At the end of your article, I get the core argument about technological progress creating new work opportunities rather than just displacing workers, though, I think you could have made this point without the problematic use of IQ.
What is problematic is that you're treating IQ - even for the sake of argument - as a fixed binary (i.e., above or below 100) and being overly casual with your use of "stupid." IQ can measure specific cognitive abilities but they cannot capture other kinds of intelligence (e.g., emotional, practical, creative) which also have value in the job market. Lastly, just because someone doesn't score over 100 IQ doesn't mean they are "stupid" (or without value) nor should we put people into a box that sets them up for discrimination and exclusion.
At the end of your article, I get the core argument about technological progress creating new work opportunities rather than just displacing workers, though, I think you could have made this point without the problematic use of IQ.
What is problematic is that you're treating IQ - even for the sake of argument - as a fixed binary (i.e., above or below 100) and being overly casual with your use of "stupid." IQ can measure specific cognitive abilities but they cannot capture other kinds of intelligence (e.g., emotional, practical, creative) which also have value in the job market. Lastly, just because someone doesn't score over 100 IQ doesn't mean they are "stupid" (or without value) nor should we put people into a box that sets them up for discrimination and exclusion.