General / Off-Topic The persecutions of the British

[FuzzySpider]

stupid thing is on my previous ESA form I stated I wanted to be assessed by someone qualified in mental health, as my experience with assessors was they knew sod all about mental health. I was called in for another assessment and the lady read my form and immediately postponed the "interview" with no reason (clearly someone NOT qualified in mental health). It beggars belief that I've read that physiotherapist have been used to assess mental health. People in wheel chairs sent to places with no wheelchair access etc etc. It's truly appalling and a national DISGRACE IMO. Problem is hardly any "celebs" give a toss so the vast majority of people don't either. "Liberal" media doesn't give toss either. Too busy getting upset over "refugees" fleeing France.

As has been explained to you before, the "liberal" media does give a toss and has been all over this. The Guardian and Independent in particular. Here:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/dec/27/private-firms-500m-governments-fit-to-work-scheme

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/dec/09/the-unaffordable-cost-of-benefits-sanctions

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...s-cash-should-go-to-needy-ends-up-atos-capita

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...fits-sanctions-dwp-job-advisers-evidence-work

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...e-spending-is-closer-to-poorest-nations-of-eu

It is the Daily Mail and Daily Express who have been running something different:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ds-t-afford-buy-school-uniforms-children.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...y-tells-taxpayers-ve-got-opinion-stuffed.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ow-welfare-state-created-age-entitlement.html

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/47...croungers-rake-in-85-000-a-year-from-benefits

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/46...rs-on-300-a-week-more-than-the-average-family

Given your penchant for ignoring reality, I doubt this will make any difference to your opinions.

In any case, my GF has given assistance to welfare claimants in the past (pro bono), and is pretty well versed in ESA law. According to her your needs are based on a points system which is what is carried out at your WCA (work capability assessment). You need to score at least 15 points in any category to be declared not fit for work. To clarify, you need 15 points in any, not in all. But this works both ways, if you get 10 points in one area, 8 points in another, and 10 points somewhere else you won't qualify. You need at least 15 points in a particular area. Here is the information on the areas.

http://www.bioeddie.co.uk/ebbw-vale/usefull-docs/ESATHEWORKCAPABILITY.pdf

The problem with how mental health is assessed is that it can be spotty. As you and I both know, you can have good days and bad days, and this is where many claiming on mental disability screw up - if you, at any point during your assessment, say that you have days which are not so bad you are immediately assessed as if that is your normal state. Never tell any assessor that you have good days which are easy to cope with. To clarify, you aren't lying to the assessor if you don't say this. There is an unwritten and unspoken of "rule" about these assessments which basically establishes what you're capable of. If you're capable some of the time then, as far as the law is concerned, they can legitimately say that you are capable of performing that activity. But as far as benefit rules are concerned, you aren't capable if you can't perform that task consistently

It's a weird way they use to game the system against you.

Also, you can't insist on any particular assessor, and showing even mild aggression towards benefit staff means you can be instantly struck off the benefit system without even hardship payments, so don't go there. What you can insist on is that you are accompanied by someone else and that the entire assessment is recorded - always insist that your assessment is recorded!

(He's got me on ignore, could someone please pass this information along to him?)

 

[Jon flint]

I was once in the unfortunate position to be unemployed for almost 3 months after leaving university (in the uk).

Quite rightly the job centre were damn hard on me, requiring proof every 2 weeks that I was looking for work and checking I had done so (this was before it all went digital). They would phone companies where I claimed to have had interviews or placed applications to check I was being truthful. If they felt I'd not made enough effort I'd have benefits withheld.

I fully expected them to be tough on me, after all, i was in receipt of free handouts (job seekers allowance was ~£34 per week at the time).

I fear if they weren't tough on people in receipt of benefits some would see it as a way to live rather than the temporary measure it's supposed to be. Essentially it's there to make sure you don't starve while searching for a job, not as an alternative to working.

While there are problems with the benefits system (shady companys receiving government funds to sit job seekers in front of computer screens for months on end being one!). I think as a whole it is working as it should be. +staying out of the debate on disability payments, don't know enough about that particular bit of the benefits system!

