What jobs will less intelligent and less qualified people do in the future? What will the people on the left side of the bell curve do to work in the future? Will these jobs give dignity? What can be done to ensure this?

Updated on : December 8, 2021 by Bobby Stone



What jobs will less intelligent and less qualified people do in the future? What will the people on the left side of the bell curve do to work in the future? Will these jobs give dignity? What can be done to ensure this?

Our national debate on employment and economic policy is constantly focused on solving the wrong side of the problem. We are always trying to figure out how to keep people in high paying, lifelong careers where they make big money. However, as your question points out, that strategy leaves a lot of people out in the cold.

The goal of economic progress throughout human history is to increase productivity, wealth, and free time. If we had a truly healthy and vibrant economy:

  • People could live decently on much less income.
  • People would have more employment options, such as retiring early, quitting
Keep reading

Our national debate on employment and economic policy is constantly focused on solving the wrong side of the problem. We are always trying to figure out how to keep people in high paying, lifelong careers where they make big money. However, as your question points out, that strategy leaves a lot of people out in the cold.

The goal of economic progress throughout human history is to increase productivity, wealth, and free time. If we had a truly healthy and vibrant economy:

  • People could live decently on much less income.
  • People would have more employment options, such as retiring early, stopping work for a while, working part-time, taking lower-paying jobs in the fields they're most interested in, volunteering, going back to school, spending more time at school, etc. .
  • Being unemployed for a while would not be the scary prospect that it is in our current economy.
  • The healthier and more prosperous our economy, the more it can support countless non-essential "industries" - you could make a living as a yoga instructor, fishing guide, color therapist, collage artist, welcome attendant, teaching assistant, gas station, etc. .
  • There would be less resentment for paying for social safety net programs.
  • Many people could live decently just by being in the same family as someone with a job; for example, more families could have housewives.


So why is our economy so weak? I think it is because government policies are sucking the wealth out of our economy and wasting it on wasteful and often destructive efforts: our foreign wars and the "military-industrial complex," the "War on Drugs," and the prison industry, the "War on Terror", bailouts, farm subsidies, the list goes on and on.

If you look at the history of the United States, there has almost always been anything from a trickle to an avalanche of inflation. If you ask why deflation is bad, all the arguments boil down to no one wants a decrease in profits, even if it would come with lower prices, so we have a positive feedback loop that all government policies are targeting. towards a continuous reduction. inflation and "full" employment. And we all wonder why we have to work harder and harder to earn a living.

We can still enjoy greater prosperity even when people with "low intelligence" no longer need to do a job, do not need to do "nothing", in fact, they may be motivated to behave in a way that benefits us all. I will explain the system below.

Machines will only replace workers when machines start to produce significantly more value than workers. The moment machines start to replace workers, we can begin to unlink the process of consumption (which is necessary for economic growth) from the process of production, and still enjoy greater overall wealth / value even when a fr

Keep reading

We can still enjoy greater prosperity even when people with "low intelligence" no longer need to do a job, do not need to do "nothing", in fact, they may be motivated to behave in a way that benefits us all. I will explain the system below.

Machines will only replace workers when machines start to produce significantly more value than workers. The moment machines start to replace workers, we can begin to decouple the process of consumption (which is necessary for economic growth) from the process of production, and still enjoy greater overall wealth / value even when a fraction significant of the population is unemployed.

We would only need to produce an incentive system (possibly funded by some form of taxes redirected to special incentive-driven wages; corporations would still be generally better off than they are today because machines would produce much more value per unit of input) to that the technically unemployed continue to have incentives to do socially useful things.

Martin Ford explains it all beautifully in his book "The Lights in the Tunnel" - see http://www.thelightsinthetunnel.com/

In other words, the unemployment rate will be at least 75 percent, an almost unimaginably high level, and there will be no realistic hope that more jobs will be created in the future. Is it possible to have a prosperous economy and a civil society in such a scenario?


Our current value system celebrates the importance of our work. We believe that work is fundamental and that consumption is a privilege derived from that work. However, this is a belief system that is fundamentally based on the historical reality that human labor is indispensable to the production process. What happens when technology reaches the point where most human labor is no longer essential?

At that point, we will have to undergo a quantum shift in our value system. To preserve the free market system, we will have to realize that while work (at least for most people) may no longer be essential, broad-based consumption is essential. In the developed world, our mass market economy has grown far beyond what is required to simply provide people with basic necessities. To maintain the global economy and propel it towards future growth, we must have a large number of consumers with adequate purchasing power, all of whom have confidence in the future continuity of their income. Without that critical mass of viable consumers, economic decline is mathematically inescapable.


