I've been thinking about the future a lot lately. Given the rather crappy state of the world at the moment and the lack of a light at the end of the tunnel I'm really getting all rather down on everything.
My current big fears for the future aren't the standard sci-fi stuff, I'm not screaming about nanomachines or genetic engineering physically destroying us all. My current concerns are rather more down to earth and based around the general screwed up state of the world economy and society.
So....Its pretty hard for me to put all this in words, but...I'm going to try, my big worry is for the future of the working class.
The working class has been on its knees for decades already.
Back in the day there was a solid place for the working class. Industry by its very nature required lots of people with little education putting in solid grunt work to extract resources and get things built. The proles outnumbered management many times and everything was quite sensible (if unfair, but then that needn't have been inherent to the point at hand, just the way things were).
With the coming of increased automation however....the need for such massed numbers of workers dropped off dramatically. To be able to compete against cheap foreign labour western factories had to become super automised.
These days you have a situation where in the UK IIRC we produce more cars than we ever have before...yet the auto industry employs only a fraction of the people it did back in the 60s.
This problem is been offset to some degree by the fairer system allowing more people to get an education. But there we get into the problem of jobs that don't actually produce anything. Its all well and good for a few countries to have a knowledge economy but as the rest of the world develops and with the internet especially...its just becoming harder and harder to rely on there being low level office jobs in the west.
My worry is...where does this leave the working class?
Already in Britain we've big problems with the non-working class, the children of Thatcher, kids born to parents who have never known work who were born to parents who have never known work, etc... they're just stuck in a cycle of hopelessness, benefits and general shittyness.
As automisation of factories increases and more of the world gets up to western standards of living...I can only see the permanently unemployed increasing as there just won't be enough jobs to go around.
Unemployment I see as a huge problem in the future. Had I the skill and time I would be tempted to write a novel about this.
Another thing I see happening in the future is manufacturing moving back to the west. This will occur due to A: the rest of the world becoming richer and no longer so cheap a manufacturing option and B: increasing fuel costs meaning it is better to pay a few times as much to produce something at home than to build it halfway around the world and have to ship it over.
Even with this factor though...automisation will mean there will only be jobs for a few. Manufacturing will never be the mass employer it once was. And having a nation of shop workers just won't work.
So yeah...where do you think we're going?
Is there any cure for society or are we doomed to have a unemployed underclass that continues to grow?- given future predictions for social security to get horribly expensive this problem becomes even more stark...
There is hope, Tyr.
Renounce this defiled world and attain the pure land!
It starts with lots of fasting and tea, and it never truly ends.
I don't think the world economy is in as crappy state as one would think. People are twitchy after the crisis and that leads to a general confidence breakdown, and we are facing a sovereign debt/public finances crisis, but the "fundamentals of the economy are strong", to quote.
As for the UK, I think you were being lied to when they told you you have a "knowledge based economy". Germany has a knowledge-based economy - it has people doing R&D and then producing stuff with that. You have/had a high flying capital markets economy, with an ancillary service industry to serve the world's financial elite. Now that capital markets have collapsed, that's gone too.
I'd call Germany an export based economy.
Quote from: Habsburg on September 10, 2011, 02:00:17 AM
I'd call Germany an export based economy.
Yep, domestic consumption has been alternating between low and abysmal (and Germans are notoriously pessimistic as a people), so most economic growth is driven by exports, mostly to other EU members.
I think as production gets more and more efficient, governments are going to start providing more and more for mostly idle citizens. (And no, I don't think governments reducing programs that they've had to borrow to pay for is evidence against this).
Quote from: Habsburg on September 10, 2011, 02:00:17 AM
I'd call Germany an export based economy.
I think one has little to do with the other. Germany exports knowledge, Britain exports (exported) financial market services.
I don't worry about this particular thing. My honest impression is that the forces that Luddites fight are not ultimately malignant.
Quote from: Martinus on September 10, 2011, 01:32:54 AM
I don't think the world economy is in as crappy state as one would think. People are twitchy after the crisis and that leads to a general confidence breakdown, and we are facing a sovereign debt/public finances crisis, but the "fundamentals of the economy are strong", to quote.
As for the UK, I think you were being lied to when they told you you have a "knowledge based economy". Germany has a knowledge-based economy - it has people doing R&D and then producing stuff with that. You have/had a high flying capital markets economy, with an ancillary service industry to serve the world's financial elite. Now that capital markets have collapsed, that's gone too.
I don't think that dichotomy works. Britain is innovative in financial sector products, Germany is innovative in industrial sector products. Both are based on human capital and thus knowledge. So I'd say both are knowledge-based economies, just with a little bit different focus.
And even then, it's not like there aren't very innovative British industrial companies such as Rolls-Royce, BAE etc. and while Deutsche Bank's investment arm is in London, Allianz, Munich Re etc. are worldwide leaders in insurance so I guess they come up with financial service innovations occasionally too. Britain's and Germany's economies aren't that different.
The problem that tyr mentions, namely that there aren't good, steady jobs for less qualified people exists here just as it exists in Britain. You need to educate people, whether it is in some technical job or in some office job. Building human capital should be the foremost task of our states. That's much more important for the continued well-being than fixing social systems etc.
Quote from: Syt on September 10, 2011, 02:06:41 AMYep, domestic consumption has been alternating between low and abysmal (and Germans are notoriously pessimistic as a people), so most economic growth is driven by exports, mostly to other EU members.
I think it is both an effect of a general skepticism of the future as well as Germany aging fast and people realizing that their pensions will not be enough to sustain their lifestyle so they save a lot. Of course that's a vicious circle. As the domestic market isn't very active, investment there becomes unattractive and thus more capital is sent abroad, paid for by exports. That in turn saps Germany of capital to invest into its economy.
