patrick.net

I disagree that there’s nothing for low IQ people to do. Even the mentally retarded and people with Down’s syndrome have work they can do. It’s repetitive work, sure, but we should reserve that sort for them. People need meaning in their lives to be happy, and work brings meaning. This is known.

What we need is for low IQ people to be given more aid in finding work. It won’t be well paid work, but some work is better than none.

Tesla just had to disassemble it’s robot factory and replace the robots with human workers. This is because the tasks were too complex or delicate for robots to get correct each time. However, an assembly line may be manned with people of any IQ level. They don’t have to be the best people, just able to be trained to do one thing well. Low IQ people do this better than most because they have high tolerance for repetitive work.

Quigley says

They don’t have to be the best people,

Have any of you ppl actually worked in corporate America? A vast majority of white collar workers are idiots, hiding behind buzzwords like 'synergy', 'process value-added', etc, without knowing what the fuck they're talking about.

Seriously, the real world is not some graduate school in nuclear physics at CalTech and thus, I say that IQ, aside from being let's say in the 105+ crowd (since anyone below that level will sound like Beavis/Butthead at a meeting), has little to do with it.

Unless a majority of Bullshit artists have 140+ IQs and thus, are grand actors in corporate America, I'd say that most of them got there because of cronyism.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

When I hear that kind of language come out of a guy with a blue shirt and kakis I know the best thing I can do for the client is shoot the offending fuckhead in the face.

If only life were that simple, sigh...

What about "conscientiousness"? Also a big factor in success, and one that stands a better chance being taught.

From Wikipedia:
"Conscientious individuals are generally hard-working and reliable. They are also likely to be conformists.[2] When taken to an extreme, they may also be "workaholics", perfectionists, and compulsive in their behavior.[3] People who score low on conscientiousness tend to be laid back, less goal-oriented, and less driven by success; they also are more likely to engage in antisocial and criminal behavior.[4]"

Quigley says

I disagree that there’s nothing for low IQ people to do. Even the mentally retarded and people with Down’s syndrome have work they can do. It’s repetitive work, sure, but we should reserve that sort for them. People need meaning in their lives to be happy, and work brings meaning. This is known.

Having a job, doesn't just mean you are materially able to do it. It also needs to be productive enough to pay for itself. + It needs to be a better outcome than having someone else do it (someone smarter).

Fyi there are 95 millions working age people that are not in the labor force in the US.
In spite of that, we still produce everything we need - including for the 95 millions.
If we can do everything we need without 1/3 of the population, what reasons do you have to think we could find jobs for everyone?

Aphroman says

For them, we’re not producing everything we need.

But surely we're producing everything we can afford. We're already underwater, cash flow wise.

Quigley says

It’s repetitive work, sure, but we should reserve that sort for them. People need meaning in their lives to be happy, and work brings meaning.

In ten years, toilet cleaning and leaf raking will be done by robots, not humans, and thus, the Down Syndrome ppl will be w/o work.

And I don't believe that work, as in paid work (as oppose to finger painting at home) brings meaning. Here is meaning, from 'Verses of Rin-Wah Law'...

Have a sip ...



Enjoy the sites and sensations ...



And some Rock 'n Roll ...

www.youtube.com/embed/U4z8Aze16z8

The 10% number and IQ>83 requirement are what the military requires. The cost of doing things in the military is a lot higher, e.g. a gallon of gasoline in Iraq for the US military during the 2003 war and subsequent occupation was over $100. In that environment, the IQ requirement for a productive job that burns $100+/gallon gasoline is certainly higher than a civilian job back home where gasoline was only $2/gallon at that time. The cost of commute alone would be drastically different.

Sure, there is a threshold below which no real job can be found, but that is a lot lower in the civilian life than IQ=83. Many people with IQ in the 60's are routinely employed in simple jobs, partly because they are exempt from minimum wages laws. Comes to think of it, minimum wage law works as a barrier just like expensive gasoline or a "negative bridge."

Heraclitusstudent says

Having a job, doesn't just mean you are materially able to do it. It also needs to be productive enough to pay for itself. + It needs to be a better outcome than having someone else do it (someone smarter).

The latter actually justifies a dumber and lower productivity worker. For example, a lawyer who can type 50WPM can certainly do his own secretarial work better than a secretary who can only type 30WPM; however, if the lawyer's time is worth $200/hr, it is in his interest to pay a secretary $20/hr to type up stuff and other secretarial work so he can earn more in the time saved. It's called "comparative advantage," the basis of any trade (not "absolute advantage"). For an IQ140+ genius who can make more money with his time, it certainly makes sense to hire an IQ65 guy to do his lawn; in fact, there may well be an IQ105 lawn contractor between the two and still make two sets of exchanges profitable because it saves time for the IQ105 contractor to deal with the IQ65 worker, so that the IQ140+ customer only have to deal with the IQ105 contractor (who can also manage the lawn-care equipment and workers).

It's the same reason why we buy take-out dinners even if we can cook better than what the take-out restaurants can deliver; the same reason why we had waiters/waitress even when we could pick up food from the chef's kitchen counter ourselves; that is, before the new $15 minimum wage killed both sets of exchanges in some cities recently. Too high taxes and too high minimum wages (banning low-wage/low-productivity jobs/workers) are what prevent numerous small divisions of labor from taking place.

