Robots could make the UK’s north-south divide even worse

Robots at work in a Japanese warehouse. Image: Getty.

Technological progress is normal. A steady flow of new developments enables a gradual increase in prosperity. But sometimes – and perhaps now is such a time – that flow is not so steady. Synchronous fundamental developments allow leaps forward to be made in multiple dimensions.

Progress in artificial intelligence, robotics, and genetics all promise change that is unusually wide ranging. The benefits – which include improved gadgets, health and food security – are easy to appreciate. Equally, though, there are challenges posed by rapid change – especially for workers who have invested in skills that are set to become obsolete.

To some extent, these implications have already become evident over the last 20 years. The labour market has been “hollowing out”, with more jobs available at the top and (to a lesser extent) bottom of the skills distribution, but fewer jobs in the middle. And the recent dramatic changes in technology are likely to exacerbate this over the next couple of decades.

Some observers have argued that a large proportion of current jobs in developed economies are at risk. But alarmist predictions of this kind likely fail to recognise that jobs morph over time. And so do the skills required to undertake particular jobs. Nevertheless, the changes we are seeing do pose unusual challenges.

Economic divide

In a recent report, the Centre for Cities has investigated the likely geographical impact of these changes in employment, across urban areas within the UK. In doing so, it combined predictions by Nesta on the demand for skills in 2030, with information about the current spatial distribution of jobs requiring these skills.

The results are striking. More than a quarter of jobs in many northern conurbations are in occupations where employment is likely to decline. The highest proportions are in Mansfield, Sunderland and Wakefield. These are areas with economies dominated by specific manufacturing – such as drinks production in Mansfield and car production in Sunderland – and retail activity.

By way of contrast, only around 16 per cent of jobs in London are in such occupations. London also has a much greater concentration of jobs that require the type of creativity only humans, rather than technology, can provide. And in Oxford and Cambridge – whose economies are dominated by the universities – the proportion is below 13 per cent.

Some of the areas where workers are likely to experience most turbulence are also those that were similarly hit by the decline of coal production in the 1980s.

Preparing humans

How best then can people prepare for these challenges? The offer of retraining will help some, particularly those workers with intermediate skills – an extra push could help them negotiate the hurdle separating low skill from high skill employment. But that said, if history is anything to go by, retraining often fails to deliver.

But the promise of a world in which intelligent robots undertake production for the benefit of humans has led many observers to be attracted by the idea of a universal basic income. This is the idea that, by taxing the fruits of improved technology, we could all, it seems, get something for nothing. Those who wish could live a life of ease, while others could top up their basic income by working.

At a fundamental level, this amounts to replacing current social security arrangements with a flat rate income that is paid to all – regardless of whether or not they are in work.

The realities

But given current technology, the level of such a payment (at the moment) would not be high – perhaps enough to cover private health insurance, pensions and other needs. That said, in future, as the gains from technology increase, it could rise. But the attention given to the universal basic income is a bit of a red herring – and it is not the only solution that should be on the table.

The real issue here is more general: how do we ensure the gains from technological change are distributed fairly across society?

A true property-owning democracy – where people hold equity in technology – would protect against inequities. But owning property means that people also own the right to sell it.

The ConversationIt is clear then that there are future tensions that society has yet to get to grips with. And of course there is always the concern that, if robots are smart enough to do all this, for how long will they stay stupid enough to remain slaves to idle humans?

Geraint Johnes, Professor of Economics, Lancaster University.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.


Why doesn’t London build an RER network, like Paris did?

A commuter walking by a map of the RER B line at the Chatelet-Les Halles station in Paris. Image: Getty.

I’ve heard many people make many different complaints about the Parisian transport system. That it does a bad job of linking a rich, white city with its poorer, more diverse suburbs. That, even as subway systems go, it’s a hostile environment for women. That the whole thing smells distractingly of urine.

I’m familiar with all of these complaints – I’ve often smelt the urine. And I’m aware that, in many ways, London’s is the superior transport network.

And yet I can’t help be jealous of Paris – In large part, because of the RER.

Central Paris. The Metro lines are thinner, and in pastel shades; the RER lines are thicker, and in brighter colours. Image: RATP.

Paris, you see, has not one but two underground railway systems. The more famous one is the original Paris Metro, opened in 1900: that’s the one with those fancy green portals with the word “metropolitain” written above them in a vaguely kooky font.

