The machines are coming for our jobs

[kyleb]

But then again, if someone with a 5th grade education from China can assemble a product almost as well as a HS educated American, maybe that American should move into a role that's more challenging.

For people whose jobs are automated/shipped off my only recommendation is to be an American, suck it up, learn a new skill and get a new job.

I agree with the entirety of your post. But, I think it is very hard for someone who grew up in a <for instance> a coal mining community in the backwoods of West Virginia and built their life around that community and industry to fix their situation when regulations bring about the end of that means to earn a living. At that point, your <probably> cheap house loses its value, so you're between a rock and a hard place - how do you dig yourself out of that bad situation?

 

[tyndall]

Nope. The jobs just shift. LOTS of jobs programming and repairing the machines.

Right now. It would be almost impossible for a middle class pilot or truck driver to retrain in technology and keep their wage when kids are getting out of high school with certifications and willing to work for peanuts. After y2k you couldn't swing a cat without hitting a dozen unemployed programmers. ChatGPT has already proven it can write basic code. Anything that involves sitting at a desk is likely to be downsized by AI sooner than later. "Hey Siri, write a story about a gladiator that needs to rescue an alien princess. Now turn it into a multiplayer game. In 8K please."

The whole idea of automation is reducing manpower. One person looking after multiple machines that replaced many workers. Before, being replaced by a machine meant upgrading your skills and your collar getting a little whiter. This time we are being surrounded by automation at the low end and AI the high end. It's one thing for an entry level cashier to be replaced. It's another when the jobs we hope to aspire to disappear, leaving only jobs in the middle that are too physically awkward for a machine to do. Taking away jobs that people enjoy and want to do sounds more like hell than utopia.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

"Hey Siri, write a story about a gladiator that needs to rescue an alien princess. Now turn it into a multiplayer game. In 8K please.

Knock knock

Who's there?

Gladiator
.....

 

[Dana]

The whole idea of automation is reducing manpower. One person looking after multiple machines that replaced many workers.

Not entirely. For many tasks, machines do a much better job than a human. Inspection is one area. Where I work, all parts are inspected. We typically start with people and microscopes, but go to automated inspection with cameras as soon as possible. Even though the human eye can see far better than a camera, once the camera is programmed to look for a specific defect, it catches it 99+% of the time. Even a motivated human is at best 80% accurate, and a lot slower as well.

It's one thing for an entry level cashier to be replaced. It's another when the jobs we hope to aspire to disappear, leaving only jobs in the middle that are too physically awkward for a machine to do.

A big problem is when a worker is maxed out, without the intellectual capacity or desire to retrain for a higher level job.

 

[Bill]

Even a motivated human is at best 80% accurate, and a lot slower as well.

Customers always seem to forget this fact. A drawing, speciation, or PO that stipulates 100% visual instruction followed visual audit based on specified AQL level still does not guarantee that s defect will not get through.

 

[Half Fast]

Since the end of WWII, US unemployment has danced around in the range of roughly 5-8%. During that time we've heard all sorts of "sky-is-falling" warnings about robots taking over, computers taking over, industries shutting down, resources running out, etc., that would cause massive unemployment. We haven't had truly massive unemployment since the Great Depression.

My wife and I enjoy the old movie Desk Set starring Spencer Tracy and Katherin Hepburn. The movie is from 1957 and involves a group of employees terrified that they will lose their jobs to a computer, back in the days of card punch I/O and mainframes that filled rooms. It was a popular trope of the day and all through the 1960s.

It didn't happen that way then and it won't now.

The truth is that industries come and go, specific jobs come and go, but overall people remain employed and productive and lifestyle trends upward. Nobody manufactures slide rules now, and nobody manufactured home computers in 1930. Change is inevitable and the overall trend gets better.

"The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on."

 

[172andyou]

The truth is that industries come and go, specific jobs come and go, but overall people remain employed and productive and lifestyle trends upward.

Disagree. I believe that there are far fewer jobs today that someone with an 80 IQ can work and support a family. Those people are hurting as they struggle to get by.

We are on the verge of that being a 90 IQ. Then it will be a 100 IQ. Then it will be a 110 IQ.

And as a global culture, but particularly in the US, we aren't ready for a new reality where human labor isn't all that needed.

 

[SoonerAviator]

Disagree. I believe that there are far fewer jobs today that someone with an 80 IQ can work and support a family. Those people are hurting as they struggle to get by.

