4 ms·

But you can acknowledge that there may be a real scarcity of work for people who have low IQ? In the past, there was always manual labor, which could soak up al

But you can acknowledge that there may be a real scarcity of work for people who have low IQ? In the past, there was always manual labor, which could soak up all labor so long as aggregate demand in the economy was great enough -- and the best way to ensure sufficient aggregate demand, in the past, was typically a combination of productivity gains and sufficient monetary creation. But what happens when all the work that can be done by low IQ people is automated? You might be willing to respond with "New forms of work will open up that will allow for the employ of those people with low IQs". However, I am asking you to consider the hypothetical where every such form of work is eventually automated by machines that have sufficiently advanced AI. Between 1850 and 1973 there were immense improvements in labor productivity that completely transformed the world, and for a long time the rising productivity created more new jobs, rather than less. But going forward, we face a situation where increasing automation will still create new wealth, and it will still create huge improvements in labor productivity, but the improvements will only be available for those who have enough IQ to understand the technologies in use. And much of this scenario might come to pass during the next 50 years. But imagine even further afield -- imagine 200 years now. Do you think the period 1850 to 1973 offers a reasonable model to think about, say for instance, economic growth between 2100 and 2200? What happens if there comes a day when absolutely everything is automated and humans no longer need to work? We have reached utopia, yes? But you can probably see where I am going with this: eventually there needs to be some way to provide an income to people, when the day eventually comes when no one needs to work.

TomJoad 13y ago
What does a "low IQ" have to do with manual labor? IQ or any other measure of so called intelligence, has never -- and will probably never -- have any correlation with a person's occupation. Ultimately, it is the parent's socio-economic status which usually dictates what jobs their children will have. The fact that you believe it could be a person's "IQ" which dictates what job they may have really shows how little regard you have for people.
- JamesArgo 13y ago
  Look, that sounds nice and all, but it just isn't true. Some people are smarter than others. This should be an incredibly uncontroversial claim. Also, textbook ad hominem at the end there. The fact that you believe a persons "height" dictates their chance of competing in the NBA really shows how little regard you have for people.
- Strilanc 13y ago
  > Ultimately, it is the parent's socio-economic status which usually dictates what jobs their children will have. That's not an agreed upon fact. For example, a cursory googling of "correlation between iq and job" brings up a lot of articles with language like "This is why hundreds of studies have found that IQ predicts job performance best (though not all that well) at the start of a person’s career, and progressively weakens over the course of that career."[1] or subtitles like "Intelligence wins out over socio-economic status when it comes to career advancement"[2]. (But maybe that search term is biased. I just entered the most obvious thing.) As another example, wikipedia says "The validity of IQ as a predictor of job performance is above zero for all work studied to date, but varies with the type of job and across different studies, ranging from 0.2 to 0.6. The correlations were higher when the unreliability of measurement methods was controlled for."[3] > really shows how little regard you have for people. Inappropriate. 1. http://danielgoleman.info/the-trouble-with-iq/ http://danielgoleman.info/the-trouble-with-iq/ 2. http://www.aftau.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16373 http://www.aftau.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=1637... 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Job_performance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Job_perf...
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
Retric 13y ago
The lack of low skilled jobs in the US is primarily a combination of zero import taxes with China etc and a minimum wage. We still want all those tshits and painted plastic toys that used to be low skilled laber in the US we just don't use people in the US to make them.
thwarted 13y ago
What happens if there comes a day when absolutely everything is automated and humans no longer need to work? We have reached utopia, yes? But you can probably see where I am going with this: eventually there needs to be some way to provide an income to people, when the day eventually comes when no one needs to work. I never understand the logic of this argument. If everything is automated and everyone is provided for (this is a utopia, after all), why would people need an income? By definition, if people do not need to work, then they do not need an income. The need to work and the need for an income are the same thing, just worded differently.
- cousin_it 13y ago
  The problem is about distribution, not production. Not everyone will own these magical means of automation, and owners will have no incentive to share with non-owners, because non-owners cannot offer anything that owners need.
- TeMPOraL 13y ago
  The problem isn't with the state of this utopia; the true difficulties lie in transition process - when more and more things get automated, but the overall economy still forces you to have an income or starve. The real challenge of our times is how we get from here to there without a huge mess and a lot of suffering in the middle.
  - thwarted 13y ago
    Yes, the transition will be an upset, like all transitions are. But what I quoted doesn't talk about the transition to the utopia, it talks about the utopia having been reached and people still needing an income. If people's needs are not being provided for they will need income, presumably by trading their time/effort for a means of exchange (money), but if that is the case, then the utopia has not been achieved. Nothing happens overnight, and confusing the challenges of the transition with the endgame, or that the challenges that existed during the transition will still exist after the endgame is achieved, presents a position that the endgame isn't worth it because the transition disturbs the status quo.
- 13y ago

