Quote Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name View Post
People never asked to become obsolete. When the market moves faster than people anticipate, we should not blame them for having to live off of others in order to support themselves. What we should do, is put in place structures to allow workers to obtain new skills, while they live off the dole so that they can become not obsolete anymore. Train them as electricians, plumbers, engineers, scientists, whatever. Instead, they must face the same scenario that young students do, where they must take on student debt and leave the work force in order to obtain new skills, while at the same time take care of a family, a mortgage, car payments, insurance. They have no mobility and I don't think we should punish entire families because they did not anticipate the future of the manufacturing sector.
I'd agree they are the victims of progress. I think I came out a bit harsh against them because I was arguing against the article.

Back before the crash, could we really blame them? Unemployment in mid-2007 was 4.4%. Today it is "7.8%", I put quotes there because that number is higher than it really is, since those who are unemployed and not looking for work are not counted among other things.
Oh, most kids were definitely told by school and society that you just had to go to college, get a degree, and you were set. So I'd blame the kids a little bit for listening, but most of the blame definitely goes to the people who were telling them that.

CR, why does your world view seem to have more to do with "What are you good for?" instead of "What can you be good for?"
Too often people will talk about their potential to be something. But just having potential doesn't matter unless the person is working to realize that potential.

People need to start placing a higher premium on someone's right to work, because when it comes down to it there's not a single job that can't eventually be replaced by a couple of rich guys and a few robots given enough time and technology.
I might nitpick a bit with that. But my main contention is that new jobs are always being created, and that saying someone has a 'right' to work and then preventing the use of machines to replace them holds us back as a society, instead of allowing us to advance economically and with new innovations. I'd much rather give displaced workers some technical training.

Which is only tangential to the point Rhy was trying to make. Here's a question: whose contribution to society is greater? That of the teacher, or that of the patent lawyer?

Judging by the hourly rates they command you would say the patent lawyer. In reality, though, the rates and profession of "patent lawyer" are entirely artificial and created as a byproduct of something else (arguably a broken patent system which is like a property bubble on the one hand, and the desire to patent things on the other). Whereas the teacher provides a basic service which is fundamental to our society.

So it used to be that while teacher was perhaps not paid the same as a lawyer, the two would be about equal in status.

Now that's long since changed, but the fundamental issue is that if you determine the status or worth of an individual purely by how much money they make you do not necessarily end up with a reasonable or fair assessment of their contributions to society.
I see your point. I don't always agree with how some people get paid (especially, say, wall st investors - use index funds people!).

Bu I'd disagree that teachers aren't highly respected by many. Though the reason they are respected is still because of their job, and what they do. That's what they offer to society.

CR