What to do with stupid people?

Great Debates
81

I think that’s exactly who the OP is talking about, at least in part.

Well, okay, what should be done with you? :smiley:

Seriously, why do you think the OP was asking only the “smart” Dopers? We’ve got all kinds here. What forms of education, job placement and academic advising would be helpful to those people who are not college material? We’ve spent a huge amount of time and money in the last 50 years pushing everyone to go to college. It doesn’t seem to be working, it’s just frustrating people and pushing up the cost of higher education, without producing a more educated, intelligent, productive and happy population. Let’s talk about trying something else.

I don’t know, are you? I’m not, at least not in this area. That’s pretty much been my whole point.

82

But the end result of this disposable workforce is an ever-growing sector of society that cannot self-sustain. Americans generally don’t like the idea of welfare for the able-bodied. So the problem gets bigger with each generation. Do you believe we’re prepared, financially or otherwise, to support an ever-growing population of people who aren’t qualified to do higher-end jobs?

83

It must be the individuals within the society that “decide what to do with” the members of that society that are not able to function at a competitive level. All the programs in the world won’t be able to do so.

I know a man who was institutionalized for mental retardation. His “functional age” was officially three years old. He was also wheel chair bound. He languished in the state system being encouraged to do the most simple of small tasks in “workshops” until someone, a single individual in the “system” found out that he had skills that don’t show on tests.

He was extraordinarily honest. He was extraordinarily reliable. He was easily able to move in a known environment on verbal requests. He was able to learn routines by memorization with coaching. He now works collecting, and shredding documents in an administration building. He is illiterate. That is a plus, when handling confidential documents. He is friendly, and courteous, although not particularly verbally expressive. He says “Hi, got papers?” “Thank you.” yes and no, and another dozen or so useful phrases. It’s all he needs. He gets paid a fairly decent wage, now. Because honesty, reliability, and attention to responsibilities are far more rare in our population than intelligence. That doesn’t even include diligence, courtesy, kindness, and a dozen other unmeasurable aspects of human character.

The answer is you. You decide what the people who cannot decide will get out of life.

Tris

84

My OP certainly was not asking about diagnosable retardates, with IQ <70 and adaptive deficits manifested during the developmental period. Instead, I’m curious about those between 70-100.

It seems to me undeniable that our government/society has a great say with respect to some aspects of our educational system, and a slew of programs aimed at job creation and stimulation of various aspects of our economy.

Meanwhile, we have a program such as NCLB - which in effect means that if we do not “leave behind” the kids in the bottom 1/2, 1/3, or 1/4 of the class, then we will have to hold back those in the top 1/2, 1/3, 1/4. Someone with an IQ of 80, who has difficulty drawing inferences from written material, or performing anything higher than basic math - is not a better or worse person than his counterpart with an IQ of 120. But the 80 IQ simply does not have the range of opportunities available to him that the 120 guy enjoys.

But instead, we act as tho achievement on standardized tests is the sole measure of schools’ success, and we tend to downplay anything other than the “college track.” Meanwhile, 1/2 of the student body is going to be entering the job market without obtaining a college degree. But increasingly employers are using a BA as an initial culling tool.

In past generations, it was not difficult for someone to get out of high school, and get a job that would provide a decent living and support a family. I just don’t see our economy moving in a direction where there will be sufficient jobs suitable for the half of our population that is below average in academic abilities.

85

When I finished high school (1986), you didn’t need a secondary education degree, in Spain. Legal working age was 16; if you’d finished primary education on time, gone to a trade school and done well there, at 16 you could have a degree. If you’d gone to a college-track school, you wouldn’t have a degree.

Now you’re required by law to have one; this combines with our own version of NCLB to make a secondary-education degree completely useless. You stay in school until 16 (which you have to do anyway) and they give you a pretty colored paper.

86

Collectively? Nothing. Giving government a prominent hand in deciding their fates will tend to have bad consequences.

This is basically my preferred utopian system: automate as many services as possible, give everyone just enough currency to get by, and encourage them to work for an improved standard of living. The problem – one of the problems – is that, as WhyNot astutely surmised, if you give everyone $15,000 each January 1st, the cost of living will rise by approximately $15,000 per year; wealth, income, and cost are all entirely relative concepts. There’d still be some room on the margins for the poorest to use that money to buy some services, but that $15K would be much less valuable than $15K earned in the traditional way without anyone getting the stipend. You could keep increasing the annual allowance until the worst off can afford a reasonable standard of living, but the more you pump into these stipends with an aim to providing for those who can’t or won’t work, the more you devalue the currency, and the more headaches you cause for everyone else.

