Log in

View Full Version : IQ scores are Decreasing in Western Countries



Pages : 1 [2] 3

Tourdefranzia
08-23-2014, 10:39 AM
Just wait until brain enhancements become publicly available. Right now they are only used in those who are handicapped in some way by depression, Parkison's disease, traumatic brain injury, etc. But I can see where some enterprising scientists will start mass marketing brain upgrades to healthy individuals, as a kind of cosmetic brain enhancements.

We are well on our way to becoming cyborgs, now. Just try going without electricity for a week, and it becomes obvious as to how dependent humans are on our modern conveniences.

simone87
08-23-2014, 10:40 AM
so if your mother is on medicaid you can't vote when you grow up? or if you are a legal immigrant? not sure i'm grasping this correctly..

CFMNH44
08-23-2014, 10:44 AM
My first thought when reading this was that the Japanese Prime Minister (ages ago, maybe in the Ronald Regan era, ~1980's maybe?) said something to this effect about the US and was forced to apologize and retract it. He said the Japanese culture was more intelligent than the US because we had all these welfare babies, and it was taken as racist and he was shut up...

My second thought is that there are lots of smart people here...

CFMNH44
08-23-2014, 10:45 AM
To simone87, I think what they are referring to is that this next generation of 'babies of the uneducated / lower intelligence' will be less able to get jobs, need more government support, and as we are already seeing, 'Voting for the politician that promises to give them the most'. A downward spiral of fewer workers paying higher taxes to support growing numbers of 'needy'...

threlayer
08-23-2014, 10:57 AM
Regarding legal immigration....

"Inside the statue, a plaque is engraved with words from "The New Colossus", the poem by Emma Lazarus:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
"

I like many of these opinions; to them I would add a few others, excess alcohol and illicit drug imbibing as additional major factors. As the population ages on average, and individually, intelligence decreases at something like 1 point per decade. Maybe what we have is a decreasing dicotomy between the intelligent and the unintelligent, likely at least partly due to such social factors as not being able to free oneself from ghetto socialization and aspirations.

On the other hand humans are showing remarkable intelligence in advancing technologies, both soft and hard.

I love that there are a lot of great minds frequenting this website and great posts.

Kellydancer
08-23-2014, 11:15 AM
so if your mother is on medicaid you can't vote when you grow up? or if you are a legal immigrant? not sure i'm grasping this correctly..

They will vote, but they will likely vote for things like more social programs being that many will also be on social programs.


My first thought when reading this was that the Japanese Prime Minister (ages ago, maybe in the Ronald Regan era, ~1980's maybe?) said something to this effect about the US and was forced to apologize and retract it. He said the Japanese culture was more intelligent than the US because we had all these welfare babies, and it was taken as racist and he was shut up...

My second thought is that there are lots of smart people here...

One of the reasons Japanese are smarter than the US is because they put a lot of effort into their education. However they have a more traditional family structure as well. For example divorce and unwed parenthood are generally unacceptable. I wouldn't say that kids born of single moms are automatically dumber but I have seen a difference between kids when I teach Sunday School. My kids that are troublemaker are generally from divorced parents. I don't think are from unwed parents so can't comment on that but there is a difference between kids with married parents.


To simone87, I think what they are referring to is that this next generation of 'babies of the uneducated / lower intelligence' will be less able to get jobs, need more government support, and as we are already seeing, 'Voting for the politician that promises to give them the most'. A downward spiral of fewer workers paying higher taxes to support growing numbers of 'needy'...

Exactly. We are seeing this already.

GlamourRouge
08-23-2014, 11:19 AM
Just wait until brain enhancements become publicly available. Right now they are only used in those who are handicapped in some way by depression, Parkison's disease, traumatic brain injury, etc. But I can see where some enterprising scientists will start mass marketing brain upgrades to healthy individuals, as a kind of cosmetic brain enhancements.

We are well on our way to becoming cyborgs, now. Just try going without electricity for a week, and it becomes obvious as to how dependent humans are on our modern conveniences.

I agree. Transhumanism is already here. I was thinking about that when I was at the dentist the other day and I was like omg I'm getting my mouth bones repaired!!! I don't think transhumanism is necessarily a bad thing, its just scary because its unregulated, we don't know what to expect, and we are the last people to find out about what kind of experiments have been done. Technology is both scary and interesting at the same time.

Regardless if this article is from the daily mail or wherever else, it doesn't matter because its true. We are one of the least intelligent nations overall, and that has been documented a million times over. Least intelligent first world nations, I mean.

simone87
08-23-2014, 11:20 AM
i really hate that kind of thinking. just because a person is on medicaid does not mean they are less intelligent..plenty of people fall on hard times, if you haven't been one of them consider yourself lucky i guess. that is NO indication of your character or IQ.and even if it was somehow an indication of your intelligence, it wouldn't automatically mean your children will b as well..like i said, IQ has not been proved to be hereditary. children are their own people, really can't stand this "old money" crap. privilege does not equal intelligence

OliveJardin
08-23-2014, 11:26 AM
and Australia have become less intelligent in the past decade
He believes this is due to more intelligent women have fewer children than those who are less clever,The Huffington Post reported.

