Intelligence Privilege

[NobleSavage]

Seriously, why shouldn't dumb people get the privilege of going to Stanford or Harvard? If they want a diverse student body they need to let in average and stupid people as well.

 

[Metaphor]

oh? you think so?
then why is the garbage collector unemployment rate 9.8% and the physician unemployment rate 0.8%?

You realise this goes exactly against your point, right? It means that it is really hard to become qualified to be a surgeon, and so very few people can do it, so a surgeon is not going to be unemployed for very long as long as they want to work.

On the other hand, it's much easier to be a garbage collector, it's much simpler than surgery and more prone to automation, and garbage collectors are more easily replaceable, so their unemployment rate is higher.

You appear to seriously think that years of medical school followed by years of gruelling training is easy. It is not.

A friend of mine is a physician. She is by far and away the smartest person I know. Dazzlingly smart. But I suspect she's just about average smartness for a physician.

and given a choice i'd rather a garbage collector perform surgery on me than a sub-saharan african warlord... what's your point?

It's harder to be a surgeon than it is to be a garbage collector.

 

[maxparrish]

It's simply not true that intelligence is something you are born with like skin color or gender.

You are born with a potential, but circumstance will dictate how much of that potential is realized.

If you are born to poor uneducated parents then you will not be exposed to many of the same things you would be exposed to if your parents were physicists or lawyers. Your growing intelligence will be deprived.

So when we look at a person, the expression of their intelligence is a combination of innate attributes and the pure luck of circumstance. Some are lucky to have circumstances that bring out more of their potential than others.

A distinction without a difference. All these factors are unearned advantages and disadvantages, created by nature, parents, place of birth, etc. "Luck" does not exist, it is nature's unfairness. No one chooses to be born with little potential, female, short, handicapped, or in Detroit. It is unjust to discriminate against people for any attribute not of their own making.

 

[maxparrish]

Seriously, why shouldn't dumb people get the privilege of going to Stanford or Harvard? If they want a diverse student body they need to let in average and stupid people as well.

Philosophically you are spot on, especially so for public education. Why should any person because of skin color, or limited intelligence, be discriminated against in public universities? It's public money that is being spent, and as members of the commonweal they deserve equal access and equal opportunity.

 

[Nexus]

You realise this goes exactly against your point, right? It means that it is really hard to become qualified to be a surgeon, and so very few people can do it, so a surgeon is not going to be unemployed for very long as long as they want to work.

The primary impediment for doctors is the artificial restrictions by their licencing boards. They essentially have the strongest quasi-union in the country. It varies by specialty of course. Go to studentdoctors.net and read the pathology boards. There are many lamentations there due to the poor job market for pathologists because the specialty board hasn't protected them well enough.

 

[untermensche]

It's simply not true that intelligence is something you are born with like skin color or gender.

You are born with a potential, but circumstance will dictate how much of that potential is realized.

If you are born to poor uneducated parents then you will not be exposed to many of the same things you would be exposed to if your parents were physicists or lawyers. Your growing intelligence will be deprived.

So when we look at a person, the expression of their intelligence is a combination of innate attributes and the pure luck of circumstance. Some are lucky to have circumstances that bring out more of their potential than others.

A distinction without a difference. All these factors are unearned advantages and disadvantages, created by nature, parents, place of birth, etc. "Luck" does not exist, it is nature's unfairness. No one chooses to be born with little potential, female, short, handicapped, or in Detroit. It is unjust to discriminate against people for any attribute not of their own making.

Luck does not exist?

Some are not born into poverty in the inner city and some are not born in the lap of luxury?

Where one is born is pure luck. Unless you think some mystical force is involved.

 

[dismal]

Some folks are missing the more important implications of intelligence discrimination; its unfair and unjust. Like any unfair discrimination it is based on unearned attributes, among them: race, gender, looks, height, athletic ability, ethnicity, national origin, family connections, intelligence, social talents, and creative abilities.

Hence it is only just that we have an affirmative action program for the stupid and unsociable, perhaps we need quotas for our universities and workplaces. We should measure the rate of promotion for 'unequal' representation, differing pay scales, etc.

It's time to ban intelligence discrimination, in all its sinister forms.

