Is On-line shopping killing the High Street?

[Mike the Metal Ed]

The DeMont has been there over 100 years so it wouldn't be fair to blame the current council. The KP and the rugby ground are not owned by the council so that irrelevant, although they wouldn't really be suitable for the city centre.

You can visit the Curve without passing through town on the way in or out so the shops in town are not going to benefit from the footfall. The council were on about building a gallery a few years ago, wouldn't it be a good idea to put it in some of the empty shop space in the town?

Leicester isn't as big as Birmingham or Manchester. A cultural quarter is a ridiculous idea.

Unless you come by bus. But yeah, I take that point, but Leicester has a lot of wasted space because people only ever turn up to the clock tower area. I'm sure that if we greatly improved Humberstone Road West and the Lee Circle area, we could easily make the retail area of Leicester a lot larger, integrating the cultural quarter along with it.

Leicester's not a bad city, it just gets a bit focused on the wrong bits sometimes. Right now I don't see the council's fascination with doing work on a popular market area and putting some turf on St. Nicholas Circle is hardly going to turn it into Leicester Square.

[Guest MattP]

Unless you come by bus. But yeah, I take that point, but Leicester has a lot of wasted space because people only ever turn up to the clock tower area. I'm sure that if we greatly improved Humberstone Road West and the Lee Circle area, we could easily make the retail area of Leicester a lot larger, integrating the cultural quarter along with it.

Leicester's not a bad city, it just gets a bit focused on the wrong bits sometimes. Right now I don't see the council's fascination with doing work on a popular market area and putting some turf on St. Nicholas Circle is hardly going to turn it into Leicester Square.

Might be onto something there, just rename the centre that.

Save a fortune and will get the tourists flocking in.

[Mike the Metal Ed]

Might be onto something there, just rename the centre that.

Save a fortune and will get the tourists flocking in.

I don't see many flocking to the pool hall. Might get a bit of a shock if your sat nav took you there on a Friday instead of the Odeon West End.

[stix]

They may have done it a little then but it was not great.

Conjecture

[Jay]

It's a difficult one at the end of the day we all want the best price and the best value for money on the things we buy. But the news this week that play.com has thrown in the towel and closed their retail arm shows that even one of the strongest online sellers is not immune to the current financial climate.

One stop shop supermarkets are a big one for me, everything under one roof where you can just about get anything, why go anywhere else?

Companies like amazon not paying tax means they can sell a cd say £3 cheaper that Hmv on the high street, but times are hard why would I pay more to travel and buy a cd than getting it delivered to my door? Morally it's wrong I know but I can't afford to spend more for less.

Financially the country is f**ked online, high street don't matter it effects them all

[MooseBreath]

Amazon could pay extortionate tax and still sell products for cheaper than HMV. I don't see anything morally wrong about buying the same product for the cheapest price. HMV were selling single albums for about £16 ten years ago. How much of that went to the artist? 25p? They were the biggest rip off merchants on the high street for many years and deserve to be struggling now for being too arrogant to drop their outrageous prices.

As for the others, if you can't compete, you go bust. Simple as that. Progress is more important than nostalgia.

[Trav Le Bleu]

I think it's partly to blame, but with Jessops and Comet especially, it's all these gadgets and phones what are coming out, who needs to go to Jessops and buy a camcorder or cameras, when you have all this gear on your phones nowadays.

If you really think that your phone is as good as a dedicated camera or camcorder of a similar cost, then you're mistaken.

Actually, at risk of sounding like a Luddite (good old Neil, born just down the road) the question we should really ask is are we killing ourselves with technology? Probably at best, the western world is turning into a technocracy. It's not just on the High St... technology has been replacing manual workers for decades, making less and less manual workers, so that those with the robots can get increasingly richer. Massive machines rip through crops like farm labourers never could. Computers monitor things that in the past required guards, conductors or overseers. Supermarkets make the customer do the checkout work by use of scanners. There's less police and more cameras. We even have the technology to get vehicles to drive themselves.

I often thought this even as a child, when TV programmes such as Tomorrow's World said in the future robots would do all our work for us - so how would anyone earn money to own a robot? We're headed towards a critical point where there won't be any jobs to pay the people who wanted all the cheap stuff that technology provide that took their jobs that used to give them the money they needed for stuff.

When they make robots that repair robots - we're screwed.

[Parafox]

If you really think that your phone is as good as a dedicated camera or camcorder of a similar cost, then you're mistaken.

Actually, at risk of sounding like a Luddite (good old Neil, born just down the road) the question we should really ask is are we killing ourselves with technology? Probably at best, the western world is turning into a technocracy. It's not just on the High St... technology has been replacing manual workers for decades, making less and less manual workers, so that those with the robots can get increasingly richer. Massive machines rip through crops like farm labourers never could. Computers monitor things that in the past required guards, conductors or overseers. Supermarkets make the customer do the checkout work by use of scanners. There's less police and more cameras. We even have the technology to get vehicles to drive themselves.