We must find a way to redirect revenue to large numbers of consumers, or market demand will not be sustainable. It is not necessary to demand work to earn that income because in an automated economy such work will not be required. The recipients of this income will do "nothing"; in fact, they will be motivated to behave in a way that benefits us all. The new taxes that I propose are simply a replacement for wages that would have been paid in a less automated economy.


I proposed a mechanism to adapt the market economy so that it can continue to function even when automation of machines inexorably eliminates jobs that provide income to consumers. The essential idea is that we should impose some combination of a consumption tax and / or a special direct tax on businesses that captures the income that, in a non-automated economy, would be paid in wages.


Over time, as wages paid to average workers decrease (as a percentage of earnings), these taxes would gradually increase to recoup at least a portion of this earnings. The overall goal is to recoup only the optimal amount of revenue and then put it in the hands of consumers so that there is enough consumer demand to keep driving the economy. Once the revenues have been collected, he argued that they should be directed to individual consumers on the basis of incentives. If, in the future, most human labor will one day be unnecessary, then the private sector will not be willing to pay for it. If we can't pay people to work, then we must pay them to do something else of value.


If we are to take full advantage of the production potential of advanced technologies that will be available for decades and centuries to come, I believe that we will have to redesign our economic system so that consumption is largely decoupled from individual participation in production. Consumption, rather than production, will eventually have to become the main economic contribution of the bulk of the average population. If we do not achieve this adaptation, it is likely that technological advance will ultimately be self-limiting and may lead to decline rather than increased prosperity. * However, if we can evolve to a system that supports vibrant consumer demand, even as fast-paced technology rolls back other economic constraints,

In this book I have argued that consumers should eventually receive incentive-based income. Currently, incentives are offered to individuals to contribute directly to overall prosperity through work. In the future, we should provide incentives for people to behave in ways that do not detract from the prosperity that will result from increasingly automated production. As individuals act on these incentives, they will earn the income they need to participate as consumers in the market economy.

The idea that an individual's consumption may one day be valued above his contribution to production is very difficult to accept. It goes directly against the values ​​and work ethic that are instilled in the vast majority of us. Without a doubt, it will take time to adapt to this new reality


However, as I have pointed out, companies will eventually have to choose between government intervention and taxes and the existence of a robust market. Once this compensation is clear, the opposition will be less vigorous.


History has shown that only a select minority of the population has the combination of skill, entrepreneurship, access to capital, and luck required to start and run a successful business. This reality will not change: most people are destined to be buyers rather than sellers. People who are successful in building businesses in the future will likely find that salaries paid to employees represent a much smaller fraction of their expenses. However, they will have to pay higher taxes to compensate for this; otherwise, they will not enjoy a vibrant market demand for the products and services they create.


At the most basic level, a job is essentially a set of incentives. When a person acts in accordance with those incentives, they do the work that is currently required to produce products and services. In the economy of the future, if that work is no longer needed, we will need to create "virtual" jobs. In other words, people will continue to earn income by acting on incentives, but their actions will not necessarily result in "work" in the traditional sense.

The income of individuals must be unequal and depend on the success of each individual in acting in accordance with established incentives. This will ensure that people are motivated to act in ways that benefit themselves and society as a whole. Most importantly, this system will bring consumers to a reliable stream of income and, as we have seen, it is absolutely essential to creating sustained demand for mass market products and services and thus driving the economy. If we can do that successfully, then the free market economy can continue to operate and generate broad-based prosperity indefinitely.


You don't need a 'job' to have dignity.

I just wanted to get that out of the way first :-)

However, two different things are happening here.

First, globally, productivity per worker is increasing rapidly. That means there are more "things for everyone".

Second, however, the way productivity is captured is changing dramatically. Forget all the talk about the 1% ... the statistics that really dominate are the regular increases in the share of global GDP by the BRIC nations.


Some societies, think of Europe, already have structures in which those without direct income are supported, not the

Keep reading

You don't need a 'job' to have dignity.

I just wanted to get that out of the way first :-)

However, two different things are happening here.

First, globally, productivity per worker is increasing rapidly. That means there are more "things for everyone".

Second, however, the way productivity is captured is changing dramatically. Forget all the talk about the 1% ... the statistics that really dominate are the regular increases in the share of global GDP by the BRIC nations.


