This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/oct/02/we-need-more-jobs-but-less-work-to-deal-with-new-technology
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| We need more jobs but less work to deal with new technology We need more jobs but less work to deal with new technology | |
| (about 7 hours later) | |
| One of the most common arguments against the possibility of technological unemployment (Letters, 26 September) is “it hasn’t happened in the past, so why would this time be any different”. When people express concerns about machines taking jobs, they are reassured that the same concerns have been raised many times since the industrial revolution began and that they have always proved to be unfounded; while many types of work have been lost to new technology, a sufficient number of new jobs have always arisen to take their place. In 200 years of technological advancement there has never been an outbreak of technological unemployment.But that argument is just not true, because in the last 170 years there has actually been a 50% reduction in work. It’s just that this has taken the form of fewer work hours, not unemployment. If we were still working the same hours people did in the 1870s, there would be a massive shortage of jobs and an unemployment rate of around 50%. Work hours have reduced in this time from 65 hours a week and four days holiday a year, to what we have now. There is nothing magical about 40 hours a week being what constitutes a normal job. There is no good reason why it shouldn’t reduce further as we progress into the next technological revolution.Michael BerneyWentworth Falls, NSW, Australia | One of the most common arguments against the possibility of technological unemployment (Letters, 26 September) is “it hasn’t happened in the past, so why would this time be any different”. When people express concerns about machines taking jobs, they are reassured that the same concerns have been raised many times since the industrial revolution began and that they have always proved to be unfounded; while many types of work have been lost to new technology, a sufficient number of new jobs have always arisen to take their place. In 200 years of technological advancement there has never been an outbreak of technological unemployment.But that argument is just not true, because in the last 170 years there has actually been a 50% reduction in work. It’s just that this has taken the form of fewer work hours, not unemployment. If we were still working the same hours people did in the 1870s, there would be a massive shortage of jobs and an unemployment rate of around 50%. Work hours have reduced in this time from 65 hours a week and four days holiday a year, to what we have now. There is nothing magical about 40 hours a week being what constitutes a normal job. There is no good reason why it shouldn’t reduce further as we progress into the next technological revolution.Michael BerneyWentworth Falls, NSW, Australia |
| • Janice Jowett (Letters, 30 September) points out that working for one company is the traditional test for employment status. There are or were a collection of such indicators to test just how much real control a worker has over their work. These include the provision of tools and equipment, whether to accept a job or not, how exactly the job is done, who pays them, does someone else control or manage elements of the work, and when do they take their holidays. All at odds with the so-called self employed of some modern practices. I wonder what the HMRC Employment status indicator tool makes of it?Martin JeevesCardiff | • Janice Jowett (Letters, 30 September) points out that working for one company is the traditional test for employment status. There are or were a collection of such indicators to test just how much real control a worker has over their work. These include the provision of tools and equipment, whether to accept a job or not, how exactly the job is done, who pays them, does someone else control or manage elements of the work, and when do they take their holidays. All at odds with the so-called self employed of some modern practices. I wonder what the HMRC Employment status indicator tool makes of it?Martin JeevesCardiff |
| • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com | • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com |