Is that a reflection of the fact that it's far worse to be illiterate than innumerate? Sure, an innumerate person will struggle in all kinds of everyday contexts and probably won't end up working as an engineer or mathematician. But if they can read and write fluently, and are skilled/talented in ways that don't require much math, they can still excel in a number of career types.

By contrast, if a person can't read or write, they're shut out of a huge fraction of careers, even if they're exceptionally good with numbers.

As someone who isn't 'wired for math' (but still knows my fractions, so to speak) I can't imagine putting math up against literacy. Reading is so fundamental to both communication and learning. Why do you equate the two?

Math is pretty fundamental, it is the basis for a lot of what people do in modern society and provides a better basis for solving many problems than the alternatives.

Universal literacy is a relatively new concept that civilization went a very long time without. One can make the argument that it is not really necessary for communication or learning.

I don't really believe there is such a thing as not being 'wired for math' any more than there is such a thing as not being 'wired for reading'. Absent mental impairment it is something that can be learned, it's just that we generally do a terrible job of teaching it.

Stop. Danger. Caution. Poison. Love. Hate. Trump. These things and more are communicated perfectly well without multiplying by a power of ten or knowing what that power of ten is called.

As a species we seem to be terrible at things like estimation, probability, and at risk assessment. That's often wrapped up in this innumeracy business, too.