We are on the verge of that being a 90 IQ. Then it will be a 100 IQ. Then it will be a 110 IQ.

And as a global culture, but particularly in the US, we aren't ready for a new reality where human labor isn't all that needed.

There are plenty of ditch-digging jobs available if your IQ doesn't allow for higher-skilled employment. The fact that we CAN use automation in many instances doesn't outweigh the fact that the almighty dollar still drives the decision to convert over to autonomous workforces. I doubt that any time in the near future (call it two decades), the cost of converting one or two laborers over to a robot will make any financial sense for most operations. Also, automation is really good when you're doing mass production of an item. They absolutely suck when you are making smaller batches of highly specialized items because it takes a LOT of engineering/design/programming work (read: $$$$) to be able to seamlessly transition between operations. Someday the dollars will pan out for a lot of work, but for now it doesn't make sense in most scenarios.

Note: I have managed accounting for operations that had dozens of $500K robot arms with optics/radar sensing to operate CNC mills and do quality inspection. The cost of repair and maintenance/software programmers was pretty steep, and we normally had to have three machines to run 2 CNC machining cells. The benefit was that they could run for hours/days on end without breaks. The downside is that they could only do one job and had to be shut down while maintenance was done, machining inserts were changed, carts were moved around. To solve those problems requires ever-increasing capital costs in order to avoid paying a machine operator $50K/yr plus benefits.

 

[172andyou]

There are plenty of ditch-digging jobs available if your IQ doesn't allow for higher-skilled employment.

Haven't worked construction in a while, eh?

Ditch digging has been almost completely replaced with back-hoes and excavators. Creating one job to replace a dozen or more. And those jobs that used to have people actually digging ditches were the ones that someone with a strong back and an 80 IQ could easily do.

Someday the dollars will pan out for a lot of work

Yup. That's what this thread is about.

 

[ArrowFlyer86]

I agree with the entirety of your post. But, I think it is very hard for someone who grew up in a <for instance> a coal mining community in the backwoods of West Virginia and built their life around that community and industry to fix their situation when regulations bring about the end of that means to earn a living. At that point, your <probably> cheap house loses its value, so you're between a rock and a hard place - how do you dig yourself out of that bad situation?

I think you're absolutely right. If I could revise my previous post I would point out that there are 2 groups of people I do feel genuinely bad for:
(1) The people who lack the mental resources necessary to "pivot" into a new job. Sometimes a reliable employee who does a job, say a cashier/bagger at a grocery store for instance, is not capable of moving into a more challenging industry. When their job gets automated away it's more than just "creative destruction" in relocating them to a new gig. Their livelihood is sacrificed on the alter of capitalism in the name of efficiency.
(2) The people who live in a true "factory-town" like the one you mention above. If the factory relocates then in one fell-swoop you can lose your job, your house value and your community. It takes a heavy toll on everything from job search to finances to family upheaval. That's harder to recover from. The clock starts ticking almost immediately in counting down the town's descent into complete ruin.

But as someone who has family members and family friends that devolved into a lifetime of drinking and blaming immigrants for their lost jobs rather then searching for something new, I have little sympathy for the people that failed to adjust due to a lack of effort. Seeing with my own 2 eyes the generational effect of people succumbing to hopelessness and taking the road to ruin rather than working to improve their situation - it's made a strong impression. Pretty much all those people ended up raising kids that adopted the same mentality and are stuck in same avoidable loop as their parents with just as much misaimed rage and hate.

 

[Pi1otguy]

Ditch digging has been almost completely replaced with back-hoes and excavators.

And hydro jets for excavating near pipes and wires.

 

[Bob Noel]

no education required to use a shovel

around these parts, you need a hydraulics license to use excavating equipment, etc.

 

[MauleSkinner]

For many tasks, machines do a much better job than a human. Inspection is one area. Where I work, all parts are inspected. We typically start with people and microscopes, but go to automated inspection with cameras as soon as possible. Even though the human eye can see far better than a camera, once the camera is programmed to look for a specific defect, it catches it 99+% of the time. Even a motivated human is at best 80% accurate, and a lot slower as well.

Can somebody explain why the TSA suddenly popped into my head when reading this? (The “motivated human” part is why I suddenly realized my thinking was wrong.)

 

[SoonerAviator]

Haven't worked construction in a while, eh?

Ditch digging has been almost completely replaced with back-hoes and excavators. Creating one job to replace a dozen or more. And those jobs that used to have people actually digging ditches were the ones that someone with a strong back and an 80 IQ could easily do.



