3 ms·
My friend read your comment and became enraged. He is a chef. He asks, "why PhDs?" "Haven't they already used a lot of taxpayer and non-profit dollars?" Why sh
by wallace_f 7y ago
My friend read your comment and became enraged. He is a chef. He asks, "why PhDs?" "Haven't they already used a lot of taxpayer and non-profit dollars?"
Why should PhDs get a social stipend, but not a chef? This would ultimately be a net transfer of wealth from the chefs to the PhDs, by force of law.
- dr_dshiv 7y agoRight. Because chefs have immediate market value whereas the extremely educated do not -- but are more likely to produce disproportionate intellectual value given time .
- 6510 7y agoIf we are really going to automate everything (in the really long run) IDEALLY there are going to be unemployed people. Work costs finite resources. We cant continue to work just for the sake of working. Disasters are going to happen. Having an unskilled population could mean the end of humanity. A tiny increase in allowance for learning and maintaining(!) useful skills could be an interesting approach. Cooks seem pretty nice to have. In a worse case scenario they could be even more valuable if they could cook on open fire, do a bit of gardening, know more about nutrition. It will be somewhat of a hard puzzle slapping value on training that is theoretically useful, we might have to do crude generalizations like phd = 200$ extra per month but it wouldn't be perfect or even elegant.