The 2024 POTUS election will be the first election that, potentially, will be won by AI deciding the outcome. The ways it can be used to sway voters are so manifold and powerful
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
But bravo to them for trying. I’ve heard rumours the strike might last til January - or beyond. That’s huge
If AI spreads and takes jobs without replacement then we will be back to the 1970s in terms of strikes too, workers aren't go to accept most jobs being taken over by AI, certainly without a big UBI funded by a massive robot/AI tax on corporations
Another ageing player off to join a pointless comedy league for silly money
Kane to Bayern
Agreed with "pointless" insofar as it's a one horse race. But the Prem is going that way I fear. At some point the the Old Firm duopoly is going to look like a bastion of open competition.
I don't believe Man City's hegemony will last. Other EPL sides also have huge resources: like Newcastle and Chelsea
And Man Utd will be back: their brand is too big and too good
I have no idea how any German team can ever compete with Bayern. The Germans' much-praised 50+1 structure largely prevents moneyed owners from buying in and injecting lots of cash
Not only is Trump a mad narcissist who was unlikely to give up power voluntarily, running again was also his best guard against criminal convictions so of course he would run, and he is genuinely beyond popular with most Republican voters, for many, perhaps most, he is the party.
Having to perform the ritual obeisance demanded of all British PMs toward POTUS is going to be a colossal pain in the glans for SKS when he has to slurp Trump's nuts.
That section of the Labour party who wear a lot of badges are going to be salty in the extreme,
That's to assume Trump is elected again. It's far from certain that he'll even be the GOP candidate.
Unless convicted and jailed next year (in which case the RNC would change the rules if necessary and pick a new candidate) he will likely be the GOP candidate
Some people may have noticed that Andrew Hewston, an OFSTED inspector who thought it OK to touch a child, has won a claim for unfair dismissal. I've just been looking at the judgement.
Let's leave aside the fact that Hewston is clearly a complete idiot and that judgements like this make a mockery of the legal system. Let's consider what it shows about OFSTED.
1) Hewston was an inspector of children's homes. He had never worked in a school. Why the hell was he inspecting one? Because OFSTED's remit is far too wide so they are using non-specialist inspectors. It urgently needs to be broken up into smaller, more focussed agencies.
2) He didn't know there was a 'no touching' policy in place for OFSTED inspectors in schools. Because he had not been told. This is all of a piece with OFSTED inspectors not being told they shouldn't discuss medical records in public because they don't understand GDPR. I really would like to speak to whatever imbecile manages their training. Loudly.
3) He had not been given the necessary information to prepare a defence (not that he should have had one) because OFSTED does not have proper safeguarding processes or any means of dealing with safeguarding allegations efficiently. This is because the people running it have the intellectual capacity of a civil servant after the fifth works meeting.*
It is deeply disturbing that OFSTED could fail a primary school on a very technical safeguarding breach while committing so many appallingly dangerous mistakes themselves to the extent they are a significant menace to children.
But they get away with it, because nobody regulates them. They are no longer part of the DfE and the Education Select Committee refuses to exercise oversight powers.
It's just awful.
*well, on a good day.
Sounds a bit odd, 'rubbing water off a pupil's head'. I went to a prep school with canings and there were a couple of bona fide nonces in my secondary school and I never saw or experienced that particular interaction.
He was acting as a carer in a home would. What's alarming is how he didn't grasp in a school you have a very different sort of relationship which has very different boundaries. Which makes him, in my book, an utter fool.
Also, though, that thing about 'different relationships' applies with more force to an inspector. How would any parent feel if they saw a complete stranger patting their child's head and shoulder? I'm guessing they wouldn't automatically think 'oh, how nice to see somebody helping my child.'
I mean, I've worked in a school where I had to blow the whistle on a paedophile and even he wouldn't have done that. (Admittedly, that might have been because it would have been too obvious.)
In the days before we saw paedophiles lurking round every corner, it might be more normal. For instance, here is a 1976 Green Cross Code advert where Alvin Stardust admonishes two girls. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiKQO6BVzyA
Not only is Trump a mad narcissist who was unlikely to give up power voluntarily, running again was also his best guard against criminal convictions so of course he would run, and he is genuinely beyond popular with most Republican voters, for many, perhaps most, he is the party.
Having to perform the ritual obeisance demanded of all British PMs toward POTUS is going to be a colossal pain in the glans for SKS when he has to slurp Trump's nuts.
That section of the Labour party who wear a lot of badges are going to be salty in the extreme,
That's to assume Trump is elected again. It's far from certain that he'll even be the GOP candidate.
Unless convicted and jailed next year (in which case the RNC would change the rules if necessary and pick a new candidate) he will likely be the GOP candidate
There isn't enough time to jail and convict. 154 days until the Iowa caucus.
Even if he wins most delegates in the primaries and caucuses the GOP nominee isn't chosen until next July at the convention in Milwaukee and the court cases start in March and May. Before the convention the RNC can change the rules and do a deal behind closed doors to get delegates to switch to a new candidate
Not only is Trump a mad narcissist who was unlikely to give up power voluntarily, running again was also his best guard against criminal convictions so of course he would run, and he is genuinely beyond popular with most Republican voters, for many, perhaps most, he is the party.
Having to perform the ritual obeisance demanded of all British PMs toward POTUS is going to be a colossal pain in the glans for SKS when he has to slurp Trump's nuts.
That section of the Labour party who wear a lot of badges are going to be salty in the extreme,
"That section of the Labour party who wear a lot of badges"
A very good observation - I always try to give them a wide berth at any party meetings.
Unless you were referring to "Boy Scouts for Labour"?
As long as they're not wearing this one. Bloody Nazis, ruined the swastika for everyone.
Not only is Trump a mad narcissist who was unlikely to give up power voluntarily, running again was also his best guard against criminal convictions so of course he would run, and he is genuinely beyond popular with most Republican voters, for many, perhaps most, he is the party.
Having to perform the ritual obeisance demanded of all British PMs toward POTUS is going to be a colossal pain in the glans for SKS when he has to slurp Trump's nuts.
That section of the Labour party who wear a lot of badges are going to be salty in the extreme,
"That section of the Labour party who wear a lot of badges"
A very good observation - I always try to give them a wide berth at any party meetings.
Unless you were referring to "Boy Scouts for Labour"?
As long as they're not wearing this one. Bloody Nazis, ruined the swastika for everyone.
Shouldn’t the Crooked Cross have one of points at the top. As it is it’s ‘just’ a Hindu symbol.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
Most of the time wages exceed inflation when we have had low inflation.
As @BartholomewRoberts pointed out inflation is caused by products and services increasing in price not wages (directly). Clearly if wage increases cause products and services to increase in price it will cause inflation, but wages can increase without doing so. Here is a real life example. It is me. I charged my customers a fee for the service I provided. If the service saves them money and the saving is more than the cost (which is why they pay me) wages have gone up but the price of the product can come down.
Various things cause inflation. Currently it is mainly due to shortages in supply. Wages can and will if not matched by productivity, which is the case in the 70s where a spiral occurred and is the fear that it might happen again and become uncontrollable, but in times of low inflation wages are nearly always higher than inflation disproving the point you are making.
It is because we become more productive and hence have a better standard of living than Victorians.
So we can demand more productivity from public sector unions and their workers before they get a pay rise then
Well life isn't as simple as that as you well know. But I think it is fairly well accepted that a stable economy runs best when there is positive but very modest inflation (so as to avoid deflation which gets you into another spiral) and wages exceed inflation due to improvements in productivity and technology resulting in better standards of living.
Individually each union/employee and employer negotiate for what is best for both of them.
Do you agree with the basic premise in the post I made though?
The 2024 POTUS election will be the first election that, potentially, will be won by AI deciding the outcome. The ways it can be used to sway voters are so manifold and powerful
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
But bravo to them for trying. I’ve heard rumours the strike might last til January - or beyond. That’s huge
If AI spreads and takes jobs without replacement then we will be back to the 1970s in terms of strikes too, workers aren't go to accept most jobs being taken over by AI, certainly without a big UBI funded by a massive robot/AI tax on corporations
Strikes aren't going to stop AI, any more than loom-smashing stopped the industrial revolution
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
Most of the time wages exceed inflation when we have had low inflation.
As @BartholomewRoberts pointed out inflation is caused by products and services increasing in price not wages (directly). Clearly if wage increases cause products and services to increase in price it will cause inflation, but wages can increase without doing so. Here is a real life example. It is me. I charged my customers a fee for the service I provided. If the service saves them money and the saving is more than the cost (which is why they pay me) wages have gone up but the price of the product can come down.
Various things cause inflation. Currently it is mainly due to shortages in supply. Wages can and will if not matched by productivity, which is the case in the 70s where a spiral occurred and is the fear that it might happen again and become uncontrollable, but in times of low inflation wages are nearly always higher than inflation disproving the point you are making.
It is because we become more productive and hence have a better standard of living than Victorians.
So we can demand more productivity from public sector unions and their workers before they get a pay rise then
That's been done.
Over the past decade the public sector has become more productive. The share of expenditure of taxes going to public sector wages has gone down, not up, over the past decade.
What has gone up is the share of expenditure of taxes going to welfare. Which is not going to those who are unemployed, which is half the rate it was in 2010. Its not going to those in dire need of it, which has been cut to the bone, but still welfare expenditure is higher now than it was when Labour left office. And is going up more annually.
How do you make any sense of that? And what productivity is meant to drive or make that affordable?
The 2024 POTUS election will be the first election that, potentially, will be won by AI deciding the outcome. The ways it can be used to sway voters are so manifold and powerful
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
I know Leon and his Speccie plagiarist predicted the AI apocalypse, but even more uncanny is the unerring accuracy of meteorological-betting.com pundit TimS, he of the fortnight-advance warning of last July’s 40C.
Right on time the British weather has changed. Even here in Dublin where I’m spending a couple of days it’s warm and sunny. The proper heatwave should really get going mid next week.
Pence's people are falling out over the Trump coup plot.
https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1689046810642219008 After former Pence Adviser Keith Kellogg endorses Trump and criticizes Pence for “his recent actions regarding President Trump”, Marc Short shows @wolfblitzer email from Kellogg on Jan 6 2021 telling him and VP to “finish the Electoral College issue TONIGHT.”
I expect Labour to win Rutherglen based on enough SNP supporters abstaining as there seems no clear way forward to independence, coupled with a collapsing Tory vote decamping en masse to Labour in opposition to independence.
However, I think it likely that Labour will drift out from 1.11 as the Labour candidate Shanks tries to urge people to vote for his party in spite of him opposing Labour's policy on Brexit, the 2 child benefit cap, and the GRR bill (and no doubt other issues to come). Increasing Scotland's Labour MPs from 1 to 2 is unlikely to convince many that he can change Labour's UK policies.
Flynn is likely to prove to be a better campaigner than Murray or Sarwar, no matter how much BBC Scotland and most of the media campaign for Shanks.
Does anyone seriously believe Starmer will retain the 2 child benefit cap once he's in office? Labour will probably ditch it within a few months of being in office once they don't have to worry about frightening the horses.
Not only is Trump a mad narcissist who was unlikely to give up power voluntarily, running again was also his best guard against criminal convictions so of course he would run, and he is genuinely beyond popular with most Republican voters, for many, perhaps most, he is the party.
Having to perform the ritual obeisance demanded of all British PMs toward POTUS is going to be a colossal pain in the glans for SKS when he has to slurp Trump's nuts.
That section of the Labour party who wear a lot of badges are going to be salty in the extreme,
"That section of the Labour party who wear a lot of badges"
A very good observation - I always try to give them a wide berth at any party meetings.
Unless you were referring to "Boy Scouts for Labour"?
As long as they're not wearing this one. Bloody Nazis, ruined the swastika for everyone.
Shouldn’t the Crooked Cross have one of points at the top. As it is it’s ‘just’ a Hindu symbol.
Not only is Trump a mad narcissist who was unlikely to give up power voluntarily, running again was also his best guard against criminal convictions so of course he would run, and he is genuinely beyond popular with most Republican voters, for many, perhaps most, he is the party.
Having to perform the ritual obeisance demanded of all British PMs toward POTUS is going to be a colossal pain in the glans for SKS when he has to slurp Trump's nuts.
That section of the Labour party who wear a lot of badges are going to be salty in the extreme,
"That section of the Labour party who wear a lot of badges"
A very good observation - I always try to give them a wide berth at any party meetings.
Unless you were referring to "Boy Scouts for Labour"?
As long as they're not wearing this one. Bloody Nazis, ruined the swastika for everyone.
Shouldn’t the Crooked Cross have one of points at the top. As it is it’s ‘just’ a Hindu symbol.
Usually, yes, but it was not hard and fast; the SA liked to have it square rig.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
Most of the time wages exceed inflation when we have had low inflation.
As @BartholomewRoberts pointed out inflation is caused by products and services increasing in price not wages (directly). Clearly if wage increases cause products and services to increase in price it will cause inflation, but wages can increase without doing so. Here is a real life example. It is me. I charged my customers a fee for the service I provided. If the service saves them money and the saving is more than the cost (which is why they pay me) wages have gone up but the price of the product can come down.
Various things cause inflation. Currently it is mainly due to shortages in supply. Wages can and will if not matched by productivity, which is the case in the 70s where a spiral occurred and is the fear that it might happen again and become uncontrollable, but in times of low inflation wages are nearly always higher than inflation disproving the point you are making.
It is because we become more productive and hence have a better standard of living than Victorians.
So we can demand more productivity from public sector unions and their workers before they get a pay rise then
What more do you want them to do? Coppers picking up litter? Firefighters filling in potholes? Council office staff mowing lawns?
The 2024 POTUS election will be the first election that, potentially, will be won by AI deciding the outcome. The ways it can be used to sway voters are so manifold and powerful
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
But bravo to them for trying. I’ve heard rumours the strike might last til January - or beyond. That’s huge
If AI spreads and takes jobs without replacement then we will be back to the 1970s in terms of strikes too, workers aren't go to accept most jobs being taken over by AI, certainly without a big UBI funded by a massive robot/AI tax on corporations
Strikes aren't going to stop AI, any more than loom-smashing stopped the industrial revolution
Some people may have noticed that Andrew Hewston, an OFSTED inspector who thought it OK to touch a child, has won a claim for unfair dismissal. I've just been looking at the judgement.
Let's leave aside the fact that Hewston is clearly a complete idiot and that judgements like this make a mockery of the legal system. Let's consider what it shows about OFSTED.
1) Hewston was an inspector of children's homes. He had never worked in a school. Why the hell was he inspecting one? Because OFSTED's remit is far too wide so they are using non-specialist inspectors. It urgently needs to be broken up into smaller, more focussed agencies.
2) He didn't know there was a 'no touching' policy in place for OFSTED inspectors in schools. Because he had not been told. This is all of a piece with OFSTED inspectors not being told they shouldn't discuss medical records in public because they don't understand GDPR. I really would like to speak to whatever imbecile manages their training. Loudly.
3) He had not been given the necessary information to prepare a defence (not that he should have had one) because OFSTED does not have proper safeguarding processes or any means of dealing with safeguarding allegations efficiently. This is because the people running it have the intellectual capacity of a civil servant after the fifth works meeting.*
It is deeply disturbing that OFSTED could fail a primary school on a very technical safeguarding breach while committing so many appallingly dangerous mistakes themselves to the extent they are a significant menace to children.
But they get away with it, because nobody regulates them. They are no longer part of the DfE and the Education Select Committee refuses to exercise oversight powers.
It's just awful.
*well, on a good day.
Sounds a bit odd, 'rubbing water off a pupil's head'. I went to a prep school with canings and there were a couple of bona fide nonces in my secondary school and I never saw or experienced that particular interaction.
He was acting as a carer in a home would. What's alarming is how he didn't grasp in a school you have a very different sort of relationship which has very different boundaries. Which makes him, in my book, an utter fool.
Also, though, that thing about 'different relationships' applies with more force to an inspector. How would any parent feel if they saw a complete stranger patting their child's head and shoulder? I'm guessing they wouldn't automatically think 'oh, how nice to see somebody helping my child.'
I mean, I've worked in a school where I had to blow the whistle on a paedophile and even he wouldn't have done that. (Admittedly, that might have been because it would have been too obvious.)
In the days before we saw paedophiles lurking round every corner, it might be more normal. For instance, here is a 1976 Green Cross Code advert where Alvin Stardust admonishes two girls. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiKQO6BVzyA
Stardust got the gig, no reason at the time not to give it to Glitter, so perhaps our greater circumspection is justified.
Another speedy pass through Aberdeen airport. Business is good, hard work pays £lots and I'm broadly content with my lot.
One of my former team on our WhatsApp group. Her husband has a team member (a bloke) in tears because he's so broke that he can't afford a birthday present for his gf. Guy is working for a good company paying market competitive rates, but cost of living in Newcastle and student loan repayments means working hard = being so broke you cry.
There's something structurally wrong in our economy. We need UBI.
If he's making loan repayments then he's likely earning over £27,925. That's approximately the median UK salary. The most militant groups in the public sector seem to be the highest paid - I'm neutral on UBI, but I don't see how you make it work - particularly if it's to be a net benefit on people earning over 30k without raising taxes on the higher paid and they're the ones who might f*** off to Australia to earn twice what they are here doing hip ops or whatever. I also fear it could be inflationary tbh.
Yes, earning the median salary and on a 9% higher rate of Income Tax, in the form of a Graduate Tax, its absurd isn't it?
The way to make it work is to ensure everyone on the same income pays the same rate of tax.
If you're earning £30k from non-salaried means then your marginal tax rate is 20% on that income.
If you're earning £30k from salaried employment with a student loan then your marginal tax rate is 41% on that income.
Why should someone earning a salary pay more than double the tax of someone else who isn't but earns the same amount?
Its even worse if someone earning a salary is on Universal Credit while having a Student Loan. Then the real marginal tax rate is 78.4%
Why the hell should someone on a marginal income be on a real Marginal Tax Rate of 78.4%?
Not to forget of course that tax thresholds are frozen, so inflation alone means if someone gets an inflationary pay-rise they're really losing 78.4% of that to tax so are substantially worse off. Someone needs a pay rise of 5x the rate of inflation nearly just to stand still!
The problems are house prices and inflation.
One funny one was discussing with some people the re-wilding of parts of Chicago. Houses being knocked down and the land cleared. It was getting through to people that in some parts of the world a house could be really, actually, surplus. A waste of space.
