That a government has the responsibility to ensure something is available or accomplished does not by default mean the government has the responsibility to be the physical provider of that something - medical care, education, postal service, etc. An innovative private sector can deliver many of these things at a lower cost and with greater reliability. Sometimes, there oughtn't be a law.

In the case of education, we've been able to deliver customized individual education for years. Teachers unions have fought the introduction of individualized modular education technology into the classroom, the better to ensure teachers were the focal point of education spending. Now, the unions are calling for such technology to keep students at home.

This will result in a shift in the delivery of education away from government schools. However, there is still a role in government in this shift. Curricula need to be devised, standards set, and certification for such program will be in the realm of government util a private ratings organization can take over.

Poorer students, ones without wi-fi or laptops, will need some assistance to join the new education wave. Government can play a role in coordinating that assistance; in coordinating with private industry to develop and implement widespread broadband access.

The US is shifting toward a more modular set-up. Instead of New York and Los Angeles being "the city" and everyplace else being "the sticks," we're moving toward a set-up with smaller cities, ones more responsive to citizen needs. New York and Los Angeles are rapidly becoming bloated, crime-ridden, slums; their governments unresponsive bureaucracies, more intent upon perpetuating their own existence than in being responsive to residents' needs. We no longer need to be "there" to participate in the industries that once depended upon geographic concentrations of talent.

We no longer need stock brokers to purchase stocks, bonds, ETFs, etc. The brighly-jacketed traders on the floor scrambling to make a purchase are rapidly becoming anachronisms as open outcry exchanges are being displaced by electronic trading platforms.

How this shift will play out remains to be seen, but one is coming. And that shift will require smarter and better-educated people. We, the people, will be responsible for processing the information available to us and making decisions based on that information. We will be responsible for deciding which ratings agencies to trust, which information providers are accurate, and what our goals in pursuing a course of action are.

The effect this shift will have on folks on the left side of the IQ curve will be profound. And we'll have to deal with that as well; something we as a society have never quite gotten a handle on doing well. We sent their jobs to China and Mexico in the name of "free trade," invited cheap illegal laborers to take the only jobs that remained for the less-educated and unskilled, and in a frenzy to provide "college for all" destroyed vocational education programs that endowed those folks with marketable skills.

Again with the IQ stuff. Please provide some actual evidence instead of speculation. Because the employment data to day says you are wrong.

"Please provide some actual evidence instead of speculation. Because the employment data to day says you are wrong."

About what? And what employment data covers the period of time Conan implies?

There has always been a portion of the citizenry - of every society - which cannot be employed, for anything whatsoever, as having them on the scene causes fatal errors and job shutdown. This raw number will go up with population, even though there's an imperfectly-shaped bell curve, employment v. technical savvy required.

Or do you believe there are numerous buggy whip companies toiling away in the shadows?

-----

Predictions? I'd like to see what the New Jersey teacher's union will propose if they see a threat to their free meal: they're allowed to charge the taxpayers for EVERY teaching position, not just those of union members.

It's not solely about employment, Ben. It's about being able to process information.

It's about being able to process the information your doctor provides you about side effects, infection rates, recovery rates, et al; being able to process scientific news - breakthroughs, warnings, and discoveries; being able to understand the sophisticated underpinnings of modern computerized equipment you use every day. Shade tree mechanics don't exist anymore because engines are more sophisticated and their tolerances tighter.

We have juries today who cannot distinguish between massive doses and immediate danger, awarding a janitor millions because he used a popular weed control product; and massive doses, far in excess of what the janitor experienced, caused cancer in lab mice.

In the jobs sector, we have robot vacuums, robot lawn mowers, and automated factory equipment that have replaced the manual labor once required. Several varieties of crops are now picked by machine, not human. The ones still picked by humans are usually picked by migrant farm laborers. Maid services, construction, and gardening are now done by immigrant labor (some illegal).

The Boxer Rebellion in China in the early 1900s was caused by the displacement of manual laborers. China had, for centuries, used human labor rather than machine or animal labor. Coolies carried goods long distances where, in the West, wagons and, later, trains were used. When the West began to colonize China, it built railroads, mills, all the machine-driven facets of Western industry, displacing the traditional coolies. The displaced coolies found solace in the Society of the Harmonious Fist which promised to drive out the Western imperialists.

Years of drought, bad crops, and labor displacement had left he Chinese peasants angry. That the dowager empress was unable, and seemingly unwilling, to drive out the foreign devils didn't help. The spread of Christianity by missionaries disrupted the old ways and traditions, further alienating the peasantry.

That anger and alienation exploded into rebellion and anti-foreigner violence. The foreign legations were surrounded and foreign diplomats, traders, and missionaries caught outside the walled complex were murdered. What military presence there was in the legation quarter hastily arranged a defense. A rescue mission was arranged. It was to be commanded by a German noble, but he wasted time in congratulatory parties and never left Germany.

US Marines, along with Russian, British, and Japanese soldiers assembled on the Chinese coast and marched toward Peking (Beijing today). The ill-equipped Chinese forces and Boxers were unable to stop them, but did succeed in delaying them, notably at Tientsin. Future US president, Herbert Hoover and his wife were caught in the siege at Tientsin.

The Russians and Japanese provided the mainstay of the fighting forces. Eventually, the allies were able to reach Peking and relieve the legations. The Qing dynasty, already weakened by years of corruption "lost the Mandate of Heaven" and collapsed a decade later when the Republic of China was created in 1912.

It took China decades to adjust to the societal shift that culminated in the Boxer Rebellion. Some might argue that adjustment has not yet occurred as the peasantry are still being used for manual labor, instead of robots and machines. What might our reaction to this shift look like and what difficulties might it cause?

Ben, you might find this interesting. It's are review of a book about despair economics and combating drug use.

As Case and Deaton note, the white working class has had a tough economic run. Income grows only modestly with age, and younger Americans lacking high educational attainment now earn less than previous generations did. Fewer of them are getting married. Less-educated whites are also among the least civically engaged of all demographic groups. By contrast, for college-educated workers, marriage and civic engagement remain norms. They have higher incomes that grow more rapidly compared with those of the less educated—and with those of preceding generations.

Some scholars argue that the best measures show improving living standards across the board. Medicine and other technologies have undoubtedly improved human life and health, even for those less well-off. And yet an increasing proportion of the white working class group expresses unhappiness with their lives. One result is more suicides and drug overdoses....

This group is losing its place in society, losing its feeling of self-worth. They will likely not be the first of the not-highly-educated groups to feel the pinch of modernity. And, in fact, the current unrest destroying out cities is likely being caused by other less-highly-educated groups feeling that pinch.

Yes Conan we have more intelligent and less intelligent people. But that is nothing new! Ignorant juries have always existed. Ignorant journalists too. Everything you listed shows that new tools and techniques bring change, but none of that shows an increasing issue for low IQ people. They have the same problems as they have ever had.