Fyi there are 95 millions working age people that are not in the labor force in the US.
In spite of that, we still produce everything we need - including for the 95 millions.
If we can do everything we need without 1/3 of the population, what reasons do you have to think we could find jobs for everyone?

That is a logical fallacy. There are plenty human wants that are not being fulfilled. For example, even Rin could use more hookers, booze and faster development of sex robots. If more people can be working, instead of living off welfare (which has to be distributed by very very expensive bureaucrats who eat up more resources than the intended welfare recipients), Rin's desires would be better fulfilled. I'm just citing Rin as an example of someone who you'd think already has everything else in his life, therefore only interested in entertainment; most of us have much more rudimentary needs in life that can be better fulfilled.

What good is your IQ when eat at Chez Doodoo hands?

Reality wins yet another thread! Seriously nice thoughts! Interesting ideas too.

I had one more. Look, does anyone realize how much thought and effort has to go into designing and programming a robot to do something like assembling a phone? I’ll tell you now that the cost is prohibitive. It’s much simpler to use a human who can be trained to do several steps of the process in hours than to spend years of engineer and computer systems man hours on the problem. The human doesn’t even need to be bright, just consistent. Even low IQ humans are capable of learning to do tasks with much less effort than training a computer to do it!

You only get so many bright young lads and gals. Don’t waste them on mundane work! Fuck race-based admissions/scholarships. We need test score based admissions and scholarships to glean EVERY eligibly intelligent mind out there and train them to be as useful as possible.

The rest can do the repetitive or uninteresting work. A relatively small amount of government interference could accomplish this. Means tested financial aid for bright young students would be enough! Add some feel-good films on the subject and some creative networking along with abolition of HR departments would be enough.

Reality says

The latter actually justifies a dumber and lower productivity worker. For example, a lawyer who can type 50WPM can certainly do his own secretarial work better than a secretary who can only type 30WPM; however, if the lawyer's time is worth $200/hr, it is in his interest to pay a secretary $20/hr to type up stuff and other secretarial work so he can earn more in the time saved. It's called "comparative advantage,"

Except you have a huge pile of people who are already doing nothing, and in this pile the guy with IQ 80 is desperate to do anything for crumbs, leaving absolutely nothing to the guy with the IQ of 65. There is no comparative advantage for the dumb guy in a pile of useless people.

Reality says

That is a logical fallacy. There are plenty human wants that are not being fulfilled.

Everything you are saying fails to address the point.
People can do jobs. Other people want jobs done. I'm talking of the fact that this needs can't be met in current system. Because for every material object you want the most efficient way to build it is precisely not to use the guy with the IQ at room temperature. This is your fallacy, not mine. People already have cheap nannies and gardeners: this is STILL not enough jobs.

All you are saying is if we paid people less they would have jobs, without ever considering that less work could be afforded with lower pays. And low wages are obviously already constraining any growth. (see my example of half of Americans can't come up with $400)

Not only that but based on the number of USELESS people we already have, if minimum wage limits were removed, and if welfare was removed, and they were forced to compete, there is no reason to think low wages would not collapse to basically 0. Then yes, maybe some people would have whores and lots of domestics, but what good would that do to the workers? It would certainly NOT do any good to the economy, because what these people earn would not add to the aggregate income that is then spent on goods and services as the entire wage scale would collapse.

You are very willing to rationalize and use wishful thinking to get to your predetermined result. I'm backing up what I'm saying with obvious facts.

Quigley says

does anyone realize how much thought and effort has to go into designing and programming a robot to do something like assembling a phone? I’ll tell you now that the cost is prohibitive. It’s much simpler to use a human who can be trained to do several steps of the process in hours than to spend years of engineer and computer systems man hours on the problem.

No it's not, because once you have designed 1 robot, you can deploy that design in 1 million robots with no extra costs, the robots will work 24x7, they won't strike, they don't need farms, water, and sewers. There is a reason why there is an automation boom underway.

You people are missing the trend that is right in front of your eyes: The world is getting more complex, it is getting faster, it requires more skills, more agility, more smarts, and many people, probably even a majority are just not following. And the trend will NOT stop. On the contrary, it will accelerate until MOST people are useless.

I remember a time when technology and automation were expected to reduce the age of retirement, eventually to BIRTH.

Rent seeking and pronatalist behaviors and policies are definitely part of the problem.

Quigley says

abolition of HR departments

This. So much this. HR departments are another arm of the SJW libby outrage machine. It's always a Nancy or a Maureen clutching their pearls about how men behave or women showing too much ta ta's in their cubicle. My HR dept spends 90% of their time and resources fielding complaints about everybody's sensitivities and the other 10% processing nonsense paperwork for California "equality" standards. These people are the equivalent of bloated university administrative departments. Cut their jobs and it would make almost no impact to business. If you already have a payroll person, a trainer, and a legal person in your company, your HR department is completely gratuitous.

There's also something distasteful about the phrase "human resources". It sounds like what they do at the abortion clinic with the leftover baby parts.

Philistine says

Cut their jobs and it would make almost no impact to business.

See?
You guys are obsessing about identifying inefficiencies, as if efficiency was the magic cure that would suddenly transform unneeded people into much needed people, rather than the obvious opposite: you would make all these ladies in HR totally useless.

Or maybe Reality would have them sing in the subway for $2/day - What's the difference?

We are not going back to the 50s. The world has changed. Technologies have changed. The past and the future are not symmetric.