Again, Jason, you’re playing semantic games with “natural”, “artificial”, “optimal”, etc… (Quotes included to annoy shift6).
To rise to your bait:
Natural is a state which nature reaches without outside intervention. Given water and a gentle slope, the natural state is a stream down the mountain.
Artificial, in the context I used it, is when an outside force intervenes (humans builds a dam)
Optimal is a bogus word that I did not use, because it would spawn an entire side-discussion. This came up originally in posts 48 and 49. You implied that workerss choices to be fruit pickers is wrong (there should be something “more productive” they could be doing). I stated that if there were in fact more productive uses for their labor, another industry would capitalize on that and hire them. Now, if you want the government to step in and pick winners and losers, you could certainly institute policies that would make it more lucrative for the workers to do something else (and/or for other industries to hire them). But that would presumably require a higher degree of government intervention - might I even characterize it as “artificial” intervention?
You could pass a law paying migrant farm workers to learn how to program a computer. Many would enroll in the program. You could then create government computer programming jobs for the graduates. Many would take those jobs.* If the government set it up right, they’d likely earn a lot more money. A few of them might even make decent programmers. But it would require massive “artificial” government intervention, and my guess is that the costs would far outweigh the benefits.
Of course, that’s a fairly extreme example. So again, I challenge you - rather than debating linguistics, please specify exactly what you would do to improve outcomes for low skill workers.
*Incidentally, this anecdote is loosely inspired by my own experiences working as a consultant/programmer for Caterpillar in 1992. Following the last business downturn, and stuck with union contracts that made it painful for them to lay off workers, Cat had taken a large swathe of its workforce (union guys, secretaries, etc.), sent them to programming school, and declared them to be programmers who would work with us on the system we were building. The results were as you might imagine…