I don't think all's so bad, but it does feel crappy.
In the corporate life, the level of fear is amazing. Constant cost-cutting, and top management doesn't seem to know quite where to go.
Weak managers are in a state of constant panic, yelling at subordinates and giving good licks to the asses above.
Never been so bad in my 16 years of corporate America. But it's just a patch of time, things will be good, eventually.
Gaijin's got it. The panic-based art of investing has pretty much taken over management, and now there's very little strategy or thought going into management decisions in many companies. It's all panic and reaction.
Quote from: Martinus on September 10, 2011, 01:32:54 AM
As for the UK, I think you were being lied to when they told you you have a "knowledge based economy". Germany has a knowledge-based economy - it has people doing R&D and then producing stuff with that. You have/had a high flying capital markets economy, with an ancillary service industry to serve the world's financial elite. Now that capital markets have collapsed, that's gone too.
This isn't true. The UK has other knowledge based sectors like Autonomy up in Cambridge or BAE in Bristol and the capital markets economy hasn't collapsed - London's still doing relatively well. The trouble is we've got areas of the country that are fine and recovering such as London, the South, Edinburgh and so on and they're generally sustained by a knowledge based service economy.
Then there are areas of the country, such as Liverpool, and other old industrial centres who've never really recovered from the recession of the early 80s.
I do wonder if our willingness to allow foreign companies to take over British business is part of it. Robert Peston's been mentioning it a few times recently but we do seem far more blase about it than other countries and I'm not sure if it is always to our benefit.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 10, 2011, 07:44:41 AM
I do wonder if our willingness to allow foreign companies to take over British business is part of it. Robert Peston's been mentioning it a few times recently but we do seem far more blase about it than other countries and I'm not sure if it is always to our benefit.
It seems a rather populist line to take. What do you meaning by "willingness" here? It's not like WTO and EU rules allow you much leeway here. Not to mention, it's a bit bizarre to take that stance, seeing how you have been profiteering on international capital markets for so long.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on September 10, 2011, 04:47:51 AM
I don't think all's so bad, but it does feel crappy.
In the corporate life, the level of fear is amazing. Constant cost-cutting, and top management doesn't seem to know quite where to go.
Weak managers are in a state of constant panic, yelling at subordinates and giving good licks to the asses above.
Never been so bad in my 16 years of corporate America. But it's just a patch of time, things will be good, eventually.
We have been doing pretty well, as we managed to secure a bunch of big projects for the rest of the year, but yeah, a lot of colleagues/competitors seem to be panicking. I think people are still traumatized by the Lehman Brothers crisis and fear it might be returning. The result is silliness.
Quote from: Tyr on September 10, 2011, 01:19:08 AM
Already in Britain we've big problems with the non-working class, the children of Thatcher, kids born to parents who have never known work who were born to parents who have never known work, etc... they're just stuck in a cycle of hopelessness, benefits and general shittyness.
Tyr, I love ya man, but you're one of the shallowest political thinkers on Languish. Yet again your political analysis boils down to "It's all Thatcher's fault". :hug: :lmfao:
Quote from: Martinus on September 10, 2011, 03:33:40 PMIt seems a rather populist line to take. What do you meaning by "willingness" here? It's not like WTO and EU rules allow you much leeway here. Not to mention, it's a bit bizarre to take that stance, seeing how you have been profiteering on international capital markets for so long.
We've, I think, taken globalisation as far as any other big country. I've always had a populist and a dirigiste streak :P
Those rules exist but you can protect national champions. The Canadians decided to protect that Potash company and a Canadian bid was put together for the Toronto stock exchange, in preference to the LSE bid. I think other countries have behaved in a similar way over different firms, sometimes ridiculously such as France over Danone.
In addition, though I think Congress was silly over the whole Dubai World Port thing, that was actually caused by Dubai World Port's taking over P&O and there was no debate whatsoever in this country, not necessarily about the security (which was silly) but about how advantageous it would be for the UK economy.
Similarly I think we're far more liberal about allowing foreign ownership of infrastructure companies than most countries.
I think we've had governments that talk about 'UK plc' (that is a trope in our politics) but would never consider anything but supporting a sale to the highest bidder. And you're right I think we've had governments that have behaved like the UK is Hong Kong with a country attached and that's one of my problems.
Quote from: Tyr on September 10, 2011, 01:19:08 AM
Is there any cure for society or are we doomed to have a unemployed underclass that continues to grow?- given future predictions for social security to get horribly expensive this problem becomes even more stark...
Wouldn't it just be easier to cull the herd?
Culling would be messy and expensive. Let's send them to North Dakota. :)
Sounds too kind.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 10, 2011, 03:53:01 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 10, 2011, 03:33:40 PMIt seems a rather populist line to take. What do you meaning by "willingness" here? It's not like WTO and EU rules allow you much leeway here. Not to mention, it's a bit bizarre to take that stance, seeing how you have been profiteering on international capital markets for so long.
We've, I think, taken globalisation as far as any other big country. I've always had a populist and a dirigiste streak :P
Those rules exist but you can protect national champions. The Canadians decided to protect that Potash company and a Canadian bid was put together for the Toronto stock exchange, in preference to the LSE bid. I think other countries have behaved in a similar way over different firms, sometimes ridiculously such as France over Danone.
In addition, though I think Congress was silly over the whole Dubai World Port thing, that was actually caused by Dubai World Port's taking over P&O and there was no debate whatsoever in this country, not necessarily about the security (which was silly) but about how advantageous it would be for the UK economy.
Similarly I think we're far more liberal about allowing foreign ownership of infrastructure companies than most countries.