Some societies, think of Europe, already have structures in which those without direct income receive support, not with the same `` standards of living '' as the middle class, no doubt, but rather they house, feed, provide health care and education. for your children.

Other societies, think of the United States, frankly don't. Being poor in the United States is a much more worrisome situation than being poor, say, in Norway.


What globalization gives us is a race up and down: the rich can benefit from cheaper costs ... the poorest (this means, say, children of Chinese rural workers) can benefit from a lifestyle that, While we would not be happy with it for our children, it is significantly better than the lifestyle their parents had. (If it was not / was not, they will return to join Mom and Dad on the farm.)

The group that's tight is the middle: unable to operate in industries where the United States has a competitive advantage, unable to compete in industries where China and India do, unable to depend on government redistribution to support their families.


However, back to the question of "productivity per worker" (mechanization is not as prevalent as Western manual workers expect), many BRIC factories are basically manned. This, of course, will change: Americans have no manifest destiny to be the richest nation. Factory workers will want higher wages; factory owners will keep an eye on the point at which those wages inflate to the point where machines become cheaper.

For a time, many of the smartest people from lower-middle-income countries left for the U.S. (And many companies founded, not their grandparents' stereotype corner store, but, say, Google). Then after 9/11, that got harder, so local economies are booming.


But ... as mechanization evolves, particularly when we start working on nanotechnology, there will be many more 'things' for everyone ...

... hopefully society will evolve towards something beyond 20th century capitalism, towards an era in which 'abundance' has meaning.

This will activate the kind of nature that humans happen to have. A famous French philosopher (I hate French philosophers) once said, `` A man's problems stem from his inability to sit in a room alone with his thoughts. '' (Personally, I don't have this problem, but apparently most of people have it ... Imagine!). Since we cannot tolerate our own isolated presence, we seek validation in other things, such as other people or work. Having things to do and people to see is very important. If you don't have them, you are likely to get high, drunk, or both. Shiiiiiiieeet partner.

We know that automation

Keep reading

This will activate the kind of nature that humans happen to have. A famous French philosopher (I hate French philosophers) once said, `` A man's problems stem from his inability to sit in a room alone with his thoughts. '' (Personally, I don't have this problem, but apparently most of people have it ... Imagine!). Since we cannot tolerate our own isolated presence, we seek validation in other things, such as other people or work. Having things to do and people to see is very important. If you don't have them, you are likely to get high, drunk, or both. Shiiiiiiieeet partner.

We know that automation will eliminate the jaws. Damn robots are going crazy! Der Takajawbssss! By the way, there is a lot of research to prove this ... and what is scary is that unlike previous industrial revolutions, they are not being replaced by a new and better job! The opposite is happening with low-skilled jobs being completely filled by machines and causing newly unemployed humans to now compete for the remaining very low-skilled jobs such as bike delivery people or uber drivers ... Anyway, even these jaws will decrease in number for everyone! New jobs are coming too, like being a bitch for a rich guy in one way or another. This is nothing new: centuries ago, Henry Ford had thousands of employees, some of them were his personal dogs, they did what he wanted and fed his pleasures and consumptions. BUT most worked to produce automobiles for public consumption. Now imagine if Henry's car were all made by robots. She would still have her babysitter and housekeeper ... but she could also hire a few extra guys to remain as statutes in her personal space garden. Therefore, these "service jaws" will increase. I don't need big brains for this shit. But there won't be enough of these jaws. She would still have her babysitter and housekeeper ... but she could also hire a few extra guys to remain as statutes in her personal space garden. Therefore, these "service jaws" will increase. I don't need big brains for this shit. But there won't be enough of these jaws. She would still have her babysitter and housekeeper ... but she could also hire a few extra guys to remain as statutes in her personal space garden. Therefore, these "service jaws" will increase. I don't need big brains for this shit. But there won't be enough of these jaws.

An optimistic future scenario is that we get some kind of basic income that's enough to survive, plus then we supplement it by whatever means we can, probably doing shit for each other that robots couldn't do, like doing 'hand made insert article / food / etc '.