Yup. That's what this thread is about.

You still need guys to run the excavator, skid loader, bulldozer. Those machines don't load the drain culverts or water pipes themselves, nor do they put in the errosion guards, perform/mark the survey lines, ID the underground utilities, etc. The big equipment works for moving lots of material in open spaces, but it still isn't automated. There are still plenty of those lower-skilled jobs available, and those jobs will continue to be available for many decades. I'd say, until you can get to the point where you have something more akin to an autonomous robot like in the move A.I., you won't be able to replicate even the low-skilled workers. Construction jobs are fairly dynamic in that respect.

 

[Half Fast]

Disagree. I believe that there are far fewer jobs today that someone with an 80 IQ can work and support a family. Those people are hurting as they struggle to get by.

We are on the verge of that being a 90 IQ. Then it will be a 100 IQ. Then it will be a 110 IQ.

And as a global culture, but particularly in the US, we aren't ready for a new reality where human labor isn't all that needed.

That argument has been made since John Henry battled the steam drill. History does not support it. Today's world is orders of magnitude more technically sophisticated than the world of 1940, yet US unemployment has remained in the same range through all those years. If what you suggest were true the unemployment disaster would have begun many years ago.

Yes, there will be local impacts. There always have been. A mine closes or a factory lays off workers or whatever. In the big picture it's a ripple on the ocean. By and large, the 80 IQ folks you're worrying about have food, shelter, etc. In fact most have cell phones, computers, and automobiles, proof of the axiom that a rising tide raises all ships.

And there's plenty of labor jobs still needed. When my barn roof was replaced a few months ago it was done by a couple of guys swinging hammers. So far there's no humanless automation to build a fence, repair plumbing, install an air conditioner, paint a house, replace car tires, trim a tree, etc., etc. None of those jobs require high IQs.

Cheer up; the sky isn't falling.

 

[TCABM]

Disagree. I believe that there are far fewer jobs today that someone with an 80 IQ can work and support a family. Those people are hurting as they struggle to get by.

We are on the verge of that being a 90 IQ. Then it will be a 100 IQ. Then it will be a 110 IQ.

And as a global culture, but particularly in the US, we aren't ready for a new reality where human labor isn't all that needed.

You’ve brought up IQ a couple of times. That metric, as a predictive measure of workforce readiness, is near worthless because there are very, very few actual jobs where a minimum IQ is a bona fide business necessity.

Now, as for the cutoff line of 80 you used, that’s an incredibly small (single digit percent) of the population. Those folks likely are borderline low/very low functioning. All the major scales show normal or average as a range of 90-110 and all the places that purport to know the average IQ of an American throws the number almost in the middle at 98.

In your statement, your predicting the jobs environment in America is going to require only the children of Lake Woebgone, who are all above average, moving forward. Evolution and environmental factors will influence to improve the average IQ and today’s Mensa member will be tomorrow’s dullard.

Sorry, not buying it.

 

[TCABM]

I am utterly amazed at some of the biases in this thread.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I am utterly amazed at some of the biases in this thread.

Bi what?

 

[Bob Noel]

past performance is no guarantee of future results.

 

[GaryM]

Disagree. I believe that there are far fewer jobs today that someone with an 80 IQ can work and support a family.

Not entirely true, there has been a lot of growth in both the Elected Official and Bureaucratic Functionary sectors, which seem to be where a lot of the IQ-challenged end up.

 

[172andyou]

You still need guys to run the excavator, skid loader, bulldozer.

Yup. Less than a tenth as many as were required to actually do shovel work in the past.

If what you suggest were true the unemployment disaster would have begun many years ago.

The leading edge of this wasn't mass unemployment, but wage pressure on unskilled jobs that, about 50 years ago, made it almost impossible for people working low skill jobs to support a family and spouses had to go to work. The next wave will be that the jobs themselves cease to exist because even low wage workers are far more expensive than machines in *tons* of scenarios.

You’ve brought up IQ a couple of times. That metric, as a predictive measure of workforce readiness, is near worthless because there are very, very few actual jobs where a minimum IQ is a bona fide business necessity.

If that's true, then it will be even easier for machine to replace us. That's hardly an argument that work will be available for people as machines get more and more capable. It implies that machines will be able to replace more human labor more quickly.

Now, as for the cutoff line of 80 you used, that’s an incredibly small (single digit percent) of the population.