Beauty Bias aka Appearance Discrimination aka Looksism is in fact a youthful grievance in the making.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/05/appearance_discrimination

 

[prideandfall]

per that same website there are approximately 21,000 (and some change) garbage collectors in the US.
It says the number will increase by 16%, or 21,600. Which implies the actual number is approximately 135,000

okay, i misread one number listing - the site was saying 21k jobs are going to be available in the next 10 years.
but it also says 193k jobs are going to be available for physicians, so either way the numbers are staggeringly in favor of physicians for both individual pay under all scenarios, and for overall pay for the profession on the whole.

Also,
http://www.physiciansweekly.com/general-surgeons-shortage/
says there are currently 18,000 general surgeons in US

quite honestly, i don't care what that website says - i'm interested in what can be gleaned for both professions for single point comparisons, playing a game of "who can google up a source that best fits their argument" sounds incredibly boring to me.

So my theories (at least the one about pay) are looking quite good.

just going off the website i linked:
except not really, as garbage collectors earned a collective 4,725,000,000 (135k x 35k average)
vs. 112,200,000,000 (600k x 187k average)

if you want to find some other figures for both professions that contradict what the site i listed shows, i'm happy to run theoreticals based on those compared numbers - but the available sources are totally disproving your hypothesis.
hell, even if you go with 18k and assume 187k salary that's 3,366,000,000, which is 3/4th of the wealth for 8% of the total number of workers.

 

[prideandfall]

You realise this goes exactly against your point, right? It means that it is really hard to become qualified to be a surgeon, and so very few people can do it, so a surgeon is not going to be unemployed for very long as long as they want to work.

actually, no it doesn't - you just assume that it does.
what it means is that there are less unemployed physicians, and nothing more than that.

On the other hand, it's much easier to be a garbage collector, it's much simpler than surgery and more prone to automation, and garbage collectors are more easily replaceable, so their unemployment rate is higher.

i completely disagree with your central concept.
sure, it's easier to *become* a garbage collector, but i have a very serious issue with the idea that it's easier to *be* one.

You appear to seriously think that years of medical school followed by years of gruelling training is easy. It is not.

at what point did i ever imply any such thing?

A friend of mine is a physician. She is by far and away the smartest person I know. Dazzlingly smart. But I suspect she's just about average smartness for a physician.

and?

It's harder to be a surgeon than it is to be a garbage collector.

firstly, your conclusion in no way follows from your opening statement.
secondly, your conclusion is spurious at best and a blind assumption based on no realistic data at worst.

 

[EricK]

okay, i misread one number listing - the site was saying 21k jobs are going to be available in the next 10 years.
but it also says 193k jobs are going to be available for physicians, so either way the numbers are staggeringly in favor of physicians for both individual pay under all scenarios, and for overall pay for the profession on the whole.

Also,
http://www.physiciansweekly.com/general-surgeons-shortage/
says there are currently 18,000 general surgeons in US

quite honestly, i don't care what that website says - i'm interested in what can be gleaned for both professions for single point comparisons, playing a game of "who can google up a source that best fits their argument" sounds incredibly boring to me.

So my theories (at least the one about pay) are looking quite good.

just going off the website i linked:
except not really, as garbage collectors earned a collective 4,725,000,000 (135k x 35k average)
vs. 112,200,000,000 (600k x 187k average)

if you want to find some other figures for both professions that contradict what the site i listed shows, i'm happy to run theoreticals based on those compared numbers - but the available sources are totally disproving your hypothesis.
hell, even if you go with 18k and assume 187k salary that's 3,366,000,000, which is 3/4th of the wealth for 8% of the total number of workers.

You did start off talking about surgeons, but for some reason switched to physicians. I looked up the number for surgeons.

The number of workers is irrelevant though. Both surgeons and garbage collectors provide a service to society. Ideally, the amount we pay, in total, for each of those two services should reflect how important each is. It is true that this money then gets divided by the number of workers in each profession - so the profession which employs more gets less per person. But that is no reflection on how much society is valuing the job that is being done.

And I am still not convinced that an individual garbage man saves that many lives. Suppose, currently, garbage gets collected every two weeks. Imagine that the number of garbage men were cut in half, but they don't work any harder, so now garbage only gets collected every four weeks. I doubt we'd see any noticeable increase in the death rate. If the same thing happened to surgeons so only half the number of operations were performed each week then I expect we would see an increase in the death rate.

 

[Trausti]

no, they couldn't - and i couldn't do their job either, so i don't see what difference it makes.

