Be Excellent To Each Other

It's starting...


Now!

DOCCY G SAID THIS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN

I CAN'T EVEN

I don't think it's surprising when people ignore me though!

Goddamnit

Well we did talk about the Queen's House. Now we're talking about this. "X other thing is worse" is a very bad reason not to talk about something.

For example, Craster is always worse.

Hey, I don't mind. It's really quite endearing and cute, sometimes he's very funny too.

D'oh!!!
I'M LURKING IN YOUR WARDROBE MYP, THE GHOST OF TORIES PAST
WOOOOOO-OOOOOOOH!!!

great start

Is this habit or need though? My mum goes into the bank all the time. She doesn't need to, she's just used to doing it. If internet banking is a step too far, there's telephone banking too. There aren't many legitimate reasons to need to visit a bank branch. Do we really have to wait three generations before we can realise the benefits of innovation?

Genestealer brood spotted.

I can't actually think of any. I'm sure there is, though.

Oh, withdraw a large amount of money. I guess that could be couriered, though.

You could be right, I'm not sure. But I'm leery of drawing too much on only my own experience to answer this question. Again, the Commons briefing paper (which I've only skimmed so far) seems to have some better grounded research on what exactly these rural branches are being used for.

Well, personally speaking, I'm "leery" about vehemently defending something whose actual benefits and purpose is so ephemeral that one has to read a Commons Briefing Paper - in detail - before actually being able to defend said argument, after having already made it.

But hey, perhaps that's just silly old ideological me.

(Apologies if this has been covered already - I've only skim-read the past few pages)
As well as the elderly collecting their pensions, there are also lots collecting benefits via post office card accounts too as presumably some of them don't have bank accounts. Certainly my local branch (which is in a Rymans) is always full of them at the start of the week.

It would be nice if there could be some deal struck where post office account cards could be used at bank cashpoints to make withdrawals - it would certainly ease the staff pressure in branches.

That deal would be called "getting them a bank account"

The people have had enough of Commons briefing papers.

Well, unless you're an expert on Post Offices, how else would you know what they do?

Was going to say some folks can't get them, as they are financially damaged.

just checked most banks do basic accounts, so I am wrong

If, say, I'd made robust statements about keeping X or Y, then it's not an unreasonable expectation to at least have the first clue about why I think such a thing.

So, yeah, I guess there is a distinction to be drawn between having an outline, prima facie view about something which can by all means be further refined and revisited in the light of detailed review/further information, as opposed to not really understanding why I'm even making such a claim or statement in the first place. This is why I mentioned knee-jerk (presumably ideologically determined) reactions of this type.

I really wouldn't worry about it, I'm wrong all the time.
The key thing is recognizing and admitting when you're wrong, which in your case, Kov, as the gentleman you are, is never in doubt.
For some others, though, this is a bit of an issue...

When were you last wrong in this thread specifically?

No idea. But I've admitted talking rubbish loads of times, both on an off forum, as you know.

But you're making robust statements about removing X or Y. What's the difference?

[edit] Wait, I can't read. Carry on.

All the time he said, paradoxically.

From this page, it suggests Post Office Accounts as an alternative to basic bank accounts for those who don't want or can't get them, so I wouldn't say you were wrong.

OH NOES WHAT HAVE I DONE!!11

Ach. Many a true word spoken in jest.

I thought the whole point of basic bank accounts were that everyone was able to get one - "basic" being the operative word, it may not include a debit card or other things that come with most normal bank accounts, but it at least gives people a place to store their money.

If the Post Office can be improved so as to still provide services to people, and a transition is in place to not just cut services for the sheer ideological hell of it, but to ensure that this does not disproportionally affect certain people and communities, then I'm sure nobody here would be against it.

That's simply not the problem. The problem is people saying that the cost is high so let's torch it, without undertaking the relevant steps to ensure that we're not fucking something up that can't be easily replaced. That's not ideological at all, unless your ideology is not being an idiot.

