Placeholder Image

字幕表 動画を再生する

  • Life.. is all about survival and we never really know how long each of us have on this planet.

  • But our job as a species is to perceiver and

  • eliminate anything which may threaten our survival.

  • So what is the biggest threat you can think of? Pollution? Disease? Natural disasters?

  • Looking around the powers that be seemed to have identified some pretty nasty threats,

  • and so we have the war on terror, the war on crime, the war on drugs, the war on cancer...

  • but when do we ever think about our basic life supporting needs?

  • We usually don't have to because luckily for us we have a system, a system whereby

  • the cost of living can be earned. You can gain employment and work for money which of course

  • provides access to food, to water, to shelter and it's a good thing we have

  • this system because without money you're are as good as dead. But if you are without a job

  • no need to worry because yet again we have a system. If you're out of work,

  • for whatever reason, simply apply for government aid.

  • See all the people with jobs pay taxes and since the government understand that a certain

  • level of unemployment is to some degree to be expected, they simply dip in to some of

  • that tax money and hand it over to those without jobs through a magical process called redistribution.

  • But, it kind of makes you wonder. If this is our big solution, where's the threshold?

  • What level of unemployment can we really sustain? And what would happen if all these jobs suddenly

  • disappeared.

  • The world is facing an urgent challenge and needs to create, listen to this number, needs

  • to create six hundred million jobs in order to generate growth and maintain social cohesion.

  • Maveric Media Presents:

  • Defence giant BAE SYSTEMS has confirmed its cutting almost three thousand jobs at sites

  • across the country. Tata Steel which employs nineteen thousand

  • people in its UK steel business has announced it is cutting nine hundred jobs around the

  • UK Another blow to the region's economy today

  • as the energy giant EON has announced that six hundred jobs are to go at a call centre

  • in Essox The Phyzer facility in Kent, the world's

  • biggest drugs company runs the UKs largest foreign owned research and developments facility.

  • It will close entirely with the loss of most of two thousand four hundred jobs.

  • Ford has announced to trade union representatives that it will cease manufacturing cars in the

  • UK after more than one hundred years. Japans Honda is to cut around eight hundred

  • jobs at its plant near Swindon in south-west England.

  • And we start tonight with news at the BBC has announced cuts and job losses across the

  • region as part of a plan to make twenty percent savings

  • Hundreds of police jobs have already been slashed with thousands more under threat

  • Kodak the firm that invented the handheld camera and remains one of Americas best known

  • brands has filed for bankruptcy protection. Rangers football club one of the most famous

  • in Britain has announced its gone into administration. More than three hundred of the eight hundred

  • stores that Woolworths use to occupy are still standing empty more than a year and a half

  • after it collapsed at the end of 2008. More retailers are expected to go bust over

  • the next few months. All one hundred and eighty seven outlets are

  • to be shut with the loss of almost fourteen hundred jobs, the administrator said that

  • it is apparent we cannot continue to trade. It was once Britain's biggest sports retailer

  • but today JJB SPORTS announced plans to go into administration.

  • Six and a half thousand jobs are at risk after electrical retailer Comet announced it's

  • going into administration. More than four thousand jobs at risk after

  • HMV announced that it was going into administration, it follows other chains.

  • Its Blockbuster, its become the latest casualty on the high-street this week, a quarter of

  • its stores are going to close, more than seven hundred people are going to be made redundant.

  • There's serious doubts now about the future of around six thousand jobs around the UK

  • after the company asked for its shares to be suspended last Wednesday.

  • Former LaSenza employees have come to the decision to occupy the store as a direct consequence

  • of the actions of management. A buyer hasn't been found with the group

  • currently employs a total of nearly four thousand staff.

  • Taiwan's IT giant FOXCONN announced its plans to replace up to half a million human

  • workers with robots in the next three years. It's called "scan as you shop" customers

  • love it. It's a very simple system. Each load is almost three hundred tons, but

  • look closely. There's no one behind the wheel.

