> question of whether this workforce can be trained that many times
You're missing the point that roughly 25% of the population can't be trained to a modern skill in the first place. They simply aren't smart enough. A fifth of people are "functionally" illiterate. It's a real stretch to blame that on training/schooling rather than dim wits.
Fifty years ago these people could earn a decent living tightening nuts on an assembly line or picking fruit. Now they're just borderline useless as we have machines to do most of that sort of work. It takes 100 people to build a sky scraper, whereas there used to be an army of men running around with wheel barrows.
The whole point of the article and the referenced book, "A Farewell to Alms", is that people have different genetic and cultural potentials in a modern industrialized society. The book documents how the English gene pool changed (eugenic forces) leading up to the industrial revolution. It argues that the industrial revolution happened in England because the English people had become smart and disciplined enough to work in factories. English industrialists in the 1800s kept on trying to take factories to cheap third world labor, and over and over it failed because the local population couldn't hack it. Productivity was too low. It was not a matter of training.
The point here is that we are dealing with uncomfortable issues that transcend something like a "no child left behind" act. A large fraction of humanity may simply be useless to modern commerce.
It's a real stretch to blame that on training/schooling rather than dim wits.
I'm not sure that's true. There is some evidence that literacy and numeracy rates fell under New Labour. That government was characterized by high spending on "trendy" methods, rather that the basic "3 Rs". Reciting the alphabet and memorizing the times tables might be "discredited" now but it's hard to argue with the observation that the generation(s) taught that way can actually read and count...
Note that in addition to the functional illiterates there are a lot of people who can read basic material (eg "My dog Spot"), but who in daily life regularly run into material that they are unable to understand (like newspapers, or the instructions on medicine bottles).
I would not be surprised if the fraction of people with basic competency at reading and wrong is under 50%.
This sounds like the old fascist idea that there are groups of people who are genetically inferior and cannot participate in a modern society, so should be sterilized or otherwise removed.
Indeed. And it doesn't look like we'll be able to replace many extremely easy jobs (from an intellectual point of view) by machines any time soon : picking up garbage, taking care of old people, etc.
Consequence: Those people can barely live above the poverty line. They are regularly on government support programs even though they are working a full time job.
Also, they can't afford and iPad or a new car. Henry Ford recognized the value of paying his workers well. Trash collectors and CNA's aren't typically paid well.
You're missing the point that roughly 25% of the population can't be trained to a modern skill in the first place. They simply aren't smart enough. A fifth of people are "functionally" illiterate. It's a real stretch to blame that on training/schooling rather than dim wits.
Fifty years ago these people could earn a decent living tightening nuts on an assembly line or picking fruit. Now they're just borderline useless as we have machines to do most of that sort of work. It takes 100 people to build a sky scraper, whereas there used to be an army of men running around with wheel barrows.
The whole point of the article and the referenced book, "A Farewell to Alms", is that people have different genetic and cultural potentials in a modern industrialized society. The book documents how the English gene pool changed (eugenic forces) leading up to the industrial revolution. It argues that the industrial revolution happened in England because the English people had become smart and disciplined enough to work in factories. English industrialists in the 1800s kept on trying to take factories to cheap third world labor, and over and over it failed because the local population couldn't hack it. Productivity was too low. It was not a matter of training.
The point here is that we are dealing with uncomfortable issues that transcend something like a "no child left behind" act. A large fraction of humanity may simply be useless to modern commerce.