What IS ideological is cutting things because 'things must be cut'. The money then going to specific 'good' things in its stead is missing from the equation, as stated by Mark and agreed by Cavey.

It would appear that the government is currently trying to shut down a lot of the service, for which there is at least a decent amount of demand (but likely not enough to make a profit on as it stands). The PO shouldn't be exempt from being reviewed and improved, but if it is just a cost cutting exercise, as it seems, then it should be scrutinised.

Absolutely, couldn't agree more. But this very conversation has gone from "The Post Offices provide a lot of essential services that couldn't possibly be provided by anyone else" to "Yeah, everything the post office does could be provided by someone else and save quite a lot in costs, if managed properly" in the space of about 3 pages. I don't think that critical assessment is in any way something to shy away from.

Also



While I'm sure there are people saying that, I'm pretty certain nobody here is.

Unfortunately not everyone can, you can still be refused one. I had personal experience of this last year (not for myself fortunately) but when this person got a job to try and sort themselves out, they couldn't get an account to have their wages paid into (PO accounts only accept benefits - go figure).

The banks don't like offering them, as they can't make money on them by not selling addons (credit cards, premium banking)

CrossCountry said the train involved was only in use because cow strikes had left two other trains out of action.

Cavey is right. The unions are completely out of control now.

Heh.

Of all the train companies, Crosscountry is the one I least enjoy using. Unless I'm going first class (always a good deal on a Sunday) I never quite know if my reserved seat is going to be there on the train when it comes in, or if the carriage is missing, or if it's been allocated to someone else. There's never any space for luggage, and you can usually smell the toilet. About the only good experience I've had with them is that you can pre-order hot cooked food and beer, paying only if/when they bring it to you. Assuming you're actually sitting in the seat you wanted.

Speaking of buses, I had the grim discovery a few days ago about how many bus local routes have been cut or abolished for the new year timetable. Really is a kick in the gut to discover you can't feasibly get to certain places in your own town or neighbouring towns any longer.

Self-driving truck makes first delivery in the US: https://www.wired.com/2016/10/ubers-sel ... 000-beers/



They're already active in Australia: http://qz.com/874589/rio-tinto-is-using ... australia/

"Truck driver" is the most common job in half of US states. (Source: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/ ... very-state) Estimates are that it employs a million Americans; it's not as big here as we do more long distance haulage via rail but it's still very significant. A lot of those people are going to be out of work in the next decade, at a time when manual labour work is declining every year. How we cope with that is going to be very interesting, and challenging.

We were all promised much greater quality of life and more leisure time as automation started to take over. More time to pursue cerebral and worthwhile pursuits to betters ourselves as people and thus as a species. The robots will free our spirits, bodies, and minds!

That's what'll happen, right?

Theresa May is -19 with Labour voters.

Well yes.

Or not.

This isn't new, of course. Robots started taking over manual labour jobs in the eighties, and people worried about what we were going to do with all the people displaced then.

Turns out "not a lot".

I read an interesting article inspired by Mark Carney saying it was going to be the defining economic problem of the age. There's a lot of stuff that is going anti-tech due to exploiting the cheap labour available from desperate people.

See: the incredible proliferation of hand car washes.

I'd like to read that - do you remember where it was?

The hand car wash thing continues to confuse me.

Not all hand car washes are hand car washes.

Considering it isn't their primary job, the blokes that did big car made a really good fist of it.

Not if the laissez-faire economists continue to rule the roost, no.

You mean the changes that have all but destroyed unskilled manufacturing as an employer in the UK and US? That destroyed the UK coal industry and left countless towns in South Wales with 50% unemployment rates?

And having read about this a fair bit, the changes in the 80s were pretty gradual compared to what will probably come next. It's the size of the second derivative that's interesting here; the economy can absorb some amount of shock, but not endless amounts. There's a lot of "well, we survived the industrial revolution and this is smaller than that" handwaving being done but I've never seen any sort of coherent answer to the specific questions. What will (say) half a million of today's truck drivers be doing in 2025?