"There has always been a portion of the citizenry - of every society - which cannot be employed, for anything whatsoever, as having them on the scene causes fatal errors and job shutdown." ~Radwaste

That is exactly my point Rad. These are not new issues. And every empirical data I can find indicates the issue is not increasing or decreasing.

Instead everything I can find points to low IQ employment being inversely proportional to government regulation. If there has been any effect on low IQ employment by technology over the past 100 years I can't see it. Hence I asked for some proof instead of baseless speculation.

Even the history Conan presented doesn't support his argument. Job displacement is nothing new in the US. After all you reference buggy whip makers. The car came out in the 1800s. Yet the employment rate of low IQ people from then to today is largely unchanged. Yes new technologies do eliminate specific jobs. But the total number of jobs remain largely unchanged by technology and automation. For every job eliminated a new one doing something else is created. Often more than one.

So why did the buggy whip makers in the US find new jobs while the coolies of China rioted? By government rules the coolies couldn't. It wasn't that they were too stupid. The farmers weren't retarded. But by rule and tradition the farmers couldn't leave their land. The coolies couldn't find new jobs. IQ had nothing to do with it. And you see the exact same thing happen here in the US. Over the Obama years the minimum cost of a job went up significantly. Rules on benefits, rules on work, on hours, etc all raised the minimum cost a job could legally have. Hence low IQ people who worked lower profitability jobs lost their jobs. They couldn't make enough money to pay for them. At the same time unemployment among the highly educated went down and demand for automation went up. Suddenly Trump takes office and many of those regulations get repealed. At which point you see an increase in the employment of the low IQ segment and a decrease for the highly educated. Did Trump roll back technological progress? Obviously not. From all the data I can find there is no significant correlation between low IQ employment and technological progress. It is all about government regulation.

Conan,

I agree with you on the US becoming a more modular society. The stuff you wrote days ago about how millennials don't have geographic loyalty is correct. I agree the teacher unions are killing themselves in the hope of a short term political gain. I even agree about the white working class despair issue. Yes quality of life has increased in economic terms. But as many have noted you can't buy happiness. These are two different things. The only thing I disagreed with you on is the IQ stuff. And nothing you've presented supports that argument.

"And, in fact, the current unrest destroying out cities is likely being caused by other less-highly-educated groups feeling that pinch." ~Conan

This is false.

And, in fact, the current unrest destroying out cities is likely being caused by other less-highly-educated groups feeling that pinch. ~ Conan the Grammarian at August 11, 2020 8:38 AM

This is false. ~ Ben at August 11, 2020 8:59 AM

How so?

You have a bunch of college kids with worhtless degrees in social studies, unable to get high-paying jobs with those degrees, demanding that life be "fair." They've deluded themselves that they're on the side of right - mostly because they never studied history, they skimmed it.

They've been taught that, because they have a college degree, they're smart - but they're not. Nor do they have the wisdom that a life well-spent can confer.

I'd bet that if you took a survey of the white kids at a BLM riot (can't call it a protest), you'd find most of them have social studies degrees with no real skills. You'd find that their anger and unrest stems mainly from the fact that they're turning thirty (maybe forty), still living in a rental or at Mom's, and aren't making the six figures they thought they'd be making by now with their expensive college degrees.

They think they're tech-savvy because they are better at using emerging technology than prior generations; their expertise being in the use of platforms, not in using applications to drive solutions.

This is another disaffected group of people finding themselves lost in a world of impending modernity; a world demanding skills, insights, , knowledge, and wisdom they don't have and were never encouraged to develop. We're discovering just how uneducated and unskilled they really are; and so are they.

" And every empirical data I can find indicates the issue is not increasing or decreasing."

Sorry, but you're not looking very closely. For a population which percentages do not change, the NUMBER of any particular group will still increase with population.

About Conan's, "And, in fact, the current unrest destroying our cities is likely being caused by other less-highly-educated groups feeling that pinch."...

This is false.

Clarify. BLM's activists and supporters are insisting that this is a COLOR issue, when it is in fact a CULTURAL issue illustrated by exposing this hoax. It is not the overachievers in American music or sports - competitive fields with measurable progress - who lack, it is those perpetually in need, largely because they have been TOLD they are helpless. American blacks in music or sports are world famous, having, strangely, a work ethic not found in urban black culture.

There is an Internet meme going around where a young black girl is carrying a sign to the effect that she knows all lives matter, but blacks are in danger.
She's addressing the wrong people, period, because she is over two thousand three hundred times more likely to be killed by another black person than a police officer - who is likely required not to arrest black criminals lest he been seen as racist.

Back to the schools: I see a model parallelling health care coming on line.

But I wonder why the turmoil - aside from money-seeking - considering successful school models are found in Europe.

Conan,

We currently have an ongoing pandemic with large portions of society adamantly fighting against wearing masks and in your estimation the deluded people are "college kids with worhtless [sic] degrees in social studies"?

Ben is correct that your ideas have little to no basis in fact or reality.

Your assertion about IQ here has no place.

There is no dearth of middle of the road IQ folks whose ability to reason is severely impaired.

Anti-vax folks, anti-mask folks, climate change deniers, flat earthers, young earth creationists... the list goes on and on. Not all of these people are stupid despite the fact that they latch onto unsupported and illogical nonsense.

Go away, Artie. Adults are talking.

How was that false Conan? You answered that yourself.

"You have a bunch of college kids ..." ~Conan

These are not low IQ people. They are not even low educated people. Miseducated perhaps but not low educated. We have lawyers throwing Molotov cocktails at police cars. They are some of the highest educated people around. What we aren't seeing is biologically mentally retarded people starting fights and fires. This isn't an IQ issue. It isn't even an economic issue. It is a culture issue.

"For a population which percentages do not change, the NUMBER of any particular group will still increase with population." ~Radwaste

So what? Is there some threshold that happens when you hit x number of people with downs syndrome? 30% is 30% and is still 30% no matter if you have 1M or 100M people total. The relative cost of low IQ people stays the same. The burden they put on society actually gets lower as technology improves.

while pretending that your priority is children's education

If you're very, very lucky, that sneaks into the the top-5 at #5. Odds are it might make it into the top 10.

There has always been a portion of the citizenry - of every society - which cannot be employed

This is absolutely correct. In 1944, the unemployment rate hit a low number of 1.2%, with 11.6 million in the military. If there was ever a time for unemployment to be zero, that was it.

https://www.thebalance.com/unemployment-rate-by-year-3305506

On to more cheerful news, it’s Kamala.

Conan Says:

"Go away, Artie. Adults are talking."

No Conan... old people are talking... "adult" is a title earned by maturity and understanding of the world around you.

As Ben correctly pointed out, college educated people are not comprised of a plethora of "low IQ" folks.

This is something an adult should know and understand.

Ben,

I doubt we'll ever be able to ascertain the education levels of the average rioter in the latest riots. I'll concede that the leadership is likely higher IQ individuals driven by ideology.