^I would have to agree with this statement. Interesting snippets.

MiraMichele
08-23-2014, 11:45 AM
i really hate that kind of thinking. just because a person is on medicaid does not mean they are less intelligent..plenty of people fall on hard times, if you haven't been one of them consider yourself lucky i guess. that is NO indication of your character or IQ.and even if it was somehow an indication of your intelligence, it wouldn't automatically mean your children will b as well..like i said, IQ has not been proved to be hereditary. children are their own people, really can't stand this "old money" crap. privilege does not equal intelligence

Thank you. I completely agree with this as well. I can't stand when someones intelligence is judged by their background or how priviliged they are. A big percentage of the geniuses throughout history definitely did not come from privileged backgrounds.

Kellydancer
08-23-2014, 11:54 AM
i really hate that kind of thinking. just because a person is on medicaid does not mean they are less intelligent..plenty of people fall on hard times, if you haven't been one of them consider yourself lucky i guess. that is NO indication of your character or IQ.and even if it was somehow an indication of your intelligence, it wouldn't automatically mean your children will b as well..like i said, IQ has not been proved to be hereditary. children are their own people, really can't stand this "old money" crap. privilege does not equal intelligence

While people fall on hard time, I really wonder what percentage of the kids born on medicaid were from parents who fell on hard times. 54% of all babies are born on medicaid . I highly doubt all 54% (which is over half)were that situation. I would suspect quite a few were either pregnancies planned knowing they couldn't afford it or where they didn't use birth control. These people are probably nit very bright people. Those who had situations like say they had jobs, stable relationships then they lost the job would be another story but I wonder the percentage of these situations versus the others.

There were times my parents fell on hard time and we got free lunches (though never medicaid or food stamps) so I understand things happen. However we were already here. Neither me nor my brother was born when my parents were on hard times. It could have happened I suppose but my parents were careful on that, like making sure I wasn't born until after they had bought a house and things were in place.

GlamourRouge
08-23-2014, 12:01 PM
i really hate that kind of thinking. just because a person is on medicaid does not mean they are less intelligent..plenty of people fall on hard times, if you haven't been one of them consider yourself lucky i guess. that is NO indication of your character or IQ.and even if it was somehow an indication of your intelligence, it wouldn't automatically mean your children will b as well..like i said, IQ has not been proved to be hereditary. children are their own people, really can't stand this "old money" crap. privilege does not equal intelligence

I agree with you, but I think their logic is that, if you are soooo intelligent, then you will find a way to make a lot of money regardless. Like in an entrepreneurial sense. Because we all know that you won't get rich working for someone else. Ambition isn't a direct part of IQ though, that's the problem.

Melonie
08-23-2014, 12:06 PM
On the other hand humans are showing remarkable intelligence in advancing technologies, both soft and hard.

Indeed this is the case. However, the remarkably intelligent people responsible for advancing technologies represent a very tiny minority of the overall population. And if the authors' 'theory' has any merit, the 'professionals' working in those technology industries will be ( or already are ) expected to place 'work' over 'family' ... from

(snip)Back in 2008, in a report called the Athena Factor, the Center for Work-Life Policy found that while there was a robust pipeline of women interested in tech careers, more than half eventually abandoned their chosen profession. Earlier this year, an update to the report found some changes in the environment, but little overall improvement.

On the one hand, opportunity abounds: demand for tech talent is intensifying and qualified candidates are in short supply. And yet, the report found that many women in tech still find barriers to success, with almost a third expecting to quit their current jobs within a year.(snip)

(snip)Women make decisions much earlier, in their 20s, that affect their careers once they have children.

If young women and those of us in the industry who support them realized what happens to push women off their career paths, we might be able to forestall some of those departures. I see women facing three kinds of pressures: financial, societal and environmental.

First there’s the money issue – there are powerful systemic financial pressures at play. It starts with the fact that the U.S. lacks affordable day care options: the monthly cost exceeds average rents in all 50 states. Many women crunch the numbers and choose to stay at home.

The financial pressures women face are compounded by social issues. When women marry and have babies, we’re immersed in life beyond ourselves, and an enormous sense of responsibility kicks in. Then comes the self-doubt. I hear women say, in one way or another, “I don’t know if I can devote myself to my husband and children, and balance work full-time.” (snip)

Thus the 'Athena Report' and its recent update essentially confirm the authors' 'theory' ... in the sense that 'professional' women are essentially faced with a 'Door #1" vs 'Door #2' decision when the issue of having children arises. They can decide to forego having children, maintain their high earnings and high standard of living, and continue ascending the career ladder. Or they can decide to essentially quit their present 'professional' job, with associated drop in earnings and standard of living, care for their children, be more or less 100% dependent on their partner's earnings while the children are very young, and then attempt to return to the work force in some 'reduced' capacity after the children get older.

GlamourRouge
08-23-2014, 12:06 PM
I was also thinking this... I don't even think its necessarily a bad thing that the US has low IQ scores. I mean, don't we need a lot of drone workers to do the jobs we don't personally want to do? I know that's kind of a horrible thing to say but its still kind of true.