 

[Zieman]

*removed media links, as IMHO this section is more helpful*
In any case, my GF has given assistance to welfare claimants in the past (pro bono), and is pretty well versed in ESA law. According to her your needs are based on a points system which is what is carried out at your WCA (work capability assessment). You need to score at least 15 points in any category to be declared not fit for work. To clarify, you need 15 points in any, not in all. But this works both ways, if you get 10 points in one area, 8 points in another, and 10 points somewhere else you won't qualify. You need at least 15 points in a particular area. Here is the information on the areas.

http://www.bioeddie.co.uk/ebbw-vale/usefull-docs/ESATHEWORKCAPABILITY.pdf

The problem with how mental health is assessed is that it can be spotty. As you and I both know, you can have good days and bad days, and this is where many claiming on mental disability screw up - if you, at any point during your assessment, say that you have days which are not so bad you are immediately assessed as if that is your normal state. Never tell any assessor that you have good days which are easy to cope with. To clarify, you aren't lying to the assessor if you don't say this. There is an unwritten and unspoken of "rule" about these assessments which basically establishes what you're capable of. If you're capable some of the time then, as far as the law is concerned, they can legitimately say that you are capable of performing that activity. But as far as benefit rules are concerned, you aren't capable if you can't perform that task consistently

It's a weird way they use to game the system against you.

Also, you can't insist on any particular assessor, and showing even mild aggression towards benefit staff means you can be instantly struck off the benefit system without even hardship payments, so don't go there. What you can insist on is that you are accompanied by someone else and that the entire assessment is recorded - always insist that your assessment is recorded!

(He's got me on ignore, could someone please pass this information along to him?)

Worth a try.

 

[Adept]

As has been explained to you before, the "liberal" media does give a toss and has been all over this. The Guardian and Independent in particular. Here:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/dec/27/private-firms-500m-governments-fit-to-work-scheme

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/dec/09/the-unaffordable-cost-of-benefits-sanctions

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...s-cash-should-go-to-needy-ends-up-atos-capita

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...fits-sanctions-dwp-job-advisers-evidence-work

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...e-spending-is-closer-to-poorest-nations-of-eu

It is the Daily Mail and Daily Express who have been running something different:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ds-t-afford-buy-school-uniforms-children.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...y-tells-taxpayers-ve-got-opinion-stuffed.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ow-welfare-state-created-age-entitlement.html

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/47...croungers-rake-in-85-000-a-year-from-benefits

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/46...rs-on-300-a-week-more-than-the-average-family

Given your penchant for ignoring reality, I doubt this will make any difference to your opinions.

In any case, my GF has given assistance to welfare claimants in the past (pro bono), and is pretty well versed in ESA law. According to her your needs are based on a points system which is what is carried out at your WCA (work capability assessment). You need to score at least 15 points in any category to be declared not fit for work. To clarify, you need 15 points in any, not in all. But this works both ways, if you get 10 points in one area, 8 points in another, and 10 points somewhere else you won't qualify. You need at least 15 points in a particular area. Here is the information on the areas.

http://www.bioeddie.co.uk/ebbw-vale/usefull-docs/ESATHEWORKCAPABILITY.pdf

The problem with how mental health is assessed is that it can be spotty. As you and I both know, you can have good days and bad days, and this is where many claiming on mental disability screw up - if you, at any point during your assessment, say that you have days which are not so bad you are immediately assessed as if that is your normal state. Never tell any assessor that you have good days which are easy to cope with. To clarify, you aren't lying to the assessor if you don't say this. There is an unwritten and unspoken of "rule" about these assessments which basically establishes what you're capable of. If you're capable some of the time then, as far as the law is concerned, they can legitimately say that you are capable of performing that activity. But as far as benefit rules are concerned, you aren't capable if you can't perform that task consistently

It's a weird way they use to game the system against you.

Also, you can't insist on any particular assessor, and showing even mild aggression towards benefit staff means you can be instantly struck off the benefit system without even hardship payments, so don't go there. What you can insist on is that you are accompanied by someone else and that the entire assessment is recorded - always insist that your assessment is recorded!

(He's got me on ignore, could someone please pass this information along to him?)

