes, etc. Where do the new jobs come from for the people you're putting out of work as a result?

I can obviously see why businesses are taking such steps, as they increase profit - but as a result, the state needs to carefully check the situation and ensure we don't end up with an unemployment crisis.

It's a reasonable question, but I think automation is ultimately just going to mean that there is less work overall that needs to be done. This means that overall, people are going to be working less. For instance, it might become standard for people to only work three or four days per week.

This shouldn't really be a bad thing, in fact for many individuals, extra free time would be a good thing. In reality, though, there are problems presented by this. A lot of people would not be able to sustain the pay cut from working fewer days in a week, but since the reduction in staffing costs is the greatest incentive for businesses to automate, they won't be in a hurry to pay more to make up for this. Another problem is that automation doesn't generally gradually reduce everyone's workload at the same rate. It wipes out the need for entire workforces while leaving others relatively untouched.

Finding new jobs for displaced people solves the problem temporarily, but eventually we will run out of work that needs to be done. What then?

So there are two options. Either society shifts away from the idea that every healthy adult works a 5 day week, or equivalent, to sustain themselves and their family. Or automation is disincentivised to keep people in work. Neither of those will be without their disadvantages, but I think the former is the lesser evil in the long term, even if the latter is more popular in the short term (which I'd certainly expect it to be among conservatives/traditionalists).

 

[Bald Rick]

There have to be the new jobs available though. If you're going to automate things and put people out of work, there needs to be new work for people to get. Otherwise you just end up with more unemployment.

For example, there's increasing automation when buying products at shops, ordering food and drink in restaurants, cafes, etc. Where do the new jobs come from for the people you're putting out of work as a result?

its a valid question - except:

1) three centuries of progress in automation doesn’t seem to have caused swathes of unemployment
2) there are more vacancies than people seeking jobs at present (In this country, at least). Clearly more new jobs are being created than removed.

 

[najaB]

three centuries of progress in automation doesn’t seem to have caused swathes of unemployment

I dare say there's not much call for knocker-uppers or switchboard operators these days.

 

[The Ham]

its a valid question - except:

1) three centuries of progress in automation doesn’t seem to have caused swathes of unemployment
2) there are more vacancies than people seeking jobs at present (In this country, at least). Clearly more new jobs are being created than removed.

Indeed, it's also worth noting that in the last decade the working population has increased by no more than 1 million people, yet the overall population has increased by about 2.7 million.

As such, assuming that each person needs the same number of workers providing goods and services, then there's been a need to have some automation just to stand still.

However who is making up those extra people? Well given over the same timeframe the number of families claiming child benefit (which provides a fairly good guide as to number of children) has fallen by about 10% by about 800,000.

As such those extra people are those who are beyond retirement age. Therefore it could be that actually the number of people required to provide goods and services could be a higher rate than would otherwise be the case (I don't know, but it could be).

If that's the case then it's unlikely that automating rolls are likely to make that much difference to the number of jobs available.

 

[nw1]

It's a reasonable question, but I think automation is ultimately just going to mean that there is less work overall that needs to be done. This means that overall, people are going to be working less. For instance, it might become standard for people to only work three or four days per week.

This shouldn't really be a bad thing, in fact for many individuals, extra free time would be a good thing. In reality, though, there are problems presented by this. A lot of people would not be able to sustain the pay cut from working fewer days in a week, but since the reduction in staffing costs is the greatest incentive for businesses to automate, they won't be in a hurry to pay more to make up for this. Another problem is that automation doesn't generally gradually reduce everyone's workload at the same rate. It wipes out the need for entire workforces while leaving others relatively untouched.

Finding new jobs for displaced people solves the problem temporarily, but eventually we will run out of work that needs to be done. What then?

So there are two options. Either society shifts away from the idea that every healthy adult works a 5 day week, or equivalent, to sustain themselves and their family. Or automation is disincentivised to keep people in work. Neither of those will be without their disadvantages, but I think the former is the lesser evil in the long term, even if the latter is more popular in the short term (which I'd certainly expect it to be among conservatives/traditionalists).

Though the former still begs the question, as you acknowledge, of "how do people get the money to live a reasonable life if they are not working?". A setup where people are not working much, but also do not have enough money to live a comfortable life is not a good one.

Unless a solution is found to that, then it's not a good option. Though I do take on board @Bald Rick's point that there isn't an available jobs crisis just yet.

 

[najaB]

A setup where people are not working much, but also do not have enough money to live a comfortable life is not a good one.

That's were Universal Basic Income comes into play as a first step on the way to a post-capitalist society.

 

[Mikw]

I’ll have Norway over Bulgaria any day.