Your lawyers example is probably an outlier - graduates of top law schools typically don't go around throwing Molotov cocktails. Both were immigrants, one Pakistani and one Jamaican, so cultural differences may have played a role, but I doubt it. Immigrants with advanced degrees are not generally noted for committing violence in our society.

In addition, the majority of the folks doing the rioting are likely not risking partnerships at law firms, professional licenses, or middle-management jobs in corporate America. I'm betting they tend to be the lower-level employees, the ones not likely to make rank anytime soon.

To that point, we've exponentially increased the college population in the past several decades. Do you think we did that and maintained the same intelligence level of the students?

You're not smarter than your grandfather, despite what IQ tests might say. Intelligence researcher, James Flynn, concluded that human beings are not smarter than past generations—just more modern. Modern human beings have several advantages over their ancestors in IQ testing:

• smaller family size means more adult attention
• better schooling
• better access to information
• better and more immediate social networks
• more people pursuing more cognitively-demanding professions
• cognitively-taxing leisure pursuits (e.g., video games vs. lying on a beach)
• overall, we work our brains in different ways than our ancestors did (e.g., less memorization)

So, if we're not getting smarter, it stands to reason that the increase in the number of college students means some with IQs lower than those of the cohorts of years before were admitted and, likely, graduated. An increasing population does not, by itself, explain the increase. In 1940, only 4.6% of the US population had completed 4 years of college. By 2019, that percentage was 35%.

I'm willing to bet no one in the graduating class of 1940 took as ridiculous a class as "The Sociology Of Miley Cyrus: Race, Class, Gender, And Media." Of course, back then such a crib course would more likely have been "The Spycraft of Little Orphan Annie."

We're dumbing down our college courses because the quality of our primary and secondary education is declining. "According to a 2016 report from the Center for American Progress, ... somewhere between 40 to 60 percent of first-year college students now require remedial courses in math, English, or both."

Now, IQ is not, by itself, a determinant of college success. Psychology Today reports, "For the general population, the average IQ score is 100. Research has found that, among white, American college students, those with a 105 IQ score have a 50-percent chance of dropping out of college. They also report that the average IQ of a college graduate is about 114. But they also show that having a high IQ is no guarantee of graduating. Those who score 130 (very rare - about 2-percent of the population) still have a 10-percent dropout rate."

IQ does, however, seem to have an impact on one's choice of major.

Now, as I've held in other threads, IQ does not guarantee success in life, at least not at the high end of the IQ scale. A good work ethic, ability to take instruction, willingness to "go with the flow," and charisma can do at least as much as being smart, sometimes more. If you encounter difficulty in life, emotional stability is more important than the ability to calculate the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow.

On the other hand, a low IQ leaves one with difficultly in dealing with the complexities of life and that can lead to frustration and even anger. I think the inability of these social studies graduates to find meaningful work has left them frustrated and angry, driving then into the arms of socialist agitators.

Remember, AOC gradated graduated cum laude from Boston University in 2011 with a Bachelor of Arts degree both in International Relations and Economics, yet in 2018 was working as a barista and a bartender, seven years after graduating cum laude from a prestigious university.

While the NY Fed found that about 9% of college graduates worked a low-skill service job (defined as a position in which fewer than 50% of the workers in that job need a bachelor’s degree) from 2009 to 2013, the number of employers requiring a degree for low-level service jobs is increasing.

In a 2017 study, the Harvard Business School found that "61% of employers have rejected applicants with the requisite skills and experience simply because they didn't have a college degree...." The NY Fed Study stopped at 2013, so we don't have the number for recent college graduates working low-level service jobs.

In 2016, Marketwatch reported that 45.3% of recent college graduates were underemployed in "non-college" jobs, with just over 25.2% of them working in office and administrative positions; 19.3% were working as baristas, bartenders, and cashiers; and 11.4% were in business support. That adds up to a lot of frustration.

IRA, you have to remember the unemployment rate is a time bound metric. You can have an unemployment rate of 0% while 1 out of every 3 Americans doesn't have a job. What you are looking for is the labor participation rate. And that sits around 66& pretty much eternally. Before women were counted it was up around 70%. Which is where the male only labor participation rate is today.

Roughly 30% of Americans don't have jobs. Roughly half of those (15%) don't work because they don't want to. They are rich enough or lazy enough they just aren't interested in a job but they are fully physically capable of finding one if they so desired. The other 15% are physically unemployable. Either they are injured or mentally deficient and completely incapable of work. Society just doesn't know what to do with these people. The key thing is this percentage hasn't significantly changed in over 100 years. If anything it has dropped as technology enabled handicapped people to get a job.

What will happen in the future? No one can say with any certainty. Maybe aliens will invade.
But so far technological advancement has not caused job losses among the low IQ segment of our population.

..."adult" is a title earned by maturity and understanding of the world around you. ~ Artemis at August 11, 2020 2:27 PM

Artie, you have shown no evidence of maturity nor any understanding of the world at large. That's why Crid keeps asking if you've ever kissed a girl or if you're a shut-in. That's why Amy repeatedly called you an asshole. That's why Cousin Dave called you a dishonest debater. I could go on, but my point is made, no one here respects you.

Let us know when you're ready to earn the title "adult." We're pulling for you.

========================================

On to more cheerful news, it’s Kamala. ~ Isab at August 11, 2020 2:11 PM

Never discount her back-room maneuvering and mud-slinging skills. She'll be a formidable opponent.

Her primary debate comments about Biden will come back to haunt him, however, and that will not help his campaign.

Her debate with Pence will be interesting. I wonder if he'll throw Tulsi's comments in her face.

I don't think Biden made this choice. I think the party insiders did. On the surface, this is more evidence that Biden is toast after the election. He's being kept on the ticket around to attract the moderate vote based on his prior record. If this ticket wins, he'll be ridden out of office on a 25th Amendment rail for the more radical Harris shortly after taking office.

The convention should also be interesting. If Biden's ongoing mental decline blows it for him before then, she'll be named to the head of the ticket.

Conan, you still aren't supporting your claim that low IQ people are rioting in Portland. I won't dispute you that college degree holders have a lower IQ than those 50 years ago. But even the current degree holders have a higher IQ than the population at large. Everything you've presented says the rioters are higher educated and have higher IQs than the population mean.

They also aren't rioting because they are poor. If they were then the people of Oklahoma City, OK would be rioting. They aren't.

As for why people are rioting, Texas provides a good example. Where in Texas are riots happening, Austin. Where are they not happening, everywhere else. Austin is the only city in Texas with a west coast culture. So where do we see riots in the US? In cities that share that same culture as Austin.

IQ has nothing to do with it. Same with immigration status. Same with economics. Local culture is the real determinate.

What you are looking for is the labor participation rate. And that sits around 66& pretty much eternally. Before women were counted it was up around 70%. Which is where the male only labor participation rate is today.

But so far technological advancement has not caused job losses among the low IQ segment of our population.