  • The facility boasts the first robotics system in the UK to deliver supplies such as linen

  • and food and an automated robotic pharmacy.

  • A Sam Vallely FILM

  • Will work for food

  • Will work for free

  • This isn't the first time unemployment has been a threat to this system.

  • 20 years ago, UK unemployment accounted for 10% of the population. It marked one of the

  • worst recessions in our history with significant waves of rioting. However in ninety three,

  • unemployment took a turn, somehow the jobs came back and things got better.

  • This growth in employment is just what we needed, however it only lasted till two thousand

  • one. Then the rates stagnated, the increased. By two thousand nine we were back to around

  • eight percent. But it's reassuring to see the recent trends of unemployment have slowed

  • since then. Or at least it would be reassuring, if it weren't for this. This chart shows

  • the trends of part time versus full time employment. Notice how the increase in part time employment

  • runs almost parallel to the decrease of full time employment. So, where one person may

  • have been working say, a 40 hours week contract... now, two people would each be contracted 20

  • hour, and funnily enough, this cross over section occurred in two thousand nine. So

  • because technically more people are employed, the rates falsely imply a slight slowing down

  • of job loss, but in reality, the amount of avalible work is shrinking and the economy

  • is only getting worse. Sso what happened last time we were in this

  • mess going? let's go back to 93, what changed? Was it an orderly street protest which brought

  • back the jobs? Perhaps it was some well thought out policy

  • from parliament that changed things. Maybe everyone just stopped being lazy and

  • simultaneously arrived at the decision to go out there and get a job. But maybe it has

  • something to do with technology. In 93 Microsoft realised their Windows NT

  • operating system, Intel developed the first Pentium processor and the National Centre

  • for Supercomputing Applications released version 1 of "Mosaic" which was to be world's

  • first internet web browser. It is estimated the Internet grew throughout the 90's at

  • a rate of 100% per year. Subsequently improving global communication and creating many jobs

  • within developed countries. Now to remove any speculation as to whether or not this

  • was the reason for the growth in jobs, it should be noted that throughout the nineties,

  • our employment trends were almost identical to the U.S. trends and in a 2007 paper, a

  • team of Harvard economists found "the economic expansion of the nineties was in fact driven

  • by the increased efficiency in the production of IT, including computing, software and telecommunication.

  • The birth of the internet had propelled us in to a new age and saved us from further

  • degradation. However, while emerging technology is responsible for having created many new

  • jobs, technology has been known to replace jobs throughout history.

  • When employment stagnated in two thousand one, this wasn't because technology had

  • stopped expanding or that there weren't any new ideas, the stagnation is simply because

  • technology is ever improving, and the numbers of new jobs were being matched by the number

  • of job losses.

  • Economists will always deny that technology replaces jobs. It's called the Lump of labour

  • fallacy. Essentially it's the notion that technology merely redistributes human workers,

  • the jobs which become obsolete or automated simply allow humans to explore new sectors,

  • perhaps even invent new industries which have yet to be conceived of. Well, while this idea

  • may have been partially true in the past, the argument simply doesn't hold up anymore.

  • Computers these days are much smaller, faster and durable, with ever increasing mobility,

  • dexterity and artificial intelligence. They also become cheaper as time goes on. Moore's

  • law demonstrates how computer processing power doubles approximately every eighteen months.

  • So even if we were to create new jobs... why are we pretending we would give these jobs

  • to humans?

  • So what does the government have to say about all this? Well In June of 2011 not knowing

  • what to do with the increasing unemployment, they invested £5B in the welfare to work

  • scheme, also known as the work program. This five year program promises to help 2.4 million

  • people, find and secure long term employment by paying private companies to do the work

  • of actually looking for jobs on behalf of their unemployed clients.