No, I am not missing the point. Your point is precisely that it is fine for poorer and less aspirational foreigners to come and work, and that it is okay for them to be paid less because “well they’re foreign they don’t know better and stuff is bad over there, Britain is good so they can work for less than they’re worth”.

The reason most British people don’t find crop picking attractive is because it’s hard, long work with terrible wages, no social status and appalling treatment from many employers. If it was paying £20 an hour and you got good accommodation you’d soon see Brits doing it.

Again, compared to the countries they're from the pay is good.

Now is it good enough for you to take their place?

You've already said "No" as the pay and conditions are poor, to you. But it's a darned sight better than what is back home for them.

 

[AlterEgo]

You've already said "No" as the pay and conditions are poor, to you. But it's a darned sight better than what is back home for them.

You are only making my argument for me by reiterating the morally questionable attitude that you can treat foreign workers worse and pay them worse - and not what they are actually worth - because they should be lucky to be here.

 

[brad465]

This will probably sound controversial, but the state of employment/unemployment that has recently emerged is I believe an indicator that our economy was/is too large for the population; this maybe replicated in other G7/G20 countries.

 

[Bald Rick]

I dare say there's not much call for knocker-uppers or switchboard operators these days.

or blacksmiths, coal miners, insurance brokers, video rental store workers, etc.

 

[edwin_m]

You are only making my argument for me by reiterating the morally questionable attitude that you can treat foreign workers worse and pay them worse - and not what they are actually worth - because they should be lucky to be here.

Foreign workers in Britain are subject to exactly the same laws as British workers including the minimum wage.

 

[AlterEgo]

Foreign workers in Britain are subject to exactly the same laws as British workers including the minimum wage.

I know. Which part of my point is that supposed to rebut?

 

[najaB]

I know. Which part of my point is that supposed to rebut?

I believe the word "worse" is a comparative meaning "less good".

 

[AlterEgo]

I believe the word "worse" is a comparative meaning "less good".

Thanks for another patronising post. You’re better than this but you choose not to be in this thread.

If people coming from abroad in some industries get paid the minimum wage, but if they’d recruited from the UK they’d (probably have to!) pay more than that, then those foreign workers are being paid and treated worse. @Mikw’s post does not rebut my post in any way.

And as for one’s rights in law go, they are only meaningful if the victim knows how to exercise those rights. Foreign, lowly paid workers who come from regimes with different approaches to the rule of law, may be either ignorant of their rights or uncertain of how to exercise them.

 

[najaB]

If people coming from abroad in some industries get paid the minimum wage, but if they’d recruited from the UK they’d (probably have to!) pay more than that, then those foreign workers are being paid and treated worse.

They aren't being paid or treated worse because they are foreign though, which is what your post said. The pay and treatment they get is what they are willing to accept - their citizenship doesn't enter into it.

 

[AlterEgo]

They aren't being paid or treated worse because they are foreign though, which is what your post said. The pay and treatment they get is what they are willing to accept

So if people accept being treated badly, or at least worse than others - even if this treatment indirectly or even unintentionally skews along racial, ethnic, or country of origin boundaries, this is fine, and there is no moral puzzle to solve?

 

[nw1]

Yes if only there were some sort of massive pool of foreign, cheap and willing labour, goes the Remain argument. Truly the friend of big business. Just get foreigners in to do it cheaper.

That's not the Remain argument. The Remain argument is to have increased freedom to live and work where you like, freedom that Boris Johnson and other Brexiters have taken away from both us, and EU citizens wishing to live here. As others have said, there is such a thing as the minimum wage.

This kind of argument is just used to attempt to morally justify Brexit to the left.

The ironic thing is that some of these Brexiter Tory types call themselves libertarians. Yet they are quite the opposite in this respect, and when it comes to Brexit, are fully behind increased bureaucracy and authoritarian state control.

 

[AlterEgo]

That's not the Remain argument.

Of course they never make the argument in that way, but you haven't chosen to disprove or rebut the argument, merely give the flip-benefit of:

The Remain argument is to have increased freedom to live and work where you like.

Of course that's true. It's just that choices and trade-offs of rights have consequences which are rarely acknowledged by either side.

As others have said, there is such a thing as the minimum wage.

A really excellent protection which has eliminated poverty, benefit dependency, and exploitation in Britain, yes (!!).

This kind of argument is just used to attempt to morally justify Brexit to the left.

Indeed it is, correct, and this one

The Remain argument is to have increased freedom to live and work where you like.

is used to justify it to centrists, middle class people, professionals and the "anywheres". Brexit voting had a correlation with social class. Only about a third of working class Brexit votes, mostly lowly paid people, voted for Brexit.