The Metro, though, mostly serves Paris Intra-muros: the official city, inside the Boulevard Périphérique ring road, site of the city’s last set of walls. As a result, it’s of very little use in most of the city’s suburbs. Its stations are very close together, which places a limit on how fast its trains can cross town. It was also, by the mid 20th century, becoming annoyingly overcrowded.

So starting in the 1960s, the city transport authorities began planning a second underground railway network. The Réseau Express Régional – Regional Express Network – would link suburban lines on either side of Paris, through new heavy rail tunnels beneath the city. Its stations would be much further apart than those of the metro – roughly one every 3km, rather than every 600m – so its trains can run faster.

And fifty years and five lines later, it means that 224 stations in the suburbs of Paris are served by trains which, rather than terminating on the edge of the city, now continue directly through tunnels to its centre.

The RER network today. Image: RATP.

London is, belatedly, doing something similar. The Elizabeth Line, due to open in stages from later this year, will offer express-tube style services linking the suburban lines which run west from Paddington to those which run east from Liverpool Street. And Thameslink has offered cross-town services for 30 years now (albeit not at tube-level frequencies). That, too, is going to add more routes to its network over the next few years, meaning direct trains from the southern suburbs to north London and vice versa.

Yet the vast majority of suburban National Rail services in London still terminate at big mainline stations, most of which are on the edge of the centre. For many journeys, especially from the south of the city, you still need to change to the London Underground.

So, could London ape Paris – and make Thameslink and Crossrail the first element of its own RER network?

In a limited way, of course, it’s doing just that. The next big project after Crossrail is likely to be (original name, this) Crossrail 2. If that gets funding, it’ll be a new south-west to north-east route, connecting some of the suburban lines into Waterloo to those in the Lea Valley.

The proposed route of Crossrail 2. Click to expand.

But it’s not immediately obvious where you could go next – what Crossails 3, 4 or 5 should cover.

That’s because there’s an imbalance in the distribution of the remaining mainline rail services in London. Anyone who’s even remotely familiar with the geography of the city will know that there are far more tube lines to its north. But the corollary of that is that there are far more mainlines to the south.

To usefully absorb some of those, Crossrail 3 would probably need to run south to south in some way. There is actually an obvious way of doing this: build a new tunnel from roughly Battersea to roughly Bermondsey, and take over the Richmond lines in the west and North Kent lines in the east, as a sort of London equivalent of RER C:

Our suggestion for Crossrail 3. Image: Google Maps/CityMetric.

But that still leaves a whole load of lines in south and south east London with nowhere to send them beyond their current terminal stations.

In fact, there are reasons for thinking that the whole RER concept doesn’t really fit the British capital. It was designed, remember, for a city in which the Metro only served the centre (roughly equivalent of London’s zones 1 & 2).

But London Underground wasn’t like that. From very early in its history, it served outer London too: it was not just a way of getting people around the centre, but for getting them there from their suburban homes too.

This is turn is at least in part a function of the economic geography of the two cities. Rich Parisians have generally wanted to live in the centre, pushing poorer people out to the banlieues. In London, though, the suburbs were where the good life was to be found.

To that end, the original operators of some lines weren’t just railway companies, but housing developers, too. The Metropolitan Railway effectively built large chunks of north west London (“Metroland”), partly to guarantee the market for its trains, but partly too because, well, housing is profitable.

In other parts of town, existing main line railways were simply added to the new underground lines. The Central line swallowed routes originally built by the Great Western Railway and London & North Eastern Railway. The District line absorbed part of the London, Tilbury & Southend Railway.

At any rate: the Tube was playing the same role as the RER as early as the 1930s. London could still benefit from some RER-type services, so hopefully the Elizbaeth Line won’t be the last. But it doesn’t need an entire second metro network in the way 1960s Paris did.

There is another idea we could more profitably steal from Paris. Those suburban railways which aren’t connected to the RER are still run by the national rail operator, SNCF. But it uses the Transilien brand name, to mark them out as a part of the Parisian transport network, and – as with the RER – each route has its own letter and its own colour.

The Transilien & RER networks in Paris. Image: Maximilian Dörrbecker/Wikimedia Commons.

This would not have the transformative effect on London that building another half a dozen Crossrails would. But it would make the network much easier to navigate, and would be almost infinitely cheaper. Perhaps we should be starting there.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter as @jonnelledge and on Facebook as JonnElledgeWrites

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook