Friday, 12 May 2017

What is the Future of Work?

The future of work has always been a hotly contested issue since the industrial revolution. Each generation apprehensive and sceptical of the next, possibly due to the fear of the unknown. We seem to be getting scared by robots – maybe not them taking over our families, but at least fearing – at the back of our mind - robots might take over our jobs. Robots could probably do my work faster and better is a real fear for those in highly ‘robotic jobs. That said, it’s inbuilt within all of us to fear what we don’t know. How am I going to feed my family; am I taking the right steps for my future? The 20th century went through a mass change, where automation created almost everything we see today. The change in technology fuelled this and therefore one can only assume, like the last 200 years, technology will be the driving force for the future of careers for the medium term. Jobs are bound to disappear but on the flipside, new opportunities will open up, but traditional fields could struggle.

The end of former industry?
Technology
Ray Kurzweil, Chief Engineer at Google previously said that in the next 100 years, 20,000 years of progress will be made. Most now believe Kurzweil’s statement to be a gross underestimate.[1] ICT and technology have been the driving force of ‘most’ economies in the last 20 years or so. As computers have developed so have most companies. Smartphones, tablets and high-speed computers have cut communication times and now we no longer even need to be on the same continent to get a job done. Almost everyone could testify to this, with Skype, facetime and other mediums of virtual communication being a large part of our lives. Therefore, the current trend of technological development will play a larger role than it already does. Robotics and smart algorithms will be key to this. As we can automate more and more jobs, we will no longer need people within traditional jobs. It’s predicted that up to 40% of jobs in the US could be performed artificially within the next two decades.[2]That ‘boy on the checkout’ will cease to exist, simply because it’s much cheaper to use a robotic form to do it instead. According to PWC, 53% of people believe that technological breakthroughs will determine the ways they work in the next 5-10 years.[3] Whether it be to their aid or detriment is still up for debate. Additionally, artificial intelligence or AI, as it's often known as is always developing. Twitter bots for example although at the moment in their infancy seem to be rather genocidal, buts its still in development. The Economist in many recent issues seems to back this idea, as in the same way as general robotics develops, AI can cut the need for people as a computer coded to learn, will do this job cheaper.[4] Therefore, if you’re an IT engineer or a computer science student, you could be apart of the biggest cash cow for the next few years. Technology has always been developing but, at the moment we are probably in the biggest stage of change we have ever seen.

The new French President, Macron in his pro-globalist and arguably adaptive policy
Politics
In a political sense, jobs are always a contentious issue. Hillary Clinton had made this one of her top priorities as the Democratic nominee – not that it ended well – maybe as her opponent topped her with his homely appeal to the rust-belt job workers craving more job security. Even the fictional President Frank Underwood in House of Cards used job schemes as one of his main strategies. That said, these schemes are very much hands-on government approaches. Trying to get low-income families into work is a vote winner. Yet, most think that this is a very short term idea. Many believe that many governments will move to a more laissez-faire approach. As we can automate jobs and disseminate information at the click of a button, governments probably won’t have to intervene as much. Companies may be given employment targets but who they employ and the ways they do that will be much faster, and much more critical of the individual.  According to UKCES, zero hour contracts will become the norm.[5] Small demographics of people like students, newer immigrants and those struggling to get on the job ladder will easily take up the jobs that no one wants. The Conservative government’s decision to adopt this style of employment may be here to stay.  Additionally, like in the 1920s, where the world financial centre moved from London to New York, we could see the same change in years to come. However, this change will probably towards the East. Hong Kong, Shanghai, Bangalore and Kuala Lumpur could become the new financial capitals of the world, whilst London, Berlin and Paris may diminish.[6] Economies that have been built upon the technological revolution are projected to thrive in years to come, with a work base that is technically skilled. Emerging economies already provide cheaper labour and that trend is set to continue.[7] The two together provide fertile ground for economies that could grow very quickly using technology as the base of their economies.

Economics
In terms of an economic perspective, the world of work will obviously be one of the major factors in how the economy will prevail. One of the more basic parts of both macro and microeconomics is how labour will effect the output of an economy. One thing to be noted that since the 1960s offices have been a major part of the working environment. However, this is starting to change. Workforces are requiring to become ever more flexible, with fewer jobs being orientated to offices.[8] Having more transferable skills allows employees to be able to work from a variety of different environments. Those who are low skilled may struggle, whilst graduates with degrees that are less single tracked e.g. mechanical engineering, could find there are often fewer and fewer jobs related to their degree. PWC claim that mega corporations will drive growth due to the fact they can access talent pools and resources across the world. [9] That said, one thing that has been seen in the last decade or so is how very small ideas, can then turn into mega corporations. Facebook, Google, Twitter, all started small and are some of the most recognisable names in the world. Starting small with the right idea could turn £1 into £1 billion in a short space of time. Snapchat, Instagram, and YouTube are great examples of this – and also further examples of how technology and tech companies could and should dominate future affairs.


