The following is my super long-winded reply to LIFT on Facing up to cheaper foreign competition. Ya, I exceeded the 4,096 characters limit to blog entry replies again!
If your blog post is directed at the top 60% individuals in abilities, I would agree with you. Presumably, those who have access to the internet and can read and understand your blog would fall into this group.
However, IMHO, your arguments above will fall flat if you consider the remaining 40%, or those with specific disabilities (e.g. your Asperger's Syndrome nephew with limited IQ), or when viewed from a national policy perspective. But let's come back to these later.
> From your 3rd point, Create a gap that no one else can fill: "So don't give me the excuse that 60% of the population are vulnerable because they are not highly qualified/skilled - you can still add value to your job with soft skills and rise above the rest of the field like 小辣椒."
First, I want to address your statement above. IMHO, you've underestimated 小辣椒. That she can remember names and favourite foods of all the customers (from your example, it seems like she did it off the top-of-her-head, didn't have to refer to any system) goes to show that her brain power isn't ordinary. That she is able to assess people on-the-spot and sweet-talk/up-sell to them goes to show that her EQ is extraordinary too. Combine extraordinary brain power + extraordinary EQ, please lah, if the bottom 60% of the population can match that, can they still be considered the bottom 60%? IMHO, that 小辣椒 is a waitress is probably because of her life circumstances, but she is definitely skillful (even if it is not in the traditional terms of paper and/or other qualifications). Don't compare the skillful with the bottom 60% of unskilled workers.
That said, those mid-range folks can overcome their lacking in abilities by improving their EQ (can be trained) and investing in technology to overcome their shortfall in brain power -- provided that their pay is above survival level such that they can afford it (e.g. record all customer's face, name, preferences in a handheld database and use it as a quick reference before taking down their orders).
Now let's return to the remaining bottom 40%, or those with specific disabilities (e.g. your Asperger's Syndrome nephew with limited IQ). At age 12, when I switched primary school, I had the opportunity to sit next to a girl (2 years older than me) who from her facial features probably has mild Down's syndrome. The top student of the school sitting next to the bottom student of the school (who had previously failed the PSLE twice). What an eye-opener it was for me. Until then I never knew that for some people, no matter how many hours they spend studying (and she was really studying hard, not falling asleep at the desk like me), the "brain output" would still be pretty close to zero. How many of the above 8 points (mentioned in your blog entry) can people like my ex-classmate and your nephew successfully learn and implement in their own lives independently (i.e. without a heavy helping hand or guidance from others)? Come on, you yourself stated before that you don't see a bright future ahead for that young chap (e.g. here and here). At least your family is presumably wealthy enough to "buy" your nephew a somewhat "normal" life, just like what my ex-classmate's wealthy parents did. But what if your family or my ex-classmate's family is not wealthy? "You die your business"? Or introduce Soylent Green laws to get rid of those who are poor and not economically viable?
IMHO, which is why when viewed from a national policy perspective, if PAP sincerely meant its 2006 GE campaign slogan of "Staying together, moving ahead", the values (and virtues of pure capitalism) espoused by your blog entry cannot be upheld. Not until genetic engineering is perfected such that 100% of people are born without any disability, with enough IQ+EQ or some sort of special ability (which is economically valued by the society), and mankind has mastered control over fate such that no accidents/illnesses will befall upon anyone's life to rob him/her of his/her health/abilities, IQ, EQ, or special ability. Otherwise, the bottom 40% will not be able to make it in a purely capitalistic society without any social/family support -- which (from a cold-hearted perspective) in itself is not a problem, except that research has shown that amongst developed countries, the greater the inequality, the unhappier, unhealthier, and less successful the population is. And the rich in such an unequal society are not immune to the adverse effects of such inequality.
Ok, that's my 2 cents. In short, I agree with basic premise in your blog entry, but only for the top 60% who presumably can self-help successfully. Yup, I even wrote similar advice to internationally educated nurses who come to my blog.