87

I don’t understand where this idea comes from. Labor costs rise to keep up with inflation, but if a “Guaranteed Minimum Income” were indexed to inflation, it wouldn’t matter. But most necessities of modern life have either held the line against inflation or have risen because of increased labor or energy costs. The more automated the production of the product, the less the cost has increased. Items that are produced with as little human labor as possible have decreased in cost while increasing in power and utility - like computers. For instance, there have been several recent breakthroughs in solar power - increases in efficiency and decreases in production cost - enough that we can foresee farm equipment that will not require gasoline.

It’s possible that because I work with technology, I’ve become used to products steadily becoming better, faster and cheaper. My first VHS VCR was $1500. They are now $29. In constant dollars, that 1979 VCR cost 4454.55. But a 1979 .79 carton of a dozen eggs is $2.35 just through inflation - and given the much higher cost of oil, eggs should cost much more. The cost was kept the same through increased automation.

So, just curious…what is the basis for the idea that prices would jump to ensure that the poor remain poor? Most businesses would benefit from the poor remaining consumers.

88

My overall view of it is generally something like what Daniel Quinn points to in his novel, The Story of B. This from Wikipedia…
Quinn argues that our knowledge and worldview today would be greatly altered had the foundation thinkers of our culture known there was history beyond the beginning of civilization.

That means that everything we think we know today, all those things that we hold valuable, were ideas given to us by someone, who had them given to him/her by someone, and so on. Therefore everybody has a limited perspective, and it’s totally possible we’ve all been misled.

Another significant question I remember in that book (or I think it was that book?) was asked by the protagonist; i.e. “whose idea was it to lock up the food?” [paraphrasing] Whenever people talk about who is entitled to what, and why, I always think about those types of questions, i.e. who is it that gets to decide who eats, lives in a nice house, gets the soft pillow, has the biggest toys, etc.? I can’t begin to discuss the significant points of what the OP asks until I establish that the elitist Charles Murray types don’t get to make that decision for the rest of us. I just think the whole premise of the original question is skewed.

89

Just wanted to add that Jewel, a chain grocery store here in Chicago has a policy of hiring the more mentally challenged to be baggers. Most of them are very good at what they do, but there are a few that just. don’t. get. it.
And what to do with them?

If we say we want treat them “like everyone else”, they should not keep jobs they can’t do. Harsh, but true.

There is a young man at a nearby library who has Down’s (he may have other issues). He is supposed to shelve the children’s books, but if Brendan (not his real name) is upset about something or someone, he will put the books anywhere he wants to. He also talks to himself, quite loudly, throughout his shift and carries a spray bottle* with him, which he uses at random. Is this good if he is disturbing patrons? Is this situation better than a college or HS kid getting this job and being able to perform to its standards more completely? The library has decided that yes, it is. But I have seen parents of young kids/mothers shy away from the department when Brendan is there–so is the library limiting access is a small way by employing Brendan? Is it a factor? Should it be? How does Brendan’s need for the dignity of work and to contribute trump the needs of the community to have stable help at the library? And there is this: the Brendan’s of the world do not belong behind the closed doors of an institution–the world should see and know the Brendans.

I think these are real questions that need to be answered, rather than knee-jerk “s/he’s disabled/retarded/subnormally intelligent and doing the best s/he can so don’t say anything!”. I’m all for mainstreaming and giving those less intellectually advantaged decent chances, but IMO it can go too far. Kudos to all those baggers at Jewel who do a great job. But seriously, what to do with those who just can’t (for whatever reason?).

Sorry to stray off the lower end of the bell curve and into the mentally challenged, but I think the principle holds. I’d like to think that ALL could contribute based on their abilities, but is that realistic? I don’t know.

*I don’t know what is in the bottle. I have heard that it’s plain water and is given to Brendan to soothe him. It’s like a totem (token? lovey?) for him.

90

Indexing “GMI” to inflation would not be nearly as simple as indexing, say, unemployment benefits to inflation, since it’s the GMI that would be *driving *the inflation. I mean, I assume we’re not talking about levying taxes to raise the necessary funds, as that’s not really possible ($15,000 * 300,000,000 = 4,500,000,000,000 per year in new taxes), but instead simply issuing more currency. Dumping 4.5 Trillion dollars into the economy is going to lead to massive inflation, making those $15K stipends significantly less valuable. You can then raise the amount of the stipends to account for the inflation they themselves caused, but that would only lead to more inflation, necessitating further stipend increases, leading to more inflation, etc. Eventually an equilibrium would be reached (I think), but the runaway inflation you’ve caused on the road to that equilibrium would have wiped out everyone’s savings (among other problems).