TomJoad 13y ago

What does a "low IQ" have to do with manual labor? IQ or any other measure of so called intelligence, has never -- and will probably never -- have any correlation with a person's occupation. Ultimately, it is the parent's socio-economic status which usually dictates what jobs their children will have. The fact that you believe it could be a person's "IQ" which dictates what job they may have really shows how little regard you have for people.

JamesArgo 13y ago
Look, that sounds nice and all, but it just isn't true. Some people are smarter than others. This should be an incredibly uncontroversial claim. Also, textbook ad hominem at the end there. The fact that you believe a persons "height" dictates their chance of competing in the NBA really shows how little regard you have for people.
Strilanc 13y ago
> Ultimately, it is the parent's socio-economic status which usually dictates what jobs their children will have. That's not an agreed upon fact. For example, a cursory googling of "correlation between iq and job" brings up a lot of articles with language like "This is why hundreds of studies have found that IQ predicts job performance best (though not all that well) at the start of a person’s career, and progressively weakens over the course of that career."[1] or subtitles like "Intelligence wins out over socio-economic status when it comes to career advancement"[2]. (But maybe that search term is biased. I just entered the most obvious thing.) As another example, wikipedia says "The validity of IQ as a predictor of job performance is above zero for all work studied to date, but varies with the type of job and across different studies, ranging from 0.2 to 0.6. The correlations were higher when the unreliability of measurement methods was controlled for."[3] > really shows how little regard you have for people. Inappropriate. 1. http://danielgoleman.info/the-trouble-with-iq/ http://danielgoleman.info/the-trouble-with-iq/ 2. http://www.aftau.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16373 http://www.aftau.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=1637... 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Job_performance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Job_perf...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

Retric 13y ago

The lack of low skilled jobs in the US is primarily a combination of zero import taxes with China etc and a minimum wage. We still want all those tshits and painted plastic toys that used to be low skilled laber in the US we just don't use people in the US to make them.

thwarted 13y ago

What happens if there comes a day when absolutely everything is automated and humans no longer need to work? We have reached utopia, yes? But you can probably see where I am going with this: eventually there needs to be some way to provide an income to people, when the day eventually comes when no one needs to work. I never understand the logic of this argument. If everything is automated and everyone is provided for (this is a utopia, after all), why would people need an income? By definition, if people do not need to work, then they do not need an income. The need to work and the need for an income are the same thing, just worded differently.

cousin_it 13y ago
The problem is about distribution, not production. Not everyone will own these magical means of automation, and owners will have no incentive to share with non-owners, because non-owners cannot offer anything that owners need.
TeMPOraL 13y ago
The problem isn't with the state of this utopia; the true difficulties lie in transition process - when more and more things get automated, but the overall economy still forces you to have an income or starve. The real challenge of our times is how we get from here to there without a huge mess and a lot of suffering in the middle.
- thwarted 13y ago
  Yes, the transition will be an upset, like all transitions are. But what I quoted doesn't talk about the transition to the utopia, it talks about the utopia having been reached and people still needing an income. If people's needs are not being provided for they will need income, presumably by trading their time/effort for a means of exchange (money), but if that is the case, then the utopia has not been achieved. Nothing happens overnight, and confusing the challenges of the transition with the endgame, or that the challenges that existed during the transition will still exist after the endgame is achieved, presents a position that the endgame isn't worth it because the transition disturbs the status quo.
13y ago