We have a similar population to France. 8 million fewer properties.
That's a killer stat.
That's 200 000 a year for 40 years.
Which is a measure both of how long this has been a problem and how long it will take to fix.
Not coincidentally, 40 years takes you back to early Thatcher, and Right to Buy.
Public sector secure and affordable long term rental is too small a piece of our housing landscape. There's a need to reverse the decline that started then.
The problem wasn't council housing it was council estates.
And by 1980 they had become associated with slums in the sky and edge of conurbation sink estates or in the worst cases slums in the sky in edge of conurbation sink estates.
There are likely votes for any party which advocates increasing the size of every village by 2% by building a few council semis in it and to be reserved for local people.
Building them as ugly as possible didn’t help.
And no, it doesn’t cost the Earth to make buildings that don’t physically hurt the eyes.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
Most of the time wages exceed inflation when we have had low inflation.
As @BartholomewRoberts pointed out inflation is caused by products and services increasing in price not wages (directly). Clearly if wage increases cause products and services to increase in price it will cause inflation, but wages can increase without doing so. Here is a real life example. It is me. I charged my customers a fee for the service I provided. If the service saves them money and the saving is more than the cost (which is why they pay me) wages have gone up but the price of the product can come down.
Various things cause inflation. Currently it is mainly due to shortages in supply. Wages can and will if not matched by productivity, which is the case in the 70s where a spiral occurred and is the fear that it might happen again and become uncontrollable, but in times of low inflation wages are nearly always higher than inflation disproving the point you are making.
It is because we become more productive and hence have a better standard of living than Victorians.
So we can demand more productivity from public sector unions and their workers before they get a pay rise then
That's been done.
Over the past decade the public sector has become more productive. The share of expenditure of taxes going to public sector wages has gone down, not up, over the past decade.
What has gone up is the share of expenditure of taxes going to welfare. Which is not going to those who are unemployed, which is half the rate it was in 2010. Its not going to those in dire need of it, which has been cut to the bone, but still welfare expenditure is higher now than it was when Labour left office. And is going up more annually.
How do you make any sense of that? And what productivity is meant to drive or make that affordable?
'In the 22 years from 1997 to 2019, public sector productivity rose by just 3.7 per cent, yet public sector staff got pay awards based on comparisons with a private sector that was doing a lot better at raising output per person.
Real state output soared under Labour from 1997 to 2009 by a massive 50 per cent , but productivity fell 2 per cent over the 12 years. Under the Conservatives pre-Covid, output was up again by a more restrained 8 per cent, with productivity edging ahead to show a 3.7 per cent gain since 1997. By the end of 2021 output was up again by almost a tenth but productivity was down on 1997 levels by 3.7 per cent. So over nearly a quarter of a century of fast automation and technical advance in the wider economy, the UK public sector saw a fall in productivity. '
Pensioners who get the state pension mostly paid in when working via National Insurance and you can't get the state pension without sufficient NI contributions or credits
Not only is Trump a mad narcissist who was unlikely to give up power voluntarily, running again was also his best guard against criminal convictions so of course he would run, and he is genuinely beyond popular with most Republican voters, for many, perhaps most, he is the party.
Having to perform the ritual obeisance demanded of all British PMs toward POTUS is going to be a colossal pain in the glans for SKS when he has to slurp Trump's nuts.
That section of the Labour party who wear a lot of badges are going to be salty in the extreme,
"That section of the Labour party who wear a lot of badges"
A very good observation - I always try to give them a wide berth at any party meetings.
Unless you were referring to "Boy Scouts for Labour"?
As long as they're not wearing this one. Bloody Nazis, ruined the swastika for everyone.
Shouldn’t the Crooked Cross have one of points at the top. As it is it’s ‘just’ a Hindu symbol.
Strictly speaking yes, but since I'm an awkward sod (though this one is reversed)..
The swastika really was a commonly used symbol before the Nazis appropriated it (I believe the Finnish airforce incorporated it into their insignia till quite recently). It's made a little piquant in the Scouts' case by the occasional sympatico statements made by Baden-Powell about Hitler & co.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
No, that's not basic economics. Wages are only a small fraction of what makes inflation, inflation is mostly imported due to the cost of raw resources.
Besides, the Government is by political choice increasing the wages (eg Triple Lock) of some by 10%, while not increasing the wages of others. That is a choice, and that fuels the wage spiral every bit as much as others getting pay rises does.
And it is by political choice choosing to increase taxes via fiscal drag. It could eliminate the triple lock and eliminate the tax rise of fiscal drag without contributing inflationary wage spirals, if that is what you pretend to care about today.
Those who only rely on the state pension and minimum wage or benefits are on only a fraction of yearly income of even average earners and they are the only ones who saw a pay rise of 10%
You are either lying, or don't understand how this works.
Those only relying on state pension aren't the only ones who saw a 10% pay rise from our taxes, every single pensioner whether they needed it or not got one.
That is why welfare is now over 30% of Governmental Expenditure, higher than it was in 2010, despite unemployment being less than half what it was in 2010 and welfare going to those actually in need being cut to the bone. Because it is being pissed around like money is no object to others instead.
This is not a bad point. To many, £10k odd a year is completely unneeded but too much money not to bother with claiming it (or to give it to charity). But try standing on a manifesto to means test it
Even without means testing it, the least we could do is not exponentially increase it with a Triple Lock.
If you want to give more support to those in need, then do that, but that has been cut to the bone.
And then we need to equalise tax rates, so that everyone pays the same rate of tax.
A teacher on a £30k salary pays a 41% tax rate.
A pensioner with £95k private pension pays a 40% tax rate.
How is it justifiable to tax someone earning £30k a higher tax rate than someone earning £95k? Its simply not. And then the taxes going to fund the latter's supplementary taxpayer funded income is going up by double digit percentages, while the former gets a below-inflation pay rise.
If we can't afford pay rises, then apply that across the board. To everyone. If we have to levy taxes, then levy them across the board. On everyone.
Not only is Trump a mad narcissist who was unlikely to give up power voluntarily, running again was also his best guard against criminal convictions so of course he would run, and he is genuinely beyond popular with most Republican voters, for many, perhaps most, he is the party.
Having to perform the ritual obeisance demanded of all British PMs toward POTUS is going to be a colossal pain in the glans for SKS when he has to slurp Trump's nuts.
That section of the Labour party who wear a lot of badges are going to be salty in the extreme,
No more frosty than it currently is between Sunak and Biden.
Even they both say "special relationship" through gritted teeth, and it's no secret Biden can't stand the sight of us.
The 2024 POTUS election will be the first election that, potentially, will be won by AI deciding the outcome. The ways it can be used to sway voters are so manifold and powerful
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
But bravo to them for trying. I’ve heard rumours the strike might last til January - or beyond. That’s huge
If AI spreads and takes jobs without replacement then we will be back to the 1970s in terms of strikes too, workers aren't go to accept most jobs being taken over by AI, certainly without a big UBI funded by a massive robot/AI tax on corporations
Strikes aren't going to stop AI, any more than loom-smashing stopped the industrial revolution
Then capitalism is dead, at least in its purest form.
If AI leads to mass unemployment and few full time and permanent jobs, most voters ie the non rich and non corporate executives will only vote for parties promising massive robot taxes on corporations to fund big universal basic income and welfare payments.
We will end up with the main western parties effectively offering social democracy just in slightly different forms
Not only is Trump a mad narcissist who was unlikely to give up power voluntarily, running again was also his best guard against criminal convictions so of course he would run, and he is genuinely beyond popular with most Republican voters, for many, perhaps most, he is the party.
Having to perform the ritual obeisance demanded of all British PMs toward POTUS is going to be a colossal pain in the glans for SKS when he has to slurp Trump's nuts.
That section of the Labour party who wear a lot of badges are going to be salty in the extreme,
"That section of the Labour party who wear a lot of badges"
A very good observation - I always try to give them a wide berth at any party meetings.
Unless you were referring to "Boy Scouts for Labour"?
As long as they're not wearing this one. Bloody Nazis, ruined the swastika for everyone.
Shouldn’t the Crooked Cross have one of points at the top. As it is it’s ‘just’ a Hindu symbol.
Strictly speaking yes, but since I'm an awkward sod (though this one is reversed)..
The swastika really was a commonly used symbol before the Nazis appropriated it (I believe the Finnish airforce incorporated it into their insignia till quite recently). It's made a little piquant in the Scouts' case by the occasional sympatico statements made by Baden-Powell about Hitler & co.
Still remember trying to explain to a little old lady who sold brass boxes to tourists in Nepal, why her special lucky boxes weren’t selling
I expect Labour to win Rutherglen based on enough SNP supporters abstaining as there seems no clear way forward to independence, coupled with a collapsing Tory vote decamping en masse to Labour in opposition to independence.
However, I think it likely that Labour will drift out from 1.11 as the Labour candidate Shanks tries to urge people to vote for his party in spite of him opposing Labour's policy on Brexit, the 2 child benefit cap, and the GRR bill (and no doubt other issues to come). Increasing Scotland's Labour MPs from 1 to 2 is unlikely to convince many that he can change Labour's UK policies.
Flynn is likely to prove to be a better campaigner than Murray or Sarwar, no matter how much BBC Scotland and most of the media campaign for Shanks.
Does anyone seriously believe Starmer will retain the 2 child benefit cap once he's in office? Labour will probably ditch it within a few months of being in office once they don't have to worry about frightening the horses.
I'm not sure he will, as where is he going to find the money from to fund it?
Starmer is going to face some interesting choices. The welfare bill he is inheriting utterly dwarfs the one the Tories inherited from Labour. Even with unemployment being half the rate it was, the 2 child cap and everything else that has happened over the past decade.
"Police are treating the fire that destroyed Britain’s wonkiest pub as arson as it emerged that its new owners had bought and allegedly gutted another traditional pub, near their home in Warwickshire.
Police say they “continue to engage” with Carly Taylor, 34, and her husband Adam, 44, after the Crooked House, in Himley, near Dudley, burnt down. It was then demolished without permission, weeks after the couple had bought the landmark in Staffordshire." (£)
The 2024 POTUS election will be the first election that, potentially, will be won by AI deciding the outcome. The ways it can be used to sway voters are so manifold and powerful
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
But bravo to them for trying. I’ve heard rumours the strike might last til January - or beyond. That’s huge
If AI spreads and takes jobs without replacement then we will be back to the 1970s in terms of strikes too, workers aren't go to accept most jobs being taken over by AI, certainly without a big UBI funded by a massive robot/AI tax on corporations
Strikes aren't going to stop AI, any more than loom-smashing stopped the industrial revolution
Then capitalism is dead, at least in its purest form.
If AI leads to mass unemployment and few full time and permanent jobs, most voters ie the non rich and non corporate executives will only vote for parties promising massive robot taxes on corporations to fund big universal basic income and welfare payments.
We will end up with the main western parties effectively offering social democracy just in slightly different forms
AI will kill capitalism as we have known in. What happens then is impossible to say. Revolutions? Civil strife?
A gentle slide into universal basic income and ubiquitous social democracy is right at the optimal end of the Outcome Spectrum
Not only is Trump a mad narcissist who was unlikely to give up power voluntarily, running again was also his best guard against criminal convictions so of course he would run, and he is genuinely beyond popular with most Republican voters, for many, perhaps most, he is the party.
Having to perform the ritual obeisance demanded of all British PMs toward POTUS is going to be a colossal pain in the glans for SKS when he has to slurp Trump's nuts.
That section of the Labour party who wear a lot of badges are going to be salty in the extreme,
That's to assume Trump is elected again. It's far from certain that he'll even be the GOP candidate.
Unless convicted and jailed next year (in which case the RNC would change the rules if necessary and pick a new candidate) he will likely be the GOP candidate
What if it looks increasingly likely he'll be convicted and (in great part due to this) the polls start to say very clearly that he can't win the presidency?
The 2024 POTUS election will be the first election that, potentially, will be won by AI deciding the outcome. The ways it can be used to sway voters are so manifold and powerful
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
But bravo to them for trying. I’ve heard rumours the strike might last til January - or beyond. That’s huge
If AI spreads and takes jobs without replacement then we will be back to the 1970s in terms of strikes too, workers aren't go to accept most jobs being taken over by AI, certainly without a big UBI funded by a massive robot/AI tax on corporations
Strikes aren't going to stop AI, any more than loom-smashing stopped the industrial revolution
Then capitalism is dead, at least in its purest form.
If AI leads to mass unemployment and few full time and permanent jobs, most voters ie the non rich and non corporate executives will only vote for parties promising massive robot taxes on corporations to fund big universal basic income and welfare payments.
We will end up with the main western parties effectively offering social democracy just in slightly different forms
Where does the massive robot tax come from? We're a consumerist society, we pay ourselves wages for doing jobs so we can buy the crap the jobs produce. If AI takes all the jobs who buys the crap to produce the taxes? You've got yourself a recursive loop there.
The 2024 POTUS election will be the first election that, potentially, will be won by AI deciding the outcome. The ways it can be used to sway voters are so manifold and powerful
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
But bravo to them for trying. I’ve heard rumours the strike might last til January - or beyond. That’s huge
If AI spreads and takes jobs without replacement then we will be back to the 1970s in terms of strikes too, workers aren't go to accept most jobs being taken over by AI, certainly without a big UBI funded by a massive robot/AI tax on corporations
Strikes aren't going to stop AI, any more than loom-smashing stopped the industrial revolution
Then capitalism is dead, at least in its purest form.
If AI leads to mass unemployment and few full time and permanent jobs, most voters ie the non rich and non corporate executives will only vote for parties promising massive robot taxes on corporations to fund big universal basic income and welfare payments.
We will end up with the main western parties effectively offering social democracy just in slightly different forms
AI will kill capitalism as we have known in. What happens then is impossible to say. Revolutions? Civil strife?
A gentle slide into universal basic income and ubiquitous social democracy is right at the optimal end of the Outcome Spectrum
If AI is such a bad thing, why are we allowing it to happen?
Not only is Trump a mad narcissist who was unlikely to give up power voluntarily, running again was also his best guard against criminal convictions so of course he would run, and he is genuinely beyond popular with most Republican voters, for many, perhaps most, he is the party.
Having to perform the ritual obeisance demanded of all British PMs toward POTUS is going to be a colossal pain in the glans for SKS when he has to slurp Trump's nuts.
That section of the Labour party who wear a lot of badges are going to be salty in the extreme,
"That section of the Labour party who wear a lot of badges"
A very good observation - I always try to give them a wide berth at any party meetings.
Unless you were referring to "Boy Scouts for Labour"?
As long as they're not wearing this one. Bloody Nazis, ruined the swastika for everyone.
Shouldn’t the Crooked Cross have one of points at the top. As it is it’s ‘just’ a Hindu symbol.
Strictly speaking yes, but since I'm an awkward sod (though this one is reversed)..
The swastika really was a commonly used symbol before the Nazis appropriated it (I believe the Finnish airforce incorporated it into their insignia till quite recently). It's made a little piquant in the Scouts' case by the occasional sympatico statements made by Baden-Powell about Hitler & co.
The Tank Museum in Bovington has a Finnish tank from WWII (the Finns were invaded by the Soviets, partially beat them back, and later allied with the Nazis), and the tank has a swastika on it. The curator (I think the just wonderful David Willey) hurriedly brushes this off as "just politics", which I thought was hysterical given the context
Not only is Trump a mad narcissist who was unlikely to give up power voluntarily, running again was also his best guard against criminal convictions so of course he would run, and he is genuinely beyond popular with most Republican voters, for many, perhaps most, he is the party.
Having to perform the ritual obeisance demanded of all British PMs toward POTUS is going to be a colossal pain in the glans for SKS when he has to slurp Trump's nuts.
That section of the Labour party who wear a lot of badges are going to be salty in the extreme,
No more frosty than it currently is between Sunak and Biden.
Even they both say "special relationship" through gritted teeth, and it's no secret Biden can't stand the sight of us.
The tory party don't hate Biden the same way the Labour party hates DJT (though they probably should as he is sleepwalking us into WW3) so it's not a party management issue for the House Elf in the way that it will be for SKS.
Pensioners who get the state pension mostly paid in when working via National Insurance and you can't get the state pension without sufficient NI contributions or credits
Utterly irrelevant.
What they paid for was not a Triple Locked pension that was draining taxpayers money at an unaffordable rate. That was never promised, and never what was paid for either.
If you pay for a Ford, you don't then get to vote that you should get a Bentley instead, because you made your payments.
The country can not afford to keep giving double-digit welfare payments that are not targeted at those in need, when welfare is over 30% of state expenditure and rising (more than it was when Labour left office) and we have a deficit.
Enough is enough. This is not how you run an economy.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
Most of the time wages exceed inflation when we have had low inflation.
As @BartholomewRoberts pointed out inflation is caused by products and services increasing in price not wages (directly). Clearly if wage increases cause products and services to increase in price it will cause inflation, but wages can increase without doing so. Here is a real life example. It is me. I charged my customers a fee for the service I provided. If the service saves them money and the saving is more than the cost (which is why they pay me) wages have gone up but the price of the product can come down.
Various things cause inflation. Currently it is mainly due to shortages in supply. Wages can and will if not matched by productivity, which is the case in the 70s where a spiral occurred and is the fear that it might happen again and become uncontrollable, but in times of low inflation wages are nearly always higher than inflation disproving the point you are making.
It is because we become more productive and hence have a better standard of living than Victorians.
So we can demand more productivity from public sector unions and their workers before they get a pay rise then
That's been done.
Over the past decade the public sector has become more productive. The share of expenditure of taxes going to public sector wages has gone down, not up, over the past decade.
What has gone up is the share of expenditure of taxes going to welfare. Which is not going to those who are unemployed, which is half the rate it was in 2010. Its not going to those in dire need of it, which has been cut to the bone, but still welfare expenditure is higher now than it was when Labour left office. And is going up more annually.
How do you make any sense of that? And what productivity is meant to drive or make that affordable?
'In the 22 years from 1997 to 2019, public sector productivity rose by just 3.7 per cent, yet public sector staff got pay awards based on comparisons with a private sector that was doing a lot better at raising output per person.