I think we've had governments that talk about 'UK plc' (that is a trope in our politics) but would never consider anything but supporting a sale to the highest bidder. And you're right I think we've had governments that have behaved like the UK is Hong Kong with a country attached and that's one of my problems.
Canada is not a part of the EU - they retain full authority over stuff like merger control. On the other hand, the UK cannot block mergers that are the jurisdiction of the European Commission (e.g. Kraft/Cadbury).
And while other EU nations try to do that (like France did over Danone, and Poland over the BPH Bank), they almost always fail so this is nothing but empty posturing for domestic consumption - I don't think it is worth to tarnish your "international business friendly" reputation just for the sake of national polls.
Quote from: Martinus on September 10, 2011, 05:06:41 PM
Canada is not a part of the EU - they retain full authority over stuff like merger control. On the other hand, the UK cannot block mergers that are the jurisdiction of the European Commission (e.g. Kraft/Cadbury).
Canada is part of the WTO though and France is part of the EU with the example of Danone were the French government passed a law that would allow the government to declare a company a 'strategic interest' and prevent takeovers. I don't think the UK government would even do that for a genuinely strategically useful company like BAE. And I'm relatively sure that national governments can act in ways to shape a merger, or to try and hobble together a national takeover, that's within the letter but not the spirit of the rules.
Similarly I don't think many other countries have allowed most major airports to be run by a foreign company.
Kraft/Cadbury wouldn't come under that but it is frustrating that the government got an undertaking that a British factory would be protected and then, once the merger's complete, announce that actually it'll be closed after all because an alternative's too close to completion. It's also annoying that Parliament's been treated with a sort of contempt in all this because Kraft won't go to any select committee.
OTOH the French were written off years ago. No one takes them seriously.
The French have the world's largest strategic yoghurt stockpile, only a fool or a Vegan would write them off :hmm:
Quote from: Martinus on September 10, 2011, 05:06:41 PMAnd while other EU nations try to do that (like France did over Danone, and Poland over the BPH Bank), they almost always fail so this is nothing but empty posturing for domestic consumption - I don't think it is worth to tarnish your "international business friendly" reputation just for the sake of national polls.
My point is that I think the UK are more globalised in this respect and similarly more comfortable with foreign chairmen and CEO of 'British' firms, I believe the idea of a non-German head of Deutsche Bank's been quite a controversial novelty recently. So while I sympathise with the French I don't think we need to go whole hog but I think we could be a bit more nationalist on this and I think there are countries that have done more to protect national companies without going fully French. My impression is that other free market economies like Canada, the US and Australia and EU countries like Germany and Poland have all managed this. I'd rather be near them than the globalised, neo-liberal mirror image of France.
Remember Josq, it is down the tracks, not across.
Quote from: Barrister on September 10, 2011, 03:47:42 PM
Tyr, I love ya man, but you're one of the shallowest political thinkers on Languish. Yet again your political analysis boils down to "It's all Thatcher's fault". :hug: :lmfao:
I don't know very much, but I get the feeling that the Thatcher years dealt a tremendous blow to certain segments of British society, economically and psychically.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on September 10, 2011, 05:49:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 10, 2011, 03:47:42 PM
Tyr, I love ya man, but you're one of the shallowest political thinkers on Languish. Yet again your political analysis boils down to "It's all Thatcher's fault". :hug: :lmfao:
I don't know very much, but I get the feeling that the Thatcher years dealt a tremendous blow to certain segments of British society, economically and psychically.
Chavs.
Geordies.
A despicable subhuman species.
Mr. Brain's Pork Faggots
Ed's Spotted Dick.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on September 10, 2011, 05:49:43 PMI don't know very much, but I get the feeling that the Thatcher years dealt a tremendous blow to certain segments of British society, economically and psychically.
Unbelievably so. As I say in lots of the country the early 80s recession never ended and socially there's a void that's never healed.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 10, 2011, 05:59:06 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on September 10, 2011, 05:49:43 PMI don't know very much, but I get the feeling that the Thatcher years dealt a tremendous blow to certain segments of British society, economically and psychically.
Unbelievably so. As I say in lots of the country the early 80s recession never ended and socially there's a void that's never healed.
To me, then, it's not laughable that Thatcher's pit closures and strikebreaking -- all within the last 25 years or so -- would stand as a huge milestone for assessing destructive trends in British life. And I don't think Josq is so off-base, since that sentiment would seem to be widely shared in parts of the industrial North.
If the areas of Sweden that were hit by closed industries in that era had just stood around and moped they would have been pretty hellish too. No one in Sweden today is very sorry that textile industry, shipbuilding etc is gone. Except possibly some eccentric coots.
The pit closures are particularly odd because they effectively brought urban decline and blight to small towns which I is a weird dynamic. I mean Liverpool and Glasgow were royally fucked by the 80s (and, in the case of Liverpool the corrupt Trotskyist council didn't help :blush:) but I think it's easier to imagine a city recovering than a Welsh valley town.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on September 10, 2011, 05:49:43 PM
I don't know very much, but I get the feeling that the Thatcher years dealt a tremendous blow to certain segments of British society, economically and psychically.
How could it not? If you were accustomed to dictating national economic policy and had that power suddenly removed and if you had built up work skills that, once the public subsidy was removed and demand for your output collapsed because of discoveries of competing energy sources, what other possible outcome could there have been?
The invention of talking movies dealt a tremendous blow to most silent film stars. The mass production of automobiles dealt a tremendous blow to blacksmiths and saddlers. Tape recorders--short hand writers. Computers--punch card operators. The list goes on and on.