  • One year later the department for work and pensions released the figures. Turns out the

  • work program was a complete failure... only 3.4% of all those who signed up to the program

  • actually found work. 3.4%! Let's just put that into context. What percentage of people

  • looking for work, gained employment without the help of the program? 1%? 2%? Well the

  • figures from the same period showed 5.5%... That's right; if you are assigned to a program

  • you are statistically less likely to find a job. Now, the failure of the work program

  • can be largely attributed to the lack of available jobs, but perhaps there's another factor,

  • in joining the program, if you find a job, you forfeit your right to minimum wage employment

  • and in place you are subsidised with an amount equivalent to job seekers allowance. Making

  • the work program essentially a paid slavery scheme, excused under the guise of gaining

  • experience. In late 2012, university graduate Cait Reilly disputed the legality of the program

  • after being assigned to stacking shelves in Poundland. Initially the appeal was rejected;

  • however after further appeal by 2013 three judges had ruled "the regulations, under

  • which most of the back-to-work schemes were created, are unlawful"

  • Whatever the government's response to this ruling will be, they will not stop in their

  • efforts to resolve the threat of unemployment, but let's face it. Unemployment is not a

  • threat to this system for the reasons we are usually given by mainstream outlets. Forget

  • all the noise about the recession, benefit cheats, immigration or this idea that people

  • are simply too lazy to look for a job.

  • Atomisation, thus technological unemployment is a mathematical inevitability of a system

  • based on perpetual growth. And this pending eventuality is vastly misunderstood by the

  • majority. And not just the majority of voters, there isn't a single politician who acknowledges

  • let alone understands the implications of technological unemployment. And what's worse,

  • when human beings don't understand something, that's where fear comes from. We fear what

  • we don't understand, and we fight what we don't understand.

  • Ok I have a very concrete question for you because you're getting wrapped up in this

  • money and regulators and who is at fault. Technological automation is replacing jobs

  • at the moment and it has been forever, it's doubling every year, that's the rate regardless

  • of what financial system you have and what regulators you put in their place. So, without

  • jobs as a basis for the economy, it's not really a question more of a statement, your

  • system is going to be obsolete and in fact your very lucky that you've been working

  • this long because you get to get out at the last floor, its going away.

  • Yeah but on the other side of the coin I fear for my children. Absolutely, absolutely so

  • why are you a fan of the banks then?

  • Retail High-street

  • In recent times high street shops have been disappearing at staggering rates, taking thousands

  • of jobs with them. 1998 - 2009 First Quench Retailing

  • 1909 - 2009 Woolworths 1973 - 2011 Hawkin's Bazaar

  • 1999 - 2011 D2 Jeans 1990 - 2011 Officers Club

  • 1987 - 2011 Focus DIY 1931 - 2012 Blacks

  • 1990 - 2012 La Senza 2008 - 2012 Best Buy Europe

  • 1968 - 2012 Clinton Cards 1903 - 2012 Barratts

  • 1993 - 2012 Gamestation 1933 - 2012 Comet

  • 1991 - 2012 Optical Express 1971 - 2012 JJB Sports

  • 1963 - 2012 Oddbins 1992 - 2012 Game Group

  • 1921 - 2012 HMV 1935 - 2013 Jessops

  • 1934 - 2013 Ethel Austin 1985 - 2013 Blockbuster and more.

  • Now, it's obvious some of these stores have not disappeared entirely. Many have moved

  • into warehouse distribution and their stores still exist in the form of websites; you may

  • also be wondering why I have included companies like Game in this list, since there are in

  • fact GAME stores on the high street today. Well I do so to make a point, see in 2012

  • when GAME went bust, the Swedish "Nordic Games" acquiesced the GAME Group, they acquired the

  • brand as well as the companies stores and employee contracts. But this is actually a

  • different company altogether. GAME wasn't resurrected through strategical advertising,

  • market booms or stern administrative decisions. The company we all knew as "GAME" went

  • bust... It lost. But GAME still had brand status. If it didn't, these shops fronts

  • would read "Nordic Games".