Leper Messiah will ignore it even if he sees it. Sometimes the filter bubble is in a person's head.

 

[Asp Explorer]

Are they really making people travel to specific locations at specified times just so that they can view webpages and click "send CV" - which they could realistically do from pretty much anywhere? Is it simply to extract 35 hours of time from people? Seems like a complete waste of time to me.

 

[starsphinx]

Let me see I am unemployed disabled and sitting at a computer of high enough spec to play Elite Dangerous to which I have a lifetime pass in a centrally heated house having just eaten a good meal.

Is such a system really that terrible?

Yes there are problems with it (mental health is a problem from the ground up not just the bits to do with benefits and work) but lets stop and consider where a significant number of those problems come from - namely the fact (and I live on a sink estate and have been unable to work for over 10 years so yes it is a fact because I observe it first hand) that there are enough people who think life on benefits is comfortable enough and who do not and will not look for work.

Yes lots of people who are unemployed do desperately want to work - but there are also lots who only want to do certain work and who find reasons not to do other certain types and at the end of the day it is people who do work who pay for those who dont - which includes myself.

So while criticising a system that is trying to make sure that people who are not working are spending as much time looking for work as people with jobs actually spend working how about some constructive suggestions. How should the system identify those who are trying to take it for a ride? What should the system do to prevent these people from succeeding? At the same time how should the system make sure people who are not taking it for a ride do not get punished trying to prevent others taking it for a ride. How can all this be done in the most cost efficient way?

 

[Asp Explorer]

Maybe those 35 hours a week could be spent digging trenches to upgrade the British telecommunications infrastructure

 

[Pyrotiger]

I have been unemployed at various times in my life (but never for long periods). I claimed in the summer: never again.

At one time, the system was ridiculous. You turned up, signed and went. No accountability. Now, in some places (it is a postcode lottery), it's gone way too far the other way. You need to prove so much, you spend so much time documenting things you do. I HATE that. I put the time into looking for jobs, I've paid all my tax over the years, and I'm hardly a layabout - why can't I look for jobs instead of filling in their booklets in the way they want? Everything I did was documented and printed off my computer, but NOOOOO I was admonished by someone half my age with 1% of my qualifications and life experience (sorry if this sounds snooty) for not giving them their sort of 'proof'. Proof is proof - it's my search, let me do it my way because my history over the years proves that I can find work, and quite frankly, they don't know anything about my main area of employment anyway, and when recruitment takes place etc. Fair dos.

Also, I clean a betting establishment around 5am every morning. I make buttons out of that a week - less than minimum a 'visit'. Of course that was taken off my benefit in the summer. Now, yes of course I expect some deduction - but the whole lot? A very very poor incentive, and very miserly. So I was expected to search 35 hours plus the hours I worked on top of that for the same money. Tell me how that makes sense. If I was of a different mindset, I could have quit that and made the same money for nothing. I perhaps should feel proud of myself because I didn't? Actually no, I kinda feel screwed and almost exploited, in a way. Sure, I didn't expect a "happy unemployment party" and benefit galore, but I felt...well, cheapened and degraded. I suppose perhaps because, since I have certainly paid my tax, I kind of thought that benefit was an entitlement.

And here it is - "from cradle to grave" entitlement - that is gone, make no mistake and don't fool yourself it's anything different. I get it now.

So balls to it I thought - I just made stuff up to write down, smiled, turned up, pretended to do the right thing and I got a job quickly anyway. All their hassling and chiding was just for nothing - no, it was just inspired by their latest training. However, it was well over six weeks before I had any money. My savings were nearly out. And all that about you don't get money if you have earned over 360? in the weeks before - what a load of penny-pinching horse droppings.

Yes, there are some people who would happily never have a job if they could get away with it, and the new system targets these people more, as well as introducing a notion of personal responsibility and employment-like conditions. Here's my point: if you expect someone to actually spend 35 hours looking for work, and actually properly looking for work - and you say it's a job in itself - then actually pay them the minimum wage, or something closer to it! That way, there is more incentive to treat it as a job that you could get sacked from if you didn't quickly make progress. I bet that actually would get more people into work quicker, and save money...but some workers would be up in arms about this, as to why these people are getting so much money for being unemployed?