Quote from: The Brain on September 10, 2011, 06:07:41 PM
If the areas of Sweden that were hit by closed industries in that era had just stood around and moped they would have been pretty hellish too. No one in Sweden today is very sorry that textile industry, shipbuilding etc is gone. Except possibly some eccentric coots.
I gather that it wasn't just the passing of traditional industry that hit Britain so hard, but a number of other factors that probably weren't present in mid-80s Sweden. Though I don't know scheisse from Shinola about modern Swedish history, and only a little more about the UK.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on September 10, 2011, 06:11:25 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 10, 2011, 06:07:41 PM
If the areas of Sweden that were hit by closed industries in that era had just stood around and moped they would have been pretty hellish too. No one in Sweden today is very sorry that textile industry, shipbuilding etc is gone. Except possibly some eccentric coots.
I gather that it wasn't just the passing of traditional industry that hit Britain so hard, but a number of other factors that probably weren't present in mid-80s Sweden. Though I don't know scheisse from Shinola about modern Swedish history, and only a little more about the UK.
Well we certainly won't elect a female PM.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 10, 2011, 06:11:19 PMHow could it not? If you were accustomed to dictating national economic policy and had that power suddenly removed and if you had built up work skills that, once the public subsidy was removed and demand for your output collapsed because of discoveries of competing energy sources, what other possible outcome could there have been?
I don't think you actually know much about the situation with coal mining in this country, then or now, because this is just ignorant.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 10, 2011, 06:15:05 PM
I don't think you actually know much about the situation with coal mining in this country, then or now, because this is just ignorant.
That's a possibility.
Quote from: Barrister on September 10, 2011, 03:47:42 PM
Quote from: Tyr on September 10, 2011, 01:19:08 AM
Already in Britain we've big problems with the non-working class, the children of Thatcher, kids born to parents who have never known work who were born to parents who have never known work, etc... they're just stuck in a cycle of hopelessness, benefits and general shittyness.
Tyr, I love ya man, but you're one of the shallowest political thinkers on Languish. Yet again your political analysis boils down to "It's all Thatcher's fault".
Not really no, the entire point of my post here is that the way the wind was blowing was against the working class already, Thatcher certainly didn't invent the microchip or any major advances in robotics.
It is undeniable however that she certainly sped up the process greatly for many and IMO in a very unecessary, over the top, calous and short term thinking way. The children of Thatcher are a well observed phenomena.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 10, 2011, 05:58:35 PM
Ed's Spotted Dick.
Should probably have a doctor take a look at that.
Quote from: Tyr on September 10, 2011, 08:23:01 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 10, 2011, 03:47:42 PM
Quote from: Tyr on September 10, 2011, 01:19:08 AM
Already in Britain we've big problems with the non-working class, the children of Thatcher, kids born to parents who have never known work who were born to parents who have never known work, etc... they're just stuck in a cycle of hopelessness, benefits and general shittyness.
Tyr, I love ya man, but you're one of the shallowest political thinkers on Languish. Yet again your political analysis boils down to "It's all Thatcher's fault".
Not really no, the entire point of my post here is that the way the wind was blowing was against the working class already, Thatcher certainly didn't invent the microchip or any major advances in robotics.
It is undeniable however that she certainly sped up the process greatly for many and IMO in a very unecessary, over the top, calous and short term thinking way. The children of Thatcher are a well observed phenomena.
Hard to say. I mean, do you hold Thatcher responsible for cutting off the useless miners, or do you hold decades of British governments responsible for allowing it to get to that point? Either way, the argument that they were owed a lifetime of work mining coal at the expense of the productive parts of society isn't going to convince many.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 10, 2011, 06:10:01 PM
The pit closures are particularly odd because they effectively brought urban decline and blight to small towns which I is a weird dynamic. I mean Liverpool and Glasgow were royally fucked by the 80s (and, in the case of Liverpool the corrupt Trotskyist council didn't help :blush:) but I think it's easier to imagine a city recovering than a Welsh valley town.
except why would you expect a former company town to recover when the company shuts down?
Maybe that seems odd in the UK, but I know of dozens of examples of small towns devoted to a single resource-based industry that were devastated when that industry closed. Some survive, even thrive, by converting to tourism, but others survive zombie-like on government assistance.
What we've "learned" is that it doesn't make sense to build a town around a mine - when new mines are opened up these days they just keep the workers in camps, and take them home every weekend (or whatever their shift pattern is).
Britain really didn't have the benefit of that, especially since many of those towns probably predated the mine, and had been mining for a very long time.
Quote from: Neil on September 10, 2011, 10:46:14 PM
Hard to say. I mean, do you hold Thatcher responsible for cutting off the useless miners, or do you hold decades of British governments responsible for allowing it to get to that point? Either way, the argument that they were owed a lifetime of work mining coal at the expense of the productive parts of society isn't going to convince many.
I don't think they were owed a lifetime of work no but they certainly didn't deserve to have the entire industry destroyed over night like that and very little in the way of alternatives provided for them. Winding down the British coal mining industry should have been a far more gradual and selective process, as was already ongoing when Thatcher popped up (in 1980 coal mining employed roughly 1/3 of the people it did in 1960).
Even if we consider we do want to try and give them a lifetime of work...costs wise I'm really not so sure this would have been more than the cost of having broad swathes of the country devestated. The mines really weren't drawing as much as people think in the way of subsidies, in the late 70s they were allowed a yearly borrowing of under 2 billion. Even being pretty nasty in our translation into modern money (always iffy) that's only 8 or 9 billion. It sounds a lot but the savings from the benefits budget would be quite a bit bigger when you consider its not just the miners you're helping here and that this is an absolute max as set in law, not what they actually were given year to year.
And that's just considering pure economics let alone the human cost.
