akwoo, on 2016-August-21, 07:11, said:
I think it is a matter of scale.
Sure there will always be jobs for which a high IQ is not required.
However, if there is only 1 <120IQ job for every 3 >120IQ jobs, then we have a problem.
In fact, we have a bigger problem in this situation than when we have no <120IQ jobs at all, because we now have lots of <120IQ people with jobs arguing that those without jobs are somehow personally at fault when it is actually just a matter of numbers.
I don't think the era of fully robotic plumbing is coming even in my lifetime. However, I think we will see semi-autonomous, remotely directed plumbing machines, which means we'll only need 1 plumber for every 3 or 4 we have today. Do this for every trade, and we have a problem.
Yes, it is indeed a matter of scale and I confess to not having a good grasp of the numbers. I see a lot of people doing useful work.
Here is another facet of this.
Pin setting in a bowling alley is,afaik, done by machines. True. But it is also true that when I did it I was 14. I don't remember exactly, but I seriously doubt that any of us were over 16. I used the money to bowl a few lines, buy cigarettes from the machine, and if there was money left over I might buy a magazine or a paperback at the drugstore. I am not knocking this job, I think working as a teenager is an important part of growing up and I have always been proud of buying my first car with money that I made myself. But the pin setting robots are not taking jobs from family breadwinners.
Such details are important when looking at numbers. A job disappears, but this affects whom?
This same sort of "whom does it affect" applies to the minimum wage, and this time I think the news is quite bad. I am sure I have said this before so I apologize. But the problem with the minimum wage, as I see it, is not just that it is too low but also that there are 40-year olds who are being paid at this minimum rate, or roughly that rate. This is very different from when I was young.
There are lots of problems. As always, care has to be taken when reading the numbers. But scale is important, numbers are important. And while I think that "arguing that those without jobs are somehow personally at fault" can be overdone, I don't regard social expectations as completely irrelevant or off-base. It is not always easy, and often none of my business, to see just why someone is in dire straits. But even casual observation shows that at times some really bad decisions were made.
It is best if government programs are wise and if the people that the programs are intended to help make good use of them . We can probably agree that it doesn't always work out that way.