Real state output soared under Labour from 1997 to 2009 by a massive 50 per cent , but productivity fell 2 per cent over the 12 years. Under the Conservatives pre-Covid, output was up again by a more restrained 8 per cent, with productivity edging ahead to show a 3.7 per cent gain since 1997. By the end of 2021 output was up again by almost a tenth but productivity was down on 1997 levels by 3.7 per cent. So over nearly a quarter of a century of fast automation and technical advance in the wider economy, the UK public sector saw a fall in productivity. '
Pensioners who get the state pension mostly paid in when working via National Insurance and you can't get the state pension without sufficient NI contributions or credits
As I mentioned life isn't as simple as that. You can't just measure each individual element of productivity and technological gains. It is the overall gain that counts whether public or private.
So for example the farrier who works in a traditional way at some historic event display will be no more productive than his Victorian counterpart. We don't however pay him Victorian wages because:
a) People working in other walks of life are more productive than their Victorian counterparts and spend good money to come and see him work. So although he is no more productive he is worth more.
b) He wouldn't do it for a shilling a day.
So you see a person doesn't have to be more productive to get more money as long as there is greater productivity overall and his skills are in demand.
Much as I hate most of the public sector I do accept we need some of them and if you don't pay them they will go elsewhere.
The 2024 POTUS election will be the first election that, potentially, will be won by AI deciding the outcome. The ways it can be used to sway voters are so manifold and powerful
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
But bravo to them for trying. I’ve heard rumours the strike might last til January - or beyond. That’s huge
If AI spreads and takes jobs without replacement then we will be back to the 1970s in terms of strikes too, workers aren't go to accept most jobs being taken over by AI, certainly without a big UBI funded by a massive robot/AI tax on corporations
Strikes aren't going to stop AI, any more than loom-smashing stopped the industrial revolution
Then capitalism is dead, at least in its purest form.
If AI leads to mass unemployment and few full time and permanent jobs, most voters ie the non rich and non corporate executives will only vote for parties promising massive robot taxes on corporations to fund big universal basic income and welfare payments.
We will end up with the main western parties effectively offering social democracy just in slightly different forms
AI will kill capitalism as we have known in. What happens then is impossible to say. Revolutions? Civil strife?
A gentle slide into universal basic income and ubiquitous social democracy is right at the optimal end of the Outcome Spectrum
If AI is such a bad thing, why are we allowing it to happen?
Just a point of order @Leon knows NOTHING about AI. It is best we establish this.
The 2024 POTUS election will be the first election that, potentially, will be won by AI deciding the outcome. The ways it can be used to sway voters are so manifold and powerful
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
But bravo to them for trying. I’ve heard rumours the strike might last til January - or beyond. That’s huge
If AI spreads and takes jobs without replacement then we will be back to the 1970s in terms of strikes too, workers aren't go to accept most jobs being taken over by AI, certainly without a big UBI funded by a massive robot/AI tax on corporations
Strikes aren't going to stop AI, any more than loom-smashing stopped the industrial revolution
Then capitalism is dead, at least in its purest form.
If AI leads to mass unemployment and few full time and permanent jobs, most voters ie the non rich and non corporate executives will only vote for parties promising massive robot taxes on corporations to fund big universal basic income and welfare payments.
We will end up with the main western parties effectively offering social democracy just in slightly different forms
AI will kill capitalism as we have known in. What happens then is impossible to say. Revolutions? Civil strife?
A gentle slide into universal basic income and ubiquitous social democracy is right at the optimal end of the Outcome Spectrum
If AI is such a bad thing, why are we allowing it to happen?
The 2024 POTUS election will be the first election that, potentially, will be won by AI deciding the outcome. The ways it can be used to sway voters are so manifold and powerful
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
But bravo to them for trying. I’ve heard rumours the strike might last til January - or beyond. That’s huge
If AI spreads and takes jobs without replacement then we will be back to the 1970s in terms of strikes too, workers aren't go to accept most jobs being taken over by AI, certainly without a big UBI funded by a massive robot/AI tax on corporations
Strikes aren't going to stop AI, any more than loom-smashing stopped the industrial revolution
Then capitalism is dead, at least in its purest form.
If AI leads to mass unemployment and few full time and permanent jobs, most voters ie the non rich and non corporate executives will only vote for parties promising massive robot taxes on corporations to fund big universal basic income and welfare payments.
We will end up with the main western parties effectively offering social democracy just in slightly different forms
AI will kill capitalism as we have known in. What happens then is impossible to say. Revolutions? Civil strife?
A gentle slide into universal basic income and ubiquitous social democracy is right at the optimal end of the Outcome Spectrum
If AI is such a bad thing, why are we allowing it to happen?
Because there's no stopping it. If the West did the Chinese wouldn't, and the US would enter into an awful lot of research partnerships with the comp sci departments of universities in places like Wuhan. Plus Musk is in the mix, and there seems to be something in the US constitution to say he can do what he likes.
The 2024 POTUS election will be the first election that, potentially, will be won by AI deciding the outcome. The ways it can be used to sway voters are so manifold and powerful
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
But bravo to them for trying. I’ve heard rumours the strike might last til January - or beyond. That’s huge
If AI spreads and takes jobs without replacement then we will be back to the 1970s in terms of strikes too, workers aren't go to accept most jobs being taken over by AI, certainly without a big UBI funded by a massive robot/AI tax on corporations
Strikes aren't going to stop AI, any more than loom-smashing stopped the industrial revolution
Then capitalism is dead, at least in its purest form.
If AI leads to mass unemployment and few full time and permanent jobs, most voters ie the non rich and non corporate executives will only vote for parties promising massive robot taxes on corporations to fund big universal basic income and welfare payments.
We will end up with the main western parties effectively offering social democracy just in slightly different forms
AI will kill capitalism as we have known in. What happens then is impossible to say. Revolutions? Civil strife?
A gentle slide into universal basic income and ubiquitous social democracy is right at the optimal end of the Outcome Spectrum
AI isn’t ending all jobs - what it can do is automate and act as an assistant. There is no sign of leaving it to work on its own - 100% automation is still a dream.
It is very useful as a code completion tool for developers. For pieces of code.
In data science, likewise.
In the wider world, similar. The soft fruit picking machines that are coming in, for instance, need a small number of minders/mechanics.
It is a variation of the old story of automaton - fewer jobs for some tasks, but higher quality and pay. The productivity gains are then used to other things.
So we went from 90% of the population farming to what? 1%?
The 2024 POTUS election will be the first election that, potentially, will be won by AI deciding the outcome. The ways it can be used to sway voters are so manifold and powerful
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
But bravo to them for trying. I’ve heard rumours the strike might last til January - or beyond. That’s huge
If AI spreads and takes jobs without replacement then we will be back to the 1970s in terms of strikes too, workers aren't go to accept most jobs being taken over by AI, certainly without a big UBI funded by a massive robot/AI tax on corporations
Strikes aren't going to stop AI, any more than loom-smashing stopped the industrial revolution
Then capitalism is dead, at least in its purest form.
If AI leads to mass unemployment and few full time and permanent jobs, most voters ie the non rich and non corporate executives will only vote for parties promising massive robot taxes on corporations to fund big universal basic income and welfare payments.
We will end up with the main western parties effectively offering social democracy just in slightly different forms
AI will kill capitalism as we have known in. What happens then is impossible to say. Revolutions? Civil strife?
A gentle slide into universal basic income and ubiquitous social democracy is right at the optimal end of the Outcome Spectrum
If AI is such a bad thing, why are we allowing it to happen?
Because it's an arms race between companies and countries: to develop AGI and exploit its incredible potential
Unless you can get everyone to unilaterally "disarm" - to voluntarily stop developing AGI than you risk being left behind and destroyed. Exactly as happened with nukes. The USSR could not afford to let the USA hegemonise the world, so it developed nukes, then the UK, France, China, felt the same way about each other... India, Pakistan, Israel followed on...
This is, arguably, even "worse" than nukes because the development of nukes is OBVIOUS. It can be seen from space. It makes a dent in imports and exports of the necessary kit and equipment. Developing AI can be done in a few labs on the quiet. So even if Google swears on the bible that its stopped developing Bard 3.5, Microsoft cannot be sure of this, and will likely continue developing ChatGPT7
I expect Labour to win Rutherglen based on enough SNP supporters abstaining as there seems no clear way forward to independence, coupled with a collapsing Tory vote decamping en masse to Labour in opposition to independence.
However, I think it likely that Labour will drift out from 1.11 as the Labour candidate Shanks tries to urge people to vote for his party in spite of him opposing Labour's policy on Brexit, the 2 child benefit cap, and the GRR bill (and no doubt other issues to come). Increasing Scotland's Labour MPs from 1 to 2 is unlikely to convince many that he can change Labour's UK policies.
Flynn is likely to prove to be a better campaigner than Murray or Sarwar, no matter how much BBC Scotland and most of the media campaign for Shanks.
Does anyone seriously believe Starmer will retain the 2 child benefit cap once he's in office? Labour will probably ditch it within a few months of being in office once they don't have to worry about frightening the horses.
I'm not sure he will, as where is he going to find the money from to fund it?
Starmer is going to face some interesting choices. The welfare bill he is inheriting utterly dwarfs the one the Tories inherited from Labour. Even with unemployment being half the rate it was, the 2 child cap and everything else that has happened over the past decade.
Stephen Bush (who has a pretty good idea of what goes on in the Labour Party) isn't so sure: "The thing is though, the polls only tell you so much, and in many ways, the two-child limit is the Labour party equivalent of, say, cutting defence spending for the Conservatives: there is no plausible universe in which a re-elected Rishi Sunak would be able to get away with implementing it. Equally there is, I think, a similar array of forces that will mean the next Labour government has to scrap the two-child limit.
The Conservatives’ policy — which caps the amount a household can receive in benefits if they have no, or low, earnings — upsets the party’s social liberals, its Christian socialists, its feminists and its pro-welfare tendency . . . Essentially every part of the Labour party hates this policy, which is one reason why almost every major figure in the party is on the record calling the policy “immoral”, “heinous” or “social engineering” or some variation thereof.
The only question will be whether a change to the current cap is enforced on the leadership — perhaps by some equivalent of the bill currently working its way through parliament — or if the policy never gets that far.
You can see at the moment that Keir Starmer is trying to win, essentially, a doctor’s mandate: that was the subtext of his piece for the Observer this weekend. The short version is “the UK is sick, the disease is low growth, give me a mandate to cure the illness”. And you can see, too, how Labour might find its way around this commitment, whether through spinning its changes to universal credit or pointing out the problems that UK benefits create for growth. (Good column on that more broadly by Adam Posen.) A three-year research project — conducted by the universities of York, Oxford and the London School of Economics and Political Science — published today found no evidence the two-child limit meets its aims on employment and fertility, and, in some cases, has had the opposite effect, “meaning its main effect is to push families with three or more children further into poverty”.
Or you can see how the change might be enforced on the leadership by a backbench revolt.
The open question is whether the policy will get that far. You can easily see how, over the coming weeks and even more during the Labour party conference, the question is going to be asked of so many Labour MPs and frontbenchers: given you’ve said, in some cases this measure is heinous, social engineering, immoral, and so on . . . what’s changed?"
Not only is Trump a mad narcissist who was unlikely to give up power voluntarily, running again was also his best guard against criminal convictions so of course he would run, and he is genuinely beyond popular with most Republican voters, for many, perhaps most, he is the party.
Having to perform the ritual obeisance demanded of all British PMs toward POTUS is going to be a colossal pain in the glans for SKS when he has to slurp Trump's nuts.
That section of the Labour party who wear a lot of badges are going to be salty in the extreme,
"That section of the Labour party who wear a lot of badges"
A very good observation - I always try to give them a wide berth at any party meetings.
Unless you were referring to "Boy Scouts for Labour"?
As long as they're not wearing this one. Bloody Nazis, ruined the swastika for everyone.
Shouldn’t the Crooked Cross have one of points at the top. As it is it’s ‘just’ a Hindu symbol.
Strictly speaking yes, but since I'm an awkward sod (though this one is reversed)..
The swastika really was a commonly used symbol before the Nazis appropriated it (I believe the Finnish airforce incorporated it into their insignia till quite recently). It's made a little piquant in the Scouts' case by the occasional sympatico statements made by Baden-Powell about Hitler & co.
The Tank Museum in Bovington has a Finnish tank from WWII (the Finns were invaded by the Soviets, partially beat them back, and later allied with the Nazis), and the tank has a swastika on it. The curator (I think the just wonderful David Willey) hurriedly brushes this off as "just politics", which I thought was hysterical given the context
The 2024 POTUS election will be the first election that, potentially, will be won by AI deciding the outcome. The ways it can be used to sway voters are so manifold and powerful
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
But bravo to them for trying. I’ve heard rumours the strike might last til January - or beyond. That’s huge
If AI spreads and takes jobs without replacement then we will be back to the 1970s in terms of strikes too, workers aren't go to accept most jobs being taken over by AI, certainly without a big UBI funded by a massive robot/AI tax on corporations
Strikes aren't going to stop AI, any more than loom-smashing stopped the industrial revolution
Then capitalism is dead, at least in its purest form.
If AI leads to mass unemployment and few full time and permanent jobs, most voters ie the non rich and non corporate executives will only vote for parties promising massive robot taxes on corporations to fund big universal basic income and welfare payments.
We will end up with the main western parties effectively offering social democracy just in slightly different forms
AI will kill capitalism as we have known in. What happens then is impossible to say. Revolutions? Civil strife?
A gentle slide into universal basic income and ubiquitous social democracy is right at the optimal end of the Outcome Spectrum
If AI is such a bad thing, why are we allowing it to happen?
Because there's no stopping it. If the West did the Chinese wouldn't, and the US would enter into an awful lot of research partnerships with the comp sci departments of universities in places like Wuhan. Plus Musk is in the mix, and there seems to be something in the US constitution to say he can do what he likes.
The acceleration of AI is much like the acceleration of the internet. It will change things, and in many ways that we have not yet anticipated. I personally believe it is a massive opportunity for good. Pessimistic luddites like Leon will always believe it is the end of the world as we know it. It isn't.
Not only is Trump a mad narcissist who was unlikely to give up power voluntarily, running again was also his best guard against criminal convictions so of course he would run, and he is genuinely beyond popular with most Republican voters, for many, perhaps most, he is the party.
Having to perform the ritual obeisance demanded of all British PMs toward POTUS is going to be a colossal pain in the glans for SKS when he has to slurp Trump's nuts.
That section of the Labour party who wear a lot of badges are going to be salty in the extreme,
No more frosty than it currently is between Sunak and Biden.
Even they both say "special relationship" through gritted teeth, and it's no secret Biden can't stand the sight of us.
The tory party don't hate Biden the same way the Labour party hates DJT (though they probably should as he is sleepwalking us into WW3) so it's not a party management issue for the House Elf in the way that it will be for SKS.
You're right* - if PM Keir Starmer sucks up to President Again Donald Trump in any way shape or form, in fact if he says anything about him that isn't wholly and intensely negative, there will go my LP card into the lounge woodburner.
* But you're also wrong because there is not going to be a President Again Donald Trump. If the GOP don't find a way, America as a whole will.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
Most of the time wages exceed inflation when we have had low inflation.
As @BartholomewRoberts pointed out inflation is caused by products and services increasing in price not wages (directly). Clearly if wage increases cause products and services to increase in price it will cause inflation, but wages can increase without doing so. Here is a real life example. It is me. I charged my customers a fee for the service I provided. If the service saves them money and the saving is more than the cost (which is why they pay me) wages have gone up but the price of the product can come down.
Various things cause inflation. Currently it is mainly due to shortages in supply. Wages can and will if not matched by productivity, which is the case in the 70s where a spiral occurred and is the fear that it might happen again and become uncontrollable, but in times of low inflation wages are nearly always higher than inflation disproving the point you are making.
It is because we become more productive and hence have a better standard of living than Victorians.
So we can demand more productivity from public sector unions and their workers before they get a pay rise then
That's been done.
Over the past decade the public sector has become more productive. The share of expenditure of taxes going to public sector wages has gone down, not up, over the past decade.
What has gone up is the share of expenditure of taxes going to welfare. Which is not going to those who are unemployed, which is half the rate it was in 2010. Its not going to those in dire need of it, which has been cut to the bone, but still welfare expenditure is higher now than it was when Labour left office. And is going up more annually.
How do you make any sense of that? And what productivity is meant to drive or make that affordable?
'In the 22 years from 1997 to 2019, public sector productivity rose by just 3.7 per cent, yet public sector staff got pay awards based on comparisons with a private sector that was doing a lot better at raising output per person.
Real state output soared under Labour from 1997 to 2009 by a massive 50 per cent , but productivity fell 2 per cent over the 12 years. Under the Conservatives pre-Covid, output was up again by a more restrained 8 per cent, with productivity edging ahead to show a 3.7 per cent gain since 1997. By the end of 2021 output was up again by almost a tenth but productivity was down on 1997 levels by 3.7 per cent. So over nearly a quarter of a century of fast automation and technical advance in the wider economy, the UK public sector saw a fall in productivity. '
Pensioners who get the state pension mostly paid in when working via National Insurance and you can't get the state pension without sufficient NI contributions or credits
As I mentioned life isn't as simple as that. You can't just measure each individual element of productivity and technological gains. It is the overall gain that counts whether public or private.
So for example the farrier who works in a traditional way at some historic event display will be no more productive than his Victorian counterpart. We don't however pay him Victorian wages because:
a) People working in other walks of life are more productive than their Victorian counterparts and spend good money to come and see him work. So although he is no more productive he is worth more.
b) He wouldn't do it for a shilling a day.
So you see a person doesn't have to be more productive to get more money as long as there is greater productivity overall and his skills are in demand.
Much as I hate most of the public sector I do accept we need some of them and if you don't pay them they will go elsewhere.
Indeed, this is the basis of the Balassa-Samuelson effect, aka why does a haircut cost more in Zurich than in Lagos.
The 2024 POTUS election will be the first election that, potentially, will be won by AI deciding the outcome. The ways it can be used to sway voters are so manifold and powerful
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
But bravo to them for trying. I’ve heard rumours the strike might last til January - or beyond. That’s huge
If AI spreads and takes jobs without replacement then we will be back to the 1970s in terms of strikes too, workers aren't go to accept most jobs being taken over by AI, certainly without a big UBI funded by a massive robot/AI tax on corporations
Strikes aren't going to stop AI, any more than loom-smashing stopped the industrial revolution
Then capitalism is dead, at least in its purest form.
If AI leads to mass unemployment and few full time and permanent jobs, most voters ie the non rich and non corporate executives will only vote for parties promising massive robot taxes on corporations to fund big universal basic income and welfare payments.