Quote from: Barrister on September 10, 2011, 10:53:51 PM
except why would you expect a former company town to recover when the company shuts down?
Maybe that seems odd in the UK, but I know of dozens of examples of small towns devoted to a single resource-based industry that were devastated when that industry closed. Some survive, even thrive, by converting to tourism, but others survive zombie-like on government assistance.
What we've "learned" is that it doesn't make sense to build a town around a mine - when new mines are opened up these days they just keep the workers in camps, and take them home every weekend (or whatever their shift pattern is).
That's been happening for millennia. People desert towns that are no longer viable all the time, and it's been happening since the beginning of human settlement. Only now do we subsidize them and let them linger.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 10, 2011, 05:17:12 PM
Kraft/Cadbury wouldn't come under that but it is frustrating that the government got an undertaking that a British factory would be protected and then, once the merger's complete, announce that actually it'll be closed after all because an alternative's too close to completion. It's also annoying that Parliament's been treated with a sort of contempt in all this because Kraft won't go to any select committee.
Why keep the inefficient factory in the UK, when they have several ones in Poland that can manufacture Cadbury brand instead?
Especially, as Poland is within the EU - so if you are unhappy with this, it means you don't agree with the very premise at the EU's foundation.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 10, 2011, 05:17:12 PM
Canada is part of the WTO though and France is part of the EU with the example of Danone were the French government passed a law that would allow the government to declare a company a 'strategic interest' and prevent takeovers. I don't think the UK government would even do that for a genuinely strategically useful company like BAE. And I'm relatively sure that national governments can act in ways to shape a merger, or to try and hobble together a national takeover, that's within the letter but not the spirit of the rules.
Similar rules have been challenged several times before by the EU Commission, and in most cases successfully. So I am not sure how making populist rules that will not stand the test of legality is a good thing.
The 19th century was a very interesting time in the demography of England. It was not just that the population of the North was increasing but also that the percentage of people living in the North reached a high. In those days, of course, there were no real restrictions on planning and no welfare state; so people flocked to where the jobs were and cheap housing was thrown up for them to live in.
As we all know this expansion was based on some rather low-tech industries. In 1900 90% of the UK's visible exports were in 3 commodities; textiles, coal and ships. As the rest of the world industrialised it was inevitable that these industries would decline as we lost our comparative advantage in them. This process became noticeable c. 1890/1900 and accelerated as the 20th century progressed. As it did English demography started to return to it's usual track.....ie an enormous London and the SE being the economic and demographic hub of the country.
This was interrupted somewhat by the war and, post 1945, we suddenly had a massive state that doled out welfare, had nationalised many of these industries and prevented large-scale housebuilding (via planning laws) in the parts of the country that needed it.
Of course the drift to the South continued, hopelessly uneconomic pits, factories and shipyards were closed..........but the merely crippled continued to operate. Since housing shortages were prevalent there was a disincentive to move, so all this happened at a slower rate than it would have done without government intervention.
Mrs Thatcher's government increased the speed of that process by closing more inefficient industries, they also allowed the £ to rise during a recession (maybe they could not have stopped it?) which meant that we also lost some good firms. That government did not do much about the other side of the equation.............ie provide housing in the South (or permit it to be built).
The way I see it we have spent the past 60 years trying to preserve the distribution of the population as it was c.1900. But, that distribution was itself a highly unusual one. Absent all the governmental interventions I believe that millions currently living in the North would now be living in the South. I also believe that our economy would have been more efiicient if we had permitted this to happen. However, the gloom in the North would have been even greater than in the 1980s and the South-East would probably resemble Los Angeles.........a mere sea of buildings instead of the rather beautiful area that most of it still is today.
So what to do? One of the problems facing firms trying to set up in the North is the shortage of skilled labour. It may seem counter-intuitive but the best place to set up a (generic) new firm is probably London with it's huge pool of talented labour (many of them the best and brightest from the North btw). Try it in Liverpool and you find that all the unskilled jobs will be snapped up but you will have trouble getting people for the good jobs. Some firms have got round this by training their entire staff from the ground up, Nissan in Sunderland did this, but you need to be a big wealthy firm to do that.
The only long term hope, in my view, is if the SE of England effectively becomes "bigger" due to the destruction of distance by improved transport infrastructure and telecomms. There are signs that is happening. I lived in Suffolk a few years back and it was booming, back in the 1950s it was a sleepy poor place, but by 2000 London's tendrils had reached the county and the skilled and talented were moving there, which in turn made starting a business there a better bet.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 10, 2011, 05:27:07 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 10, 2011, 05:06:41 PMAnd while other EU nations try to do that (like France did over Danone, and Poland over the BPH Bank), they almost always fail so this is nothing but empty posturing for domestic consumption - I don't think it is worth to tarnish your "international business friendly" reputation just for the sake of national polls.
My point is that I think the UK are more globalised in this respect and similarly more comfortable with foreign chairmen and CEO of 'British' firms, I believe the idea of a non-German head of Deutsche Bank's been quite a controversial novelty recently. So while I sympathise with the French I don't think we need to go whole hog but I think we could be a bit more nationalist on this and I think there are countries that have done more to protect national companies without going fully French. My impression is that other free market economies like Canada, the US and Australia and EU countries like Germany and Poland have all managed this. I'd rather be near them than the globalised, neo-liberal mirror image of France.
No we haven't managed. We tried and ended up with a huge egg on our faces. Fortunately, the European Commission prevailed, like it did with the French, the Italians and several other nations who tried this type of nationalist idiocy.
Our banks are managed by Germans, Britons, French, Italians, Portuguese and Japanese. Our "national" telecom is French-owned. What's wrong with that?
