Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    right thats where your making the mistake...for some reason, you seem to be saying that unemployment is something to be avoided at all costs. but in the real world the net benefit of technology is positive...i mean do you advocate smashing up computers because they make PAs unemployed, would you smash up typewriters...the pen? would you destroy a dialysis machine cos it leaves nurses unemployed? in fact, if we could cure disease it would make doctors unemployed so is that bad...life is more confusing than that...also technology creates jobs as well but the above example of your short-sightedness was far more funny.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Your forgetting technological progress also causes many people to lsoe their jobs to. Also we have just come out of a massive economic crisis
    The same can be argued that, technological progress also creates jobs.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    People ITT ignore the fact that wealth has no relationship to employment.

    When 99% of people in Europe were peasants, there was full employment. Bangladesh (presumably) has high employment. Economies tend to have high employment when they are growing and low unemployment when they are not, but this is due to whether the economy is growing or contracting and says nothing about overall wealth.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    Technology have made lots of people unemployed, its quite obvious. I'm not going to find any examples for you since I am not responsible for your education.
    back that up its made uneducated workers unemployed, but what about the many thousands that work in research and development or maintaince of your technology. The economics of this country is changing into one where you need to be educated to get a job - personnally I see nothing wrong with that, would you rather we were all down the pits
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by crcr)
    but the main point is that governments are far better at wasting money...their investments are often relatively poor and they are overly generous with pay particularly pensions and the like hence the massive misallocation of resources.
    Could the armed forces do a better job in Afghanistan if the job was being left to private contractors rather than the inefficient state bureaucracy....how much gets wasted in excessive pay and pension rights to servicemen, when the market could set the appropriate rate for the job and deliver a service on a much more streamlined budget
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    Could the armed forces do a better job in Afghanistan if the job was being left to private contractors rather than the inefficient state bureaucracy....how much gets wasted in excessive pay and pension rights to servicemen, when the market could set the appropriate rate for the job and deliver a service on a much more streamlined budget
    The problem with mercenary armies is they are unpredicatble and hard to control. What happens if the mercenaries decide not to fight unless they get a lot more money or they change sids because the enemy pays better?

    What happens if mercenaries accidentally kill a lot of civilians and the empoying country gets all the blow back?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    People ITT ignore the fact that wealth has no relationship to employment.

    When 99% of people in Europe were peasants, there was full employment. Bangladesh (presumably) has high employment. Economies tend to have high employment when they are growing and low unemployment when they are not, but this is due to whether the economy is growing or contracting and says nothing about overall wealth.
    Obviously if the economy is expanding or contracting the wealthy are getting richer/poorer. Also there is no direct correlation between being peasants and jobs, it is almost solely in line with the ability of the middle classes to generate wealth and therefore employ people (whether that be our middle classes here demanding cheaper goods and China's employment rate going up, or them wanting their daily Starbucks or whatever):
    Bangladesh: 5.1%
    India: 10.4% (higher than here...)
    Pakistan: 14%
    Russia: 8.4%
    America: 9.3%
    Peru: 8.1%
    • Offline

      13
      (Original post by crcr)
      why should anyone be forced to hire people who aren't needed? why is it anyone elses business what people do with their money? in your supermarket example, you highlight one result of less staff but the other result is that the consumer benefits and the only case which the consumer wouldn't is in a monopoly which is something else altogether...the implication though that anyone should be under any obligation to give someone else a job reli doesn't make sense.

      saying that technology is making people unemployed also is fairly retarded...reli is pretty obvious that isn't the case... Luddite much?
      Did you actually read my post?

      I was simply illustrating the fact that capitalism is not a process which is interested in job creation; under capitalism, if there are cheaper or more profitable methods, the capitalist class will always seek to shed human labour. It is one of the major paradoxes under capitalism that while each individual capitalist seeks to shed human labour where possible, capitalism in the round needs a consuming (i.e. waged) population to purchase their products and services. The situation can only come to a head, sooner or later.

      It's 'retarded' to suggest that technology isn't used under capitalism to replace human labour; manufacturers don't introduce robots and automated systems into their productive methods because they look cool, they do it because these things can easily be many times more cost-effective than human wage-labour. Damn, I even gave you the example of supermarkets replacing till-operators with automatic payment checkouts, how 'retarded' do you want to appear?
      • Offline

        13
        (Original post by brokenangel)
        back that up its made uneducated workers unemployed, but what about the many thousands that work in research and development or maintaince of your technology. The economics of this country is changing into one where you need to be educated to get a job - personnally I see nothing wrong with that, would you rather we were all down the pits
        What has been happening under capitalism in its advanced centres is that the standard of education necessary to have relatively secure expectations of employment has been steadily going up. This is not a new process; the political classes of the late nineteenth century who otherwise did their best to avoid state provisions nevertheless introduced compulsory and free child education because they knew Britain would not remain competitive among other industrial nations without such intervention. What you have to appreciate is that this is an ongoing process, why do you think so many young people feel compelled to go to university and get a degree? As technology advances, and in the face of competition from 'educated' populations overseas, even the middle classes will find their baseline no comfort. As I say, it's an ongoing process; right now, you may have little trouble getting a job through your educational advantages, but the same won't necessarily hold true for your children or their children.
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Oswy)
        Did you actually read my post?