 

[nw1]

Of course they never make the argument in that way, but you haven't chosen to disprove or rebut the argument, merely give the flip-benefit of:

I'm not convinced that is the reason, unless there are countries within the EU in which citizens of that country, by law, get paid more than citizens of other EU countries. I do, however, believe a driving force behind freedom of movement and the single market was to minimise bureaucracy and red tape within the EU/Schengen, with obvious benefits for business.

 

[edwin_m]

I know. Which part of my point is that supposed to rebut?

Reading your post again, I think I'm actually agreeing with you and disagreeing with the post you quoted. But it's not exactly clear.

 

[AM9]

Indeed it is, correct, and this one

is used to justify it to centrists, middle class people, professionals and the "anywheres". Brexit voting had a correlation with social class. Only about a third of working class Brexit votes, mostly lowly paid people, voted for Brexit.

Such correlation goes much deeper than just social class identification. When the geographical demographics are considered, the most striking polarisations of voters goes much further than that, see here.

Link is to BBC report of Electoral Commission analyses that include the obvious geographical leave/remain voting patterns, but also:
Of the 30 areas with the most elderly people - 27 voted leave
Of the 30 areas with the fewest graduates - 28 voted leave
Of the 30 areas with the most people identifying as English - all 30 voted leave

The voter age issue has been well aired in the media since the referendum but it is significant. There is a minor relationship with age affecting graduate proportions of the electorate but the issue of leavers being predominately those who identify as 'Englis'h says a lot about that whole relevance of the referendum result.

 

[najaB]

So if people accept being treated badly, or at least worse than others - even if this treatment indirectly or even unintentionally skews along racial, ethnic, or country of origin boundaries, this is fine, and there is no moral puzzle to solve?

In a word: yes. Something appearing to be racist doesn't make it so.

 

[AlterEgo]

In a word: yes. Something appearing to be racist doesn't make it so.

So there is no such thing as systemic or structural discrimination, then? It's not a gotcha btw, but one asked in good faith for which I have no follow up question.

 

[AM9]

So there is no such thing as systemic or structural discrimination, then? It's not a gotcha btw, but one asked in good faith for which I have no follow up question.

Structural discrimination clearly does exist in many areas, but I don't think your assertion about systemic or structural discrimination is relevant in respect of low pay in as much that the predominant capitalist philsophy of employment remuneration is to pay as little as necessary. It may be true that a particular demographic group (in this case defined as those coming from a country with lower pay rates than in the UK) does tend to accept a lower pay rate, but raising all 'low' pay to a slightly higher 'low' pay rate will continue to give the same result.

 

[Cdd89]

It may be true that a particular demographic group (in this case defined as those coming from a country with lower pay rates than in the UK) does tend to accept a lower pay rate, but raising all 'low' pay to a slightly higher 'low' pay rate will continue to give the same result.

I disagree; for any minimum wage there will always be jobs that are preferential compared to other jobs.

The suggestion above, that EU workers will do the less preferential jobs for the same minimum wage — even if that is higher across the board — is still exploitative since society is expecting more value from them for the same wage.

 

[AM9]

I disagree; for any minimum wage there will always be jobs that are preferential compared to other jobs.

The suggestion above, that EU workers will do the less preferential jobs for the same minimum wage — even if that is higher across the board — is still exploitative since society is expecting more value from them for the same wage.

Indigenous workers would only get the same consideration so there isn't a difference. The fact that a job may be 'less preferential' is not directly connected to the minimum wage. Complare a care worker with a shop worker, the care job is likely to be much less attractive for the pay than a basic shop job. It is exploitative, as is most employment in capitalist society. Employers do just enough to get the workers to do their jobs. A xenophobic/racist employer still has to offer the minimum wage to all.

 

[The Ham]

I disagree; for any minimum wage there will always be jobs that are preferential compared to other jobs.

The suggestion above, that EU workers will do the less preferential jobs for the same minimum wage — even if that is higher across the board — is still exploitative since society is expecting more value from them for the same wage.

However those foreign workers had the opportunity to work here, in their home country, or some other location.

Whilst they may have been worse off than another worker (say a Brit), banning then from working here excludes then from that option.

If then being exploited was such a big concern then there's plenty of other government policy which could have been brought in to fix it.

They now don't have access to the UK jobs market, which may have been the best option for them (balancing high pay/cost of living/ cost to get home/time off to visit home). Now they may have to go somewhere else which is worse for them overall (i.e. same pay but less leave).

However the issue isn't solely related to the freedom of movement, as anyone from overseas is at risk of not knowing their rights (arguably those from the EU would know more, for example that they are entitled to at least 20 days leave) as such ending freedom of movement is unlikely to stop the exploration of people and (if those from the EU do know more about their rights) could actually mean that a much greater percentage of foreign workers will be exploited.