We will end up with the main western parties effectively offering social democracy just in slightly different forms
AI will kill capitalism as we have known in. What happens then is impossible to say. Revolutions? Civil strife?
A gentle slide into universal basic income and ubiquitous social democracy is right at the optimal end of the Outcome Spectrum
If AI is such a bad thing, why are we allowing it to happen?
Because there's no stopping it. If the West did the Chinese wouldn't, and the US would enter into an awful lot of research partnerships with the comp sci departments of universities in places like Wuhan. Plus Musk is in the mix, and there seems to be something in the US constitution to say he can do what he likes.
Human beings are very strange, allowing something to happen which is going to make life worse for nearly everyone.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
Most of the time wages exceed inflation when we have had low inflation.
As @BartholomewRoberts pointed out inflation is caused by products and services increasing in price not wages (directly). Clearly if wage increases cause products and services to increase in price it will cause inflation, but wages can increase without doing so. Here is a real life example. It is me. I charged my customers a fee for the service I provided. If the service saves them money and the saving is more than the cost (which is why they pay me) wages have gone up but the price of the product can come down.
Various things cause inflation. Currently it is mainly due to shortages in supply. Wages can and will if not matched by productivity, which is the case in the 70s where a spiral occurred and is the fear that it might happen again and become uncontrollable, but in times of low inflation wages are nearly always higher than inflation disproving the point you are making.
It is because we become more productive and hence have a better standard of living than Victorians.
So we can demand more productivity from public sector unions and their workers before they get a pay rise then
That's been done.
Over the past decade the public sector has become more productive. The share of expenditure of taxes going to public sector wages has gone down, not up, over the past decade.
What has gone up is the share of expenditure of taxes going to welfare. Which is not going to those who are unemployed, which is half the rate it was in 2010. Its not going to those in dire need of it, which has been cut to the bone, but still welfare expenditure is higher now than it was when Labour left office. And is going up more annually.
How do you make any sense of that? And what productivity is meant to drive or make that affordable?
'In the 22 years from 1997 to 2019, public sector productivity rose by just 3.7 per cent, yet public sector staff got pay awards based on comparisons with a private sector that was doing a lot better at raising output per person.
Real state output soared under Labour from 1997 to 2009 by a massive 50 per cent , but productivity fell 2 per cent over the 12 years. Under the Conservatives pre-Covid, output was up again by a more restrained 8 per cent, with productivity edging ahead to show a 3.7 per cent gain since 1997. By the end of 2021 output was up again by almost a tenth but productivity was down on 1997 levels by 3.7 per cent. So over nearly a quarter of a century of fast automation and technical advance in the wider economy, the UK public sector saw a fall in productivity. '
Pensioners who get the state pension mostly paid in when working via National Insurance and you can't get the state pension without sufficient NI contributions or credits
As I mentioned life isn't as simple as that. You can't just measure each individual element of productivity and technological gains. It is the overall gain that counts whether public or private.
So for example the farrier who works in a traditional way at some historic event display will be no more productive than his Victorian counterpart. We don't however pay him Victorian wages because:
a) People working in other walks of life are more productive than their Victorian counterparts and spend good money to come and see him work. So although he is no more productive he is worth more.
b) He wouldn't do it for a shilling a day.
So you see a person doesn't have to be more productive to get more money as long as there is greater productivity overall and his skills are in demand.
Much as I hate most of the public sector I do accept we need some of them and if you don't pay them they will go elsewhere.
Indeed, this is the basis of the Balassa-Samuelson effect, aka why does a haircut cost more in Zurich than in Lagos.
Nice to know it is a proper theory with its own name. I was just making it up as I was typing.
Not only is Trump a mad narcissist who was unlikely to give up power voluntarily, running again was also his best guard against criminal convictions so of course he would run, and he is genuinely beyond popular with most Republican voters, for many, perhaps most, he is the party.
Having to perform the ritual obeisance demanded of all British PMs toward POTUS is going to be a colossal pain in the glans for SKS when he has to slurp Trump's nuts.
That section of the Labour party who wear a lot of badges are going to be salty in the extreme,
"That section of the Labour party who wear a lot of badges"
A very good observation - I always try to give them a wide berth at any party meetings.
Unless you were referring to "Boy Scouts for Labour"?
As long as they're not wearing this one. Bloody Nazis, ruined the swastika for everyone.
Shouldn’t the Crooked Cross have one of points at the top. As it is it’s ‘just’ a Hindu symbol.
Strictly speaking yes, but since I'm an awkward sod (though this one is reversed)..
The swastika really was a commonly used symbol before the Nazis appropriated it (I believe the Finnish airforce incorporated it into their insignia till quite recently). It's made a little piquant in the Scouts' case by the occasional sympatico statements made by Baden-Powell about Hitler & co.
The swastika appears on the spines of old prewar Rudyard Kipling books published by Macmillan. You still see them quite commonly in second hand bookshops. Presumably the reason is Kipling's background in India where the swastika had benign associations.
The 2024 POTUS election will be the first election that, potentially, will be won by AI deciding the outcome. The ways it can be used to sway voters are so manifold and powerful
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
But bravo to them for trying. I’ve heard rumours the strike might last til January - or beyond. That’s huge
If AI spreads and takes jobs without replacement then we will be back to the 1970s in terms of strikes too, workers aren't go to accept most jobs being taken over by AI, certainly without a big UBI funded by a massive robot/AI tax on corporations
Strikes aren't going to stop AI, any more than loom-smashing stopped the industrial revolution
Then capitalism is dead, at least in its purest form.
If AI leads to mass unemployment and few full time and permanent jobs, most voters ie the non rich and non corporate executives will only vote for parties promising massive robot taxes on corporations to fund big universal basic income and welfare payments.
We will end up with the main western parties effectively offering social democracy just in slightly different forms
Where does the massive robot tax come from? We're a consumerist society, we pay ourselves wages for doing jobs so we can buy the crap the jobs produce. If AI takes all the jobs who buys the crap to produce the taxes? You've got yourself a recursive loop there.
It is imposed on corporations that employ AI at the expense of human workers, the robot tax then funds the Universal Basic Income to buy stuff still
The 2024 POTUS election will be the first election that, potentially, will be won by AI deciding the outcome. The ways it can be used to sway voters are so manifold and powerful
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
But bravo to them for trying. I’ve heard rumours the strike might last til January - or beyond. That’s huge
If AI spreads and takes jobs without replacement then we will be back to the 1970s in terms of strikes too, workers aren't go to accept most jobs being taken over by AI, certainly without a big UBI funded by a massive robot/AI tax on corporations
Strikes aren't going to stop AI, any more than loom-smashing stopped the industrial revolution
Then capitalism is dead, at least in its purest form.
If AI leads to mass unemployment and few full time and permanent jobs, most voters ie the non rich and non corporate executives will only vote for parties promising massive robot taxes on corporations to fund big universal basic income and welfare payments.
We will end up with the main western parties effectively offering social democracy just in slightly different forms
AI will kill capitalism as we have known in. What happens then is impossible to say. Revolutions? Civil strife?
A gentle slide into universal basic income and ubiquitous social democracy is right at the optimal end of the Outcome Spectrum
If AI is such a bad thing, why are we allowing it to happen?
Because there's no stopping it. If the West did the Chinese wouldn't, and the US would enter into an awful lot of research partnerships with the comp sci departments of universities in places like Wuhan. Plus Musk is in the mix, and there seems to be something in the US constitution to say he can do what he likes.
The acceleration of AI is much like the acceleration of the internet. It will change things, and in many ways that we have not yet anticipated. I personally believe it is a massive opportunity for good. Pessimistic luddites like Leon will always believe it is the end of the world as we know it. It isn't.
I'm not completely pessimisic, at all. I believe AI will do amazing things beyond human capabilities. It already is:
"AI Is Building Highly Effective Antibodies That Humans Can’t Even Imagine Robots, computers, and algorithms are hunting for potential new therapies in ways humans can’t—by processing huge volumes of data and building previously unimagined molecules."
However, AI is coming for a lot of middle class, white collar, bourgeois jobs, it also coming for the creative jobs. The "nice" jobs. That is simply a fact, hence the unprecedented Hollywood strike. That's today's version of Luddite loom smashing. AI is bound to revolutionise work and society, and revolutions are always painful; there is also a small but not entirely trivial risk that AI could kill humanity
The 2024 POTUS election will be the first election that, potentially, will be won by AI deciding the outcome. The ways it can be used to sway voters are so manifold and powerful
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
But bravo to them for trying. I’ve heard rumours the strike might last til January - or beyond. That’s huge
If AI spreads and takes jobs without replacement then we will be back to the 1970s in terms of strikes too, workers aren't go to accept most jobs being taken over by AI, certainly without a big UBI funded by a massive robot/AI tax on corporations
Strikes aren't going to stop AI, any more than loom-smashing stopped the industrial revolution
AI has potential to accelerate the planning and design process for decarbonisation infrastructure. Perhaps something like the below could be bought forward in months rather than decades.
The 2024 POTUS election will be the first election that, potentially, will be won by AI deciding the outcome. The ways it can be used to sway voters are so manifold and powerful
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
But bravo to them for trying. I’ve heard rumours the strike might last til January - or beyond. That’s huge
If AI spreads and takes jobs without replacement then we will be back to the 1970s in terms of strikes too, workers aren't go to accept most jobs being taken over by AI, certainly without a big UBI funded by a massive robot/AI tax on corporations
Strikes aren't going to stop AI, any more than loom-smashing stopped the industrial revolution
Then capitalism is dead, at least in its purest form.
If AI leads to mass unemployment and few full time and permanent jobs, most voters ie the non rich and non corporate executives will only vote for parties promising massive robot taxes on corporations to fund big universal basic income and welfare payments.
We will end up with the main western parties effectively offering social democracy just in slightly different forms
AI will kill capitalism as we have known in. What happens then is impossible to say. Revolutions? Civil strife?
A gentle slide into universal basic income and ubiquitous social democracy is right at the optimal end of the Outcome Spectrum
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
Most of the time wages exceed inflation when we have had low inflation.
As @BartholomewRoberts pointed out inflation is caused by products and services increasing in price not wages (directly). Clearly if wage increases cause products and services to increase in price it will cause inflation, but wages can increase without doing so. Here is a real life example. It is me. I charged my customers a fee for the service I provided. If the service saves them money and the saving is more than the cost (which is why they pay me) wages have gone up but the price of the product can come down.
Various things cause inflation. Currently it is mainly due to shortages in supply. Wages can and will if not matched by productivity, which is the case in the 70s where a spiral occurred and is the fear that it might happen again and become uncontrollable, but in times of low inflation wages are nearly always higher than inflation disproving the point you are making.
It is because we become more productive and hence have a better standard of living than Victorians.
So we can demand more productivity from public sector unions and their workers before they get a pay rise then
That's been done.
Over the past decade the public sector has become more productive. The share of expenditure of taxes going to public sector wages has gone down, not up, over the past decade.
What has gone up is the share of expenditure of taxes going to welfare. Which is not going to those who are unemployed, which is half the rate it was in 2010. Its not going to those in dire need of it, which has been cut to the bone, but still welfare expenditure is higher now than it was when Labour left office. And is going up more annually.
How do you make any sense of that? And what productivity is meant to drive or make that affordable?
'In the 22 years from 1997 to 2019, public sector productivity rose by just 3.7 per cent, yet public sector staff got pay awards based on comparisons with a private sector that was doing a lot better at raising output per person.
Real state output soared under Labour from 1997 to 2009 by a massive 50 per cent , but productivity fell 2 per cent over the 12 years. Under the Conservatives pre-Covid, output was up again by a more restrained 8 per cent, with productivity edging ahead to show a 3.7 per cent gain since 1997. By the end of 2021 output was up again by almost a tenth but productivity was down on 1997 levels by 3.7 per cent. So over nearly a quarter of a century of fast automation and technical advance in the wider economy, the UK public sector saw a fall in productivity. '
Pensioners who get the state pension mostly paid in when working via National Insurance and you can't get the state pension without sufficient NI contributions or credits
As I mentioned life isn't as simple as that. You can't just measure each individual element of productivity and technological gains. It is the overall gain that counts whether public or private.
So for example the farrier who works in a traditional way at some historic event display will be no more productive than his Victorian counterpart. We don't however pay him Victorian wages because:
a) People working in other walks of life are more productive than their Victorian counterparts and spend good money to come and see him work. So although he is no more productive he is worth more.
b) He wouldn't do it for a shilling a day.
So you see a person doesn't have to be more productive to get more money as long as there is greater productivity overall and his skills are in demand.
Much as I hate most of the public sector I do accept we need some of them and if you don't pay them they will go elsewhere.
Indeed, this is the basis of the Balassa-Samuelson effect, aka why does a haircut cost more in Zurich than in Lagos.
Indeed. And this is another one where people don’t want to face certain realities.
1) higher pay for low skilled jobs. Deliveroo charges £20 for your meal to be delivered. Barista coffee cost £10 a cup. 2) cheap deliveroo and artisan coffee. Adults living in bunk beds stacked in every room
The 2024 POTUS election will be the first election that, potentially, will be won by AI deciding the outcome. The ways it can be used to sway voters are so manifold and powerful
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
But bravo to them for trying. I’ve heard rumours the strike might last til January - or beyond. That’s huge
If AI spreads and takes jobs without replacement then we will be back to the 1970s in terms of strikes too, workers aren't go to accept most jobs being taken over by AI, certainly without a big UBI funded by a massive robot/AI tax on corporations
Strikes aren't going to stop AI, any more than loom-smashing stopped the industrial revolution
Then capitalism is dead, at least in its purest form.
If AI leads to mass unemployment and few full time and permanent jobs, most voters ie the non rich and non corporate executives will only vote for parties promising massive robot taxes on corporations to fund big universal basic income and welfare payments.
We will end up with the main western parties effectively offering social democracy just in slightly different forms
AI will kill capitalism as we have known in. What happens then is impossible to say. Revolutions? Civil strife?
A gentle slide into universal basic income and ubiquitous social democracy is right at the optimal end of the Outcome Spectrum
If AI is such a bad thing, why are we allowing it to happen?
Because there's no stopping it. If the West did the Chinese wouldn't, and the US would enter into an awful lot of research partnerships with the comp sci departments of universities in places like Wuhan. Plus Musk is in the mix, and there seems to be something in the US constitution to say he can do what he likes.
Human beings are very strange, allowing something to happen which is going to make life worse for nearly everyone.
I am not sure whether you are being ironic. AI is already rapidly accelerating medical research into numerous disease areas. AI will assist in making significant populations healthier through accelerated interactions that GPs cannot. AI will also accelerate research in huge numbers of other human endeavours. It will also create huge numbers of jobs in the tech sector.
Does it need to be regulated? Yes to an extent, but people need to calm down. The glass is half full and we need to celebrate the huge amount of opportunities AI offers us.
The 2024 POTUS election will be the first election that, potentially, will be won by AI deciding the outcome. The ways it can be used to sway voters are so manifold and powerful
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
But bravo to them for trying. I’ve heard rumours the strike might last til January - or beyond. That’s huge
If AI spreads and takes jobs without replacement then we will be back to the 1970s in terms of strikes too, workers aren't go to accept most jobs being taken over by AI, certainly without a big UBI funded by a massive robot/AI tax on corporations
Strikes aren't going to stop AI, any more than loom-smashing stopped the industrial revolution
Then capitalism is dead, at least in its purest form.
If AI leads to mass unemployment and few full time and permanent jobs, most voters ie the non rich and non corporate executives will only vote for parties promising massive robot taxes on corporations to fund big universal basic income and welfare payments.
We will end up with the main western parties effectively offering social democracy just in slightly different forms
AI will kill capitalism as we have known in. What happens then is impossible to say. Revolutions? Civil strife?
A gentle slide into universal basic income and ubiquitous social democracy is right at the optimal end of the Outcome Spectrum
If AI is such a bad thing, why are we allowing it to happen?
Because there's no stopping it. If the West did the Chinese wouldn't, and the US would enter into an awful lot of research partnerships with the comp sci departments of universities in places like Wuhan. Plus Musk is in the mix, and there seems to be something in the US constitution to say he can do what he likes.
Human beings are very strange, allowing something to happen which is going to make life worse for nearly everyone.
I am not sure whether you are being ironic. AI is already rapidly accelerating medical research into numerous disease areas. AI will assist in making significant populations healthier through accelerated interactions that GPs cannot. AI will also accelerate research in huge numbers of other human endeavours. It will also create huge numbers of jobs in the tech sector.
Does it need to be regulated? Yes to an extent, but people need to calm down. The glass is half full and we need to celebrate the huge amount of opportunities AI offers us.
Huge use of the word "huge" there. I did not get my statement checked by AI.
The 2024 POTUS election will be the first election that, potentially, will be won by AI deciding the outcome. The ways it can be used to sway voters are so manifold and powerful
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
But bravo to them for trying. I’ve heard rumours the strike might last til January - or beyond. That’s huge
If AI spreads and takes jobs without replacement then we will be back to the 1970s in terms of strikes too, workers aren't go to accept most jobs being taken over by AI, certainly without a big UBI funded by a massive robot/AI tax on corporations
Strikes aren't going to stop AI, any more than loom-smashing stopped the industrial revolution
Then capitalism is dead, at least in its purest form.
If AI leads to mass unemployment and few full time and permanent jobs, most voters ie the non rich and non corporate executives will only vote for parties promising massive robot taxes on corporations to fund big universal basic income and welfare payments.
We will end up with the main western parties effectively offering social democracy just in slightly different forms
AI will kill capitalism as we have known in. What happens then is impossible to say. Revolutions? Civil strife?
A gentle slide into universal basic income and ubiquitous social democracy is right at the optimal end of the Outcome Spectrum
If AI is such a bad thing, why are we allowing it to happen?
Because there's no stopping it. If the West did the Chinese wouldn't, and the US would enter into an awful lot of research partnerships with the comp sci departments of universities in places like Wuhan. Plus Musk is in the mix, and there seems to be something in the US constitution to say he can do what he likes.
Human beings are very strange, allowing something to happen which is going to make life worse for nearly everyone.
Well yes. Like war and slavery and global warming and everything else. Kesslerisation is a case in point. It was predicted at the time of sputnik 1, satellites confer just incremental benefits to TV and Internet and weather forecasting and stuff vs the absolutely fundamental disbenefit of locking ourselves in from the rest of the universe and making terrestrial astronomy impossible, but there's money and military advantage and, once again, Musk, and here we are.
