3 ms·

In an economy where work is increasingly automated, those humans who can do things which machines can't are finding themselves more valued. That seems expected,

by tbabb 10y ago

In an economy where work is increasingly automated, those humans who can do things which machines can't are finding themselves more valued. That seems expected, and I am not convinced it is indicative of any problem or unfairness.

technobabble 10y ago
How will actual automation impact small and in some cases medium-sized businesses? If I'm running a restaurant chain with 2-3 locations, does it make economic sense to employ robotic sweepers and chefs? Granted that won't replace all jobs lost, manual labor would still be valued in such areas.
xivzgrev 10y ago
The unfairness component comes from your genetics and upbringing, both outside your control - some combinations are better suited to navigate this economy than others. So what do we as a society do with those at a disadvantage, sometimes severe (eg IQ below 90?) we can move toward finding ways to include them, or we can move toward excluding them. The problem from the article is a societal one trend toward exclusion, not economic as you pointed out.
- tbabb 10y ago
  Someone who is personable or eager or hardworking (or the opposite) is as much so because of the cards they are dealt by nature or their upbringing as a person who is intelligent (or the opposite). When you get down to it, everyone is exclusively a product of their genes and the environment, and they are in control of neither. A just society judges and rewards people based on what they contribute. Racism, sexism, ageism, and the like are unfair not because they select based on something "outside your control", but because they deprive a person of the opportunity to succeed or fail based on merit. Intelligence is a direct factor (though not the only factor) in a person's success at performing just about any job. If it is not a fair criteria by which to judge, then there are no fair criteria.
  - MawNicker 10y ago
    I'm more concerned about the act of "judging". What does that involve exactly? I'm fine with giving everyone A, B, C, D and F grades. I wouldn't care if you made people sew them into their clothing. But I'd like a person who got an F to have food and shelter. I don't see how they'd ever get another grade otherwise.
- caseymarquis 10y ago
  In theory, 25% of the population has an IQ below 90. If that's a severe disadvantage we're talking about ~75M people just in the US. Edit: I read comments before the article as the HN discussion is typically more interesting than the article itself. Didn't realize this exact stat is in the article.
duaneb 10y ago
the capitalist class has always been an intellectual one. The labor class is dying; I don't think this indicates a higher premium on intelligence. If anything, this indicates a lower value than before as people take intelligence for granted.

by tbabb 10y ago

technobabble 10y ago

How will actual automation impact small and in some cases medium-sized businesses? If I'm running a restaurant chain with 2-3 locations, does it make economic sense to employ robotic sweepers and chefs? Granted that won't replace all jobs lost, manual labor would still be valued in such areas.

xivzgrev 10y ago

The unfairness component comes from your genetics and upbringing, both outside your control - some combinations are better suited to navigate this economy than others. So what do we as a society do with those at a disadvantage, sometimes severe (eg IQ below 90?) we can move toward finding ways to include them, or we can move toward excluding them. The problem from the article is a societal one trend toward exclusion, not economic as you pointed out.

tbabb 10y ago
Someone who is personable or eager or hardworking (or the opposite) is as much so because of the cards they are dealt by nature or their upbringing as a person who is intelligent (or the opposite). When you get down to it, everyone is exclusively a product of their genes and the environment, and they are in control of neither. A just society judges and rewards people based on what they contribute. Racism, sexism, ageism, and the like are unfair not because they select based on something "outside your control", but because they deprive a person of the opportunity to succeed or fail based on merit. Intelligence is a direct factor (though not the only factor) in a person's success at performing just about any job. If it is not a fair criteria by which to judge, then there are no fair criteria.
- MawNicker 10y ago
  I'm more concerned about the act of "judging". What does that involve exactly? I'm fine with giving everyone A, B, C, D and F grades. I wouldn't care if you made people sew them into their clothing. But I'd like a person who got an F to have food and shelter. I don't see how they'd ever get another grade otherwise.
caseymarquis 10y ago
In theory, 25% of the population has an IQ below 90. If that's a severe disadvantage we're talking about ~75M people just in the US. Edit: I read comments before the article as the HN discussion is typically more interesting than the article itself. Didn't realize this exact stat is in the article.

duaneb 10y ago

the capitalist class has always been an intellectual one. The labor class is dying; I don't think this indicates a higher premium on intelligence. If anything, this indicates a lower value than before as people take intelligence for granted.