Demographics and people
According to UKCES, the future of work will be more female dominated, have a higher rate of diversity and an older age structure.[10] None of this is that surprising with the reasons detailed earlier of fast and easier communication and a highly flexible workforce. As Feminism is getting more traction in many places, more women are bound to be picked based on merit. The Guardian states that there will be a move away from the hierarchal, classically American structure into a more lattice arrangement.[11] As the demand for flexible workers increases, being able to do multiple jobs and move about within the workforce will become ever more important. The lattice structure will allow this to happen rather seamlessly, and may not need workers to be on the same continent for changes to take place. Finally, people will have to be self-reliant. They say go-getters tend to the best, and this is set to be the case. PWC champions this point saying that the idea the on can be dependent on others will start to disappear. Career paths will be even more zig-zagged, with possible only those in the medical professions who can apply all their basic training in their day to day job.


From the evidence at hand, what we can assure ourselves in knowing that the job market, careers and the way we work in the next thirty years is bound to change. For employers, it is now and will ever become more so an international market as recruitment from abroad becomes ever easier.[12] Technology may now play the biggest point in work than we have ever seen before. Computers, smart technology are the norm now, with improvements in cybernetics being made every day, artificial intelligence and automation will be a large part of our future. Employees with transferable skills, who are open to change will do much better, whilst women and those from ethnic minorities will also rise the proverbial ranks. For the most, this may seem an uncertain future. However, since the industrial revolution, people adapt to the next technological change, with the next period not looking to change that trend.


References:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, 28 April 2017

In defence of the comprehensive school


For the large majority of the UK population, comprehensive secondary schools were where most of us spent our youth. By and large, most spent nearly seven years there, using the same old equipment their brothers and sisters had years before them, and that one young uncle who also went to your school did also. But even with the old clichés of a lack of funding, smoking behind the bike sheds and rumours about that one teacher and a student having a different sort of one on one time, comprehensives weren't that bad, and were actually very good.


The reason why I say this is that, in my experience of the comprehensive, good teaching, decent classrooms and a drive to compete with the private school five minutes away, made my school one of the best in the country. Which seemed to work well considering, every year pupils went to Oxbridge and the Russel group, played sports at a national and even International level, and one student won an Oscar after they hung up the charcoal grey trousers and navy blazer. The key to this was competition.
My school wanted to compete with those around it, and in doing so the other comprehensives nearby pushed their own standards up. Pupils were from all sorts of backgrounds, and to me, it showed that grammar schools and privates schools may not be needed if the idea of healthy competition and equal funding was brought about. The Swedish schooling system is based upon something similar with the idea of funding and competition. This isn't a dig at the grammar/private system. But rather a dig at the idea that Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn can dismiss the idea that maybe just maybe, don't give out extra funds for free, ‘making my dad pay for your school meals' but make schools work for that funding. Of course, selective grammars will help to get better overall results, but if the teaching is of the same level in the comprehensive, there is no reason they should not succeed, and with a wider range of people, learning abilities and cultural backgrounds.


Also, one of the main reasons why students do well is to do with teaching. Teachers who want to teach. If a teacher is passionate about a certain subject that will relay into their own work, it's natural. Which helps breed a desire to be a better teacher, and not an entire focus on grades but on becoming more interested in the subject. A better overall understanding of the subject will help later on when looking at more complex issues, mainly because school is definitely not just about passing an exam, but with the idea of students realising the potential they have.

One of the key things about the comprehensive is the idea of the level playing field and the fact many of the students are from just about managing families. Yet, companies like PWC are developing programmes into social mobility, to try and get students from comprehensives. AGR, have reported on this, saying that by tapping into to the talent pools of the comprehensive school system you open up your talent base, which is only for the betterment of the company. Deloitte is adopting blind tests and school leaver programmes to try and get better candidates without prior knowledge of their educational history. Pupils are found to be more self-reliant, possibly due to the fact that, not everything was handed on a plate and facilities were limited. The diverse backgrounds of cultures, disability, and other factors help expose students to different people early on. As a result, these candidates can often do better and may now start to be looked at with more fondness than days gone by. Even the education secretary, Justine Greening has highlighted the importance of social mobility.

So please Theresa May or Jeremy Corbyn, get an actual plan for schools that involves competition and good teaching because old prejudices of rich and poor won't help anyone in the long run.

Sources:
https://www.agr.org.uk/write/Documents/Social_Mobility_ToolKit_Booklet_online.pdf
https://www2.deloitte.com/uk/en/pages/press-releases/articles/largest-british-business-to-adopt-contextualised-recruitment.html
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/justine-greening-education-at-the-core-of-social-mobility


Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)