Looks like ol' Robert Kennedy is fading a bit on Betfair. Do his backers not believe hard enough ?
Vivek Ramaswamy looks like he's becoming the latest flavour of the month amongst the outsiders.
Vivek is a bit young (38th birthday yesterday) and it's the law that every American presidential election must have a tech squillionaire candidate who soars majestically before crashing into the sea.
He also seems to know how to push the MAGA hot buttons rather better than your average uber wealthy political wannabe. He's way more articulate, personable even, than for example DeSantis. And isn't as obviously a complete kook as is Kennedy.
Tim Scott, who just landed an eight figure donation from another billionaire (Ellison), probably has a better outside shot, though.
"He's way more articulate, personable even, than for example DeSantis." ;-)
Low bar, sure.
Point is, though, that Ramaswamy is picking up support when he appears at GOP events; the more people see of DeSantis, the less they like him.
As is, of course, Tim Scott (who also has a remarkable facility for quoting the Bible for his own ends, which matters with this selectorate).
I cannot quite understand how Ron DeSantis has imploded so quickly. As a successful Governor of Florida, he must know a thing or two about retail politics and yet in the last year or so he has gone off-the-charts crazy, even declaring war on The Mouse. It is as if DeSantis is cos-playing what he imagines Trump to be, and is trying to appeal to a bizarre caricature of MAGA voters.
ETA one possible explanation is RDS expected Trump to be locked up or at least disqualified, so RDS could easily replace him, but now Trump remains dominant, he is forcing RDS to extremes. I'm not sure I believe it though.
The two biggest groups of voters in US politics are Democrats and Trump-supporters. Where was RDS ever going to get support from?
I cannot understand why anyone ever thought he had a chance.
Not only is Trump a mad narcissist who was unlikely to give up power voluntarily, running again was also his best guard against criminal convictions so of course he would run, and he is genuinely beyond popular with most Republican voters, for many, perhaps most, he is the party.
Having to perform the ritual obeisance demanded of all British PMs toward POTUS is going to be a colossal pain in the glans for SKS when he has to slurp Trump's nuts.
That section of the Labour party who wear a lot of badges are going to be salty in the extreme,
No more frosty than it currently is between Sunak and Biden.
Even they both say "special relationship" through gritted teeth, and it's no secret Biden can't stand the sight of us.
The tory party don't hate Biden the same way the Labour party hates DJT (though they probably should as he is sleepwalking us into WW3) so it's not a party management issue for the House Elf in the way that it will be for SKS.
You're right* - if PM Keir Starmer sucks up to President Again Donald Trump in any way shape or form, in fact if he says anything about him that isn't wholly and intensely negative, there will go my LP card into the lounge woodburner.
* But you're also wrong because there is not going to be a President Again Donald Trump. If the GOP don't find a way, America as a whole will.
Perhaps a letter-writing campaign from NW3 telling America as a whole to do its duty might do the job.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
Most of the time wages exceed inflation when we have had low inflation.
As @BartholomewRoberts pointed out inflation is caused by products and services increasing in price not wages (directly). Clearly if wage increases cause products and services to increase in price it will cause inflation, but wages can increase without doing so. Here is a real life example. It is me. I charged my customers a fee for the service I provided. If the service saves them money and the saving is more than the cost (which is why they pay me) wages have gone up but the price of the product can come down.
Various things cause inflation. Currently it is mainly due to shortages in supply. Wages can and will if not matched by productivity, which is the case in the 70s where a spiral occurred and is the fear that it might happen again and become uncontrollable, but in times of low inflation wages are nearly always higher than inflation disproving the point you are making.
It is because we become more productive and hence have a better standard of living than Victorians.
So we can demand more productivity from public sector unions and their workers before they get a pay rise then
That's been done.
Over the past decade the public sector has become more productive. The share of expenditure of taxes going to public sector wages has gone down, not up, over the past decade.
What has gone up is the share of expenditure of taxes going to welfare. Which is not going to those who are unemployed, which is half the rate it was in 2010. Its not going to those in dire need of it, which has been cut to the bone, but still welfare expenditure is higher now than it was when Labour left office. And is going up more annually.
How do you make any sense of that? And what productivity is meant to drive or make that affordable?
'In the 22 years from 1997 to 2019, public sector productivity rose by just 3.7 per cent, yet public sector staff got pay awards based on comparisons with a private sector that was doing a lot better at raising output per person.
Real state output soared under Labour from 1997 to 2009 by a massive 50 per cent , but productivity fell 2 per cent over the 12 years. Under the Conservatives pre-Covid, output was up again by a more restrained 8 per cent, with productivity edging ahead to show a 3.7 per cent gain since 1997. By the end of 2021 output was up again by almost a tenth but productivity was down on 1997 levels by 3.7 per cent. So over nearly a quarter of a century of fast automation and technical advance in the wider economy, the UK public sector saw a fall in productivity. '
Pensioners who get the state pension mostly paid in when working via National Insurance and you can't get the state pension without sufficient NI contributions or credits
As I mentioned life isn't as simple as that. You can't just measure each individual element of productivity and technological gains. It is the overall gain that counts whether public or private.
So for example the farrier who works in a traditional way at some historic event display will be no more productive than his Victorian counterpart. We don't however pay him Victorian wages because:
a) People working in other walks of life are more productive than their Victorian counterparts and spend good money to come and see him work. So although he is no more productive he is worth more.
b) He wouldn't do it for a shilling a day.
So you see a person doesn't have to be more productive to get more money as long as there is greater productivity overall and his skills are in demand.
Much as I hate most of the public sector I do accept we need some of them and if you don't pay them they will go elsewhere.
Actually your modern day Farrier is more productive. Not only is he producing physical product (shoes on horses), he's now producing entertainment as well, to a likely value considerably higher than the value of his physical output in terms of horses shoes.
The 2024 POTUS election will be the first election that, potentially, will be won by AI deciding the outcome. The ways it can be used to sway voters are so manifold and powerful
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
But bravo to them for trying. I’ve heard rumours the strike might last til January - or beyond. That’s huge
If AI spreads and takes jobs without replacement then we will be back to the 1970s in terms of strikes too, workers aren't go to accept most jobs being taken over by AI, certainly without a big UBI funded by a massive robot/AI tax on corporations
Strikes aren't going to stop AI, any more than loom-smashing stopped the industrial revolution
Then capitalism is dead, at least in its purest form.
If AI leads to mass unemployment and few full time and permanent jobs, most voters ie the non rich and non corporate executives will only vote for parties promising massive robot taxes on corporations to fund big universal basic income and welfare payments.
We will end up with the main western parties effectively offering social democracy just in slightly different forms
AI will kill capitalism as we have known in. What happens then is impossible to say. Revolutions? Civil strife?
A gentle slide into universal basic income and ubiquitous social democracy is right at the optimal end of the Outcome Spectrum
If AI is such a bad thing, why are we allowing it to happen?
Because there's no stopping it. If the West did the Chinese wouldn't, and the US would enter into an awful lot of research partnerships with the comp sci departments of universities in places like Wuhan. Plus Musk is in the mix, and there seems to be something in the US constitution to say he can do what he likes.
The acceleration of AI is much like the acceleration of the internet. It will change things, and in many ways that we have not yet anticipated. I personally believe it is a massive opportunity for good. Pessimistic luddites like Leon will always believe it is the end of the world as we know it. It isn't.
I'm not completely pessimisic, at all. I believe AI will do amazing things beyond human capabilities. It already is:
"AI Is Building Highly Effective Antibodies That Humans Can’t Even Imagine Robots, computers, and algorithms are hunting for potential new therapies in ways humans can’t—by processing huge volumes of data and building previously unimagined molecules."
However, AI is coming for a lot of middle class, white collar, bourgeois jobs, it also coming for the creative jobs. The "nice" jobs. That is simply a fact, hence the unprecedented Hollywood strike. That's today's version of Luddite loom smashing. AI is bound to revolutionise work and society, and revolutions are always painful; there is also a small but not entirely trivial risk that AI could kill humanity
There is a much greater risk that humanity will kill humanity. Perhaps AI is what fate has provided for us to prevent that possible eventuality?
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
Most of the time wages exceed inflation when we have had low inflation.
As @BartholomewRoberts pointed out inflation is caused by products and services increasing in price not wages (directly). Clearly if wage increases cause products and services to increase in price it will cause inflation, but wages can increase without doing so. Here is a real life example. It is me. I charged my customers a fee for the service I provided. If the service saves them money and the saving is more than the cost (which is why they pay me) wages have gone up but the price of the product can come down.
Various things cause inflation. Currently it is mainly due to shortages in supply. Wages can and will if not matched by productivity, which is the case in the 70s where a spiral occurred and is the fear that it might happen again and become uncontrollable, but in times of low inflation wages are nearly always higher than inflation disproving the point you are making.
It is because we become more productive and hence have a better standard of living than Victorians.
So we can demand more productivity from public sector unions and their workers before they get a pay rise then
That's been done.
Over the past decade the public sector has become more productive. The share of expenditure of taxes going to public sector wages has gone down, not up, over the past decade.
What has gone up is the share of expenditure of taxes going to welfare. Which is not going to those who are unemployed, which is half the rate it was in 2010. Its not going to those in dire need of it, which has been cut to the bone, but still welfare expenditure is higher now than it was when Labour left office. And is going up more annually.
How do you make any sense of that? And what productivity is meant to drive or make that affordable?
'In the 22 years from 1997 to 2019, public sector productivity rose by just 3.7 per cent, yet public sector staff got pay awards based on comparisons with a private sector that was doing a lot better at raising output per person.
Real state output soared under Labour from 1997 to 2009 by a massive 50 per cent , but productivity fell 2 per cent over the 12 years. Under the Conservatives pre-Covid, output was up again by a more restrained 8 per cent, with productivity edging ahead to show a 3.7 per cent gain since 1997. By the end of 2021 output was up again by almost a tenth but productivity was down on 1997 levels by 3.7 per cent. So over nearly a quarter of a century of fast automation and technical advance in the wider economy, the UK public sector saw a fall in productivity. '
Pensioners who get the state pension mostly paid in when working via National Insurance and you can't get the state pension without sufficient NI contributions or credits
As I mentioned life isn't as simple as that. You can't just measure each individual element of productivity and technological gains. It is the overall gain that counts whether public or private.
So for example the farrier who works in a traditional way at some historic event display will be no more productive than his Victorian counterpart. We don't however pay him Victorian wages because:
a) People working in other walks of life are more productive than their Victorian counterparts and spend good money to come and see him work. So although he is no more productive he is worth more.
b) He wouldn't do it for a shilling a day.
So you see a person doesn't have to be more productive to get more money as long as there is greater productivity overall and his skills are in demand.
Much as I hate most of the public sector I do accept we need some of them and if you don't pay them they will go elsewhere.
Indeed, this is the basis of the Balassa-Samuelson effect, aka why does a haircut cost more in Zurich than in Lagos.
Alternatively, for the public sector, Baumol's cost disease. NHS productivity is very hard to increase (can't replace nurses with machines) but wages must rise to keep pace with areas with higher productivity growth and to attract and retain staff.
The 2024 POTUS election will be the first election that, potentially, will be won by AI deciding the outcome. The ways it can be used to sway voters are so manifold and powerful
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
But bravo to them for trying. I’ve heard rumours the strike might last til January - or beyond. That’s huge
If AI spreads and takes jobs without replacement then we will be back to the 1970s in terms of strikes too, workers aren't go to accept most jobs being taken over by AI, certainly without a big UBI funded by a massive robot/AI tax on corporations
Strikes aren't going to stop AI, any more than loom-smashing stopped the industrial revolution
Then capitalism is dead, at least in its purest form.
If AI leads to mass unemployment and few full time and permanent jobs, most voters ie the non rich and non corporate executives will only vote for parties promising massive robot taxes on corporations to fund big universal basic income and welfare payments.
We will end up with the main western parties effectively offering social democracy just in slightly different forms
AI will kill capitalism as we have known in. What happens then is impossible to say. Revolutions? Civil strife?
A gentle slide into universal basic income and ubiquitous social democracy is right at the optimal end of the Outcome Spectrum
If AI is such a bad thing, why are we allowing it to happen?
Because there's no stopping it. If the West did the Chinese wouldn't, and the US would enter into an awful lot of research partnerships with the comp sci departments of universities in places like Wuhan. Plus Musk is in the mix, and there seems to be something in the US constitution to say he can do what he likes.
Human beings are very strange, allowing something to happen which is going to make life worse for nearly everyone.
I am not sure whether you are being ironic. AI is already rapidly accelerating medical research into numerous disease areas. AI will assist in making significant populations healthier through accelerated interactions that GPs cannot. AI will also accelerate research in huge numbers of other human endeavours. It will also create huge numbers of jobs in the tech sector.
Does it need to be regulated? Yes to an extent, but people need to calm down. The glass is half full and we need to celebrate the huge amount of opportunities AI offers us.
Huge use of the word "huge" there. I did not get my statement checked by AI.
Yes. It is ironic that your banal and vapid commentary on AI would actually be improved, your prose made more interesting, witty and elegant, if it was entirely replaced by an AI bot, generating remarks
Not only is Trump a mad narcissist who was unlikely to give up power voluntarily, running again was also his best guard against criminal convictions so of course he would run, and he is genuinely beyond popular with most Republican voters, for many, perhaps most, he is the party.
Having to perform the ritual obeisance demanded of all British PMs toward POTUS is going to be a colossal pain in the glans for SKS when he has to slurp Trump's nuts.
That section of the Labour party who wear a lot of badges are going to be salty in the extreme,
No more frosty than it currently is between Sunak and Biden.
Even they both say "special relationship" through gritted teeth, and it's no secret Biden can't stand the sight of us.
The tory party don't hate Biden the same way the Labour party hates DJT (though they probably should as he is sleepwalking us into WW3) so it's not a party management issue for the House Elf in the way that it will be for SKS.
You're right* - if PM Keir Starmer sucks up to President Again Donald Trump in any way shape or form, in fact if he says anything about him that isn't wholly and intensely negative, there will go my LP card into the lounge woodburner.
* But you're also wrong because there is not going to be a President Again Donald Trump. If the GOP don't find a way, America as a whole will.
The 2024 POTUS election will be the first election that, potentially, will be won by AI deciding the outcome. The ways it can be used to sway voters are so manifold and powerful
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
But bravo to them for trying. I’ve heard rumours the strike might last til January - or beyond. That’s huge
If AI spreads and takes jobs without replacement then we will be back to the 1970s in terms of strikes too, workers aren't go to accept most jobs being taken over by AI, certainly without a big UBI funded by a massive robot/AI tax on corporations
Strikes aren't going to stop AI, any more than loom-smashing stopped the industrial revolution
Then capitalism is dead, at least in its purest form.
If AI leads to mass unemployment and few full time and permanent jobs, most voters ie the non rich and non corporate executives will only vote for parties promising massive robot taxes on corporations to fund big universal basic income and welfare payments.
We will end up with the main western parties effectively offering social democracy just in slightly different forms
AI will kill capitalism as we have known in. What happens then is impossible to say. Revolutions? Civil strife?
A gentle slide into universal basic income and ubiquitous social democracy is right at the optimal end of the Outcome Spectrum
If AI is such a bad thing, why are we allowing it to happen?
Because there's no stopping it. If the West did the Chinese wouldn't, and the US would enter into an awful lot of research partnerships with the comp sci departments of universities in places like Wuhan. Plus Musk is in the mix, and there seems to be something in the US constitution to say he can do what he likes.
Human beings are very strange, allowing something to happen which is going to make life worse for nearly everyone.
I am not sure whether you are being ironic. AI is already rapidly accelerating medical research into numerous disease areas. AI will assist in making significant populations healthier through accelerated interactions that GPs cannot. AI will also accelerate research in huge numbers of other human endeavours. It will also create huge numbers of jobs in the tech sector.
Does it need to be regulated? Yes to an extent, but people need to calm down. The glass is half full and we need to celebrate the huge amount of opportunities AI offers us.
Huge use of the word "huge" there. I did not get my statement checked by AI.
Yes. It is ironic that your banal and vapid commentary on AI would actually be improved, your prose made more interesting, witty and elegant, if it was entirely replaced by an AI bot, generating remarks
The 2024 POTUS election will be the first election that, potentially, will be won by AI deciding the outcome. The ways it can be used to sway voters are so manifold and powerful
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
But bravo to them for trying. I’ve heard rumours the strike might last til January - or beyond. That’s huge
If AI spreads and takes jobs without replacement then we will be back to the 1970s in terms of strikes too, workers aren't go to accept most jobs being taken over by AI, certainly without a big UBI funded by a massive robot/AI tax on corporations
Strikes aren't going to stop AI, any more than loom-smashing stopped the industrial revolution
Then capitalism is dead, at least in its purest form.
If AI leads to mass unemployment and few full time and permanent jobs, most voters ie the non rich and non corporate executives will only vote for parties promising massive robot taxes on corporations to fund big universal basic income and welfare payments.
We will end up with the main western parties effectively offering social democracy just in slightly different forms
AI will kill capitalism as we have known in. What happens then is impossible to say. Revolutions? Civil strife?
A gentle slide into universal basic income and ubiquitous social democracy is right at the optimal end of the Outcome Spectrum
If AI is such a bad thing, why are we allowing it to happen?
Because there's no stopping it. If the West did the Chinese wouldn't, and the US would enter into an awful lot of research partnerships with the comp sci departments of universities in places like Wuhan. Plus Musk is in the mix, and there seems to be something in the US constitution to say he can do what he likes.
Human beings are very strange, allowing something to happen which is going to make life worse for nearly everyone.
Well yes. Like war and slavery and global warming and everything else. Kesslerisation is a case in point. It was predicted at the time of sputnik 1, satellites confer just incremental benefits to TV and Internet and weather forecasting and stuff vs the absolutely fundamental disbenefit of locking ourselves in from the rest of the universe and making terrestrial astronomy impossible, but there's money and military advantage and, once again, Musk, and here we are.
WTAF? You are completely bonkers.
Satellites have conferred massive advantage to us in science, technology, telecommunications, weather analysis and forecasting, understanding the climate and much more.
Anyone who predicted they would have just incremental or minor benefits was as incorrect as those who thought that "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers" [predicted by IBM], or "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
Most of the time wages exceed inflation when we have had low inflation.