You are paid more because you likely have skills and knowledge that the cleaning crew does not.

sure, absolutely - and they have skills and knowledge that i don't have, so again i don't see the difference.

You presumably have more responsibility and stress than they do.

ha! good god no.
i spend 7 hours a day watching netflix, with an hour a day also watching netflix while incidentally reaching over and clicking 'yes' or 'next' to some patch running on a laptop.

If the computers go down, that's your head on the block.

it really isn't, that's so not how IT support works. also, 'the computers going down' is functionally impossible to ever have happen.

Things don't come to a halt if the cleaning crew forgets to empty a trash can.

things also don't come to a halt if someone's H key is a little bit sticky - which is far more analogies to 'forgets to empty a trash can'.
'if the computers go down' is more akin to 'if no cleaning is done on any part of the building for a month' - the job they do is far more vital to the day-to-day functioning of a corporate office than what i do.

Your employer made the decision that your labor is more valuable than the custodial staff. If if bothers you that the cleaning crew makes less than you, then you to ought share your perceived unjustly earned wages with them. Otherwise, you're just part of the problem and contributing to their oppression. You should check your intelligence privilege.

 

[untermensche]

Your employer made the decision that your labor is more valuable than the custodial staff. If if bothers you that the cleaning crew makes less than you, then you to ought share your perceived unjustly earned wages with them. Otherwise, you're just part of the problem and contributing to their oppression. You should check your intelligence privilege.

This is nothing more than might makes right.

It is immorality.

 

[prideandfall]

You did start off talking about surgeons, but for some reason switched to physicians. I looked up the number for surgeons.

that's very true - because quite honestly, though it's interesting in a sense, this entire divergent line of dialogue is stupid and counter-productive to the point of the thread, and i'm quite bored of it.

Ideally, the amount we pay, in total, for each of those two services should reflect how important each is.

which was definitely my point in the first place, yes.

And I am still not convinced that an individual garbage man saves that many lives.

not directly, to be sure, it's not really like you can tally the number of individuals and assign it to one worker per city block.
but sanitation is, beyond any shred of question for any person even remotely educated about human social infrastructure, in the top 5 biggest health improving (and specifically relevant to this conversation, death preventing) things that can possibly exist.
the health impact of sanitation on society - and for the purposes of this convo let's just say the continental US - is way, WAY bigger than the health impact of medical professionals in optional care facilities, or even of trauma specialists in emergency facilities.

Suppose, currently, garbage gets collected every two weeks. Imagine that the number of garbage men were cut in half, but they don't work any harder, so now garbage only gets collected every four weeks. I doubt we'd see any noticeable increase in the death rate. If the same thing happened to surgeons so only half the number of operations were performed each week then I expect we would see an increase in the death rate.

wow, what are you basing this on? the sanitation needs of romford?

maybe this is just a massive cultural difference, god knows americans are slovenly mother fuckers, but the idea of trash collection once every 2 weeks in a major population center is absurd, and trash every month is bordering on the apocalypse.
you take an urban population center of less than 5 square miles with a population density of more than 1.5 million people and try to collect trash every 4 weeks and you're going to start seeing a not totally insignificant breakdown in society.

 

[maxparrish]

A distinction without a difference. All these factors are unearned advantages and disadvantages, created by nature, parents, place of birth, etc. "Luck" does not exist, it is nature's unfairness. No one chooses to be born with little potential, female, short, handicapped, or in Detroit. It is unjust to discriminate against people for any attribute not of their own making.

Luck does not exist?

Some are not born into poverty in the inner city and some are not born in the lap of luxury?

Where one is born is pure luck. Unless you think some mystical force is involved.

There cannot be luck involved if it is unfair. It is widely believed that gender should not be a factor in insurance rating, such taking into account the increased medical costs for women. It's not their fault they are women and cost more to to treat, it is nature's injustice. As injustice implies someone is at fault, how can it be luck?

Ane if it is luck, then it is not a matter of an injustice needing "redressed" - its just the way it is.

 

[Trausti]

Your employer made the decision that your labor is more valuable than the custodial staff. If if bothers you that the cleaning crew makes less than you, then you to ought share your perceived unjustly earned wages with them. Otherwise, you're just part of the problem and contributing to their oppression. You should check your intelligence privilege.

This is nothing more than might makes right.

It is immorality.