There are little things I hate more than "economic nationalism". It's premise is retarded in the first place (the belief that a local CEO or shareholder will be somehow more "patriotic" is born out of some 19th-century style capitalist paternalism that is no longer the case) and the costs of insisting on this (closing yourself to international capital markets in the form of investment, or to being part of a multinational - thus decreasing your efficiency and not being able to benefit from economies of scale) are high.
Not to mention it flies in the face of everything the EU is about.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 11, 2011, 02:08:10 AM
The only long term hope, in my view, is if the SE of England effectively becomes "bigger" due to the destruction of distance by improved transport infrastructure and telecomms. There are signs that is happening. I lived in Suffolk a few years back and it was booming, back in the 1950s it was a sleepy poor place, but by 2000 London's tendrils had reached the county and the skilled and talented were moving there, which in turn made starting a business there a better bet.
I think it's an interesting topic for a discussion in itself. I think mid-distance (inter-city) communication may actually decline rather than develop (already there are doubts whether European countries really would benefit from investing in high speed rail for example). International (long-distance) and short-distance (suburban/urban) communication will continue to grow though.
Distance is a strange one. With decent rail travel Manchester is actually 'closer' to London than it is to lesser nearby cities which may lack such good rail links. Not to mention rural towns....A while ago I actually tried drawing a Newcastle-centric map of the world based purely on travel times, it was strange stuff. Though ugly and ultimately doomed to failure due to my lacking art skills.
Rail is the future IMO, with increasing fuel costs we're going to see a redistribution of the population to more 19th century lines, clinging to the railways to an extent.
One thing which really should be done is transport links in the Liverhull belt should be improved. Manchester might be nothing compared to London but add in Liverpool, Leeds, etc.... and it becomes quite a respectible size really and it should be able to compete internationally.
What Richard says is indeed the way of things but this needs to be fought, not embraced. It just makes no logical sense for everyone to be crowded into one corner of the country. Its unatural and it has lots of problems.
Its not like countries can't have more than one centre, even mid sized ones, Germany does this rather well, as does Japan.
But anyway. Strange this is all getting so far away from the original topic which had nought much to do with Thatcher, the troubles of Britain were just an example/
Quote from: Tyr on September 11, 2011, 03:10:50 AM
A while ago I actually tried drawing a Newcastle-centric map of the world
Maybe Agelastus' sobriquet is misplaced. :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 11, 2011, 03:21:34 AM
Quote from: Tyr on September 11, 2011, 03:10:50 AM
A while ago I actually tried drawing a Newcastle-centric map of the world
Maybe Agelastus' sobriquet is misplaced. :hmm:
Huh?
One way of counteracting population concentration (if one thinks it's a bad thing) it is to spread central offices around. Norway does it, Germany does it.
No reason why the UK's OFT can't be in Liverpool for example.
Quote from: Tyr on September 11, 2011, 03:25:20 AM
Huh?
Between the patriotic map-drawing, the ESL in Asia thing and the shared love of anime you may be the true "British Tim". :contract:
QuoteOne way of counteracting population concentration (if one thinks it's a bad thing) it is to spread central offices around. Norway does it, Germany does it.
No reason why the UK's OFT can't be in Liverpool for example.
The UK does it too I believe.
Some major unemployment office is in Sunderland.
Which yes, is quite apt.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 11, 2011, 03:30:10 AM
Quote from: Tyr on September 11, 2011, 03:25:20 AM
Huh?
Between the patriotic map-drawing, the ESL in Asia thing and the shared love of anime you may be the true "British Tim". :contract:
Nah, it wasn't patriotic map-drawing. Just alternative data visualisation using a city I am familiar with as a central point.
And I wouldn't say I love anime.
But Agelastus' sobriquet?
Incidentally, this week's Economist has a special report on "the future of work".
http://www.economist.com/printedition/2011-09-10
Haven't had a chance to read it yet, but I'm sure it will have some interesting stuff relevant to the original post.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 10, 2011, 05:27:07 PM
I believe the idea of a non-German head of Deutsche Bank's been quite a controversial novelty recently.
The current head of Deutsche Bank is Swiss. The novelty will be that Anshu Jain doesn't speak German and unlike the previous Deutsche Bank CEOs doesn't have close connections to German politicians and businessmen. Because of the importance of political and business connections in Germany for Deutsche Bank, they appointed a German co-CEO. But there was certainly no outside, political pressure to do that, it was a completely internal process within Deutsche Bank. Siemens, Lufthansa, BASF, Bayer etc. all have or had a non-German CEO, so it is not unheard of. But usually the non-German CEOs are from Switzerland or Austria. :p
Quote from: Tyr on September 11, 2011, 03:10:50 AM
Its not like countries can't have more than one centre, even mid sized ones, Germany does this rather well, as does Japan.
Germany has been politically decentralized since the dark ages and never had a strong central power or a dominating city like Paris or London. It's still a federal state and thus Berlin isn't as important. Especially economically.
Quote from: Martinus on September 11, 2011, 02:01:54 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 10, 2011, 05:17:12 PM
Kraft/Cadbury wouldn't come under that but it is frustrating that the government got an undertaking that a British factory would be protected and then, once the merger's complete, announce that actually it'll be closed after all because an alternative's too close to completion. It's also annoying that Parliament's been treated with a sort of contempt in all this because Kraft won't go to any select committee.
Why keep the inefficient factory in the UK, when they have several ones in Poland that can manufacture Cadbury brand instead?
Especially, as Poland is within the EU - so if you are unhappy with this, it means you don't agree with the very premise at the EU's foundation.
Either that, or he might not think that Poland has a place in the EU. And he could be right.