A dystopian future is something like Orwell's 1984 but without the repression. We have a kind of wealthy oligarchy that basically lives in enclaves, dominates the leadership of our cultures and owns the means of production ... but they need some kind of consumption drive for us to engage in constant wars to 'destroy the excesses of offer'. We spent a lot of money, robotics and time to establish support for the government and produce a $ 1,000,000 ton of missiles, to be used by guys with 92 IQ's paid $ 40, to kill primitive people in some shit hole for some supposedly noble reason. . probably because 'Der Tooka-democracy' or 'der-bomb-er-buildin' ... then we also pay reporters to cover the story, to commentators from all sides of the angle to argue about it, to postwar rebuilding companies to rebuild shit, veterans associations, new industries to support all of this with useless human labor ... Rinse and repeat every few years. Most of us would still have jaws helping prop up our glorious democracies! God save the Queen and I mean it.

Define "in the future". 20 years or 200? In 200 years, we will probably have significantly altered our own intelligence and it is possible that there is no one with the level of intelligence that we currently consider an IQ of 80. So, I am going to address the question "in 20 years" and ignore the question of the intelligence (because no one really knows what it is) and focus primarily on skills.

The relationship between time spent acquiring skills (generally unpaid or, in the case of PhD candidates, poorly paid) and time spent using them in paid work is changing, and I don't see that trend reversing. This is problematic, because the American matrix separates

Keep reading

Define "in the future". 20 years or 200? In 200 years, we will probably have significantly altered our own intelligence and it is possible that there is no one with the level of intelligence that we currently consider an IQ of 80. So, I am going to address the question "in 20 years" and ignore the question of the intelligence (because no one really knows what it is) and focus primarily on skills.

The relationship between time spent acquiring skills (generally unpaid or, in the case of PhD candidates, poorly paid) and time spent using them in paid work is changing, and I don't see that trend reversing. This is problematic, because the American matrix divides life into three time periods:

  • childhood, which is spent in school and depends on the resources of the parents. (22 years)
  • adulthood, which focuses on production with minimal continuing training. In this phase, it is assumed that you have learned everything you need. (40 years)
  • old age, in which people are considered to be too old for leadership, but unsuitable for subordinate positions (because no one wants a younger boss).


The American response to this change in the years of learning / years of income ratio has been to lengthen childhood. In bad economies and for people whose parents can afford it, this happens until their late 20s or later. This is culturally and economically devastating, because people who don't grow up in their mid-20s often don't jump right in.

I think this is a problem where the long-term forecast is easier to do than the short-term one, so this is what will happen.

  • Years of learning and years of earning should be interspersed. The 22/40 plan is a dead end. The problem is that people don't earn enough in the earning years to pay for the apprenticeship years. All merchant labor ends up in a race to the bottom, so this means that people will have a hard time going from unskilled work to skilled work, but that downward movement will be more common (due to people not being able to pay years of learning.)
  • Over time, people will demand support during the learning years. The market cannot solve this problem because there are many information problems. Earning years wages will not increase to allow for learning time, so intervention with the market will be required to bring back the most unfortunate, which we will have to do (as a nation) to remain competitive, to that we do not cruelly discard talent.
  • The end result of this will be the implementation of a basic income. I have no idea when it will actually happen. In the United States, I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't accomplished until after I'm gone.


When it comes to intelligence, there will likely be jobs for people of all levels, no matter how advanced the technology is. (At some point, technology will enhance human intelligence, and that will happen before people who currently have an IQ of 80 become completely obsolete.) Getting that time must be privately funded (usually from parents).

Tools are objects that enhance human abilities. The better the tool, the greater the amount by which it improves capabilities. Eventually the tools can become so powerful relative to human capabilities that the differences in human capabilities that are enhanced become too small to be relevant.

It could be argued that the best tools are also the most complex to operate, but I don't think this is the general case. With increasingly advanced autopilots, airplanes are becoming less difficult to fly; Navigation, electronic and hydraulic systems facilitate the operation of cars.

Keep reading

Tools are objects that enhance human abilities. The better the tool, the greater the amount by which it improves capabilities. Eventually the tools can become so powerful relative to human capabilities that the differences in human capabilities that are enhanced become too small to be relevant.

It could be argued that the best tools are also the most complex to operate, but I don't think this is the general case. With increasingly advanced autopilots, airplanes are becoming less difficult to fly; Navigation, electronic and hydraulic systems make it easy to operate cars, high-level languages ​​and smarter compilers make it easier to write code, advanced assembly machinery and assembly line are easier than artisanal manufacturing, Auto-correction facilitates error-free typing, advanced calculators automate many math functions, and more. At best, advanced tools require training rather than intelligence or some other "inherent" skill.