80 and below is more like 10%. And the other number I used above, 90, is roughly 25%.

In your statement, your predicting the jobs environment in America is going to require only the children of Lake Woebgone, who are all above average, moving forward. Evolution and environmental factors will influence to improve the average IQ and today’s Mensa member will be tomorrow’s dullard.

In 10 years when I, as a business owner, can spend $100K on a module for my Freightliner that will replace a $125K per year driver, can drive 24 hours a day without breaks for sleep and has a lower accident rate, why would I hire a human?

In 20 years when I, as a business owner, can spend $100K on a robot that can replace a $55K per year chicken butchering human, can work 24 hours a day, never gets repetitive stress injuries and is better at quality control, why would I hire a human?

What are the 3-5 million people displaced in those two examples going to do for a living instead? And when you think about your answer to that, consider whether or not a machine could do that job also. Because, it probably can.

 

[asicer]

What are the 3-5 million people displaced in those two examples going to do for a living instead? And when you think about your answer to that, consider whether or not a machine could do that job also. Because, it probably can.

Until robots cross the "Uncanny Valley", they aren't very good at dealing with people.

 

[Half Fast]

The leading edge of this wasn't mass unemployment, but wage pressure on unskilled jobs that, about 50 years ago, made it almost impossible for people working low skill jobs to support a family and spouses had to go to work. The next wave will be that the jobs themselves cease to exist because even low wage workers are far more expensive than machines in *tons* of scenarios.

A few points...
- When I was a kid back in the early 60s, my dad worked and my mom stayed home. Our family had one car and lived in a 900 sq ft house. No luxuries, the house wasn't even air conditioned. If a family today was willing to live that same lifestyle they'd find it possible on a single wage earner's income. But they're not - they insist on houses twice the size of the one I had as a kid, they insist on two cars, the latest electronics, etc., etc., and they go in hock up to their eyeballs. This is a choice that they're free to make.
- There's little excuse for workers to be "unskilled" these days as there are many programs available and many employers provide training.
- There will continue to be many non-automated jobs.
- Yes, many jobs may cease to exist. There will be new ones. So what? It's been that way for a long long time.
- As baby boomers like me continue retiring, the workforce will shrink. Automation is a solution, not a problem.

What are the 3-5 million people displaced in those two examples going to do for a living instead?

If you can speculate about automation that doesn't yet (and may never) exist, I can speculate that there will be new technologies, industries, and jobs available that are unknown today.

Your question is akin to someone in the early 1900s asking "If automobiles take over transportation, what will become of all the people who care for horses, build wagons and tack, raise feed, clean stables, and so forth? What are they going to do for a living instead?" Y'know what? They found new jobs in new industries and the world improved as did their own lives.

The sky isn't even close to falling.

 

[dmspilot]

We went through an entire industrial revolution where human labor was replaced by machines, then went through post-industrialization where even people operating machines were obsoleted...and people are still complaining that there aren't enough workers to fill job vacancies. The idea that automation will cause massive job losses stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of how the economy works.

 

[kyleb]

A few points...
- When I was a kid back in the early 60s, my dad worked and my mom stayed home. Our family had one car and lived in a 900 sq ft house. No luxuries, the house wasn't even air conditioned.

This is the key. People's lifestyles have improved so much in the last 50 years (those are the 50 that I remember first hand). When I was a kid, we lived in a 1200 SF house, no air conditioning, one TV, one (corded) phone, and on down the list. Mom cooked dinner almost every night, and we went on one low-rent week long vacation every year. We're talking crappy motels at the beach, driving trips to various places, etc. They always had two cars - one newer one, and one ratty one. We never went to Disney and never stayed anywhere that wasn't dirt cheap. And I went to public school. My parents both had college degrees and had good jobs. Yet we lived a very simple and inexpensive lifestyle.

My 12 year old son has been to Europe. He has his own computer. He has a cell phone when he needs one. We take him snow skiing every year. He's been to NYC, DC, San Fran, LA, the Grand Canyon, Zion, Vegas (for a show), and a host of other places. He goes to Oshkosh with me. We have a nice (but not extravagant) house by today's standards, with a pool and basketball court. We have an abundance of material possessions and money in the bank. My son attends private school. Yes, SWMBO and I both have good jobs.

Just a vastly different world in which we live. What is upper 30% today would have been top 5% when I was a kid. And the 30% who lived in tar paper shacks when I was a kid in semi-rural Georgia? That lifestyle barely exists today. Things have improved an amazing amount for people in all tiers of society.