I don't believe that the current Universal Credit/JSA are specifically designed to get people into work as it's number one priority - the number one priority are now those in work still paying taxes. Let's face it, there will always be unemployment in this country, unless the social status quo is changed. I think it's more about:

- saving money (when, quite frankly, there are other areas we could save money from)
- making unemployment a social evil and those unemployed pariahs
- a sense of total self worth based upon your wage
- keeping those in work scared of losing their jobs, so more obedient to bosses and working conditions etc
- keep society's heads to the ground, allowing for further austerity measures and a greater measure of social compliance

I say, if you insist on bringing in these changes - let's have a society worth working for. You know, with decent housing, sensible social care and health care etc. Investment in education (that's a real laugh in the UK!)Sadly, I am not seeing that manifesting itself! There seems to be no big social dream, no desire to actually improving things for people. The English way seems to - look after yourself, to hell with everyone else! We're becoming very Victorian again, in many ways. I think it's sad.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe those 35 hours a week could be spent digging trenches to upgrade the British telecommunications infrastructure

Not an awful idea, actually. Where is another Roosevelt's New Deal, but here in the UK? Could do with it.

 

[FuzzySpider]

Let me see I am unemployed disabled and sitting at a computer of high enough spec to play Elite Dangerous to which I have a lifetime pass in a centrally heated house having just eaten a good meal.

Is such a system really that terrible?

That's nothing at all like the benefits system, nor does it characterize those who are reciept of benefits.

JSA is currently around £80 per week, for which a full time commitment to looking for work is required. In other words, rather than sitting at home all day playing elite dangerous, the unemployed are often made to attend various schemes and other projects on a full time basis for nothing more than sustinence payments.

And then you have the work program. You work, for a profit making company (Asda or Tesco), for no actual payment. But the corporation which has millions, gets your labour for free. The tab is picked up by the taxpayer.

Yes there are problems with it (mental health is a problem from the ground up not just the bits to do with benefits and work) but lets stop and consider where a significant number of those problems come from - namely the fact (and I live on a sink estate and have been unable to work for over 10 years so yes it is a fact because I observe it first hand) that there are enough people who think life on benefits is comfortable enough and who do not and will not look for work.

Yes lots of people who are unemployed do desperately want to work - but there are also lots who only want to do certain work and who find reasons not to do other certain types and at the end of the day it is people who do work who pay for those who dont - which includes myself.

Such Daily Mailesque characterizations of what life is like on benefits bears no resemblence the actual reality. The soul crushing drudgery, the boredom, the abject humiliation and the inability to admit to others that you're collecting benefits. Suicides have reached an epidemic level due, in no small part, to the welfare reforms brought in under IDS.

So while criticising a system that is trying to make sure that people who are not working are spending as much time looking for work as people with jobs actually spend working how about some constructive suggestions. How should the system identify those who are trying to take it for a ride? What should the system do to prevent these people from succeeding? At the same time how should the system make sure people who are not taking it for a ride do not get punished trying to prevent others taking it for a ride. How can all this be done in the most cost efficient way?

Well for a start...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/may/09/iain-duncan-smith-benefits-cap-statistics

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/12/iain-duncan-smith-fiddling-figures

https://politicalscrapbook.net/2013...uncan-smith-has-exaggerated-life-experiences/

http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2015/...nt-over-iain-duncan-smiths-lie-to-parliament/

...we could have honest politicians in charge of this department who will actually speak the truth. The truth is that people on welfare have been suffering pretty terribly during the past few years.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ord-high-reveals-trussell-trust-a6984921.html

http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...-use-food-banks-britain-today-and-im-one-them

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...d-bank-not-eaten-three-days-paddington-london

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...mage-by-dwp-says-trussell-trust-a6794101.html

The most cost efficient way? A universal citizens income. Or at the very least an end to sanctions - pay everyone benefits who asks for them and doesn't collect a paycheque. The very notion that this can happen in the worlds 5th largest economy...

https://www.theguardian.com/society...eside-food-parcels-patients-risk-malnutrition

...is a matter for extreme shame. We're a disgusting country if we allow this to happen to our fellow citizens merely to get at some imaginary bogeymen who might just be living on £80 per week without actually wanting to work for it.