~ Ben at August 11, 2020 3:36 PM

Ben, you're basing your claim of low job losses on the relative stability of the Labor Force Participation Rate. However, the Labor Force Participation Rate "is the sum of all workers who are employed or actively seeking employment divided by the total non-institutionalized, civilian working-age population." [emphasis mine]

As such, those who lost their job due to technological advancement, but are looking for a job, are still participants in the labor force. Those who are underemployed (can low-IQ workers be underemployed?) are also counted as participants.

Keep in mind, Ben, I'm not talking about retarded people here. When I said the left side of the IQ curve, I was referring to somewhere between 75 and 100. When I talk about lower IQ college grads, I'm talking about people who, in the past, might not have made the cut, say roughly 100 to 110.

The convention should also be interesting. If Biden's ongoing mental decline blows it for him before then, she'll be named to the head of the ticket.

Conan the Grammarian at August 11, 2020 3:46 PM

I don’t think there will be a *convention* in the traditional sense.

This is the first election that has prompted me to do some research on how you would go about replacing someone on the ticket. I suspect it is a very messy state by state process to change horses in mid stream and would have to be accomplished, obviously, before early voting started. Probably 50 different deadlines.

For these reasons I think Biden will stay, short of death, but who knows what would happen after the election.

Kamala is who the Democratic Party wanted all along. That was apparent two years ago.

Conan, how do you think they measure 'actively seeking employment'? This just means the data is smoothed. They applied an average filter to it.

As I understand it your claim was that technological advancement is making it harder and harder for lower IQ people to find work. If this is true you should see people who already were underemployed or marginally employed due to low IQ move to the completely unemployable category. The labor participation rate would fall. This hasn't happened.

If you are now making a claim that sub-median IQ is causing an increase in underemployment then you need to present some evidence to support that. You probably also need to present a definition of underemployment. What is and what is not qualified for a given job is quite debatable.

Everything you've presented says the rioters are higher educated and have higher IQs than the population mean.

Um, nothing I've presented says the rioters have a higher IQ than the population mean, nor better educated. That's the opposite of what I'm arguing.

In fact, we have no way of knowing the average IQ of the rioters. They're not exactly stopping in mid-riot to take IQ tests.

========================================

Kamala is who the Democratic Party wanted all along. That was apparent two years ago. ~ Isab at August 11, 2020 4:20 PM

I agree. She's been the party insiders' choice all along. She's good at back room dealing and she made her deals. It's to the Republicans' peril to underestimate her in the coming campaign.

As for Joe, the party needs the moderate lefties to win and Joe brings those - unless he sputters out during a debate or a campaign appearance. Hence, no appearances and those less-than-subtle attempts to get Trump to back out of the debates.

Once in office, they'll no longer need Joe, so he'll be ousted by whatever legal chicanery the party insiders can orchestrate. His cabinet won't defend him; they'll have been chosen by her and the insiders who backed her. It's gonna be an intra-party coup. The big loser in that skirmish will be Nancy Pelosi. Her San Francisco power and donor bases are gonna go to Harris.

Conan,

The patience I have demonstrated giving you the opportunity to ever back up your nonsense beliefs with hard evidence is evidence enough of my own maturity.

In this very thread you made an unsubstantiated claim... Ben called you out on it as being incorrect with valid reasoning... and instead of just admitting you've gotten things wrong on that point you are just going to be evasive for the rest of this discussion.

A sign of maturity is being able to admit that you've made a mistake.

That isn't something you do.

You'll just continue on and on and shift goal posts and commit one fallacy after another all to avoid just saying that your claim about IQ has no backing and is just your unsupported opinion.

You suffer from a problem many folks do... you cannot tell the difference between a demonstrable fact and something you just believe to be true because it fits into a narrative you like.

The world is filled with millions of people who don't see things the way you do... and instead of them possibly being intelligent folks who just have a different perspective it is more convenient for you just to bucket them into some "low IQ" bucket for easy dismissal.

I predict your senior years are going to be very frustrating as you realize that your opinions are meaningless to people who disagree with you when you have no evidence to back them up.

Go ahead and prove me wrong though... present Ben with evidence proving your case... or admit you were mistaken.

I predict you won't do either.

Ben Says:

"I won't dispute you that college degree holders have a lower IQ than those 50 years ago."

This isn't a factual claim either.

IQ is normalized to an average score of 100 with a standard deviation of 15 points.

It was an average of 100 fifty years ago and it is an average of 100 today.

Now if you are talking about comparative IQ's, that wouldn't follow this claim either. The data indicates that relative IQ's have been going up over time.

This is known as the so-called "Flynn Effect" which has identified ~3 point relative increase per decade.

This means relative IQ over 50 years has actually gone up ~15 points.

Pasadena, CA, was offered a sci-tech public School by the then-head of CalTech, because the local schools could not compete with those near MIT, RPI, etc.. School board turned him down as not “inclusive” enough, meaning kids who could not do basic adding and subtracting would not be admitted.
85% were white, sent their kids to private schools.

Learn how to read Arty. Maybe afterward you can add some intelligent commentary.

Conan, now you say we can't tell what the IQ of the rioters are. Ok. Then why did you bring them up? You are admitting that most of your posts have been unrelated. Or at least I can't follow the logic you are attempting to present.

Ben,

There isn't anything difficult about understanding your claim that you won't dispute the claim that "college degree holders have a lower IQ than those 50 years ago."

I will say the following though, it has been demonstrated that on average conservatives have lower cognitive performance than liberals:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022022115611749

"In addition, gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, cognitive test performance, and governance indicators were found to be low in the most conservative group and high in the most liberal group."

Conservative groups also contribute less to the economy per capita than liberal groups.

Just putting that out there...

If it wasn't so difficult to understand then why don't you understand any of it Arty? Why did you respond with irrelevant drivel? I really don't need to know that you can count to potato.

Go away, Artie. I have no patience left for dealing with you. Amy's right, you're an asshole.

I should have lost my patience with you when you called me a "dishonest loathsome piece of human garbage," but for some reason I stuck it out, hoping you might show some sign of maturity or even a hint of being the intellectual you claim to be. You failed on all counts.

Ben and I will continue our debate civilly; a civility which will be impossible if you get involved.

========================================

This is known as the so-called "Flynn Effect" which has identified ~3 point relative increase per decade. ~ Artemis at August 11, 2020 5:49 PM

That's the same James Flynn I cited earlier, who, after investigating the annual increase in IQ worldwide he had observed, "concluded that human beings are not smarter than past generations...." for the reasons I cited.

Learn to read, Artie.

========================================

...now you say we can't tell what the IQ of the rioters are. ~ Ben at August 11, 2020 5:58 PM

Some of this can be gleaned from their actions. Anyone rioting or looting at 2:00am on a weeknight is unlikely to be worried about getting up early to go to a serious job the next morning. These are not people worried about what getting arrested for causing property damage will to their prospects of making partner, keeping a professional license, or getting that promotion to VP.