As @BartholomewRoberts pointed out inflation is caused by products and services increasing in price not wages (directly). Clearly if wage increases cause products and services to increase in price it will cause inflation, but wages can increase without doing so. Here is a real life example. It is me. I charged my customers a fee for the service I provided. If the service saves them money and the saving is more than the cost (which is why they pay me) wages have gone up but the price of the product can come down.
Various things cause inflation. Currently it is mainly due to shortages in supply. Wages can and will if not matched by productivity, which is the case in the 70s where a spiral occurred and is the fear that it might happen again and become uncontrollable, but in times of low inflation wages are nearly always higher than inflation disproving the point you are making.
It is because we become more productive and hence have a better standard of living than Victorians.
So we can demand more productivity from public sector unions and their workers before they get a pay rise then
That's been done.
Over the past decade the public sector has become more productive. The share of expenditure of taxes going to public sector wages has gone down, not up, over the past decade.
What has gone up is the share of expenditure of taxes going to welfare. Which is not going to those who are unemployed, which is half the rate it was in 2010. Its not going to those in dire need of it, which has been cut to the bone, but still welfare expenditure is higher now than it was when Labour left office. And is going up more annually.
How do you make any sense of that? And what productivity is meant to drive or make that affordable?
'In the 22 years from 1997 to 2019, public sector productivity rose by just 3.7 per cent, yet public sector staff got pay awards based on comparisons with a private sector that was doing a lot better at raising output per person.
Real state output soared under Labour from 1997 to 2009 by a massive 50 per cent , but productivity fell 2 per cent over the 12 years. Under the Conservatives pre-Covid, output was up again by a more restrained 8 per cent, with productivity edging ahead to show a 3.7 per cent gain since 1997. By the end of 2021 output was up again by almost a tenth but productivity was down on 1997 levels by 3.7 per cent. So over nearly a quarter of a century of fast automation and technical advance in the wider economy, the UK public sector saw a fall in productivity. '
Pensioners who get the state pension mostly paid in when working via National Insurance and you can't get the state pension without sufficient NI contributions or credits
As I mentioned life isn't as simple as that. You can't just measure each individual element of productivity and technological gains. It is the overall gain that counts whether public or private.
So for example the farrier who works in a traditional way at some historic event display will be no more productive than his Victorian counterpart. We don't however pay him Victorian wages because:
a) People working in other walks of life are more productive than their Victorian counterparts and spend good money to come and see him work. So although he is no more productive he is worth more.
b) He wouldn't do it for a shilling a day.
So you see a person doesn't have to be more productive to get more money as long as there is greater productivity overall and his skills are in demand.
Much as I hate most of the public sector I do accept we need some of them and if you don't pay them they will go elsewhere.
Indeed, this is the basis of the Balassa-Samuelson effect, aka why does a haircut cost more in Zurich than in Lagos.
Alternatively, for the public sector, Baumol's cost disease. NHS productivity is very hard to increase (can't replace nurses with machines) but wages must rise to keep pace with areas with higher productivity growth to attract and retain staff.
Yes it's the same thing essentially. It's why services keep rising in price relative to goods.
The 2024 POTUS election will be the first election that, potentially, will be won by AI deciding the outcome. The ways it can be used to sway voters are so manifold and powerful
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
But bravo to them for trying. I’ve heard rumours the strike might last til January - or beyond. That’s huge
If AI spreads and takes jobs without replacement then we will be back to the 1970s in terms of strikes too, workers aren't go to accept most jobs being taken over by AI, certainly without a big UBI funded by a massive robot/AI tax on corporations
Strikes aren't going to stop AI, any more than loom-smashing stopped the industrial revolution
Then capitalism is dead, at least in its purest form.
If AI leads to mass unemployment and few full time and permanent jobs, most voters ie the non rich and non corporate executives will only vote for parties promising massive robot taxes on corporations to fund big universal basic income and welfare payments.
We will end up with the main western parties effectively offering social democracy just in slightly different forms
AI will kill capitalism as we have known in. What happens then is impossible to say. Revolutions? Civil strife?
A gentle slide into universal basic income and ubiquitous social democracy is right at the optimal end of the Outcome Spectrum
If AI is such a bad thing, why are we allowing it to happen?
Because there's no stopping it. If the West did the Chinese wouldn't, and the US would enter into an awful lot of research partnerships with the comp sci departments of universities in places like Wuhan. Plus Musk is in the mix, and there seems to be something in the US constitution to say he can do what he likes.
The acceleration of AI is much like the acceleration of the internet. It will change things, and in many ways that we have not yet anticipated. I personally believe it is a massive opportunity for good. Pessimistic luddites like Leon will always believe it is the end of the world as we know it. It isn't.
Optimistic. The Internet looked like a massive opportunity for good, it turned out to be cat pictures and a 95% drop in productivity because of spending all day on PB.
Spookily my autocomplete which is what AI basically is atm supplied everything after "spending" there.
The 2024 POTUS election will be the first election that, potentially, will be won by AI deciding the outcome. The ways it can be used to sway voters are so manifold and powerful
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
But bravo to them for trying. I’ve heard rumours the strike might last til January - or beyond. That’s huge
If AI spreads and takes jobs without replacement then we will be back to the 1970s in terms of strikes too, workers aren't go to accept most jobs being taken over by AI, certainly without a big UBI funded by a massive robot/AI tax on corporations
Strikes aren't going to stop AI, any more than loom-smashing stopped the industrial revolution
Then capitalism is dead, at least in its purest form.
If AI leads to mass unemployment and few full time and permanent jobs, most voters ie the non rich and non corporate executives will only vote for parties promising massive robot taxes on corporations to fund big universal basic income and welfare payments.
We will end up with the main western parties effectively offering social democracy just in slightly different forms
AI will kill capitalism as we have known in. What happens then is impossible to say. Revolutions? Civil strife?
A gentle slide into universal basic income and ubiquitous social democracy is right at the optimal end of the Outcome Spectrum
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
Most of the time wages exceed inflation when we have had low inflation.
As @BartholomewRoberts pointed out inflation is caused by products and services increasing in price not wages (directly). Clearly if wage increases cause products and services to increase in price it will cause inflation, but wages can increase without doing so. Here is a real life example. It is me. I charged my customers a fee for the service I provided. If the service saves them money and the saving is more than the cost (which is why they pay me) wages have gone up but the price of the product can come down.
Various things cause inflation. Currently it is mainly due to shortages in supply. Wages can and will if not matched by productivity, which is the case in the 70s where a spiral occurred and is the fear that it might happen again and become uncontrollable, but in times of low inflation wages are nearly always higher than inflation disproving the point you are making.
It is because we become more productive and hence have a better standard of living than Victorians.
So we can demand more productivity from public sector unions and their workers before they get a pay rise then
That's been done.
Over the past decade the public sector has become more productive. The share of expenditure of taxes going to public sector wages has gone down, not up, over the past decade.
What has gone up is the share of expenditure of taxes going to welfare. Which is not going to those who are unemployed, which is half the rate it was in 2010. Its not going to those in dire need of it, which has been cut to the bone, but still welfare expenditure is higher now than it was when Labour left office. And is going up more annually.
How do you make any sense of that? And what productivity is meant to drive or make that affordable?
'In the 22 years from 1997 to 2019, public sector productivity rose by just 3.7 per cent, yet public sector staff got pay awards based on comparisons with a private sector that was doing a lot better at raising output per person.
Real state output soared under Labour from 1997 to 2009 by a massive 50 per cent , but productivity fell 2 per cent over the 12 years. Under the Conservatives pre-Covid, output was up again by a more restrained 8 per cent, with productivity edging ahead to show a 3.7 per cent gain since 1997. By the end of 2021 output was up again by almost a tenth but productivity was down on 1997 levels by 3.7 per cent. So over nearly a quarter of a century of fast automation and technical advance in the wider economy, the UK public sector saw a fall in productivity. '
Pensioners who get the state pension mostly paid in when working via National Insurance and you can't get the state pension without sufficient NI contributions or credits
As I mentioned life isn't as simple as that. You can't just measure each individual element of productivity and technological gains. It is the overall gain that counts whether public or private.
So for example the farrier who works in a traditional way at some historic event display will be no more productive than his Victorian counterpart. We don't however pay him Victorian wages because:
a) People working in other walks of life are more productive than their Victorian counterparts and spend good money to come and see him work. So although he is no more productive he is worth more.
b) He wouldn't do it for a shilling a day.
So you see a person doesn't have to be more productive to get more money as long as there is greater productivity overall and his skills are in demand.
Much as I hate most of the public sector I do accept we need some of them and if you don't pay them they will go elsewhere.
Indeed, this is the basis of the Balassa-Samuelson effect, aka why does a haircut cost more in Zurich than in Lagos.
Indeed. And this is another one where people don’t want to face certain realities.
1) higher pay for low skilled jobs. Deliveroo charges £20 for your meal to be delivered. Barista coffee cost £10 a cup. 2) cheap deliveroo and artisan coffee. Adults living in bunk beds stacked in every room
Pick one
Adults living in bunk beds stacked in every room is government policy.
The 2024 POTUS election will be the first election that, potentially, will be won by AI deciding the outcome. The ways it can be used to sway voters are so manifold and powerful
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
But bravo to them for trying. I’ve heard rumours the strike might last til January - or beyond. That’s huge
If AI spreads and takes jobs without replacement then we will be back to the 1970s in terms of strikes too, workers aren't go to accept most jobs being taken over by AI, certainly without a big UBI funded by a massive robot/AI tax on corporations
Strikes aren't going to stop AI, any more than loom-smashing stopped the industrial revolution
Then capitalism is dead, at least in its purest form.
If AI leads to mass unemployment and few full time and permanent jobs, most voters ie the non rich and non corporate executives will only vote for parties promising massive robot taxes on corporations to fund big universal basic income and welfare payments.
We will end up with the main western parties effectively offering social democracy just in slightly different forms
AI will kill capitalism as we have known in. What happens then is impossible to say. Revolutions? Civil strife?
A gentle slide into universal basic income and ubiquitous social democracy is right at the optimal end of the Outcome Spectrum
If AI is such a bad thing, why are we allowing it to happen?
Because there's no stopping it. If the West did the Chinese wouldn't, and the US would enter into an awful lot of research partnerships with the comp sci departments of universities in places like Wuhan. Plus Musk is in the mix, and there seems to be something in the US constitution to say he can do what he likes.
The acceleration of AI is much like the acceleration of the internet. It will change things, and in many ways that we have not yet anticipated. I personally believe it is a massive opportunity for good. Pessimistic luddites like Leon will always believe it is the end of the world as we know it. It isn't.
I'm not completely pessimisic, at all. I believe AI will do amazing things beyond human capabilities. It already is:
"AI Is Building Highly Effective Antibodies That Humans Can’t Even Imagine Robots, computers, and algorithms are hunting for potential new therapies in ways humans can’t—by processing huge volumes of data and building previously unimagined molecules."
However, AI is coming for a lot of middle class, white collar, bourgeois jobs, it also coming for the creative jobs. The "nice" jobs. That is simply a fact, hence the unprecedented Hollywood strike. That's today's version of Luddite loom smashing. AI is bound to revolutionise work and society, and revolutions are always painful; there is also a small but not entirely trivial risk that AI could kill humanity
There is a much greater risk that humanity will kill humanity. Perhaps AI is what fate has provided for us to prevent that possible eventuality?
Or hasten it. AIs don't kill people, people kill people.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
Most of the time wages exceed inflation when we have had low inflation.
As @BartholomewRoberts pointed out inflation is caused by products and services increasing in price not wages (directly). Clearly if wage increases cause products and services to increase in price it will cause inflation, but wages can increase without doing so. Here is a real life example. It is me. I charged my customers a fee for the service I provided. If the service saves them money and the saving is more than the cost (which is why they pay me) wages have gone up but the price of the product can come down.
Various things cause inflation. Currently it is mainly due to shortages in supply. Wages can and will if not matched by productivity, which is the case in the 70s where a spiral occurred and is the fear that it might happen again and become uncontrollable, but in times of low inflation wages are nearly always higher than inflation disproving the point you are making.
It is because we become more productive and hence have a better standard of living than Victorians.
So we can demand more productivity from public sector unions and their workers before they get a pay rise then
That's been done.
Over the past decade the public sector has become more productive. The share of expenditure of taxes going to public sector wages has gone down, not up, over the past decade.
What has gone up is the share of expenditure of taxes going to welfare. Which is not going to those who are unemployed, which is half the rate it was in 2010. Its not going to those in dire need of it, which has been cut to the bone, but still welfare expenditure is higher now than it was when Labour left office. And is going up more annually.
How do you make any sense of that? And what productivity is meant to drive or make that affordable?
'In the 22 years from 1997 to 2019, public sector productivity rose by just 3.7 per cent, yet public sector staff got pay awards based on comparisons with a private sector that was doing a lot better at raising output per person.
Real state output soared under Labour from 1997 to 2009 by a massive 50 per cent , but productivity fell 2 per cent over the 12 years. Under the Conservatives pre-Covid, output was up again by a more restrained 8 per cent, with productivity edging ahead to show a 3.7 per cent gain since 1997. By the end of 2021 output was up again by almost a tenth but productivity was down on 1997 levels by 3.7 per cent. So over nearly a quarter of a century of fast automation and technical advance in the wider economy, the UK public sector saw a fall in productivity. '
Pensioners who get the state pension mostly paid in when working via National Insurance and you can't get the state pension without sufficient NI contributions or credits
As I mentioned life isn't as simple as that. You can't just measure each individual element of productivity and technological gains. It is the overall gain that counts whether public or private.
So for example the farrier who works in a traditional way at some historic event display will be no more productive than his Victorian counterpart. We don't however pay him Victorian wages because:
a) People working in other walks of life are more productive than their Victorian counterparts and spend good money to come and see him work. So although he is no more productive he is worth more.
b) He wouldn't do it for a shilling a day.
So you see a person doesn't have to be more productive to get more money as long as there is greater productivity overall and his skills are in demand.
Much as I hate most of the public sector I do accept we need some of them and if you don't pay them they will go elsewhere.
Actually your modern day Farrier is more productive. Not only is he producing physical product (shoes on horses), he's now producing entertainment as well, to a likely value considerably higher than the value of his physical output in terms of horses shoes.
Other than transportation (Van or adapted 4x4) & oven for heating the shoes, the methods employed by farriers in general haven't changed much... They're not going to be replaced by AI or robots any time soon, I can tell you that.
AI is going to be fantastic in ways we can't possibly imagine and not just in the adult entertainment industry which of course will be ginormous. In every respect.
But/and we will always be at the helm so it's only going to be as good or as bad as we ourselves are.
The 2024 POTUS election will be the first election that, potentially, will be won by AI deciding the outcome. The ways it can be used to sway voters are so manifold and powerful
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
But bravo to them for trying. I’ve heard rumours the strike might last til January - or beyond. That’s huge
If AI spreads and takes jobs without replacement then we will be back to the 1970s in terms of strikes too, workers aren't go to accept most jobs being taken over by AI, certainly without a big UBI funded by a massive robot/AI tax on corporations
Strikes aren't going to stop AI, any more than loom-smashing stopped the industrial revolution
Then capitalism is dead, at least in its purest form.
If AI leads to mass unemployment and few full time and permanent jobs, most voters ie the non rich and non corporate executives will only vote for parties promising massive robot taxes on corporations to fund big universal basic income and welfare payments.
We will end up with the main western parties effectively offering social democracy just in slightly different forms
AI will kill capitalism as we have known in. What happens then is impossible to say. Revolutions? Civil strife?
A gentle slide into universal basic income and ubiquitous social democracy is right at the optimal end of the Outcome Spectrum
If AI is such a bad thing, why are we allowing it to happen?
Because there's no stopping it. If the West did the Chinese wouldn't, and the US would enter into an awful lot of research partnerships with the comp sci departments of universities in places like Wuhan. Plus Musk is in the mix, and there seems to be something in the US constitution to say he can do what he likes.
The acceleration of AI is much like the acceleration of the internet. It will change things, and in many ways that we have not yet anticipated. I personally believe it is a massive opportunity for good. Pessimistic luddites like Leon will always believe it is the end of the world as we know it. It isn't.
I'm not completely pessimisic, at all. I believe AI will do amazing things beyond human capabilities. It already is:
"AI Is Building Highly Effective Antibodies That Humans Can’t Even Imagine Robots, computers, and algorithms are hunting for potential new therapies in ways humans can’t—by processing huge volumes of data and building previously unimagined molecules."
However, AI is coming for a lot of middle class, white collar, bourgeois jobs, it also coming for the creative jobs. The "nice" jobs. That is simply a fact, hence the unprecedented Hollywood strike. That's today's version of Luddite loom smashing. AI is bound to revolutionise work and society, and revolutions are always painful; there is also a small but not entirely trivial risk that AI could kill humanity
There is a much greater risk that humanity will kill humanity. Perhaps AI is what fate has provided for us to prevent that possible eventuality?
Or hasten it. AIs don't kill people, people kill people.
The 2024 POTUS election will be the first election that, potentially, will be won by AI deciding the outcome. The ways it can be used to sway voters are so manifold and powerful
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
But bravo to them for trying. I’ve heard rumours the strike might last til January - or beyond. That’s huge
If AI spreads and takes jobs without replacement then we will be back to the 1970s in terms of strikes too, workers aren't go to accept most jobs being taken over by AI, certainly without a big UBI funded by a massive robot/AI tax on corporations
Strikes aren't going to stop AI, any more than loom-smashing stopped the industrial revolution
Then capitalism is dead, at least in its purest form.
If AI leads to mass unemployment and few full time and permanent jobs, most voters ie the non rich and non corporate executives will only vote for parties promising massive robot taxes on corporations to fund big universal basic income and welfare payments.
We will end up with the main western parties effectively offering social democracy just in slightly different forms
AI will kill capitalism as we have known in. What happens then is impossible to say. Revolutions? Civil strife?
A gentle slide into universal basic income and ubiquitous social democracy is right at the optimal end of the Outcome Spectrum
If AI is such a bad thing, why are we allowing it to happen?
Because there's no stopping it. If the West did the Chinese wouldn't, and the US would enter into an awful lot of research partnerships with the comp sci departments of universities in places like Wuhan. Plus Musk is in the mix, and there seems to be something in the US constitution to say he can do what he likes.
The acceleration of AI is much like the acceleration of the internet. It will change things, and in many ways that we have not yet anticipated. I personally believe it is a massive opportunity for good. Pessimistic luddites like Leon will always believe it is the end of the world as we know it. It isn't.