Of course, you can avoid the whole problem by simply converting to a command economy, but that’s an even worse option than the inflation.

I’m not an expert, so it’s possible I’ve made one or more elementary mistakes. I think this stuff is pretty basic, though.

91

Again, you’re stating this assumption that the GMI would drive inflation. Is this something that has happened in other welfare states? From what I understand, the UK has a very wide social safety net. I know the dollar has declined dramatically compared to the pound, but is the cost of living there significantly higher, if one puts it in a universal format like cheeseburgers per hour.

Who isn’t talking about raising taxes? When a company automates jobs out of existence, or exports all their manufacturing to another country yet still sells massive amounts in this country, I’m perfectly happy with the idea that they should be taxed on their sales, or in some way that compensates the country from whom they are benefiting, but to whom are not giving anything back.

92

Ok, but look again at the number I quoted you. $4.5 Trillion in new spending would more than double the current federal budget, and seeing as we’re running a massive deficit as it is . . . again, it’s just not practical to raise that kind of money through taxes (and borrowing it would be still worse, if possible).

That leaves us with creating the money out of thin air (i.e. issuing more currency to pay for it) – you do agree that doing so would devalue the currency, right?

93

(What does he spray? Tables? Himself? The air? Patrons?)
I’m not too annoyed by the mentally challenged (or the rung just above them) doing a half-assed job. I’m in the Chicago area, too. I shop at Jewel and our local store employs the mentally retarded baggers, as well. I’ve seen the able-minded high school students make the same mistakes the retarded kids do, and I’ve seen CEOs at various companies I’ve worked for make stupid mistakes that jeopardize a lot more people in bigger ways. And they do it all the time!

Getting back to the idea of employing the lower-skills population. I think we have to expect something less than perfection, since we accept it on the higher end of the spectrum, as well. Some level of self-sufficiency is better than none at all.

94

Not directly applicable, but I thought portions of Garrison Keillor’s article in today’s paper was somewhat relevant to the extent he was explaining his “elitist” concern for those employed in more “menial” portions of the economy than he.

95

He sprays whatever he wants to spray, from what I’ve seen. I do know he scares young kids (which is a tangle all in itself. Kids need to see all manner of people and not live in a bubble, but not every parent feels that way).
An answer may be that he needs more supervision, but no library can afford to have someone supervise a page closely. And is it fair to have the other more able pages come behind Brendan and do his work as well as theirs?
I don’t think so. Either Brendan needs to be counseled more firmly and monitored to see if he can change his more off-putting behavior (at least to some degree) or he needs to not be in this particular position.

I don’t agree with your “we allow other people to make mistakes so it’s ok if they make them”–not because it’s not true (it is) but because the nature of mistakes is that we are supposed to learn from them and they are not supposed to occur daily. If you frequently mess up at work, your bonus or even your job will be on the line. People lose jobs due to incompetence (not nearly often enough, but that’s another thread). Maybe it’s because I work in a profession that is very intolerant of mistakes . I can’t see someone doing basically a bad job every day and still being rewarded for it. That’s no answer to the Brendans or the “stupid” people the OP alludes to–I don’t have an answer.

96

I think the book is putting far to much importance on this thing called intelligence. Do we really know what intelligence means? Some people learn slower than others but produce more. Some of our greatest “scientists” were slow in school or kicked out of school. Edison, Einstein were a couple. There really are no low jobs or low worth. Everyone has the same worth, all should be able to go to college if they want to. Ten gold medals were won in the Olympics by a “challenged” youth. What is being talked about here is a lack of understanding of people. A breakdown in morality. A very egotist view of others and something I hope will never be considered by really intelligent people.

97

I agree with you that although mistakes are tolerated, they shouldn’t be (to the degree they are). I’m just saying we shouldn’t hold them to a different standard than we hold the rest of the world. If it’s chronic, hopefully you’re shown the door. But it sure doesn’t work that way in my world (upper management at my company is trying to save money by taking away the licenses required to do the work :rolleyes:). But you’re right – that’s another thread.

I also agree that if an organization is going to hire the low-end workers, they need to be prepared to manage them more closely. At my Jewel, I’ve seen a couple of the baggers get “corrected” or even mildly scolded for getting off task. I think it’s fine.