I often thought this even as a child, when TV programmes such as Tomorrow's World said in the future robots would do all our work for us - so how would anyone earn money to own a robot? We're headed towards a critical point where there won't be any jobs to pay the people who wanted all the cheap stuff that technology provide that took their jobs that used to give them the money they needed for stuff.

When they make robots that repair robots - we're screwed.

Insightful... very good. I wish my postie was as intellectual, I might be able to say more than "how do"?

[Captain...]

If you really think that your phone is as good as a dedicated camera or camcorder of a similar cost, then you're mistaken.

Actually, at risk of sounding like a Luddite (good old Neil, born just down the road) the question we should really ask is are we killing ourselves with technology? Probably at best, the western world is turning into a technocracy. It's not just on the High St... technology has been replacing manual workers for decades, making less and less manual workers, so that those with the robots can get increasingly richer. Massive machines rip through crops like farm labourers never could. Computers monitor things that in the past required guards, conductors or overseers. Supermarkets make the customer do the checkout work by use of scanners. There's less police and more cameras. We even have the technology to get vehicles to drive themselves.

I often thought this even as a child, when TV programmes such as Tomorrow's World said in the future robots would do all our work for us - so how would anyone earn money to own a robot? We're headed towards a critical point where there won't be any jobs to pay the people who wanted all the cheap stuff that technology provide that took their jobs that used to give them the money they needed for stuff.

When they make robots that repair robots - we're screwed.

When they make robots to repair robots then we are only one step away from the rise of the machines.

The problem is at the moment we are too stubborn/stupid to realise what is happening at the moment, and we aren't adapting to make it work for us, instead we seem to be making it work against us, the truth is technology is progressing for the express reason of making our lives easier and more efficient. They do that by replacing human beings so that what would traditionally need 5 people to complete a task now only requires one.

As humans are replaced by machines then obviousl if we don't change the model then unemployment will rise.

With regards the high street, I think the economic climate has had a big impact, it is not just that people are buying more online they are buying less in general, but we are pushing people to online tax dodgers by amazon by making it so much more convenient to buy online. It is not just price, but many things, cost, the cost of going into town is ridiculous, was back in Birstall over Christmas, £2.30 to get the 10 minute bus into town, outrageous. Shop online and it gets delivered to your door for free. Information, how many people know find out all the information about a product online before they buy it, you shop on line you can compare the specs of similar products quickly and easily, read customer reviews, check out all the facts, in store you have to ask someone and they invariably don't know their arse from their elbow and even when they do know what they are talking about it is very difficult to follow and assimilate all that info.

So what can you do? One option is to make shopping in store similar to online shopping, you can use your phone or pick up a game held device in store and use it to compare products, store info record which one you want, say for it then pick it up as you leave, and you still have the human people around to help and demo products.

But that still doesn't solve the issue of technology replacing jobs, but in my eyes that is simple to fix, everyone work less, works 2 fold, everyone is happier because they have more free time to pursue hobbies and past times and spend more time browsing in shops, eliminates unemployment and poverty by dividing all available work between the entire work force. There will be less poor but the middle classes will have less money, so demand for luxury goods will drop, and therefore prices and we will all be happy.

[DJMadness29]

If you really think that your phone is as good as a dedicated camera or camcorder of a similar cost, then you're mistaken.

The problem with this statement is that not everyone is David Bailey. And alot of people are happy with the camera on thier phone as its always with them. I've got a Canon DSLR for when I want to do 'snazzy' shots, but its big and bulky. Whereas if im just wondering around and find something I want to take a photo of its much easier to use the camera on me phone thats 2 screen clicks away, pretty much at all times.

Anywho back on topic. I do alot of online shopping. The main reason is I live in Wrexham and its tiny. HMV here is about the same size as the lego department in Dominos. Because its only a small town it doesn't really have the 'pull' to attract bigger, decent shops. So if I want pretty much anything I have to go either Chester, which is only a little bit better, or to Manchester which is alot better but 60 miles away. So buying off the internet saves me a fortune in fuel.

[MooseBreath]

In reply to shrapnel. People don't want to work less though. It's easy for you to say when you're on £500 per day because you could comfortably afford to drop your hours. Not everyone is in that position. Most people, if it came down to it, would rather work more, earn more to secure their financial future and afford a few luxuries.

[leicsmac]

In reply to shrapnel. People don't want to work less though. It's easy for you to say when you're on £500 per day because you could comfortably afford to drop your hours. Not everyone is in that position. Most people, if it came down to it, would rather work more, earn more to secure their financial future and afford a few luxuries.

Then keep the wages in line so that people get paid the same amount for less time worked. With the addition of technology, the same amount of 'work' still gets done, and the company involved still gets the same financial input/output as a result of that work (that part is important), so the situation remains the same - the workers just do less hours. Everyone wins. A simple analogy I know but I think it's broadly correct.