        I was simply illustrating the fact that capitalism is not a process which is interested in job creation; under capitalism, if there are cheaper or more profitable methods, the capitalist class will always seek to shed human labour. It is one of the major paradoxes under capitalism that while each individual capitalist seeks to shed human labour where possible, capitalism in the round needs a consuming (i.e. waged) population to purchase their products and services. The situation can only come to a head, sooner or later.

        It's 'retarded' to suggest that technology isn't used under capitalism to replace human labour; manufacturers don't introduce robots and automated systems into their productive methods because they look cool, they do it because these things can easily be many times more cost-effective than human wage-labour. Damn, I even gave you the example of supermarkets replacing till-operators with automatic payment checkouts, how 'retarded' do you want to appear?
        People were predicting 100 years ago that humans would generally be out of work due to advanced machinery taking our jobs, and it hasn't happened. Isn't that after all what Marx said needed to happen in order for people to rise up? Given that what you would call 'capitalists' somehow always manage to find a job in which to employ at least 90% of the country with I doubt Marxs prophecy will come true. You are essentially just proving how much more superior capitalism is at deploying the work force over socialism. Furthermore the capitalists profits and their growths in capital are relatively stable, the increased efficiency they strive for is in order to beat their competitors in the market place, which gives us all higher quality goods for lower prices. I very much doubt that if it were left to socialism we'd have home computers for instance.
        • Offline

          13
          (Original post by Elipsis)
          ...Also there is no direct correlation between being peasants and jobs...
          There's actually a very heavy correlation between the emergence of capitalism (agricultural and industrial) with the emergence of unemployment as a phenomenon. No other socio-economic system is associated with the generation and perpetuation of high levels of unemployment as capitalism is.
          Offline

          0
          ReputationRep:
          some wealthy's are saying they're going to go abraod and some are just going to dodge tax.
          • Offline

            13
            (Original post by Elipsis)
            People were predicting 100 years ago that humans would generally be out of work due to advanced machinery taking our jobs, and it hasn't happened. Isn't that after all what Marx said needed to happen in order for people to rise up? Given that what you would call 'capitalists' somehow always manage to find a job in which to employ at least 90% of the country with I doubt Marxs prophecy will come true. You are essentially just proving how much more superior capitalism is at deploying the work force over socialism. Furthermore the capitalists profits and their growths in capital are relatively stable, the increased efficiency they strive for is in order to beat their competitors in the market place, which gives us all higher quality goods for lower prices. I very much doubt that if it were left to socialism we'd have home computers for instance.
            Who exactly said what exactly 100 years ago?

            I think it is pretty plain that the advance of capitalism is replacing jobs with technology and automation and thus generating unemployment and underemployment which otherwise wouldn't occur. Making flat-out denials that technology can and does replace human wage-labour weakens every other thing you say, given that it is so patently false.

            Marx didn't set any dates, he simply saw problems in capitalism which he, reasonably, predicted would get much worse. So arguing that because something hasn't gone 'really bad' just yet that it will never go really bad is just lame.

            Britain is still very much benefiting from its past as one of the industriual starting points of capitalist advance. To that extent the fact that we are one of capitalism's 'centres' rather than 'peripheries' means our economy is able to maintain employment opportunities not yet colonised by technology and automation, i.e. the kinds of jobs educated middle-class people get. Elsewhere in the capitalist world unemployment levels are consistently higher, sometimes much higher. In time, as our historical advantages are overtaken by the likes of China, India and maybe even Africa, things will be different as our advantages are overtaken by cheaper and more plentiful educated populations in other parts of the world.
            Offline

            0
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by Oswy)
            Did you actually read my post?

            I was simply illustrating the fact that capitalism is not a process which is interested in job creation; under capitalism, if there are cheaper or more profitable methods, the capitalist class will always seek to shed human labour. It is one of the major paradoxes under capitalism that while each individual capitalist seeks to shed human labour where possible, capitalism in the round needs a consuming (i.e. waged) population to purchase their products and services. The situation can only come to a head, sooner or later.