Oh nonsense. There is no might. The employer offered certain pay for certain work. The employees accepted the offer. Why would the employer pay more than what it values for the labor? Who willing pays more for anything than what they think it is worth? And, returning to the OP, intellectual work (such as IT, accounting, law) tends to garner higher wages because the pool of candidates who can do the work (i.e., are qualified and experienced) is smaller and the value of the work greater.

 

[EricK]

that's very true - because quite honestly, though it's interesting in a sense, this entire divergent line of dialogue is stupid and counter-productive to the point of the thread, and i'm quite bored of it.

Ideally, the amount we pay, in total, for each of those two services should reflect how important each is.

which was definitely my point in the first place, yes.

And I am still not convinced that an individual garbage man saves that many lives.

not directly, to be sure, it's not really like you can tally the number of individuals and assign it to one worker per city block.
but sanitation is, beyond any shred of question for any person even remotely educated about human social infrastructure, in the top 5 biggest health improving (and specifically relevant to this conversation, death preventing) things that can possibly exist.
the health impact of sanitation on society - and for the purposes of this convo let's just say the continental US - is way, WAY bigger than the health impact of medical professionals in optional care facilities, or even of trauma specialists in emergency facilities.

Suppose, currently, garbage gets collected every two weeks. Imagine that the number of garbage men were cut in half, but they don't work any harder, so now garbage only gets collected every four weeks. I doubt we'd see any noticeable increase in the death rate. If the same thing happened to surgeons so only half the number of operations were performed each week then I expect we would see an increase in the death rate.

wow, what are you basing this on? the sanitation needs of romford?

maybe this is just a massive cultural difference, god knows americans are slovenly mother fuckers, but the idea of trash collection once every 2 weeks in a major population center is absurd, and trash every month is bordering on the apocalypse.
you take an urban population center of less than 5 square miles with a population density of more than 1.5 million people and try to collect trash every 4 weeks and you're going to start seeing a not totally insignificant breakdown in society.

I live alone, and probably only generate enough rubbish to be worth collecting every two weeks. Trash itself is collected more often. But the figures I used don't matter, because I was talking about a ratio. However often your trash is collected there, if it was collected half as often, it might be unpleasant in some ways, but there wouldn't be much increase in deaths.

Also, although sanitation has been majorly important in reducing death rates, that is not solely (or even largely) down to frequent garbage collection. Clean, disease free, water is far more important. Of course if you are going to include all the people who work in sanitation, their total earnings will be way higher than medical professionals in optional care facilities.

 

[untermensche]

This is nothing more than might makes right.

It is immorality.

Oh nonsense. There is no might. The employer offered certain pay for certain work. The employees accepted the offer. Why would the employer pay more than what it values for the labor? Who willing pays more for anything than what they think it is worth? And, returning to the OP, intellectual work (such as IT, accounting, law) tends to garner higher wages because the pool of candidates who can do the work (i.e., are qualified and experienced) is smaller and the value of the work greater.

You say the decision is right simply because the owner makes it.

The owner has all real power in the business. That is might.

So your position is nothing more than might makes right.

 

[Trausti]

Oh nonsense. There is no might. The employer offered certain pay for certain work. The employees accepted the offer. Why would the employer pay more than what it values for the labor? Who willing pays more for anything than what they think it is worth? And, returning to the OP, intellectual work (such as IT, accounting, law) tends to garner higher wages because the pool of candidates who can do the work (i.e., are qualified and experienced) is smaller and the value of the work greater.

You say the decision is right simply because the owner makes it.

The owner has all real power in the business. That is might.

So your position is nothing more than might makes right.

Oh good grief. If there were a shortage of people willing to do janitorial work, than the employer would have to pay more. So much for might.

 

[Derec]

but sanitation is, beyond any shred of question for any person even remotely educated about human social infrastructure, in the top 5 biggest health improving (and specifically relevant to this conversation, death preventing) things that can possibly exist.

As a system, sure, but that does not mean that individual garbage collectors are nearly as valuable as more skilled professions.

 

[untermensche]

You say the decision is right simply because the owner makes it.

The owner has all real power in the business. That is might.

So your position is nothing more than might makes right.

Oh good grief. If there were a shortage of people willing to do janitorial work, than the employer would have to pay more. So much for might.

The owner uses circumstance to pay the janitor as little as possible.

That is not justice in any way. It is merely nice for the owner. The person with the power to behave unjustly.