Quote from: Zanza on September 11, 2011, 06:53:24 AM
Quote from: Tyr on September 11, 2011, 03:10:50 AM
Its not like countries can't have more than one centre, even mid sized ones, Germany does this rather well, as does Japan.
Germany has been politically decentralized since the dark ages and never had a strong central power or a dominating city like Paris or London. It's still a federal state and thus Berlin isn't as important. Especially economically.
And Japan? Tokyo is the centre of the goddamned universe over there. A third of the population of the country lives there, and it totally dominates the economy and culture of the country. Sure, the Kansai megacity has a role too, but it's like comparing Calgary or Vancouver to Toronto in Canada: They specialize, they drive a lot of regional business, they have some firms of their own, but the real show is in the big city. I mean, Kansai is only slightly less than London or Paris in terms of economic productivity, but that's just because it's twice as big. Still, the ratios hold up. London's economy is about five times that of Birmingham, while Tokyo's is four times that of the Kansai.
Surely the US would be a better comparison, or China?
Quote from: Neil on September 11, 2011, 07:35:42 AM
Quote from: Zanza on September 11, 2011, 06:53:24 AM
Quote from: Tyr on September 11, 2011, 03:10:50 AM
Its not like countries can't have more than one centre, even mid sized ones, Germany does this rather well, as does Japan.
Germany has been politically decentralized since the dark ages and never had a strong central power or a dominating city like Paris or London. It's still a federal state and thus Berlin isn't as important. Especially economically.
And Japan? Tokyo is the centre of the goddamned universe over there. A third of the population of the country lives there, and it totally dominates the economy and culture of the country. Sure, the Kansai megacity has a role too, but it's like comparing Calgary or Vancouver to Toronto in Canada: They specialize, they drive a lot of regional business, they have some firms of their own, but the real show is in the big city. I mean, Kansai is only slightly less than London or Paris in terms of economic productivity, but that's just because it's twice as big. Still, the ratios hold up. London's economy is about five times that of Birmingham, while Tokyo's is four times that of the Kansai.
Surely the US would be a better comparison, or China?
Being relative doesn't really work there since Tokyo is the richest city on the planet and one of the biggest. The Kansai area is quite respectable however with only a third as much wealth. London is more comparable to Kansai than Tokyo in terms of economic numbers. The Kansai area is the 7th richest city on the planet, something most countries would be happy to have as their main city and Japan has it as their second one.
Birmingham and Manchester meanwhile are down in the 70s (had to go check that up, wasn't sure if they even cracked the top 100).
Tie in Manchester to the other nearby cities and...maybe we could get a Japan like situation. With London sure, unquestionably the biggest and richest, but Manchester without a doubt a significant player in its own right too.
Actually Japan makes for quite a good comparison really. Though economically there's an imbalance to Tokyo (more firms have their HQ there), culturally Osaka more than holds its own with it being the main source of 'cool'. Much like Manchester and London.
Japan's dual-centrism is the entire reason they're going ahead with their nutty maglev plan.
Quote from: Tyr on September 11, 2011, 03:10:50 AM
Rail is the future IMO, with increasing fuel costs we're going to see a redistribution of the population to more 19th century lines, clinging to the railways to an extent.
This is completely ridiculous.
Transportation costs are significantly lower than rents and as long as this remains true the population will stay too spread out for rails to be that effective.
Quote from: Martinus on September 11, 2011, 02:11:34 AM
There are little things I hate more than "economic nationalism". It's premise is retarded in the first place (the belief that a local CEO or shareholder will be somehow more "patriotic" is born out of some 19th-century style capitalist paternalism that is no longer the case) and the costs of insisting on this (closing yourself to international capital markets in the form of investment, or to being part of a multinational - thus decreasing your efficiency and not being able to benefit from economies of scale) are high.
I think there will be an effect in where a company will focus and maintain investment based on where their headquarters are. If you're based in an area you'll see that as part of your long-term future as well as other growth areas. If the UK's basically a land of subsidiaries it is far more at risk from short-term downturns or changes in productivity. I think that's part of the implication of the threats of our banks that they'll leave London.
The nationality of the CEO is more of a cultural difference.
Again I think you're seeing my view as far more extreme than it. I want more econommic nationalism than we've seen since the 80s,which is like calling for more stern regulation of the financial sector, it's been out of the norm for 30 years in the UK, but internationally isn't that extreme. As I say I think the UK's gone too far and the attitude has been very London-centric. I want to be as economically nationalist as places like Germany and Canada.
QuoteNot to mention it flies in the face of everything the EU is about.
That's the way I'm heading :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 11, 2011, 11:11:44 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 11, 2011, 09:37:47 AMThis is completely ridiculous.
Why?
The idea that rising fuel costs are going to make people live very far away from their jobs seems a little counter-intuitive.
If you take Squeeze's statement to include subways and light rail it's hardly controversial. Most cities that have these also have suburban and exurban development clustered around the stops.
Quote from: Neil on September 11, 2011, 11:27:09 AMThe idea that rising fuel costs are going to make people live very far away from their jobs seems a little counter-intuitive.
Rising fuel costs are a reason why rail's important to doing that (that and the hell of driving in London) the commuter belt is largely determined by nearby train stations with direct routes into London. Cost of living in London/south-east and the desire to do so and quality of life are bigger issues.
But I don't see that it's absurd. Where I used to work about half the office commuted from outside London for an hour or more. If we get HS2 (another high seed train route) that makes Birmingham as short a commute to London as Brighton then that opens up a whole new area of the country for commuters.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 11, 2011, 11:33:02 AM
If you take Squeeze's statement to include subways and light rail it's hardly controversial. Most cities that have these also have suburban and exurban development clustered around the stops.
