[sokoloff]

This reads to me that only being capable of doing an embarrassingly small task is the problem. If that’s your ability, you’d prefer a world where that’s possible to one where the minimum floor for ability is higher than your own.

[oneoff786]

You’d prefer a job where you can develop some sort of skill and grow at the company; rather than hit a terminal position of sedentary button pusher.

[sokoloff]

Yes, on average, people would prefer to be more capable rather than less.

Not everyone is equally capable, which implies that some people are on the left side of the distribution. Some jobs that simplify the essential actions bring the job to meet the capabilities of the worker.

[oneoff786]

It’s a misleading argument. People can be trained on the job for many things and that’s how it’s historically worked.

Lowering the bar is not needed or helpful. People who are so incapable that these jobs are their peak potential should probably just be on social programs.

[sokoloff]

Why should X% of people be on social programs if 75% of them can type a number from the parsley tag into the computer (or scan the tag on the parsley)? Isn't it a more dignified life to have a purpose of helping your fellow humans select and pay for their groceries than to sit around being paid by a social program because we didn't want to make cashiers' jobs more automated? I think for those people lowering the bar is helpful to their psyche.

(I had a family member, since passed, who was significantly mentally handicapped by a difficult birth sequence. She loved nothing more than to feel like she was included and being helpful to the limits of her ability.)

[oneoff786]

Being supported by social programs does not mean you can’t work. It just means you’re not going to starve to death if you don’t.

[gombosg]

This reminds me of this video:

Jordan Peterson - What Kind Of Job Fits Your IQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2mxdrTP-os