The two lawyers you cited hardly represent evidence that the rioters in general are high-IQ types with good jobs and graduate degrees. Out of thousands of rioters arrested, two were lawyers; that's not a statistically significant number.

Pew posted the results of a survey of protestors who attended a race-based protest in the last month here. 6% of Americans say they've attended one. 46% of those are white, 17% are black.79% are under the age of 49, and 79% lean Democrat.

Unfortunately, Ben, this doesn't really confirm or refute any claims about the average IQ of the rioters. People looting a store or throwing bricks through windows rarely stop to take tests. You're welcome to canvass them, if you'd like.

If you want to argue that the rioters are mostly politically-motivated, well-educated, and smart, I won't ask you for evidence (there is none for that either). I still disagree - mostly because the kind of widely-directed anger we're seeing does not usually come from successful. well-adjusted, and doing well in life people. It comes from frustrated people.

These are the kinds of people who believe the new socialist regime will give them a better life. The intelligentsia are the ones are the ones telling the peasantry that socialism will make their lives better and not the ones throwing bricks.

========================================

If this is true you should see people who already were underemployed or marginally employed due to low IQ move to the completely unemployable category. ~ Ben at August 11, 2020 4:24 PM

It's not about whether they're employable or underemployed, they're measured if they're employed or seeking employment, if they're participating in the labor market. And by looking for work, or filing for unemployment, they are.

Ben,

You seem confused.

You said the following:

"I won't dispute you that college degree holders have a lower IQ than those 50 years ago."

This claim is factually incorrect.

That you are uninterested in facts that come into conflict with your beliefs is not a surprise.

Conan Says:

"Go away, Artie. I have no patience left for dealing with you."

You have the option to ignore me if you like.

I will continue to correct you when you say things that are in error. That is my prerogative.

"I should have lost my patience with you when you called me a "dishonest loathsome piece of human garbage," but for some reason I stuck it out, hoping you might show some sign of maturity or even a hint of being the intellectual you claim to be."

Good grief... you called me all sorts of names for years before I decided to see how thick your skin was.

Turns out it is paper thin.

In any case, you are dishonest, and many of the positions you defend are in fact loathsome.

The human garbage thing is just my subjective assessment based on your behavior over the years.

You are just an overly sensitive snowflake that likes to dish it out but cannot take it.

Apparently you had Patrick walking on egg shells around you because you flipped out that he referred to you as conehead.

Get over yourself already.

"That's the same James Flynn I cited earlier, who, after investigating the annual increase in IQ worldwide he had observed, "concluded that human beings are not smarter than past generations...." for the reasons I cited.

Learn to read, Artie."

Not only do I know how to read Conan... I know how to read scientific studies such as the meta-analysis provided below from 2014:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4152423/

"The mean effect size for 53 comparisons (N = 3,951) (excluding three atypical studies that inflate the estimates) involving modern (since 1972) Stanford-Binet and Wechsler IQ tests (2.93, 95% CI [2.3, 3.5], IQ points per decade) was comparable to previous estimates of about 3 points per decade, but not consistent with the hypothesis that the Flynn effect is diminishing."

Read that very carefully Conan... the meta-analysis of many studies concluded that the effect is in fact real and is ~3 points per decade.

The data is *not* consistent with the hypothesis that the Flynn effect is diminishing.

In other words, like usual you haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about.

You are like a walking example of Dunning-Kruger.

"We currently have an ongoing pandemic with large portions of society adamantly fighting against wearing masks and in your estimation the deluded people are "college kids with worhtless [sic] degrees in social studies"?"

One the several reasons your posts are tiresome is displayed here: you present this as if it was offered as the ONLY factor, identifier, what-have-you.

It's not. I can tell that, Crid can tell that, Patrick can tell that, {name random passer-by} can tell that, but you're so eager to speak you don't take any time to consider.

An Artemis post contains the absolute lowest content per syllable of anything in the history of this blog. Even the Sadly, No spam had more to say. Again, and again, threads get jacked trying to explain to you that you just aren't reading what was written, as you double down on the idea you couldn't have gotten the wrong idea.
Example: Anyone: "The sky is blue." Artemis: "The sky is NOT always blue, and you're being dishonest." Anyone: "The color of the sky is relevent to the adjacent concept." Arty: "Your concept is flawed because the sky is not always blue."

Go bitch at Will Smith for saying Hitler was a great guy. The people that claimed that's what he said did the same thing you repeat ad nauseum here.

Jesus, go outside.

Radwaste,

What is tiresome is constantly watching a bunch of old folks constantly bitch and moan about younger generations as if this is anything new under the son.

I'll let you in on a little secret, whatever generation you happen to be from is not measurably smarter than the one before or after it in any meaningful sense.

This should be obvious from the fact that things like evolution do not happen that rapidly without extremely potent selection pressures. No such rapid evolutionary event has taken place over the last 100 years.

You also conveniently ignored this part:

"Anti-vax folks, anti-mask folks, climate change deniers, flat earthers, young earth creationists... the list goes on and on. Not all of these people are stupid despite the fact that they latch onto unsupported and illogical nonsense."

The issue at hand has nothing to do with IQ or general intelligence.

It has to do with anti-intellectual conspiracy theory nut jobs.

The primary reason you and others don't like this part is because many folks here have their own unsupported beliefs that align with one or more of these conspiracy theories.

A salient point to keep in mind here is that the reason IQ has been going up isn't because later generations are "smarter" than previous ones (again evolution doesn't take place that quickly in this context without massive selection pressures), it is because they have been exposed to and taught critical thinking skills previous generations were never exposed to.

If you buy into any of those conspiracy theories I mentioned it isn't because you are stupid (even though the belief itself is a stupid one), it is because of a failure in logic and critical thinking.

There is also an argument to be made that folks born prior to the 1980's are in general at a high risk for heavy metals poisoning from the environment due to exposure to leaded gasolines.

Lead and other heavy metal exposure isn't great for cognitive development and logical thinking, but I haven't seen specific studies demonstrating a correlation across generations to these specific environmental factors.

The point being that if we want to get very technical, there at least exists an environmental factor that *could* explain improvements in cognitive function over time from a biological standpoint. No such global environmental factors exist that could explain reduction in cognitive function from one generation to the next if we are talking about the last 50 years.

This whole degradation over time thinking is little more than a religious idea sneaking into popular conservative thought. Generations aren't getting any less intelligent or cognitively capable over time anymore than the patriarchs of the bible lived to be over 800.

Generations aren't getting any less intelligent or cognitively capable over time anymore than the patriarchs of the bible lived to be over 800. ~ Artemis at August 12, 2020 5:39 AM

No one said generations are getting less intelligent or cognitively capable over time.

The argument I made was that the pool of college graduates is larger today as a percentage of the population than it was years ago. That means that, by default, the average IQ of a college graduate is lower than it was years ago when a smaller percentage of the population went to college. That is, unless humans have become smarter over time - and humans haven't (see the Flynn argument I cited).