[Webbo]

Then keep the wages in line so that people get paid the same amount for less time worked. With the addition of technology, the same amount of 'work' still gets done, and the company involved still gets the same financial input/output as a result of that work (that part is important), so the situation remains the same - the workers just do less hours. Everyone wins. A simple analogy I know but I think it's broadly correct.

Where does the money come from?

[Parafox]

Where does the money come from?

From output and sales?

[Webbo]

From output and sales?

But if people are earning the same for less hours (i.e. output going down) then things become more expensive to produce and or sell so prices will have to go up to cover costs meaning sales will go down.

[Parafox]

But if people are earning the same for less hours (i.e. output going down) then things become more expensive to produce and or sell so prices will have to go up to cover costs meaning sales will go down.

I think the point being made was that, with automation, the output remains the same (or improves) but requires fewer man-hours to maintain it.

Sales would go down only if demand falls. Look at Honda in Swindon. Last year an improved plant, big investment, extra 500 workforce. Last week, 600 job cuts due to falling demand.

[MooseBreath]

It would require eliminating competition which would be no good for anyone

[Webbo]

I think the point being made was that, with automation, the output remains the same (or improves) but requires fewer man-hours to maintain it.

So we should pay people the same money as before even though their job is being done by a machine? Why would you spend money on a machine in the first place if you were forced to do that?

[Jon the Hat]

It's a difficult one at the end of the day we all want the best price and the best value for money on the things we buy. But the news this week that play.com has thrown in the towel and closed their retail arm shows that even one of the strongest online sellers is not immune to the current financial climate.

One stop shop supermarkets are a big one for me, everything under one roof where you can just about get anything, why go anywhere else?

Companies like amazon not paying tax means they can sell a cd say £3 cheaper that Hmv on the high street, but times are hard why would I pay more to travel and buy a cd than getting it delivered to my door? Morally it's wrong I know but I can't afford to spend more for less.

Financially the country is f**ked online, high street don't matter it effects them all

Play.com were selling individual items without VAT as they were under £15. This loophole has been closed, hence why they stopped the direct retail sales element of their business.

[leicsmac]

I think the point being made was that, with automation, the output remains the same (or improves) but requires fewer man-hours to maintain it.

Yes, exactly that. As long as the product/service output remains the same or even improves (and therefore so does the financial income from it) you can pay the people working there the same amount for less hours worked with more automation.

[Jon the Hat]

The High Street needs to evolve into somewhere you go for entertainment, food, fun, culture AND shopping for things where you need to see them and try them. The retail cost structure of rents, rates and other overheads is not aligned with realisable profits, and landlords and councils will have to recognise this sooner rather than later.

[leicsmac]

It would require eliminating competition which would be no good for anyone

How so? The business structure would remain the same and the companies would still be competing with each other, there would just be higher amounts of automation in the product/service manufacturing process.

So we should pay people the same money as before even though their job is being done by a machine? Why would you spend money on a machine in the first place if you were forced to do that?

This is a good point, and would indicate that if you went through this your output would have to improve in order to cover the cost of the machine as well as what was discussed earlier. I think this is possible, though.

[Rincewind]

I know my brother and sister-in-law does a lot of online shopping. When I was staying there she was started to her Xmas shopping.

They live in a small town in Cumbria. Nearest place Cockermouth and Workington. They have a Sainsbury's and Asda. Not much else. The next biggish place would be Carlisle 40-50 miles and after that I think it would be Manchester probably 80 miles

Maybe there will be more order and home delivery. The stores will still need staff to put together orders and it could be 24 hours. So if you are a night worker you could order 10pm and have your grocieries delivered when you get home.

Re cameras I know a professional photographer who has used his mobile phone on several occasions and is happy with the results. With software programs the pictures can be adjusted to look better. Obviously if you iplan a session of photography such as wildlife or close up or sunsets you prepare and use a more suiable equpment but for instant and unexpected shots a small camera does the job.

[notnow john]

If you really think that your phone is as good as a dedicated camera or camcorder of a similar cost, then you're mistaken.

Actually, at risk of sounding like a Luddite (good old Neil, born just down the road) the question we should really ask is are we killing ourselves with technology? Probably at best, the western world is turning into a technocracy. It's not just on the High St... technology has been replacing manual workers for decades, making less and less manual workers, so that those with the robots can get increasingly richer. Massive machines rip through crops like farm labourers never could. Computers monitor things that in the past required guards, conductors or overseers. Supermarkets make the customer do the checkout work by use of scanners. There's less police and more cameras. We even have the technology to get vehicles to drive themselves.

I often thought this even as a child, when TV programmes such as Tomorrow's World said in the future robots would do all our work for us - so how would anyone earn money to own a robot? We're headed towards a critical point where there won't be any jobs to pay the people who wanted all the cheap stuff that technology provide that took their jobs that used to give them the money they needed for stuff.

When they make robots that repair robots -

[Webbo]

This is a good point, and would indicate that if you went through this your output would have to improve in order to cover the cost of the machine as well as what was discussed earlier. I think this is possible, though.

So you're producing more goods at the same price. What happens if demand does not rise by the same amount?