With tools (rather than humans) generating much of the value, with those tools that have no use for the value in and of themselves (that is, no salary is paid to a hammer), and with all, in principle, capable to be trained to use With those tools of equal enough effectiveness, the only question that becomes relevant is how access and ownership of those tools is distributed. In other words, if workers' participation in the economy falls sharply, they will all have to begin their economically productive lives with control of a sufficiently large pool of capital.

Relevant is Robert Anton Wilson's essay "The RICH Economy":

If there is a proposal that currently wins the approval of almost everyone, it is that we need more jobs. All intense thinkers, from Jimmy Carter to the Communist Party of America, from Ronald Reagan to the head of the local university economics department, from the Birchers to the New Left, promise, or earnestly seek, "a cure for the disease. unemployment".

I'd like to challenge that idea. I do not believe that there is, nor can there ever be, a cure for unemployment. I propose that unemployment is not a disease, but the natural and healthy function.

Keep reading

Relevant is Robert Anton Wilson's essay "The RICH Economy":

If there is a proposal that currently wins the approval of almost everyone, it is that we need more jobs. All intense thinkers, from Jimmy Carter to the Communist Party of America, from Ronald Reagan to the head of the local university economics department, from the Birchers to the New Left, promise, or earnestly seek, "a cure for the disease. unemployment".

I'd like to challenge that idea. I do not believe that there is, nor can there ever be, a cure for unemployment. I propose that unemployment is not a disease, but the natural and healthy functioning of an advanced technological society.

The inevitable direction of any technology, and of any rational species like Homo sap., Is toward what Buckminster Fuller calls ephemeral, or doing-more-with-less. For example, a modern computer does more (handles more bits of information) with less hardware than the protocomputers of the late 1940s and 1950s. A worker with a modern teletype machine does more in an hour than a thousand painstakingly copying medieval monks scrolls for a century. Atomic fission does more with a cubic centimeter of matter than all nineteenth-century engineers could do with a million tons, and fusion does even more.

Unemployment is not a disease; so there is no "cure".

Continued at: http://www.whywork.org/rethinking/whywork/rawilson.html

I think the first place I would start is by challenging the concept that there is a large cohort of people with low intelligence. I spent time working with a non-profit organization that helped people of low socioeconomic status start and grow their own businesses. In that, I was able to meet many people who I am pretty sure had been discarded earlier in their lives, based on their intelligence, but who brought real experience and knowledge in certain areas.

The reality is that most people are not smart in all areas; Even the people we know as brilliant around us tend to be brilliant in some way and ordinary (or

Keep reading

I think the first place I would start is by challenging the concept that there is a large cohort of people with low intelligence. I spent time working with a non-profit organization that helped people of low socioeconomic status start and grow their own businesses. In that, I was able to meet many people who I am pretty sure had been discarded earlier in their lives, based on their intelligence, but who brought real experience and knowledge in certain areas.

The reality is that most people are not smart in all areas; even the people we know to be brilliant around us tend to be brilliant in some ways and ordinary (or less!) in others. The people I could see were pretty much all smart in some way, and had proven it professionally or in their own business.

If I'm right, then the next challenge is that we're really bad overall at helping people figure out what they're smart at, and particularly bad if those people don't seem to have superior intelligence overall. We need to fix that and help people understand their strengths and apply them early.

You are not paranoid enough. Most of humanity is becoming obsolete and ready for slaughter.

They will begin to die faster as healthcare systems begin to collapse around the world, life expectancy shortens, epidemics of resistant bacteria increase, and infant mortality begins to rise again. Those smart enough to be the masters rather than the slaves of the machines will be able to protect themselves in the richest enclaves of the developed world, but these people will eventually grow old and die due to low fertility, in walled retirement communities designed to endure. collapse.

Be afraid be very afraid

Keep reading

You are not paranoid enough. Most of humanity is becoming obsolete and ready for slaughter.

They will begin to die faster as healthcare systems begin to collapse around the world, life expectancy shortens, epidemics of resistant bacteria increase, and infant mortality begins to rise again. Those smart enough to be the masters rather than the slaves of the machines will be able to protect themselves in the richest enclaves of the developed world, but these people will eventually grow old and die due to low fertility, in walled retirement communities designed to endure. collapse.

Be afraid, very afraid.

Also, it's not just about low intelligence. It is also the "wrong kind of intelligence." So the population at risk is much larger than you think. I think I'm pretty smart, but the wrong kind of smart. I don't expect to survive the collapse. But I can try to get at least one hedge fund manager, sneaking through the safety of his Wyoming fortress mansion and sneezing all over him, once he's caught whatever disease is going to kill me.