If you allow for that, you should probably include buses as well as in many places that is also a relevant commuter line. Then you're really just saying that as fuel costs rise, people will be more dependent on mass transit. Oh my! :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 11, 2011, 11:33:02 AM
If you take Squeeze's statement to include subways and light rail it's hardly controversial. Most cities that have these also have suburban and exurban development clustered around the stops.
It would still be untrue. Historically, urban rail follows people, not the other way around.
Quote from: Martinus on September 11, 2011, 11:44:20 AM
It would still be untrue. Historically, urban rail follows people, not the other way around.
I don't know if that's entirely true with London though. Didcot wasn't naturally a population centre prior to getting a fast-line to Paddington :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 11, 2011, 11:33:31 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 11, 2011, 11:27:09 AMThe idea that rising fuel costs are going to make people live very far away from their jobs seems a little counter-intuitive.
Rising fuel costs are a reason why rail's important to doing that (that and the hell of driving in London) the commuter belt is largely determined by nearby train stations with direct routes into London. Cost of living in London/south-east and the desire to do so and quality of life are bigger issues.
But I don't see that it's absurd. Where I used to work about half the office commuted from outside London for an hour or more. If we get HS2 (another high seed train route) that makes Birmingham as short a commute to London as Brighton then that opens up a whole new area of the country for commuters.
Not really. A single line will not have much carrying capacity and factor in the inevitable absurd premium on ticket prices for a loss-making line, and the idea that Birmingham will relieve the population pressure on the south east is a non-starter.
Quote from: Warspite on September 11, 2011, 12:58:59 PMNot really. A single line will not have much carrying capacity and factor in the inevitable absurd premium on ticket prices for a loss-making line, and the idea that Birmingham will relieve the population pressure on the south east is a non-starter.
Not Birmingham itself but the Midlands more generally. It won't relieve the population pressure, nothing will until we start building more houses. But with a decent and quick transport link I don't think it's ridiculous to see the Black Country, for example, going the way of the home counties or East Anglia and becoming a kind of extension of London.
What you guys are describing sounds like a great big coordinated plan of economic sabotage, if it's just things like building plan restrictions holding the teeming masses of the North in poverty. I'm sure that's way too simplistic way of saying it but still.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 11, 2011, 03:45:34 AM
Incidentally, this week's Economist has a special report on "the future of work".
http://www.economist.com/printedition/2011-09-10
Haven't had a chance to read it yet, but I'm sure it will have some interesting stuff relevant to the original post.
I like the one where this bit is related:
QuoteLast year's annual Glassdoor list of oddball interview questions was topped by Goldman Sachs, which asked a candidate for an analyst's job, "If you were shrunk to the size of a pencil and put in a blender, how would you get out?"
Actually, I think if you scaled human strength down to pencil-height and the associated mass, you could just jump right out.
Of course, you'd probably die immediately thereafter from a whole host of physical inconveniences.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 11, 2011, 03:45:34 AM
QuoteLast year's annual Glassdoor list of oddball interview questions was topped by Goldman Sachs, which asked a candidate for an analyst's job, "If you were shrunk to the size of a pencil and put in a blender, how would you get out?"
This looks more like "Reason 1012 to give the job to your best client's CEO's nephew" than anything else. I hate employers that insult people's intelligence like this. Just hire friends and family, but spare that kind of bullshit.
Quote from: Martinus on September 11, 2011, 03:05:17 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 11, 2011, 03:45:34 AM
QuoteLast year's annual Glassdoor list of oddball interview questions was topped by Goldman Sachs, which asked a candidate for an analyst's job, "If you were shrunk to the size of a pencil and put in a blender, how would you get out?"
This looks more like "Reason 1012 to give the job to your best client's CEO's nephew" than anything else. I hate employers that insult people's intelligence like this. Just hire friends and family, but spare that kind of bullshit.
They don't want friends and family. They want people who will jump when they say jump.
Damn right.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 11, 2011, 02:35:17 PM
What you guys are describing sounds like a great big coordinated plan of economic sabotage, if it's just things like building plan restrictions holding the teeming masses of the North in poverty. I'm sure that's way too simplistic way of saying it but still.
It reminds me of that old story of King Canute, we are trying to preserve a population distribution that is a result of our Victorian economy, meanwhile the economic tides sweep people into SE England which is the area of the country that has most of the business advantages nowadays.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 11, 2011, 04:03:28 PMIt reminds me of that old story of King Canute, we are trying to preserve a population distribution that is a result of our Victorian economy, meanwhile the economic tides sweep people into SE England which is the area of the country that has most of the business advantages nowadays.
Blame the Green Belt <_< :bleeding:
QuoteThe idea that rising fuel costs are going to make people live very far away from their jobs seems a little counter-intuitive.
Thats the way of the modern world, actual physical distance doesn`t mean anything near as much as travel time. If the choice is to live in one town with no rail link or another, twice as far away, but with rail links, then a lot of people will be tempted by the town physically further away. Particularly if the roads aren`t very good for the station-less town and there aren`t many intermediary stops for the town with rail.
Quote from: garbon on September 11, 2011, 09:37:47 AM
Quote from: Tyr on September 11, 2011, 03:10:50 AM
Rail is the future IMO, with increasing fuel costs we're going to see a redistribution of the population to more 19th century lines, clinging to the railways to an extent.
This is completely ridiculous.
I don`t see why.
Already in London you can see things developing so that being near a tube station is a very desirable place to be.
Even in Newcastle its a big selling point for flats that they are only x minutes walk from a metro station.
In Sweden IIRC you`ll pay more for a house in Marsta or the like than one in a town a similar distance from Stockholm but not on the railway line.
Same thing is happening in Montreal.