3 ms·

He's not talking about people doing programming work for low pay. He's talking about talentless people--of which there are many. I mean--people who would star

He's not talking about people doing programming work for low pay. He's talking about talentless people--of which there are many. I mean--people who would starve to death or become criminals if it wasn't for the social safety net. And the solution is genetic engineering, an infant technology.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
lsc 15y ago
>He's not talking about people doing programming work for low pay. He's talking about talentless people--of which there are many. I mean--people who would starve to death or become criminals if it wasn't for the social safety net. right. as I said: >I mean, at it's root, I think there is a valid question, "what do we do with unskilled laborers?" It's a hard question. the thing is, unskilled or minimally-skilled (no job is completely unskilled) labor is worth something. the problem is that right now, there is a greater supply of unskilled labor than there is demand. But this has not always or even usually been the case. (I mean, there is also then the problem of living on unskilled living wages, which I think is a lower priority than just getting people jobs.) Maybe lowering the cost of unskilled labor would boost demand? I don't know. Most unskilled work is near the skilled workers, and eh, the cost of rent (or commuting) will put a natural 'minimum wage' in place. I think here in silicon valley, at least, that natural minimum wage is already rather higher than the state-mandated minimum wage. This, of course, varies a lot by location. The big problem with this is that wages for the unskilled have not been keeping up with inflation, while wages for the skilled have, and the skilled and unskilled are in competition for some resources, for example, housing within commuting distance of the city. >And the solution is genetic engineering, an infant technology. This makes a lot of assumptions; The first assumption you make is that the demand for unskilled or minimally skilled labor is significantly less than the supply. At the moment, this is true; but I don't think this is normal. Throughout most of history, most people supported themselves by doing minimally skilled labor. The next assumption is that the factors that attributes that allow a person to get and keep a skilled jobs are all genetic. Obviously, there are huge holes here. Personally, I believe that there is such a thing as generalized intelligence, though this is only weakly supported by the scientific evidence. Further, while I feel that this generalized intelligence may be dependent largely on genetic factors, the scientific support for that theory is also pretty weak. Even if I'm right on both counts, and generalized intelligence exists and it's largely genetic in nature, the correlation between wage and IQ is... weird. Earnings tend to increase with measured IQ up to a point, then they flatten. It could very well be that IQ correlates with something else that correlates to wages. My point is just that the evidence for unskilled workers being genetically unskilled is, well, not very strong.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

lsc 15y ago

>He's not talking about people doing programming work for low pay. He's talking about talentless people--of which there are many. I mean--people who would starve to death or become criminals if it wasn't for the social safety net. right. as I said: >I mean, at it's root, I think there is a valid question, "what do we do with unskilled laborers?" It's a hard question. the thing is, unskilled or minimally-skilled (no job is completely unskilled) labor is worth something. the problem is that right now, there is a greater supply of unskilled labor than there is demand. But this has not always or even usually been the case. (I mean, there is also then the problem of living on unskilled living wages, which I think is a lower priority than just getting people jobs.) Maybe lowering the cost of unskilled labor would boost demand? I don't know. Most unskilled work is near the skilled workers, and eh, the cost of rent (or commuting) will put a natural 'minimum wage' in place. I think here in silicon valley, at least, that natural minimum wage is already rather higher than the state-mandated minimum wage. This, of course, varies a lot by location. The big problem with this is that wages for the unskilled have not been keeping up with inflation, while wages for the skilled have, and the skilled and unskilled are in competition for some resources, for example, housing within commuting distance of the city. >And the solution is genetic engineering, an infant technology. This makes a lot of assumptions; The first assumption you make is that the demand for unskilled or minimally skilled labor is significantly less than the supply. At the moment, this is true; but I don't think this is normal. Throughout most of history, most people supported themselves by doing minimally skilled labor. The next assumption is that the factors that attributes that allow a person to get and keep a skilled jobs are all genetic. Obviously, there are huge holes here. Personally, I believe that there is such a thing as generalized intelligence, though this is only weakly supported by the scientific evidence. Further, while I feel that this generalized intelligence may be dependent largely on genetic factors, the scientific support for that theory is also pretty weak. Even if I'm right on both counts, and generalized intelligence exists and it's largely genetic in nature, the correlation between wage and IQ is... weird. Earnings tend to increase with measured IQ up to a point, then they flatten. It could very well be that IQ correlates with something else that correlates to wages. My point is just that the evidence for unskilled workers being genetically unskilled is, well, not very strong.