AP: Technology destroying jobs faster than it's creating them.

[Josquius]

not getting paid to internships seems to be a matter for the law: change the law so that renumeration for work done is required.

The laws are made by the rich.

There has been talk of such. With the tories in power though it won't be coming to pass any time soon.

[Admiral Yi]

The laws are made by the rich.

There has been talk of such. With the tories in power though it won't be coming to pass any time soon.

Typical Mining Union thinking. 

Unpaid internships provide employers a low-cost way of mitigating the information asymetry inherent in the labor market.  One would think at a time of record unemployment rates folks would be trying to reduce the barriers to job creation, not raise them.

[Sheilbh]

Some firms use them instead of entry-level staff though - they never hire any interns they just have 3 or 6 month internships running to do the basic work. Generally some of the more meritocratic industries, who genuinely want the best people, as opposed to free labour (law firms, City companies) generally do pay interns a wage so that background doesn't stop people.

But the way they've become so widespread makes them a problem in terms of social mobility. If you're not either rich or from London then there are simply some sectors you can't enter.

As an aside, our unemployment rate isn't at a record high.

not getting paid to internships seems to be a matter for the law: change the law so that renumeration for work done is required.

Yeah. There are good reasons for keeping unpaid internships legal, but the government's at the moment trying to persuade companies to pay them the minimum wage.

[Admiral Yi]

As an aside, our unemployment rate isn't at a record high.

Because you have unpaid internships.

[Valmy]

The internship only lasts 3 to 6 months?  That seems manageable for people who are not rich.  I mean you do not have massive college tuitions so it looks massively easier and cheaper than steering an American kid to a top job.  Seems like you guys have a sweet deal from where I sit.

The housing costs are not so sweet though.

[Sheilbh]

Because you have unpaid internships.

I've read many explanations for how our employment rate keeps increasing despite the shrinking economy. Never come across that reason.

[Sheilbh]

The internship only lasts 3 to 6 months?  That seems manageable for people who are not rich.  I mean you do not have massive college tuitions so it looks massively easier and cheaper than steering an American kid to a top job.

Well if you're in a firm that doesn't hire people at the end of them then you've got to do a few. The costs living in London with no income for a while are a pretty high burden for a normal family.

We do have high costs to university now - though not in the same way as in the US. I think a kid going to a top university now would leave with debt of around £36 000 and would probably have had some help from their parents with living costs.

[Admiral Yi]

The market solution to the problem of free short term labor internships is for the information to get out to the public that those certain companies do not offer paid positions at the end of the internships.

[The Minsky Moment]

But will it adjust this time?  It cannot, in any conventional means.  I see no road ahead that puts those made redundant by technological progress back to work in a meaningful sense.  The service sector existed, and existed in much its modern form, well prior to deinudstrialization--it was an obvious outlet.  But where is the fourth sector to which we should look?

I don't see why not.

Let's leaven this discussion with some actual facts and data.  Seasonally adjusted employment levels in the United States stand at 143.3 million as compared to a pre-crisis peak of 146.6 million, but sharply from the 138.0 million pre-crisis trough.  This looks a lot like a regular, if rather sharp business cycle downturn effect - if there is some broader job-destroying trend going on, it isn't showing up in the data.

The data is a little more supportive of the technoscare story if we look at a long run employment rates.  Employment rates of working age men in the US is now at 72%, which is a record low.  But it is up from the post-crisis trough of 71% and not that far off the cycical trough of 76.5% in 1983.  What if we include women? Then the number is 67% for 2012, as compared to 66% in 1983.  That would suggest again that what we seeing on jobs is still simply a nasty business cycle effect, which is in the modern era is more balanced genderwise.

A delicate question to pose you is to what extent your perception is being shaped by your own experiences.  The legal business is not necessarily representative of the economy as a whole.  A distinguishing characteristic of the post-Carter US economy was the rise in the FIRE sector of the economy, a rise that accelerated in Clinton's second term and the Bush years.  There is reason to believe that the FIRE sector simply grew well beyond the point of rational sustainability and that the present job losses in that sector represents a return to normalcy, and not some much broader trend of technological hollowing out.

[Valmy]

We do have high costs to university now - though not in the same way as in the US. I think a kid going to a top university now would leave with debt of around £36 000 and would probably have had some help from their parents with living costs.

What?  Well that changes things considerably.

[Barrister]

But will it adjust this time?  It cannot, in any conventional means.  I see no road ahead that puts those made redundant by technological progress back to work in a meaningful sense.  The service sector existed, and existed in much its modern form, well prior to deinudstrialization--it was an obvious outlet.  But where is the fourth sector to which we should look?

I don't see why not.

Let's leaven this discussion with some actual facts and data.  Seasonally adjusted employment levels in the United States stand at 143.3 million as compared to a pre-crisis peak of 146.6 million, but sharply from the 138.0 million pre-crisis trough.  This looks a lot like a regular, if rather sharp business cycle downturn effect - if there is some broader job-destroying trend going on, it isn't showing up in the data.

The data is a little more supportive of the technoscare story if we look at a long run employment rates.  Employment rates of working age men in the US is now at 72%, which is a record low.  But it is up from the post-crisis trough of 71% and not that far off the cycical trough of 76.5% in 1983.  What if we include women? Then the number is 67% for 2012, as compared to 66% in 1983.  That would suggest again that what we seeing on jobs is still simply a nasty business cycle effect, which is in the modern era is more balanced genderwise.

A delicate question to pose you is to what extent your perception is being shaped by your own experiences.  The legal business is not necessarily representative of the economy as a whole.  A distinguishing characteristic of the post-Carter US economy was the rise in the FIRE sector of the economy, a rise that accelerated in Clinton's second term and the Bush years.  There is reason to believe that the FIRE sector simply grew well beyond the point of rational sustainability and that the present job losses in that sector represents a return to normalcy, and not some much broader trend of technological hollowing out.

FIRE sector?

*quickly checks google*

Ah - Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate.

Yeah, there might be something to that.  Though the thought makes me glad that I'm in a legal sector unconnected to any of those areas.

[Neil]

Yeah, you're in criminal law.  You'll just get screwed over by the Redford Tories so that she can feed your pension to the ATA.

[Barrister]

Yeah, you're in criminal law.  You'll just get screwed over by the Redford Tories so that she can feed your pension to the ATA.

That's what I'm worried about.

[Malthus]

Yeah, there might be something to that.  Though the thought makes me glad that I'm in a legal sector unconnected to any of those areas.

Personally, I plan to be law-abiding, just to put you out of work. 

[Neil]

Yeah, you're in criminal law.  You'll just get screwed over by the Redford Tories so that she can feed your pension to the ATA.

That's what I'm worried about.

Why worry?  You know it's going to happen, and you know there's nothing you can do to change it.  Unfortunately, your plan didn't work.  It sucks, but those are the realities of the time we live in.  The golden age is over.  Rather than worrying, see if you can come up with a new plan.