 

[Asp Explorer]

80 quid a week? With a mandatory 35 hour looking-for-work week? That's 2.28 an hour. What is minimum wage these days?

More importantly - how much is a gallon of petrol, a pint of beer, and a pack of smokes?

 

[FuzzySpider]

80 quid a week? With a mandatory 35 hour looking-for-work week? That's 2.28 an hour. What is minimum wage these days?

More importantly - how much is a gallon of petrol, a pint of beer, and a pack of smokes?

Sorry, I got it wrong.

It's actually £73.10 per week (£57.90 if you're under 25).

The owners of those who vilify the unemployed, the Mail and Express, could easily spend more than that on a single meal at a fancy restaurant before penning their poison against those claiming benefits.

 

[starsphinx]

That's nothing at all like the benefits system, nor does it characterize those who are reciept of benefits.

JSA is currently around £80 per week, for which a full time commitment to looking for work is required. In other words, rather than sitting at home all day playing elite dangerous, the unemployed are often made to attend various schemes and other projects on a full time basis for nothing more than sustinence payments.

And then you have the work program. You work, for a profit making company (Asda or Tesco), for no actual payment. But the corporation which has millions, gets your labour for free. The tab is picked up by the taxpayer.



Such Daily Mailesque characterizations of what life is like on benefits bears no resemblence the actual reality. The soul crushing drudgery, the boredom, the abject humiliation and the inability to admit to others that you're collecting benefits. Suicides have reached an epidemic level due, in no small part, to the welfare reforms brought in under IDS.



Well for a start...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/may/09/iain-duncan-smith-benefits-cap-statistics

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/12/iain-duncan-smith-fiddling-figures

https://politicalscrapbook.net/2013...uncan-smith-has-exaggerated-life-experiences/

http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2015/...nt-over-iain-duncan-smiths-lie-to-parliament/

...we could have honest politicians in charge of this department who will actually speak the truth. The truth is that people on welfare have been suffering pretty terribly during the past few years.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ord-high-reveals-trussell-trust-a6984921.html

http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...-use-food-banks-britain-today-and-im-one-them

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...d-bank-not-eaten-three-days-paddington-london

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...mage-by-dwp-says-trussell-trust-a6794101.html

The most cost efficient way? A universal citizens income. Or at the very least an end to sanctions - pay everyone benefits who asks for them and doesn't collect a paycheque. The very notion that this can happen in the worlds 5th largest economy...

https://www.theguardian.com/society...eside-food-parcels-patients-risk-malnutrition

...is a matter for extreme shame. We're a disgusting country if we allow this to happen to our fellow citizens merely to get at some imaginary bogeymen who might just be living on £80 per week without actually wanting to work for it.

I did not say anything about characterising benefits or those who claim - I simply pointed out that something things people can manage with it. You say it bears no resemblance to reality - it is reality, it is my life, it is describing what I see day in day out.

You call it Mailesque and then throw Guardian quotes at me - the one is about as balanced as the other and neither gets close to describing the person I am or the life I live.

As for universal citizens income - how old are you, 15? Or are you are university employee? How exactly is this universal income going to be generated? The usual way of generating money for such schemes is taxation - but how do you tax income that is paid for by tax? Your universal income pays man £100, tax man takes £30 to pay the next mans universal income and err not sure how it goes from there.

You just proved that the idea of wanting money without working for it is anything but imaginary because you want it for the whole country because that is how life "should" be.

 

[verminstar]

As someone who became unemployed through disability, all I can say is...one does not an easy life have in the UK. This is not new pat...known about this fer a bit but it gets worse the older ye are.

Many argue this is a new thing or doesnt or wouldnt exist? And they said it would get worse...define worse when yer already on the bottom of the food chain. Both meself and my daughter remember those super noodle and bread n butter dinners well...thats what life is like if ye arent prepared to do whatever it takes to live like human beings ad...bend the rules somewhat.

 

[Adept]

80 quid a week? With a mandatory 35 hour looking-for-work week? That's 2.28 an hour. What is minimum wage these days?

