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