Muahahahaha.

I think your assumption that "dumb people" will not have jobs is correct, but it has always been that way. How well you are doing financially is not really based on intelligence, but on motivation. Also, most of today's jobs require you to attend some on-the-job training for a few months. I think this will go on forever until we can download "how-to" manuals into our brains.

Second, technology makes it easy for anyone to do anything. Before Wordpress, the average person couldn't start a website. We will see the same trend in mobile applications and even augmented reality applications. Who knows what matters

Keep reading

I think your assumption that "dumb people" will not have jobs is correct, but it has always been that way. How well you are doing financially is not really based on intelligence, but on motivation. Also, most of today's jobs require you to attend some on-the-job training for a few months. I think this will go on forever until we can download "how-to" manuals into our brains.

Second, technology makes it easy for anyone to do anything. Before Wordpress, the average person couldn't start a website. We will see the same trend in mobile applications and even augmented reality applications. Who knows what careers self-authored software will have? Imagine what cheap 3d printers will do. Programmable robots? Driverless cars?

Third, we still need people to work in the hospitality industry. Imagine going to your favorite Indian restaurant and being served by a robot? Even if that's the case, employing humans will become a competitive advantage. I also think that in the medical field we will still need humans, for sure IBM's Watson looks promising, but it is more of a tool.

Finally, while it is fun to imagine doom and sadness. Remember that civilization will always find a way out. We can take Joseph Schumpeter's theory of "creative destruction" and apply it to human history, and we can make a strong case that we will always discover how to survive. Hey, we've come this far.

This question has been bothering me. It is somewhat irritating to my soul. Imagine a handful of sand in a jar of Vaseline. Yes, that kind of feeling.

In my opinion, we all need each other. (Smart, dumb and everything)

I don't know your background but I have an unusual background. (I lived the native kind of life during my youth and stumbled upon acadamia.)

In short, what you would consider dumb people, in my opinion, does pretty brilliant things.

Smart people do pretty stupid things.

For example, have you ever gone camping with smart people? Shit, if it wasn't for me

Keep reading

This question has been bothering me. It is somewhat irritating to my soul. Imagine a handful of sand in a jar of Vaseline. Yes, that kind of feeling.

In my opinion, we all need each other. (Smart, dumb and everything)

I don't know your background but I have an unusual background. (I lived the native kind of life during my youth and stumbled upon acadamia.)

In short, what you would consider dumb people, in my opinion, does pretty brilliant things.

Smart people do pretty stupid things.

For example, have you ever gone camping with smart people? Shit, if it weren't for my upbringing, a lot of them wouldn't have survived.

Have you ever been to a museum with what you would consider foolish people?
I admit, at one point their lack of appreciation bothered me, but they sure could identify shit no matter who did it.

Anyway, I really believe that we need a healthy balance of all kinds of people with all kinds of brain and physical strength levels to inhabit this blue marble.

What jobs will less intelligent and less qualified people do in the future? What will the people on the left side of the bell curve do to work in the future? Will these jobs give dignity? What can be done to ensure this?

People seem to have the wrong idea about this

Real physical jobs in the real world are the HARDEST to automate

Long after all "white collar" jobs have been automated, physical blue collar jobs will continue to exist.

We are making great progress towards AI, which will be able to replace white-collar workers, but we are miles away from the BODIES of robots that will be needed.

Keep reading

What jobs will less intelligent and less qualified people do in the future? What will the people on the left side of the bell curve do to work in the future? Will these jobs give dignity? What can be done to ensure this?

People seem to have the wrong idea about this

Real physical jobs in the real world are the HARDEST to automate

Long after all "white collar" jobs have been automated, physical blue collar jobs will continue to exist.

We are making great progress towards AI, which will be able to replace administrative workers, but we are miles away from the BODIES of robots that will be needed for the manual work of ants.

Not to mention the power supply for them.

See some of the DARPA robot tests, they're hilarious, and multi-million dollar units

Just a correction here.

The typical assembly line worker in China * doesn't * have a particularly low IQ. Working on an assembly line requires a reasonable amount of intelligence. Also, no one in China is hungry.

Also, the idea that high intelligence makes job search easier is wrong. If it were true, then you wouldn't have as many physics PhDs with more than 150 IQs and it would be difficult for them to look for work. In fact, having a high IQ * doesn't * help you get a job.

Other Guides:


GET SPECIAL OFFER FROM OUR PARTNER.