Learn to read for comprehension, Artie.

Need me to explain it again? Here:

The National Defense University reported in 2016 that the IQ of military officers is lower than it was in the 1980s. The reason? More people are getting college degrees, one of the things that make them eligible to become officers - i.e., the pool of graduates is larger today than it was years ago.

Two-thirds of the new officers commissioned in 2014 would be in the bottom one-third of the class of 1980; 41 percent of new officers in 2014 would not have qualified to be officers by the standards held at the time of World War II.

This trend has not been caused by ... policies; it is a reflection of the expansion of higher education in America. In 1980, 18.6 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds were in college. Today, that number is close to 30 percent. The dramatic rise in college attendance has increased the pool of people eligible to become officers in the military (possession of a bachelor’s degree being one of the chief requirements to be commissioned as an officer in all branches), but it also means that possession of a college degree is a less significant indicator of intelligence now than it once was.

[all emphases mine]

If every US city had a professional sports team in the same league, the quality of play would be lower because the pool of people with the ability to be professional athletes is small and the roster gaps would be filled by people less able.

The same thing happens when professional sports leagues expand. There are too many roster slots and not enough high-caliber athletes to fill them.

Learn to read for comprehension, Artie.

And get over your hangup about "old people." I ain't that old and you ain't that smart.

“Two-thirds of the new officers commissioned in 2014 would be in the bottom one-third of the class of 1980; 41 percent of new officers in 2014 would not have qualified to be officers by the standards held at the time of World War II.
This trend has not been caused by ... policies; it is a reflection of the expansion of higher education in America. In 1980, 18.6 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds were in college. Today, that number is close to 30 percent. The dramatic rise in college attendance has increased the pool of people eligible to become officers in the military (possession of a bachelor’s degree being one of the chief requirements to be commissioned as an officer in all branches), but it also means that possession of a college degree is a less significant indicator of intelligence now than it once was.”

We knew this. It really has been caused by two things. Affirmative action which has invaded even the Service Academies, and an over emphasis on physical fitness that overwhelmed both intelligence and educational standards for the job. The army has always been more impressed with your ability to run a marathon, than write a battle plan, or calculate a gunnery solution.

Back in the seventies and eighties, and for a long time before, the first Math class at USMA was Calculus. It was sink or swim.
We found out at a reunion in 95 that they had started teaching remedial math. You can guess why.

All I've been saying over and over is you aren't supporting your argument Conan.

"And that shift will require smarter and better-educated people."

"The effect this shift will have on folks on the left side of the IQ curve will be profound."

When I asked you to support your claim instead of just making speculations you talked about the Boxer Rebellion and modern male despair. Then you claimed:

"And, in fact, the current unrest destroying out cities is likely being caused by other less-highly-educated groups feeling that pinch."

You followed that by talking about the average IQ of college degree holders and the difficulties some of them have in the marketplace. Thus appearing to imply the rioters were college students or graduates.

Now you say you can't tell what the education level or IQ of the rioters are. As I said above your statement was false. Instead I claimed this was an issue of culture.

"6% of Americans say they've attended one. 46% of those are white, 17% are black.79% are under the age of 49, and 79% lean Democrat."

A statement you appear to confirm.

You've also talked about Flynn and how the median IQ may not be increasing. Assuming that is true your part about needing smarter people isn't an option.

All I am really asking is for you to support the initial claim I objected to. I've seen you and Crid repeat it like religious boilerplate. I get that this is more prediction than fact but as far as I can tell it isn't true or even likely. Given how you've waffled from topic to topic this looks more like a cultural bromide than anything you've put much thought on. But hey, maybe I'm not seeing things. Or maybe I'm not getting what you are trying to say.

All I am really asking is for you to support the initial claim I objected to. I've seen you and Crid repeat it like religious boilerplate.

Ben, you haven't seen the full effect of this trend yet. This is a prediction that the left side of the curve will be adversely affected by continued automation, advances in technology, etc.

Since IQ is a touchy subject in American discourse, we'll use low-skilled labor as a proxy.

Try this article from the World Economic Forum:

Now a new study co-authored by an MIT economist suggests automation has a bigger impact on the labor market and income inequality than previous research would indicate — and identifies the year 1987 as a key inflection point in this process, the moment when jobs lost to automation stopped being replaced by an equal number of similar workplace opportunities.

Within industries adopting automation, the study shows, the average “displacement” (or job loss) from 1947-1987 was 17 percent of jobs, while the average “reinstatement” (new opportunities) was 19 percent. But from 1987-2016, displacement was 16 percent, while reinstatement was just 10 percent. In short, those factory positions or phone-answering jobs are not coming back.

"A lot of the new job opportunities that technology brought from the 1960s to the 1980s benefitted low-skill workers,” Acemoglu adds. “But from the 1980s, and especially in the 1990s and 2000s, there’s a double whammy for low-skill workers: They’re hurt by displacement, and the new tasks that are coming, are coming slower and benefitting high-skill workers.”

Ben, you're using employment as a measure to dispute the prediction, but employment is just a measure of how many people have a job, not a measure of whether that job is in their field of study (if any) or at a level commensurate with their educational attainment (if any). It just says they have a job.

Not all technology advances are increasing productivity and making workers more valuable. That shift is really gonna hurt low-skilled workers because that technology is about lowering costs by automating rote jobs.

Think of a self-checkout system in your supermarket or pharmacy: It reduces labor costs without making the task more efficient. The difference is the work is done by you, not paid employees. These kinds of systems are what Acemoglu and Restrepo have termed “so-so technologies,” because of the minimal value they offer.

"So-so technologies are not really doing a fantastic job, nobody’s enthusiastic about going one-by-one through their items at checkout, and nobody likes it when the airline they’re calling puts them through automated menus,” Acemoglu says. “So-so technologies are cost-saving devices for firms that just reduce their costs a little bit but don’t increase productivity by much. They create the usual displacement effect but don’t benefit other workers that much, and firms have no reason to hire more workers or pay other workers more."

Ben, I do agree with you on one thing you said. The so-so automation is being driven mainly by government-imposed costs of hiring people. However, a big chunk of automation is being driven by productivity increases.

Automation, whether government or technology driven, will continue to adversely affect this on the left side of the IQ curve. It has also begun affecting those within one standard deviation to the right of the mean, moving up the skill ladder.

Conan Says:

"The argument I made was that the pool of college graduates is larger today as a percentage of the population than it was years ago. That means that, by default, the average IQ of a college graduate is lower than it was years ago when a smaller percentage of the population went to college. That is, unless humans have become smarter over time - and humans haven't (see the Flynn argument I cited)."

Conan, what you are doing here is committing a modified version of the fallacy of equivocation.

You are switching between IQ and "smarter" mid stream in your argument.