Optimistic. The Internet looked like a massive opportunity for good, it turned out to be cat pictures and a 95% drop in productivity because of spending all day on PB.
Spookily my autocomplete which is what AI basically is atm supplied everything after "spending" there.
If you can send 95% of your day on PB and still get all your work done, your productivity might be very high. It's just your supply of labour hasn't adjusted yet.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
Most of the time wages exceed inflation when we have had low inflation.
As @BartholomewRoberts pointed out inflation is caused by products and services increasing in price not wages (directly). Clearly if wage increases cause products and services to increase in price it will cause inflation, but wages can increase without doing so. Here is a real life example. It is me. I charged my customers a fee for the service I provided. If the service saves them money and the saving is more than the cost (which is why they pay me) wages have gone up but the price of the product can come down.
Various things cause inflation. Currently it is mainly due to shortages in supply. Wages can and will if not matched by productivity, which is the case in the 70s where a spiral occurred and is the fear that it might happen again and become uncontrollable, but in times of low inflation wages are nearly always higher than inflation disproving the point you are making.
It is because we become more productive and hence have a better standard of living than Victorians.
So we can demand more productivity from public sector unions and their workers before they get a pay rise then
That's been done.
Over the past decade the public sector has become more productive. The share of expenditure of taxes going to public sector wages has gone down, not up, over the past decade.
What has gone up is the share of expenditure of taxes going to welfare. Which is not going to those who are unemployed, which is half the rate it was in 2010. Its not going to those in dire need of it, which has been cut to the bone, but still welfare expenditure is higher now than it was when Labour left office. And is going up more annually.
How do you make any sense of that? And what productivity is meant to drive or make that affordable?
'In the 22 years from 1997 to 2019, public sector productivity rose by just 3.7 per cent, yet public sector staff got pay awards based on comparisons with a private sector that was doing a lot better at raising output per person.
Real state output soared under Labour from 1997 to 2009 by a massive 50 per cent , but productivity fell 2 per cent over the 12 years. Under the Conservatives pre-Covid, output was up again by a more restrained 8 per cent, with productivity edging ahead to show a 3.7 per cent gain since 1997. By the end of 2021 output was up again by almost a tenth but productivity was down on 1997 levels by 3.7 per cent. So over nearly a quarter of a century of fast automation and technical advance in the wider economy, the UK public sector saw a fall in productivity. '
Pensioners who get the state pension mostly paid in when working via National Insurance and you can't get the state pension without sufficient NI contributions or credits
As I mentioned life isn't as simple as that. You can't just measure each individual element of productivity and technological gains. It is the overall gain that counts whether public or private.
So for example the farrier who works in a traditional way at some historic event display will be no more productive than his Victorian counterpart. We don't however pay him Victorian wages because:
a) People working in other walks of life are more productive than their Victorian counterparts and spend good money to come and see him work. So although he is no more productive he is worth more.
b) He wouldn't do it for a shilling a day.
So you see a person doesn't have to be more productive to get more money as long as there is greater productivity overall and his skills are in demand.
Much as I hate most of the public sector I do accept we need some of them and if you don't pay them they will go elsewhere.
Actually your modern day Farrier is more productive. Not only is he producing physical product (shoes on horses), he's now producing entertainment as well, to a likely value considerably higher than the value of his physical output in terms of horses shoes.
Other than transportation (Van or adapted 4x4) & oven for heating the shoes, the methods employed by farriers in general haven't changed much... They're not going to be replaced by AI or robots any time soon, I can tell you that.
In Africa they still do it with charcoal and foot-operated goatskin bellows. For real, not just reenactment for the tourists.
Not only is Trump a mad narcissist who was unlikely to give up power voluntarily, running again was also his best guard against criminal convictions so of course he would run, and he is genuinely beyond popular with most Republican voters, for many, perhaps most, he is the party.
Having to perform the ritual obeisance demanded of all British PMs toward POTUS is going to be a colossal pain in the glans for SKS when he has to slurp Trump's nuts.
That section of the Labour party who wear a lot of badges are going to be salty in the extreme,
No more frosty than it currently is between Sunak and Biden.
Even they both say "special relationship" through gritted teeth, and it's no secret Biden can't stand the sight of us.
The tory party don't hate Biden the same way the Labour party hates DJT (though they probably should as he is sleepwalking us into WW3) so it's not a party management issue for the House Elf in the way that it will be for SKS.
You're right* - if PM Keir Starmer sucks up to President Again Donald Trump in any way shape or form, in fact if he says anything about him that isn't wholly and intensely negative, there will go my LP card into the lounge woodburner.
* But you're also wrong because there is not going to be a President Again Donald Trump. If the GOP don't find a way, America as a whole will.
Perhaps a letter-writing campaign from NW3 telling America as a whole to do its duty might do the job.
Shouldn't be necessary. I have faith in them. But if it does come to that ... pen at the ready.
The 2024 POTUS election will be the first election that, potentially, will be won by AI deciding the outcome. The ways it can be used to sway voters are so manifold and powerful
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
But bravo to them for trying. I’ve heard rumours the strike might last til January - or beyond. That’s huge
If AI spreads and takes jobs without replacement then we will be back to the 1970s in terms of strikes too, workers aren't go to accept most jobs being taken over by AI, certainly without a big UBI funded by a massive robot/AI tax on corporations
Strikes aren't going to stop AI, any more than loom-smashing stopped the industrial revolution
Then capitalism is dead, at least in its purest form.
If AI leads to mass unemployment and few full time and permanent jobs, most voters ie the non rich and non corporate executives will only vote for parties promising massive robot taxes on corporations to fund big universal basic income and welfare payments.
We will end up with the main western parties effectively offering social democracy just in slightly different forms
AI will kill capitalism as we have known in. What happens then is impossible to say. Revolutions? Civil strife?
A gentle slide into universal basic income and ubiquitous social democracy is right at the optimal end of the Outcome Spectrum
If AI is such a bad thing, why are we allowing it to happen?
Because there's no stopping it. If the West did the Chinese wouldn't, and the US would enter into an awful lot of research partnerships with the comp sci departments of universities in places like Wuhan. Plus Musk is in the mix, and there seems to be something in the US constitution to say he can do what he likes.
The acceleration of AI is much like the acceleration of the internet. It will change things, and in many ways that we have not yet anticipated. I personally believe it is a massive opportunity for good. Pessimistic luddites like Leon will always believe it is the end of the world as we know it. It isn't.
I'm not completely pessimisic, at all. I believe AI will do amazing things beyond human capabilities. It already is:
"AI Is Building Highly Effective Antibodies That Humans Can’t Even Imagine Robots, computers, and algorithms are hunting for potential new therapies in ways humans can’t—by processing huge volumes of data and building previously unimagined molecules."
However, AI is coming for a lot of middle class, white collar, bourgeois jobs, it also coming for the creative jobs. The "nice" jobs. That is simply a fact, hence the unprecedented Hollywood strike. That's today's version of Luddite loom smashing. AI is bound to revolutionise work and society, and revolutions are always painful; there is also a small but not entirely trivial risk that AI could kill humanity
There is a much greater risk that humanity will kill humanity. Perhaps AI is what fate has provided for us to prevent that possible eventuality?
Or hasten it. AIs don't kill people, people kill people.
Cars don't kill people, people do.
Heh. There are a number of spooky similarities between the gun and car debate.
The 2024 POTUS election will be the first election that, potentially, will be won by AI deciding the outcome. The ways it can be used to sway voters are so manifold and powerful
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
But bravo to them for trying. I’ve heard rumours the strike might last til January - or beyond. That’s huge
If AI spreads and takes jobs without replacement then we will be back to the 1970s in terms of strikes too, workers aren't go to accept most jobs being taken over by AI, certainly without a big UBI funded by a massive robot/AI tax on corporations
Strikes aren't going to stop AI, any more than loom-smashing stopped the industrial revolution
Then capitalism is dead, at least in its purest form.
If AI leads to mass unemployment and few full time and permanent jobs, most voters ie the non rich and non corporate executives will only vote for parties promising massive robot taxes on corporations to fund big universal basic income and welfare payments.
We will end up with the main western parties effectively offering social democracy just in slightly different forms
AI will kill capitalism as we have known in. What happens then is impossible to say. Revolutions? Civil strife?
A gentle slide into universal basic income and ubiquitous social democracy is right at the optimal end of the Outcome Spectrum
If AI is such a bad thing, why are we allowing it to happen?
Because there's no stopping it. If the West did the Chinese wouldn't, and the US would enter into an awful lot of research partnerships with the comp sci departments of universities in places like Wuhan. Plus Musk is in the mix, and there seems to be something in the US constitution to say he can do what he likes.
The acceleration of AI is much like the acceleration of the internet. It will change things, and in many ways that we have not yet anticipated. I personally believe it is a massive opportunity for good. Pessimistic luddites like Leon will always believe it is the end of the world as we know it. It isn't.
I'm not completely pessimisic, at all. I believe AI will do amazing things beyond human capabilities. It already is:
"AI Is Building Highly Effective Antibodies That Humans Can’t Even Imagine Robots, computers, and algorithms are hunting for potential new therapies in ways humans can’t—by processing huge volumes of data and building previously unimagined molecules."
However, AI is coming for a lot of middle class, white collar, bourgeois jobs, it also coming for the creative jobs. The "nice" jobs. That is simply a fact, hence the unprecedented Hollywood strike. That's today's version of Luddite loom smashing. AI is bound to revolutionise work and society, and revolutions are always painful; there is also a small but not entirely trivial risk that AI could kill humanity
It can do some amazing things - To test out its reasoning and decision making capacity, I got it to write low level legal judgments and its reasoning is occasionally at the top end of what humans can do. It could certainly potentially challenge lawyers and barristers in this respect - and I can tell they are worried. But there is a question is about whether it can learn to be accurate in relation to legislation and negotiate complex and contradictory rules, this is unproven.
The 2024 POTUS election will be the first election that, potentially, will be won by AI deciding the outcome. The ways it can be used to sway voters are so manifold and powerful
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
But bravo to them for trying. I’ve heard rumours the strike might last til January - or beyond. That’s huge
If AI spreads and takes jobs without replacement then we will be back to the 1970s in terms of strikes too, workers aren't go to accept most jobs being taken over by AI, certainly without a big UBI funded by a massive robot/AI tax on corporations
Strikes aren't going to stop AI, any more than loom-smashing stopped the industrial revolution
Then capitalism is dead, at least in its purest form.
If AI leads to mass unemployment and few full time and permanent jobs, most voters ie the non rich and non corporate executives will only vote for parties promising massive robot taxes on corporations to fund big universal basic income and welfare payments.
We will end up with the main western parties effectively offering social democracy just in slightly different forms
AI will kill capitalism as we have known in. What happens then is impossible to say. Revolutions? Civil strife?
A gentle slide into universal basic income and ubiquitous social democracy is right at the optimal end of the Outcome Spectrum
If AI is such a bad thing, why are we allowing it to happen?
Because there's no stopping it. If the West did the Chinese wouldn't, and the US would enter into an awful lot of research partnerships with the comp sci departments of universities in places like Wuhan. Plus Musk is in the mix, and there seems to be something in the US constitution to say he can do what he likes.
Human beings are very strange, allowing something to happen which is going to make life worse for nearly everyone.
I am not sure whether you are being ironic. AI is already rapidly accelerating medical research into numerous disease areas. AI will assist in making significant populations healthier through accelerated interactions that GPs cannot. AI will also accelerate research in huge numbers of other human endeavours. It will also create huge numbers of jobs in the tech sector.
Does it need to be regulated? Yes to an extent, but people need to calm down. The glass is half full and we need to celebrate the huge amount of opportunities AI offers us.
Huge use of the word "huge" there. I did not get my statement checked by AI.
Yes. It is ironic that your banal and vapid commentary on AI would actually be improved, your prose made more interesting, witty and elegant, if it was entirely replaced by an AI bot, generating remarks
In that instance, then almost certainly yes. It was a quick stream of consciousness that resulted in an uncharacteristic vomit of inarticulacy. Thankfully none of my streams of consciousness cause people to believe in extra terrestrials or other such ludicrous flights of fancy.
I do have some sympathy for your uninformed concerns about AI though. I mean - who needs someone to write meaningless but beautifully crafted articles on travel when ChatGPT can write an article with all of the travel info of the entire internet at it's disposal even in the somewhat formulaic style of, say, SeanT if asked.
It is quite possible that pointless jobs such as travel writers will be swept away with the heartless broom of machine learning. I believe Halfords has quite a few openings for the more senior gentleman such as yourself.
The 2024 POTUS election will be the first election that, potentially, will be won by AI deciding the outcome. The ways it can be used to sway voters are so manifold and powerful
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
But bravo to them for trying. I’ve heard rumours the strike might last til January - or beyond. That’s huge
If AI spreads and takes jobs without replacement then we will be back to the 1970s in terms of strikes too, workers aren't go to accept most jobs being taken over by AI, certainly without a big UBI funded by a massive robot/AI tax on corporations
Strikes aren't going to stop AI, any more than loom-smashing stopped the industrial revolution
Then capitalism is dead, at least in its purest form.
If AI leads to mass unemployment and few full time and permanent jobs, most voters ie the non rich and non corporate executives will only vote for parties promising massive robot taxes on corporations to fund big universal basic income and welfare payments.
We will end up with the main western parties effectively offering social democracy just in slightly different forms
AI will kill capitalism as we have known in. What happens then is impossible to say. Revolutions? Civil strife?
A gentle slide into universal basic income and ubiquitous social democracy is right at the optimal end of the Outcome Spectrum
If AI is such a bad thing, why are we allowing it to happen?
Because there's no stopping it. If the West did the Chinese wouldn't, and the US would enter into an awful lot of research partnerships with the comp sci departments of universities in places like Wuhan. Plus Musk is in the mix, and there seems to be something in the US constitution to say he can do what he likes.
The acceleration of AI is much like the acceleration of the internet. It will change things, and in many ways that we have not yet anticipated. I personally believe it is a massive opportunity for good. Pessimistic luddites like Leon will always believe it is the end of the world as we know it. It isn't.
I'm not completely pessimisic, at all. I believe AI will do amazing things beyond human capabilities. It already is:
"AI Is Building Highly Effective Antibodies That Humans Can’t Even Imagine Robots, computers, and algorithms are hunting for potential new therapies in ways humans can’t—by processing huge volumes of data and building previously unimagined molecules."
However, AI is coming for a lot of middle class, white collar, bourgeois jobs, it also coming for the creative jobs. The "nice" jobs. That is simply a fact, hence the unprecedented Hollywood strike. That's today's version of Luddite loom smashing. AI is bound to revolutionise work and society, and revolutions are always painful; there is also a small but not entirely trivial risk that AI could kill humanity
There is a much greater risk that humanity will kill humanity. Perhaps AI is what fate has provided for us to prevent that possible eventuality?
Or hasten it. AIs don't kill people, people kill people.
I read that. I really wouldn't like to be that couple, right now. They are such perfect villains, boastful property developers with previous, who "allegedly" like to smash up beloved pubs
Apparently the guy who rented them the JCB (and is, it seems, entirely blameless) has been severely harrassed with hate mail and billions of angry calls. The social media anger aimed at the actual couple themselves must be extraordinary. I wonder if they might have to move out of the UK, there's no coming back from this
They were unfortunate that their alleged crimes happened in mid August, with a bored media lacking stories, waiting to pounce. Oh well, never mind, etc
The 2024 POTUS election will be the first election that, potentially, will be won by AI deciding the outcome. The ways it can be used to sway voters are so manifold and powerful
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
But bravo to them for trying. I’ve heard rumours the strike might last til January - or beyond. That’s huge
If AI spreads and takes jobs without replacement then we will be back to the 1970s in terms of strikes too, workers aren't go to accept most jobs being taken over by AI, certainly without a big UBI funded by a massive robot/AI tax on corporations
Strikes aren't going to stop AI, any more than loom-smashing stopped the industrial revolution
Then capitalism is dead, at least in its purest form.
If AI leads to mass unemployment and few full time and permanent jobs, most voters ie the non rich and non corporate executives will only vote for parties promising massive robot taxes on corporations to fund big universal basic income and welfare payments.
We will end up with the main western parties effectively offering social democracy just in slightly different forms
AI will kill capitalism as we have known in. What happens then is impossible to say. Revolutions? Civil strife?
A gentle slide into universal basic income and ubiquitous social democracy is right at the optimal end of the Outcome Spectrum
If AI is such a bad thing, why are we allowing it to happen?
Because there's no stopping it. If the West did the Chinese wouldn't, and the US would enter into an awful lot of research partnerships with the comp sci departments of universities in places like Wuhan. Plus Musk is in the mix, and there seems to be something in the US constitution to say he can do what he likes.
The acceleration of AI is much like the acceleration of the internet. It will change things, and in many ways that we have not yet anticipated. I personally believe it is a massive opportunity for good. Pessimistic luddites like Leon will always believe it is the end of the world as we know it. It isn't.
I'm not completely pessimisic, at all. I believe AI will do amazing things beyond human capabilities. It already is:
"AI Is Building Highly Effective Antibodies That Humans Can’t Even Imagine Robots, computers, and algorithms are hunting for potential new therapies in ways humans can’t—by processing huge volumes of data and building previously unimagined molecules."
However, AI is coming for a lot of middle class, white collar, bourgeois jobs, it also coming for the creative jobs. The "nice" jobs. That is simply a fact, hence the unprecedented Hollywood strike. That's today's version of Luddite loom smashing. AI is bound to revolutionise work and society, and revolutions are always painful; there is also a small but not entirely trivial risk that AI could kill humanity
There is a much greater risk that humanity will kill humanity. Perhaps AI is what fate has provided for us to prevent that possible eventuality?
Or hasten it. AIs don't kill people, people kill people.
Cars don't kill people, people do.
Heh. There are a number of spooky similarities between the gun and car debate.
(ducks)
Both three letters. With a vowel in the middle. But car is worth an extra point in scrabble so some spooky differences too.
Not only is Trump a mad narcissist who was unlikely to give up power voluntarily, running again was also his best guard against criminal convictions so of course he would run, and he is genuinely beyond popular with most Republican voters, for many, perhaps most, he is the party.
Having to perform the ritual obeisance demanded of all British PMs toward POTUS is going to be a colossal pain in the glans for SKS when he has to slurp Trump's nuts.
That section of the Labour party who wear a lot of badges are going to be salty in the extreme,
"That section of the Labour party who wear a lot of badges"
A very good observation - I always try to give them a wide berth at any party meetings.