Most of the "lift" in lifestyle can be attributed to automation and modernization of the economy to give people the opportunity to earn a better living. And people's willingness to take on debt (combined with lenders who will lend to almost anyone).

 

[SoonerAviator]

. . . And people's willingness to take on debt (combined with lenders who will lend to almost anyone).

Cannot be emphasized enough. Seeing what my mother grew up in (5 kids, 1100sq ft house, 1 decent car, 1 bare bones work truck), then what I grew up in (family of 4, 2K sq ft home, 2 decent cars and a boat/jet ski), and now me in a 3K+ sq ft home with even nicer things. Granted there wasn't much debt being taken on for my parents or myself with the homes or cars, but lenders were readily available and would have given tons of money away at low rates. The standard of living is just worlds apart inside the span of a century.

 

[Morgan3820]

Retired in a year. Dead in twenty, maybe sooner with any luck. Happily, None of this is my problem.

 

[SebIp]

There are just people who are not suited to the world we created and are creating for the future. We evolve slower than the machines we are making to replace some of our jobs.

Take software dev, even this kind of job is becoming at risk. Today you can get code snippet suggested to you. It’s looking like basic code might be automatically generatable soon. And sure it is still years away from becoming common that we automatically generated code on a large scale, it is coming. Targets for continuous integration and deployment in some places speaks of daily on demand releases. That sort of pace is hard for humans, we need to do things like eat and sit on the can.

We already seen one class of roles becoming more rare in software development, that of the tester. No company that works in software avoids test automation. With sufficient test automation your developers can write the tests and the software making it a lot more efficient. Yes there are still industries where testers are essential such as aerospace and anything safety critical. However, in my experience those who are actually qualified to work effectively in those specialized roles, are rare. And the majority of testers are just button pushers doing what the test procedure says. The common reason I have seen of those industries where the bad testers aren’t out of a job is legacy stuff without investment in test automation.

As we go along I think there will be fewer sw dev tech job. It is what our capitalist system demands, ever greater efficiency. And unfortunately most developers out there are working on stuff which aren’t that hard. Most software dev is glorified if this than that if you dig hard enough. And yes there will be jobs for definition of architecture and software design, but if you can automate or simplify the if this then that part, you don’t need so many developers. And now what do those people who had worked hard at school, got the degree and went to work as a programmer to do now? Drive a fork lift? Dig a hole?

 

[steingar]

 

[MauleSkinner]

This is the key. People's lifestyles have improved so much in the last 50 years (those are the 50 that I remember first hand). When I was a kid, we lived in a 1200 SF house, no air conditioning, one TV, one (corded) phone, and on down the list. Mom cooked dinner almost every night, and we went on one low-rent week long vacation every year. We're talking crappy motels at the beach, driving trips to various places, etc. They always had two cars - one newer one, and one ratty one. We never went to Disney and never stayed anywhere that wasn't dirt cheap. And I went to public school. My parents both had college degrees and had good jobs. Yet we lived a very simple and inexpensive lifestyle.

My 12 year old son has been to Europe. He has his own computer. He has a cell phone when he needs one. We take him snow skiing every year. He's been to NYC, DC, San Fran, LA, the Grand Canyon, Zion, Vegas (for a show), and a host of other places. He goes to Oshkosh with me. We have a nice (but not extravagant) house by today's standards, with a pool and basketball court. We have an abundance of material possessions and money in the bank. My son attends private school. Yes, SWMBO and I both have good jobs.

Just a vastly different world in which we live. What is upper 30% today would have been top 5% when I was a kid. And the 30% who lived in tar paper shacks when I was a kid in semi-rural Georgia? That lifestyle barely exists today. Things have improved an amazing amount for people in all tiers of society.

Most of the "lift" in lifestyle can be attributed to automation and modernization of the economy to give people the opportunity to earn a better living. And people's willingness to take on debt (combined with lenders who will lend to almost anyone).

I’m not entirely sure that’s all improvement, but I would agree that it’s become the expectation.

 

[Domenick]

As a kid and a young man, I did filthy jobs few Millennials or Gen-Zers would EVER do. Historically, these dirty, physical jobs were done by young people as transition employment into adulthood. The problem today is finding enough young people who are willing to do them.

 

[Baked Potato]

As a kid and a young man, I did filthy jobs few Millennials or Gen-Zers would EVER do. Historically, these dirty, physical jobs were done by young people as transition employment into adulthood. The problem today is finding enough young people who are willing to do them.