More importantly - how much is a gallon of petrol, a pint of beer, and a pack of smokes?

It's utterly disgusting, and our current (and previous) government in Finland is pushing a similar scheme for all they're worth. Now I know where they got the <expletive self-redacted> idea from. Thanks UK, another gift to the world.

 

[starsphinx]

As someone who became unemployed through disability, all I can say is...one does not an easy life have in the UK. This is not new pat...known about this fer a bit but it gets worse the older ye are.

Many argue this is a new thing or doesnt or wouldnt exist? And they said it would get worse...define worse when yer already on the bottom of the food chain. Both meself and my daughter remember those super noodle and bread n butter dinners well...thats what life is like if ye arent prepared to do whatever it takes to live like human beings ad...bend the rules somewhat.

Hell I wish disability benefits had been this bad growing up - mum might not have had to try catching ducks off the local lake, gone around raiding allotments, and my step dad would not have been dumpster diving before it became fashionable.

Yes benefits are bottom of the food chain - but they are a hell of a lot closer to the next step than they used to be lol.

 

[Yaffle]

Spend on unemployment benefit is astonishingly small as well. £3bn in 2014-15. Compare that to, say, spend on consultants by Whitehall at £2billion.

http://visual.ons.gov.uk/welfare-spending/

 

[Cotic]

I've had 2 experiences with the benefits system. 1 when I was young and they actually paid me money on top of my dole to attend a course. Obviously if you were attending a course you weren't "unemployed" and so the figures looked better. Everybody was doing courses...

The other time was a work related accident that required me to go on the sick. I had an assessment not long after and was found fit for work despite not being fit at all, I appealled the decision which was found in my favour but it took 9 or 10 weeks to get sorted, during that time I was put on the dole and they were withheld 25% of my dole money because I was making an appeal, which just felt vindictive.
I remember being so disgusted with the way they treated people who were down on their luck, these were the very same people that had worked religiously and paid tax for years and all of a sudden they were less than everybody. It was around about then that I could see why some people would manipulate the system.

When you have MPs turning up just so they qualify for their wage, fiddling accounts, working another job that takes up 90% of their time etc and then trying to dictate what is right and wrong, I'm not surprised people just stick their fingers up and try and milk it.

 

[FuzzySpider]

You call it Mailesque and then throw Guardian quotes at me - the one is about as balanced as the other

Sure....

https://tabloidcorrections.wordpres...ail-and-express-lied-nearly-50-times-in-2016/

...just the same.

I particularly enjoy The Mails level of cognitive dissonance. This is a wonderful example:

Spoiler

So, in the front page they manage to celebrate an ideological attack on poverty reduction whilst cheering the birthright of inherited wealth. Genius!

What about their other articles? A celebrity has had a heart attack? She might die? Ohh... well do we have any bikini shots and do you think she'd mind a bit of character assassination?

Spoiler

But celebrities are fair game aren't they? They ask for it when they are in the public eye...

...what's that? A woman got lonely and hung herself? Got any bikini pics? (original was not censored by Mail)

Spoiler

No. The Guardian and The Daily Mail are not the same. They're not even close. In fact they're completely different types of information outlets. The fact that you appear to be conflating the two speaks volumes.

By all means prove me wrong. Show me anything from the Guardian that sinks that low. And show me how many times the IPSO has told The Guardian off compared to the Daily Mail.

As for universal citizens income - how old are you, 15?

I must be. Those two things correlate perfectly. One has to absolutely be 15 years old to believe that the universal citizens income is a viable solution to the dual problems of poverty and the looming spectre of mass unemployment due to automation.

 

[Patrick_68000]

Maybe those 35 hours a week could be spent digging trenches to upgrade the British telecommunications infrastructure

To play ED comfortably

 

[Asp Explorer]

looming spectre of mass unemployment due to automation.

Someone has to write the code for those machines, someone has to document it and provide legal protections, someone has to manufacture them, someone has to maintain them, someone has to train the maintainers, conduct the safety courses, arrange for installation, transport them, cut them up and melt them down when they reach their end of service.

Automation is great - but until everything is automated, the machines will still need meatbags for their basic needs.