Unless you were referring to "Boy Scouts for Labour"?
As long as they're not wearing this one. Bloody Nazis, ruined the swastika for everyone.
Shouldn’t the Crooked Cross have one of points at the top. As it is it’s ‘just’ a Hindu symbol.
Strictly speaking yes, but since I'm an awkward sod (though this one is reversed)..
The swastika really was a commonly used symbol before the Nazis appropriated it (I believe the Finnish airforce incorporated it into their insignia till quite recently). It's made a little piquant in the Scouts' case by the occasional sympatico statements made by Baden-Powell about Hitler & co.
The 2024 POTUS election will be the first election that, potentially, will be won by AI deciding the outcome. The ways it can be used to sway voters are so manifold and powerful
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
But bravo to them for trying. I’ve heard rumours the strike might last til January - or beyond. That’s huge
If AI spreads and takes jobs without replacement then we will be back to the 1970s in terms of strikes too, workers aren't go to accept most jobs being taken over by AI, certainly without a big UBI funded by a massive robot/AI tax on corporations
Strikes aren't going to stop AI, any more than loom-smashing stopped the industrial revolution
Then capitalism is dead, at least in its purest form.
If AI leads to mass unemployment and few full time and permanent jobs, most voters ie the non rich and non corporate executives will only vote for parties promising massive robot taxes on corporations to fund big universal basic income and welfare payments.
We will end up with the main western parties effectively offering social democracy just in slightly different forms
AI will kill capitalism as we have known in. What happens then is impossible to say. Revolutions? Civil strife?
A gentle slide into universal basic income and ubiquitous social democracy is right at the optimal end of the Outcome Spectrum
If AI is such a bad thing, why are we allowing it to happen?
Because there's no stopping it. If the West did the Chinese wouldn't, and the US would enter into an awful lot of research partnerships with the comp sci departments of universities in places like Wuhan. Plus Musk is in the mix, and there seems to be something in the US constitution to say he can do what he likes.
The acceleration of AI is much like the acceleration of the internet. It will change things, and in many ways that we have not yet anticipated. I personally believe it is a massive opportunity for good. Pessimistic luddites like Leon will always believe it is the end of the world as we know it. It isn't.
Optimistic. The Internet looked like a massive opportunity for good, it turned out to be cat pictures and a 95% drop in productivity because of spending all day on PB.
Spookily my autocomplete which is what AI basically is atm supplied everything after "spending" there.
I have to declare an interest. I intend to make the world a better place using AI and make enormous quantities of wonga in the process.
Not only is Trump a mad narcissist who was unlikely to give up power voluntarily, running again was also his best guard against criminal convictions so of course he would run, and he is genuinely beyond popular with most Republican voters, for many, perhaps most, he is the party.
Having to perform the ritual obeisance demanded of all British PMs toward POTUS is going to be a colossal pain in the glans for SKS when he has to slurp Trump's nuts.
That section of the Labour party who wear a lot of badges are going to be salty in the extreme,
"That section of the Labour party who wear a lot of badges"
A very good observation - I always try to give them a wide berth at any party meetings.
Unless you were referring to "Boy Scouts for Labour"?
As long as they're not wearing this one. Bloody Nazis, ruined the swastika for everyone.
Shouldn’t the Crooked Cross have one of points at the top. As it is it’s ‘just’ a Hindu symbol.
Strictly speaking yes, but since I'm an awkward sod (though this one is reversed)..
The swastika really was a commonly used symbol before the Nazis appropriated it (I believe the Finnish airforce incorporated it into their insignia till quite recently). It's made a little piquant in the Scouts' case by the occasional sympatico statements made by Baden-Powell about Hitler & co.
The Tank Museum in Bovington has a Finnish tank from WWII (the Finns were invaded by the Soviets, partially beat them back, and later allied with the Nazis), and the tank has a swastika on it. The curator (I think the just wonderful David Willey) hurriedly brushes this off as "just politics", which I thought was hysterical given the context
From the article: "Picture postcards of the era – a popular way for visitors to show families back home where they were visiting in the years before photography was commonplace – made much of the pub's quirks." Have we really reached the point now where we have to explain what a postcard is? I feel old!
The 2024 POTUS election will be the first election that, potentially, will be won by AI deciding the outcome. The ways it can be used to sway voters are so manifold and powerful
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
But bravo to them for trying. I’ve heard rumours the strike might last til January - or beyond. That’s huge
If AI spreads and takes jobs without replacement then we will be back to the 1970s in terms of strikes too, workers aren't go to accept most jobs being taken over by AI, certainly without a big UBI funded by a massive robot/AI tax on corporations
Strikes aren't going to stop AI, any more than loom-smashing stopped the industrial revolution
Then capitalism is dead, at least in its purest form.
If AI leads to mass unemployment and few full time and permanent jobs, most voters ie the non rich and non corporate executives will only vote for parties promising massive robot taxes on corporations to fund big universal basic income and welfare payments.
We will end up with the main western parties effectively offering social democracy just in slightly different forms
AI will kill capitalism as we have known in. What happens then is impossible to say. Revolutions? Civil strife?
A gentle slide into universal basic income and ubiquitous social democracy is right at the optimal end of the Outcome Spectrum
If AI is such a bad thing, why are we allowing it to happen?
Because there's no stopping it. If the West did the Chinese wouldn't, and the US would enter into an awful lot of research partnerships with the comp sci departments of universities in places like Wuhan. Plus Musk is in the mix, and there seems to be something in the US constitution to say he can do what he likes.
Human beings are very strange, allowing something to happen which is going to make life worse for nearly everyone.
Well yes. Like war and slavery and global warming and everything else. Kesslerisation is a case in point. It was predicted at the time of sputnik 1, satellites confer just incremental benefits to TV and Internet and weather forecasting and stuff vs the absolutely fundamental disbenefit of locking ourselves in from the rest of the universe and making terrestrial astronomy impossible, but there's money and military advantage and, once again, Musk, and here we are.
WTAF? You are completely bonkers.
Satellites have conferred massive advantage to us in science, technology, telecommunications, weather analysis and forecasting, understanding the climate and much more.
Anyone who predicted they would have just incremental or minor benefits was as incorrect as those who thought that "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers" [predicted by IBM], or "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
Yes, Bart. "Telecommunications" and the other stuff is just a fancy way of repeating what I said. "Massive advantage" is Look and Learn style yay for science cheerleading, the benefits are merely incremental; starlink and its competitors do not provide a game changing advance on 5g. So the calculation is, is that stuff all worth kesslerising ourselves, which is about the most damaging to science thing that could happen?
I am sorry to break it to you. Even the government had to disband it's Department for Brexit Opportunities (titter) because it could not find any. There are no benefits of Brexit. There are no fairies at the end of the garden. There are no alien landings.
Comments
And Man Utd will be back: their brand is too big and too good
I have no idea how any German team can ever compete with Bayern. The Germans' much-praised 50+1 structure largely prevents moneyed owners from buying in and injecting lots of cash
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiKQO6BVzyA
https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/53395372
*Edited: 1922.
Individually each union/employee and employer negotiate for what is best for both of them.
Do you agree with the basic premise in the post I made though?
News just the last couple of days:
"Is AI a threat to the world of fabric design?"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66437928
"Google and Universal Music working on licensing voices for AI-generated songs"
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/aug/09/google-and-universal-music-working-on-licensing-voices-for-ai-generated-songs
"It’s already way beyond what humans can do’: will AI wipe out architects?"
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2023/aug/07/ai-architects-revolutionising-corbusier-architecture
My favourite:
"AI replacing psychics as 'fortune telling' droids put tarot readers out of work"
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/weird-news/ai-replacing-psychics-fortune-telling-30659524
It is time to be afraid. Very very afraid
Over the past decade the public sector has become more productive. The share of expenditure of taxes going to public sector wages has gone down, not up, over the past decade.
What has gone up is the share of expenditure of taxes going to welfare. Which is not going to those who are unemployed, which is half the rate it was in 2010. Its not going to those in dire need of it, which has been cut to the bone, but still welfare expenditure is higher now than it was when Labour left office. And is going up more annually.
How do you make any sense of that? And what productivity is meant to drive or make that affordable?
And why would we want one of those?
"Stone Carving is done.
Robots can do the work 100x faster and 1000x more accurate
AI/Machines will enhance and come for creative jobs.
Would you buy a statue carved by a robot?"
https://twitter.com/LinusEkenstam/status/1689585394780708869?s=20
Right on time the British weather has changed. Even here in Dublin where I’m spending a couple of days it’s warm and
sunny. The proper heatwave should really get going mid next week.
https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1689046810642219008
After former Pence Adviser Keith Kellogg endorses Trump and criticizes Pence for “his recent actions regarding President Trump”, Marc Short shows
@wolfblitzer email from Kellogg on Jan 6 2021 telling him and VP to “finish the Electoral College issue TONIGHT.”
http://www.stone-circles.org.uk/stone/swastikastone.htm
https://www.agefotostock.com/age/en/details-photo/nuremberg-rally-1933-in-nuremberg-germany-members-of-the-sturmabteilung-sa-with-banners-deutschland-erwache-germany/PAH-47792659
And no, it doesn’t cost the Earth to make buildings that don’t physically hurt the eyes.
Real state output soared under Labour from 1997 to 2009 by a massive 50 per cent , but productivity fell 2 per cent over the 12 years. Under the Conservatives pre-Covid, output was up again by a more restrained 8 per cent, with productivity edging ahead to show a 3.7 per cent gain since 1997. By the end of 2021 output was up again by almost a tenth but productivity was down on 1997 levels by 3.7 per cent. So over nearly a quarter of a century of fast automation and technical advance in the wider economy, the UK public sector saw a fall in productivity. '
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/05/falling-public-sector-productivity-real-national-crisis/
Pensioners who get the state pension mostly paid in when working via National Insurance and you can't get the state pension without sufficient NI contributions or credits
The swastika really was a commonly used symbol before the Nazis appropriated it (I believe the Finnish airforce incorporated it into their insignia till quite recently). It's made a little piquant in the Scouts' case by the occasional sympatico statements made by Baden-Powell about Hitler & co.
If you want to give more support to those in need, then do that, but that has been cut to the bone.
And then we need to equalise tax rates, so that everyone pays the same rate of tax.
A teacher on a £30k salary pays a 41% tax rate.
A pensioner with £95k private pension pays a 40% tax rate.
How is it justifiable to tax someone earning £30k a higher tax rate than someone earning £95k? Its simply not. And then the taxes going to fund the latter's supplementary taxpayer funded income is going up by double digit percentages, while the former gets a below-inflation pay rise.
If we can't afford pay rises, then apply that across the board. To everyone.
If we have to levy taxes, then levy them across the board. On everyone.
Even they both say "special relationship" through gritted teeth, and it's no secret Biden can't stand the sight of us.
If AI leads to mass unemployment and few full time and permanent jobs, most voters ie the non rich and non corporate executives will only vote for parties promising massive robot taxes on corporations to fund big universal basic income and welfare payments.
We will end up with the main western parties effectively offering social democracy just in slightly different forms
Starmer is going to face some interesting choices. The welfare bill he is inheriting utterly dwarfs the one the Tories inherited from Labour. Even with unemployment being half the rate it was, the 2 child cap and everything else that has happened over the past decade.
Police say they “continue to engage” with Carly Taylor, 34, and her husband Adam, 44, after the Crooked House, in Himley, near Dudley, burnt down. It was then demolished without permission, weeks after the couple had bought the landmark in Staffordshire." (£)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/crooked-house-fire-police-arson-sq36xwc80
A gentle slide into universal basic income and ubiquitous social democracy is right at the optimal end of the Outcome Spectrum
What they paid for was not a Triple Locked pension that was draining taxpayers money at an unaffordable rate. That was never promised, and never what was paid for either.
If you pay for a Ford, you don't then get to vote that you should get a Bentley instead, because you made your payments.
The country can not afford to keep giving double-digit welfare payments that are not targeted at those in need, when welfare is over 30% of state expenditure and rising (more than it was when Labour left office) and we have a deficit.
Enough is enough. This is not how you run an economy.
So for example the farrier who works in a traditional way at some historic event display will be no more productive than his Victorian counterpart. We don't however pay him Victorian wages because:
a) People working in other walks of life are more productive than their Victorian counterparts and spend good money to come and see him work. So although he is no more productive he is worth more.
b) He wouldn't do it for a shilling a day.
So you see a person doesn't have to be more productive to get more money as long as there is greater productivity overall and his skills are in demand.
Much as I hate most of the public sector I do accept we need some of them and if you don't pay them they will go elsewhere.
It is very useful as a code completion tool for developers. For pieces of code.
In data science, likewise.
In the wider world, similar. The soft fruit picking machines that are coming in, for instance, need a small number of minders/mechanics.
It is a variation of the old story of automaton - fewer jobs for some tasks, but higher quality and pay. The productivity gains are then used to other things.
So we went from 90% of the population farming to what? 1%?
Unless you can get everyone to unilaterally "disarm" - to voluntarily stop developing AGI than you risk being left behind and destroyed. Exactly as happened with nukes. The USSR could not afford to let the USA hegemonise the world, so it developed nukes, then the UK, France, China, felt the same way about each other... India, Pakistan, Israel followed on...
This is, arguably, even "worse" than nukes because the development of nukes is OBVIOUS. It can be seen from space. It makes a dent in imports and exports of the necessary kit and equipment. Developing AI can be done in a few labs on the quiet. So even if Google swears on the bible that its stopped developing Bard 3.5, Microsoft cannot be sure of this, and will likely continue developing ChatGPT7
Same goes for USA v China
"The thing is though, the polls only tell you so much, and in many ways, the two-child limit is the Labour party equivalent of, say, cutting defence spending for the Conservatives: there is no plausible universe in which a re-elected Rishi Sunak would be able to get away with implementing it. Equally there is, I think, a similar array of forces that will mean the next Labour government has to scrap the two-child limit.
The Conservatives’ policy — which caps the amount a household can receive in benefits if they have no, or low, earnings — upsets the party’s social liberals, its Christian socialists, its feminists and its pro-welfare tendency . . . Essentially every part of the Labour party hates this policy, which is one reason why almost every major figure in the party is on the record calling the policy “immoral”, “heinous” or “social engineering” or some variation thereof.
The only question will be whether a change to the current cap is enforced on the leadership — perhaps by some equivalent of the bill currently working its way through parliament — or if the policy never gets that far.
You can see at the moment that Keir Starmer is trying to win, essentially, a doctor’s mandate: that was the subtext of his piece for the Observer this weekend. The short version is “the UK is sick, the disease is low growth, give me a mandate to cure the illness”. And you can see, too, how Labour might find its way around this commitment, whether through spinning its changes to universal credit or pointing out the problems that UK benefits create for growth. (Good column on that more broadly by Adam Posen.) A three-year research project — conducted by the universities of York, Oxford and the London School of Economics and Political Science — published today found no evidence the two-child limit meets its aims on employment and fertility, and, in some cases, has had the opposite effect, “meaning its main effect is to push families with three or more children further into poverty”.
Or you can see how the change might be enforced on the leadership by a backbench revolt.
The open question is whether the policy will get that far. You can easily see how, over the coming weeks and even more during the Labour party conference, the question is going to be asked of so many Labour MPs and frontbenchers: given you’ve said, in some cases this measure is heinous, social engineering, immoral, and so on . . . what’s changed?"
* But you're also wrong because there is not going to be a President Again Donald Trump. If the GOP don't find a way, America as a whole will.
"AI Is Building Highly Effective Antibodies That Humans Can’t Even Imagine
Robots, computers, and algorithms are hunting for potential new therapies in ways humans can’t—by processing huge volumes of data and building previously unimagined molecules."
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/labgenius-antibody-factory-machine-learning
However, AI is coming for a lot of middle class, white collar, bourgeois jobs, it also coming for the creative jobs. The "nice" jobs. That is simply a fact, hence the unprecedented Hollywood strike. That's today's version of Luddite loom smashing. AI is bound to revolutionise work and society, and revolutions are always painful; there is also a small but not entirely trivial risk that AI could kill humanity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xlinks_Morocco-UK_Power_Project
I think the problem with it is that it is not that good (yet) at interpreting legislation.
1) higher pay for low skilled jobs. Deliveroo charges £20 for your meal to be delivered. Barista coffee cost £10 a cup.
2) cheap deliveroo and artisan coffee. Adults living in bunk beds stacked in every room
Pick one
Does it need to be regulated? Yes to an extent, but people need to calm down. The glass is half full and we need to celebrate the huge amount of opportunities AI offers us.
I cannot understand why anyone ever thought he had a chance.
Satellites have conferred massive advantage to us in science, technology, telecommunications, weather analysis and forecasting, understanding the climate and much more.
Anyone who predicted they would have just incremental or minor benefits was as incorrect as those who thought that "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers" [predicted by IBM], or "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
NHS data: Number of people waiting to start routine hospital treatment in England at record high
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12392291/New-owners-Crooked-House-bought-gutted-pub.html
Spookily my autocomplete which is what AI basically is atm supplied everything after "spending" there.
They're not going to be replaced by AI or robots any time soon, I can tell you that.
But/and we will always be at the helm so it's only going to be as good or as bad as we ourselves are.
Hence the 4 day week.
(ducks)
I do have some sympathy for your uninformed concerns about AI though. I mean - who needs someone to write meaningless but beautifully crafted articles on travel when ChatGPT can write an article with all of the travel info of the entire internet at it's disposal even in the somewhat formulaic style of, say, SeanT if asked.
It is quite possible that pointless jobs such as travel writers will be swept away with the heartless broom of machine learning. I believe Halfords has quite a few openings for the more senior gentleman such as yourself.
Apparently the guy who rented them the JCB (and is, it seems, entirely blameless) has been severely harrassed with hate mail and billions of angry calls. The social media anger aimed at the actual couple themselves must be extraordinary. I wonder if they might have to move out of the UK, there's no coming back from this
They were unfortunate that their alleged crimes happened in mid August, with a bored media lacking stories, waiting to pounce. Oh well, never mind, etc
With a vowel in the middle.
But car is worth an extra point in scrabble so some spooky differences too.
"French leaders have a plan to build a native AI industry. There’s just one problem: They’re in the EU."
https://www.politico.eu/article/open-source-artificial-intelligence-france-bets-big/
Have we really reached the point now where we have to explain what a postcard is? I feel old!