No, Dominick, for the last time - I don't want to join your OnlyFans.

 

[SkyChaser]

As always, it's a spectrum. I roomed with a girl who thought taking out the trash was too disgusting of a job and wouldn't touch it. On the other hand, I see garbagemen, septic tank truck drivers, and mechanics in their twenties relatively often. I do think for the most part, though, that society has gotten cleaner in everyday life, and I think that changes peoples' perceptions on how "dirty" a job is.

 

[172andyou]

- When I was a kid back in the early 60s, my dad worked and my mom stayed home. Our family had one car and lived in a 900 sq ft house. No luxuries, the house wasn't even air conditioned. If a family today was willing to live that same lifestyle they'd find it possible on a single wage earner's income. But they're not - they insist on houses twice the size of the one I had as a kid, they insist on two cars, the latest electronics, etc., etc., and they go in hock up to their eyeballs. This is a choice that they're free to make.

The median income in the USA *today* when, we are just at the leading edge of the next great surge in automation, is $31K per year. That salary qualifies as enough to mortgage about $80k worth of house. You can't buy a house for $80K. Even a 900 sq ft one. Even with only one car. Even with no electronics. Even with no air conditioning. Even with no avocado toast. I just looked on Zillow and within an hour drive of my totally average middle class suburb there isn't a single house for less than 100k. There are dozens of vacant lots. There was a single studio condo in an old folks community. That's it. Saying it's a choice is an insult to people scraping by when we are talking about fully half the people in the country. You are telling them to buy something that doesn't exist. It isn't the early 60's anymore and one median income now buys you a vacant lot, not a house.

I honestly don't know how people can look at the last 50 years, as you just did in your example, notice that things have gotten a hell of a lot less affordable and shrug their shoulders and say, "oh, but from here everything will magically get better" when your own example demonstrates precisely the opposite has been happening for decades.

 

[kyleb]

The median household income is $71k. That seems like a more relevant number.

 

[Half Fast]

The median income in the USA *today* when, we are just at the leading edge of the next great surge in automation, is $31K per year.

Not sure where you're getting your data. This is 2022 data from the US Census Bureau:

​

$60k will support a mortgage of ~$180k, and there are lots of nice homes in that price range.

I certainly think things are better now than they were 50 years ago. Nutrition is better, healthcare is better, cars are safer and more reliable and last longer, the workplace is safer, and on and on and on. The story is not wrapped up merely in dollars, but also must consider the quality and utility and life of what those dollars buy.

 

[TCABM]

…What are the 3-5 million people displaced in those two examples going to do for a living instead?

I think that question says more about the value you place on humans in general than the value of humans in general.

The unsourced chart you published is likely the spread of people who take an IQ test, which is a subset of all people. Many of those likely opted in to taking the test for research purposes. That self-selecting subset is then used to extrapolate neat and tidy buckets. Humans don’t work that way…there’s a reason there are four general learning types; some people more effectively learn differently than others.

Obversely, the Flynn Effect indicates societies as a whole get smarter by about 3 points/decade. Have we plateaued? Maybe, but psychologists, the titans of hard science they are, continue to study the matter.

 

[JOhnH]

Not sure where you're getting your data. This is 2022 data from the US Census Bureau:

View attachment 115020​

$60k will support a mortgage of ~$180k, and there are lots of nice homes in that price range.

I certainly think things are better now than they were 50 years ago. Nutrition is better, healthcare is better, cars are safer and more reliable and last longer, the workplace is safer, and on and on and on. The story is not wrapped up merely in dollars, but also must consider the quality and utility and life of what those dollars buy.

NO earners medium income is $45+k? Wow.

 

[Half Fast]

NO earners medium income is $45+k? Wow.

Yep! Do ya think maybe, just maybe, that's why employers are having a tough time hiring?

And keep in mind that's based on reported income. I'm sure plenty of those folks are doing cash jobs that aren't reported. I know I've been asked to pay cash for home repair jobs recently.

 

[schmookeeg]

I believe that there are far fewer jobs today that someone with an 80 IQ can work and support a family.

...and that's.... bad...?

I agree that it's a problem that there is a pile of biomass that is of no use to present-day society. Ignoring them will just make them desperate and violent. Giving them free stuff so they can breed more 80-IQ-lings seems like the exact opposite of a solution. More akin to throwing kerosene on a house fire.