The average IQ of a college graduate isn't dropping specifically because the relative IQ of the population is in fact going up over time.

That IQ and general intelligence are not the same things is a different but related conversation.

It is both true that humans have not evolved to be "smarter" and that relative IQs have been increasing.

Your IQ argument is wrong in part because you are switching between IQ and "smartness" as if they are the same things when they aren't.

Now to address the "smartness" version of your argument. There is also no evidence to support this contention either.

While it is true that more people are going to college, all we can reasonably conclude is that there are *more* less intelligent people going to college overall, but we cannot conclude without evidence that the distribution of intelligences looks any different than it did in the past.

The average intelligence is determined by the distribution.

Just as we have *more* less intelligent folks attending university, we ALSO have more higher intelligence folks attending university.

These two facts will tend to offset one another. To demonstrate that they do not offset one another would require you to present data and evidence related to the distribution of college attendees, but you haven't actually done that.

You are just asserting something as a truism based on what you *feel* to be true, but your feelings hold no weight when it comes to understanding enormous systems like nation wide college admissions and attendance.

Ben Says:

"All I've been saying over and over is you aren't supporting your argument Conan."

"When I asked you to support your claim instead of just making speculations you talked about the Boxer Rebellion and modern male despair."

"You followed that by talking about the average IQ of college degree holders and the difficulties some of them have in the marketplace."

He will continue to jump all over the place until the original unsupported point is lost and he can claim any kind of victory on a completely tangential piece of minutia.

This isn't about supporting his original point... is is about being right about *something*.

Your request for evidence will be ignored and he will not concede that he made an unsupported statement based entirely on his own personal speculation either.

Par for the course.

The average IQ of a college graduate isn't dropping specifically because the relative IQ of the population is in fact going up over time.

Okay, let's look at it - yet again - this time from a different angle.

According to GSS data, the mean IQ score of a college graduate by decade has been declining:

• 1960s - 112.3
• 1970s - 109.1
• 1980s - 106.0
• 1990s - 103.9
• 2000s - 102.0
• 2020s - 100.0

GSS data also show that the mean IQ of Americans with advanced degrees has dropped over time:

• 1970s - 115.7
• 1980s - 112.7
• 1990s - 110.0
• 2000s - 107.1

In addition, in 2018, researchers in Norway found that IQ scores have been dropping since the '70s.

A pair of researchers with the Ragnar Frisch Centre for Economic Research in Norway has found that IQ test scores have been slowly dropping over the past several decades. In their paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Bernt Bratsberg and Ole Rogeberg describe their study and the results they found. They also offer some possible explanations for their findings.

Prior studies have shown that people grew smarter over the first part of last century, as measured by the intelligence quotient—a trend that was dubbed the Flynn effect. Various theories have been proposed to explain this apparent brightening of the human mind, such as better nutrition, health care, education, etc, all factors that might help people grow into smarter adults than they would have otherwise. But, now, according to the researchers in Norway, that trend has ended. Instead of getting smarter, humans have started getting dumber.

The study by the team consisted of analyzing IQ test results from young men entering Norway's national service (compulsory military duty) during the years 1970 to 2009. In all, 730,000 test results were accounted for. In studying the data, the researchers found that scores declined by an average of seven points per generation, a clear reversal of test results going back approximately 70 years.

[...]

Sadly, other researchers have found similar results. A British team recently found IQ score results falling by 2.5 to 4.3 points every decade since approximately the end of the second world war.

If that's not enough, researchers have found that vocabulary in adults in the US has shown a marked decline since 1974. Vocabulary is an integral component of verbal intelligence.

So, Artie, you can parse IQ vs. smarter all you want. My point was, is, and shall remain valid.

You are mixing all kinds of things again Conan. You need to keep things separate and clean. You talk a bit about low income/skill workers and then you go off about people not working in their field of study. Low skill workers don't have a field of study. These are different groups. You complain that the metric I'm looking at doesn't account for "at a level commensurate with their educational attainment". That is a subjective measurement. You are talking about feelings. This is a notoriously unreliable metric, and one that only applies to college graduates.

From the article you quoted (your own quote even):
“But from the 1980s, and especially in the 1990s and 2000s, there’s a double whammy for low-skill workers: They’re hurt by displacement, and the new tasks that are coming, are coming slower and benefitting high-skill workers.”

The problem with your argument here is the labor participation rate actually increased over this time period. More people had jobs. The peak was around 2000. You are falling into a classification issue by only looking at 'low skilled jobs'. Yes that category dropped in quantity. But the people who were working those jobs didn't fall out of the workforce. They moved from low skill to semi-skilled jobs.

You have the same issue with the second article you linked. Yes millions of jobs are eliminated every year. But look at that trend line over time. This is not a new trend and it is tracking population growth. Most buggy whip making jobs are gone and it isn't a bad thing that they are gone.

“But, now, according to the researchers in Norway, that trend has ended. Instead of getting smarter, humans have started getting dumber.”

I can give you the simple three word answer. Reliable birth control.

Higher IQ people are better on average at almost everything, including controlling their reproduction, and using birth control. Lower IQ people are self selecting to have more kids.

Doesn’t take much more than that to push the average in a downward direction.

Had an anthropology professor in college who did quite a few studies of native Easter Islanders. (Rapa Nui) Her conclusion was that the survivors of the famine and all out warfare on the island, were some of the most intelligent people in the world.
Survivalist situations put pressure on IQ in a upward direction.

The land of plenty here in the US does not.

Conan Says:

We've already been through this, relative IQ has increased 3 points per decade.

This is well established across multiple studies and confirmed by meta-analysis of those studies.

This means that an IQ score of ~112 in the 1960s is equivalent to an IQ of ~94 in the 2020's.

This means that when we account for the Flynn Effect there is no discernable difference in the IQ scores of college attendees over that time frame.

This is like accounting for inflation Conan.

While it is true that salaries have increased from the 1960's to the 2020's... but the buying power of the average worker has actually decreased.

We shouldn't ignore inflation when discussing economics and we shouldn't ignore the Flynn effect when discussing IQ across decades.

We need to compare apples to apples or this conversation is meaningless.

"So, Artie, you can parse IQ vs. smarter all you want."

That isn't parsing Conan, you need to remain consistent with what we are talking about.

Are we talking about IQ or general levels of "smartness"... they don't generally correlate the way you want in specific situations.

The reason why the Flynn effect doesn't actually imply people are getting smarter is precisely because IQ isn't perfectly correlated with "smartness" in a general sense.

IQ only measures a subset of intelligence related skills. Pattern recognition for example is well accounted for in IQ tests, as is spatial reasoning, but other items aren't so easily captured.

What I think we can say is that we are training our youth to be better at recognizing patterns and to be better at spatial awareness than generations past... but maybe this has come at the expense of vocabulary.

General intelligence is a tough nut to crack.

Do you honestly believe that from 1974 until now the American population has become less capable of assimilating new words?... or is it more reasonable to conclude that they have been exposed to different things and built different skills?