  • So why is there so much failure in retail? Are we merely witnessing the natural boom

  • and bust cycles of free market economics? Or are we actually witnessing a retail transition?

  • Looking back, our high streets were consisted of small family owned businesses, but the

  • more companies grows, mergers and acquisitions become inevitable and the smaller stores get

  • phased out as they struggle to compete for market share, eventually being replaced by

  • conglomerates. In much the same way, a natural evolution

  • of retail is occurring again. Only this time the shops are being phased out and the replacement

  • is coming in the form of websites. And software applications, which are conveniently accessible

  • with smart phones, are subsequently reduce our dependency on outlets such as high-street

  • banks, betting shops and travel agencies. You've probably already witnessed technological

  • unemployment on some level. For camera and film orientated shops like Jessops, it's

  • not so hard to understand. Barely anyone with a modern phone is going to buy a disposable

  • camera and pay money to have film developed; and there probably aren't too many people

  • with 8-megapixle camera phones who also require digital cameras. Due to advancing technology

  • these stores had suddenly become "specialist stores" their customers now having to mainly

  • consist of serious photographers.

  • Entertainment For music, video and games stores, there are

  • five main threats here. One -- Supermarkets, supermarkets are selling

  • a lot of the same products and most of the time cheaper.

  • Two - On-line Stores like Amazon, they also offer good deals with the added comfort twenty

  • four hour browsing and of course, item delivery. Three - Pawn shops like cash converters, they

  • get away with selling entertainment at a second hand rate making them even cheaper than the

  • supermarkets. Four -- On-line digital downloads and streaming,

  • with apps like iTunes and Netflix conveniently accessible through smart TV's, gaming consoles,

  • PC, and most phone and tablet devices. But let's not forget about five. Good old fashion

  • piracy. With the advancements of fibre optic broadband, you can now download entire movies

  • in a matter of minutes. Not that I'm suggesting you do that of course. That would be illegal.

  • I'm just saying it's easier and faster than going to the shops, waiting on the post

  • man or signing in the Netflix account on the PS3. As an aside, if any part of you is enraged

  • at the thought of all these immoral people illegally sharing media. Why not aim some

  • of that authentic aggression at the idea of a society which distributes digital entertainment

  • in physical form. The wastefulness of this would be equivalent to having a unique physical

  • address in order to access each and every website in existence. But perhaps you li the

  • plastic cases... and what's wrong with the plastic cases? Well, the case itself is made

  • from polypropylene, while the clear film sleeve is made from polyester. By bonding these different

  • plastic materials together, it makes them almost impossible to properly recycle on large

  • scale, so when the plastic rips, breaks or even just gets old and wasted.. They have

  • to be either buried in landfills or incinerated which of course produces toxic chemicals.

  • and this is the system we support by the way we choose to purchase entertainment, despite

  • having had the possibility of digital alternatives for over a decade.

  • Asking people to shop in these stores is asking us to live in an unnatural counter progressive

  • way. So perhaps the failure of these stores is

  • a good thing. But good or bad, a digital acquisition is upon us and the failures of these stores

  • are simply a matter of time. And yes, even if they sell their brand status, they are

  • failing. Nordic GAME won't be too far behind either.

  • But what about book stores like Waterstones? Well the increase of tablets and e-book readers

  • certainly poses a threat. However I can imagine the feel of a book, which people are oh so

  • nostalgic about, will be used as a "justification" argument for the continued stifling of a successful

  • digital transition. But, even without a digital alternative, Waterstone's in particular

  • is facing the same threat of on-line distribution as well as competition from supermarkets.

  • As are almost all product based stores - products to do with body care, cosmetics, clothing,

  • mobile phones, electronic appliances and even musical equipment. However there is an argument

  • to be made that physical stores are different, perhaps better than a website or a supermarket,

  • in that they provide "knowledgeable staff". Perhaps you're not sure what product is