            It's 'retarded' to suggest that technology isn't used under capitalism to replace human labour; manufacturers don't introduce robots and automated systems into their productive methods because they look cool, they do it because these things can easily be many times more cost-effective than human wage-labour. Damn, I even gave you the example of supermarkets replacing till-operators with automatic payment checkouts, how 'retarded' do you want to appear?
            right you have totally misunderstood my point...i'm not disputing that people lose jobs because of technology, that reli isn't an advanced or important point (its a bit like saying cats have tails, there is no value or information). what i am saying is that technology produces net benefits even though people lose jobs, so what you believe to be a paradox really isn't as technology benefits everyone in the long term.
            maybe if you extended your reading of economics beyond the 19th century you would realize that "underconsumption" theories were refuted in the 1930s (unsuprisingly, they were mainly proposed by politicans like Hoover). unfortunately though the obsession with jobs is still here and that is a primary cause of the recent crisis. so to clarify, i am not saying that technology doesn't make people unemployed (read it again) but i am saying that the net economic benefit is positive, there are other forces outside of unemployment, and i would add that the belief, implicit in what you response, that "high" wages must be maintained at all costs is a pretty strange one for the 21st century. my suggestion is to buy an economics textbook and drop the marx asap, his history was far more useful than his economics.
            i would also add as a side point that new technology rarely makes much money for capitalists, in the long run, i.e cars and planes, notoriously unprofitable industries...
            Offline

            19
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by Maker)
            The problem with mercenary armies is they are unpredicatble and hard to control. What happens if the mercenaries decide not to fight unless they get a lot more money or they change sids because the enemy pays better?

            What happens if mercenaries accidentally kill a lot of civilians and the empoying country gets all the blow back?
            Then its up to the hiring army to pay the market rate....if you don't pay the rate suited to their talents they go elsewhere, like the top bankers.

            Also I think there's a difference when it comes to mercenary armies, between some gang of coked up 10 year olds who are being hired by an African warlord, and have lets say suspect loyalties, and the type of private security firm which recruits former UK, US, South African servicemen who have an understanding of the concept of discipline.

            But actually the point you bring up is relevant to Afghanistan because the types of opiumheads who sign up for the "Afghan army" and the British soldiers are trying to train, are exactly that type of suspect crook who will sign up for jihad if the Taleban slips them a backhand payment.
            Offline

            17
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by jacketpotato)
            People ITT ignore the fact that wealth has no relationship to employment.

            When 99% of people in Europe were peasants, there was full employment. Bangladesh (presumably) has high employment. Economies tend to have high employment when they are growing and low unemployment when they are not, but this is due to whether the economy is growing or contracting and says nothing about overall wealth.
            Strictly when 99% of people in Europe were peasants there was very little employment, peasants only did limited work for others, their existence was far more self sufficient. (self employed) The Agrarian revolution or gradual change (dependant upon your viewpoint) was a push pull effect from country to city where those with capital became employers in the cities and those with capital consolidating land holdings and eventually becoming employers in the country.

            Employment is a very recently developed institution in the scale of mankinds time on Earth.
            Offline

            17
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by Elipsis)
            Obviously if the economy is expanding or contracting the wealthy are getting richer/poorer. Also there is no direct correlation between being peasants and jobs, it is almost solely in line with the ability of the middle classes to generate wealth and therefore employ people (whether that be our middle classes here demanding cheaper goods and China's employment rate going up, or them wanting their daily Starbucks or whatever):
            Bangladesh: 5.1%
            India: 10.4% (higher than here...)
            Pakistan: 14%
            Russia: 8.4%
            America: 9.3%
            Peru: 8.1%
            Out of interest, why do you think it is the middle classes that generate wealth, as opposed to those who own most of the capital or those who do most of the work? And why do you think that other countries should follow an outdated English class-based system?

            I'm not really sure the evidence you stated backs this - Bangladesh has the smallest middle-class out of any country on that list and has the lowest unemployment; and America has a fairly big middle-class but one of the highest unemployment rates.
            Offline

            2
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by JR89)
            FYI - Durham is accredited so i'm pretty sure a biomed degree from there will be favoured over Sunderland when taking into account league tables and the additional extra curricular opportunities majorty of Durham students get involved in due to the college structure.
            search biomedical sciences on http://www.hpc-uk.org/education/prog...l&RegionID=all Durham is not HPC accredited common miss perception and encouraged by the uni , btw why would you need college sport to get involved if thats all thats on your CV kinda shows your lazy
            • Thread Starter
            Offline

            20
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by brokenangel)
            search biomedical sciences on http://www.hpc-uk.org/education/prog...l&RegionID=all Durham is not HPC accredited common miss perception and encouraged by the uni , btw why would you need college sport to get involved if thats all thats on your CV kinda shows your lazy
            I applied for a job as a lab tech once at the John Radcliff, it wasn't well paid.
            Offline

            2
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by Maker)
            I applied for a job as a lab tech once at the John Radcliff, it wasn't well paid.
            Im not applying to be an MLA/lab tech
           
           
           
        • See more of what you like on The Student Room

          You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

        • Poll
          Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
          Useful resources

          Groups associated with this forum:

          View associated groups
        • See more of what you like on The Student Room

          You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

        • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

          Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

          Quick reply
          Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.