For example, almost everyone in modern schools is exposed to some kinds of computer programming which by definition requires understanding of logical structure and specialized syntax.

Unfortunately education is often a zero sum game, every hour one spends learning one skill is an hour they do not focus on another skill.

I bet you lack all of the skills and knowledge to survive back in the 1800's for example... that doesn't make you stupid, it means you are intellectually adapted for a different era.

Higher IQ people are better on average at almost everything, including controlling their reproduction, and using birth control. Lower IQ people are self selecting to have more kids. ~ Isab at August 12, 2020 11:06 AM

Actually, researchers determined higher birth rates among less affluent people was not the cause of declining IQs.

The Norwegian researchers determined the primary driver is environmental factors - pollution, food additives, etc.

"Warm out today. Don't punch the tar baby." - Brer Rabbit

The Norwegian researchers determined the primary driver is environmental factors - pollution, food additives, etc.

Conan the Grammarian at August 12, 2020 12:17 PM

I’d have to see the data. Might be true in homogenous Norway, but I doubt it. Probably not in the US.

I think that the Norwegian scientists would have a hard time determining causation outside of a controlled lab experiment which it is unethical to do with humans.
Just too many factors to quantify. What they have is conjecture.
Use of wood and coal fires for heating is way down. Late 20th century humans have better air indoors than any group in the last several thousand years, so what kind of pollution are they talking about? Blood lead levels are way down since we took it out of the gas in 1970’s.
It might be a simple as indoor lifestyle and low vitamin D levels. But since they don’t seem to be running any kind of screening for that, how would they know?

Chances are good that they are failing to see the elephant in the room. The largest factor in intelligence by far is the genetic one.

I hope this answers your concerns, Ben.

You talk a bit about low income/skill workers and then you go off about people not working in their field of study. Low skill workers don't have a field of study. ~ Ben at August 12, 2020 11:01 AM

I think you're missing the forest for the trees, there, Ben.

These folks my not have a "field of study," but they do have a field of experience - i.e., fast food worker, waiter, barista, janitor, taxi cab driver, cashier, telemarketer, CSR, etc. To call their jobs "unskilled" does not mean they don't have some specific experience in doing a job that an employer might value.

You used the Labor Force Participation Rate to rebut the claim that technological advances have caused job losses, because it was holding steady at 66%. Your contention was that if these people were pushed out of a job by technology that, over time, the rate would show it in fewer labor force participants.

However, the LFPR does no such thing. It counts people without jobs and looking for one alongside people with jobs. It counts people actively participating in the labor force, or trying to.

Whether I call them people working below their qualifications or unhappy in their jobs doesn't matter. They're counted. The number won't change when they lose their job and look for another.

If I'm a telemarketer and I get pushed out of my job by a robo-dialer, I apply for unemployment. I'm counted as a labor force participant because I've told the unemployment bureau that I'm looking for a job.

Now, let's say I take a job in fast food. I'm still counted as a participant in the labor force by the LFPR, even though I'm someone who got pushed out of my job by technology advances and had to take a job in a different field.

The problem with your argument here is the labor participation rate actually increased over this time period. More people had jobs. The peak was around 2000. You are falling into a classification issue by only looking at 'low skilled jobs'. Yes that category dropped in quantity. But the people who were working those jobs didn't fall out of the workforce. They moved from low skill to semi-skilled jobs. ~ Ben at August 12, 2020 11:01 AM

Now who's speculating? How do you know what type of job they moved to?

They could have moved to another low-skill job, one not yet fully displace by automation. Perhaps they moved from telemarketer to fast food worker or CSR.

Another factor causing growth is that people who had dropped out of the labor force began returning to it in mid-2016. Remember, all the have to do is look for a job to be counted; they don't have to actually have one.

"Warm out today. Don't punch the tar baby." - Brer Rabbit ~ Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at August 12, 2020 12:24 PM

Thanks. Sometimes I'm a little too stubborn, but I'm slowly learning to not take Artie's bait.

Isab Says:

"Higher IQ people are better on average at almost everything, including controlling their reproduction, and using birth control. Lower IQ people are self selecting to have more kids."

Conservatives have been self selecting to have more kids than liberals for quite a while now.

It's well documented in the literature.

Something tells me you aren't going to be so quick to attach low IQ to conservative political affiliation.

This statement was really meant for another group... I wonder what that group could be...

"I’d have to see the data. Might be true in homogenous Norway, but I doubt it. Probably not in the US."

Ah... and there it is, the racist dog whistle of "homogeneous countries".

No Conan, I'm not missing the forest for the trees. You are mixing wildly different people as if they are the same. People without a high school diploma are not the same group as people with a degree in critical race theory.

And no speculation Conan.

"... identifies the year 1987 as a key inflection point in this process, the moment when jobs lost to automation stopped being replaced by an equal number of similar workplace opportunities."

You can look up the labor force participation rate by educational attainment. You can look it up by economic quintile. It all says the same thing. From 1965 to 2000 the total labor force participation rate went from 59% to 67%. Your article is right that you see an inflection point around 1990. That is where you see people moving from unskilled to the semi-skilled category. Now, do I know for every single person? Of course not. A change of that magnitude represents around 25 million people. Many of those people aged out of the labor force and retired. They were replaced with younger people with a higher degree of education (I won't claim quality just credentiation).

"Your contention was that if these people were pushed out of a job by technology that, over time, the rate would show it in fewer labor force participants.

However, the LFPR does no such thing."

Actually it does and it has done that. For one thing I think you are putting too much faith in a telephone survey. Look up exactly how the unemployed or looking for work is counted. It isn't as amazing or accurate as you appear to think. As for people getting pushed out of the labor force, this happened over the 2008 to 2020 time period. And it happened to exactly the cohort you are trying to talk about. The labor force for the general population fell from 66% to 63%, a loss of around 10 million jobs. The majority of those jobs were from the less educated. For those without even a high school diploma you saw the unemployment rate jump from 7% to 15%. It then came down, but those people didn't get new jobs. They moved from employed to unemployed to out of the labor force. That was why unemployment over the Obama years was so low. People weren't finding jobs. They were moving out of the labor force.

This is exactly the phenomenon you are describing Conan. It happened to exactly the people you are talking about. But it didn't happen for the reason you described. This was purely a government regulation result. After all the trend completely reversed after 2017. And it reversed mainly for those same low education attainment people.

Ben,

You've been accused of missing the forest for the trees... you are merely steps away from being accused of "parsing" because you notice Conan shift between his chosen definition of a word or concept from one part of his argument to the next.

As a told you before, asking Conan to back up his claims with evidence doesn't result in a search for truth or understanding... it becomes a game for him to find a way to weasel out of admitting he asserted something as fact that was merely his unsubstantiated speculation.

Just enjoy the ride and don't take anything he says too seriously, it is more fun that way.

Don’t stop too quickly, Ben, Artie might get lodged up there.