98

IMO Garrison Keillor doesn’t explain it in elitist terms like you and some others have done in this thread. Not all supremely intelligent people who recognize and discuss intellectual differences are doing it from an elitist POV. But it probably takes a certain type of keen self-awareness and insight to know the difference, (which itself is another form of high intelligence).

Also included in that Garrison Keillor article is him making the statement, “Not that I haven’t done dumb things myself. I have. And intend to keep on doing some of them.” That’s not typically the perspective of someone with an elitist attitude. And elitists don’t tend to devote their lives and careers to an organization like NPR.

Also, Garrison Keillor is a member of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party. Somehow I think you and your views wouldn’t fit well in any organization that aligns itself with the “Labor” classes? If you genuinely think Garrison Keillor’s attitude is elitist then I’d suggest you don’t really have a grasp of the subtle distinctions.

BTW I actually think this is an interesting topic worth discussing. Our society has clearly shifted and it seems reasonable to contemplate how we all fit ourselves into the new model. And yes, some solutions that were meant to solve problems might create more problems than they really solve. I’m even agreeable to having an “intelligent” discussion about it. I just happen to disagree with the strong overtones of presumed matter-of-fact elitism that are part of the commentary.

99

Because (and, again, not an economist, so I apologize if this is full of teh dumb) people selling things want to make as much profit as they can. So they’re going to raise the prices as long as someone is willing to pay them.

Bring the numbers down for a minute so we can play with them more easily. Say Bob’s Widgets sells 100 Widgets a month at $100 each. He has a sale, maybe he sells 110 Widgets at $90, his daughter needs braces, so he raises prices for a month and sells 90 Widgets at $110 - but basically, no matter what he does with a modest shift in the price, he’s averaging around 100 Widgets a month. Widgets are a “luxury item”, you see. Everyone wants a Widget, but it’s not a necessity, so poorer folks go without and wish they had a Widget, or they buy a Widget on credit that they can’t really afford.

So then Governor Smith decides that everyone should be able to afford a Widget if they want one. He sends everyone a check for $100, so they can get a Widget. Suddenly, Bob can’t keep Widgets in stock! He sells 100 Widgets in a week and they’re beating down his door for Widgets! This is great, right? Bob gets sales he never dreamed of, and even poor people get Widgets!

Then Bob realizes he can’t keep up. He hires Mike to come work at the Widget store with him, and raises the price of Widgets $5 to cover Mike’s salary. Then the two realize they need more space to accommodate all these customers, so they rent a new store and raise the price of Widgets another $5 to cover the rent. The sales of Widgets slows a bit, because now they’re $110. But they’re still selling pretty briskly - maybe they move the production offshore to reduce the cost back to $100.

But pretty soon, Bob thinks, “Hmm…I used to sell 100 Widgets a month. Now I’m selling 100 Widgets a week. I bet I could raise the price on Widgets and people would still buy them.” So now he sets the price of Widgets at $150, then $160, then $175. And pretty soon, either people are so addicted to the idea that they’re entitled to a Widget that they dip into their savings or credit to come up with the difference, OR they can’t afford a Widget again, because Bob has raised the price. But because he’s making essentially the same amount of money off fewer people, there’s no incentive for him to lower the prices again.

Indeed, many items *suffer * sales if they become too popular - make Widgets something that poor people have, and rich people won’t want it. Bob would rather keep the rich - people who might buy more than one Widget, or upgrade their Widget every year or so, or buy accessories for their Widget - and lose the poor who can only buy their one Widget with their check from Governor Smith. So Bob may even intentionally raise the price to the point where he loses some sales so that Widgets remain a product that not everyone can afford.

In fairly short order, we’re right back to where we started: the rich people buy Widgets and the poor people wish they could or go into debt to get them. It’s as if no one got a check in the first place.

Now, what I don’t know is if this pattern applies to actual necessities. I don’t know if the price of eggs follows this pattern.

100

I think and believe and have observed that a lot of people who one might think are “stupid” are simply people who have never been given the slightest chance to improve themselves or to show what they might be capable of.

Remember, in the words of the poet, “Stupid is as stupid does.”

And I believe most of the people who just dumped our economy in the shitter were fairly well educated, intelligent, high achievers; similar to our fearless leader who holds, I believe, an MBA from a prestigious institution of higher learning.

Thanks to the efforts of such people, demand for plumbers, electricians, roofers, etc., etc., are pretty well non-existent so proposing that the “lower classes” be trained for such work is pretty much boneheaded.