An IQ test tells us very little about a person. If a person has a low IQ test, all that tells us is that they aren't sharp and probably are not that book smart. But is that actually a bad thing? I think the development of the internet has allowed people to explore their individual interests, and a lot of those individual interests are not things that an IQ test would account or look for.

So maybe we are just becoming a nation of people who are each intensely "specialized" in their knowledge base... which would make sense. For being a first-world society with a low overall IQ, we are able to function pretty well. Maybe that's because there are so many "specialized" workers and knowledge bases. People have no incentive to learn the basics anymore when they can just get by & make a living using their specialized knowledge base.

GlamourRouge
08-23-2014, 12:08 PM
Indeed this is the case. However, the remarkably intelligent people responsible for advancing technologies represent a very tiny minority of the overall population.

But, is this a bad thing? Or something unrealistic? I think this actually how its supposed to be.


P.S., this is an amazing site:

Melonie
08-23-2014, 12:34 PM
I mean, don't we need a lot of drone workers to do the jobs we don't personally want to do? I know that's kind of a horrible thing to say but its still kind of true.

Actually, we need fewer and fewer HUMAN drone workers every year. See .Not wanting to raise irrelevant issues, but in terms of pure economics, the comparatively high ( and rising ) cost of American labor plus mandated employee benefit costs, versus the record low cost for companies to borrow and invest money ( thanks to record low interest rates ) in robots and automatic machinery, is now driving a 'second wave' of automation with the intention of eliminating the jobs of more and more 'drone' workers.



So maybe we are just becoming a nation of people who are each intensely "specialized" in their knowledge base... which would make sense. For being a first-world society with a low overall IQ, we are able to function pretty well. Maybe that's because there are so many "specialized" workers and knowledge bases. People have no incentive to learn the basics anymore when they can just get by & make a living using their specialized knowledge base.

Again, the real world statistics don't bear this out. At present, the number of Americans who don't have a job is at a record high.


(snip)The number of Americans 16 and older who did not participate in the labor force climbed to a record high of 92,120,000 in June, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

This means that there were 92,120,000 Americans 16 and older who not only did not have a job, but did not actively seek one in the last four weeks.

That is up 111,000 from the 92,009,000 Americans who were not participating in the labor force in April.

In June, according to BLS, the labor force participation rate for Americans was 62.8 percent, matching a 36-year low. The participation rate is the percentage of the population that either has a job or actively sought one in the last four weeks.(snip)

This means that 100 - 62.8 = 37.2% of Americans who are of 'working age' that have dropped out of the labor force, plus another ~6.8% ( official unemployment rate ) who actively sought a job in the last 4 weeks, or 44% of all 'working age' Americans, have no job whatsoever at the moment. And this figure does not count illegal immigrants ! Thus the question must be asked regarding how these 44% of all 'working age' Americans are supporting themselves ( or are being supported by someone else ), since they aren't 'making a living' via a documented job.

However, your observation that 'people have no incentive to learn the basics when they can just get by ...' might be applicable. However, I really don't want to think too much about the types of 'specialized knowledge' being applied ( such as burglary skills, meth lab chemistry skills, sales skills re drugs, guns ... )



this next generation of 'babies of the uneducated / lower intelligence' will be less able to get jobs, need more government support ***. A downward spiral of fewer workers paying higher taxes to support growing numbers of 'needy'...


They will vote, but they will likely vote for things like more social programs being that many will also be on social programs

Indeed, for dancers and camgirls who are already required to pay a ~30% effective tax rate on their earnings, plus another ~5%+ in embedded taxes on every after-tax dollar they spend, this is not a trivial possibility. I'll also point out the obvious, that 44% and 50.1% ( a voting majority ) are only ~6% apart ! If the authors 'theory' and the CIS data on relative birth rates have any validity, the present 44% figure will continue to rise.



Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

I would also point out a few historical facts. At the time that plaque was posted in the Statue of Liberty, there was no such thing as an income tax, food stamps, medicaid, welfare etc. At the time that plaque was posted, immigrants coming to America were 'forced' to do whatever they had to do to support themselves and their families, or bear the direct consequences if they failed. And at the time that plaque was posted, individual Americans were allowed to keep 100% of the 'fruits' of their labors.

Also, as the 'golden door' passage reminded me, at the time that plaque was posted, the US dollar was backed by gold and silver ... meaning that the gov't could not simply 'print' additional dollars out of nowhere and in turn 'hand out' those newly printed dollars.

Kellydancer
08-23-2014, 01:47 PM
I would also point out a few historical facts. At the time that plaque was posted in the Statue of Liberty, there was no such thing as an income tax, food stamps, medicaid, welfare etc. At the time that plaque was posted, immigrants coming to America were 'forced' to do whatever they had to do to support themselves and their families, or bear the direct consequences if they failed. And at the time that plaque was posted, individual Americans were allowed to keep 100% of the 'fruits' of their labors.

Also, as the 'golden door' passage reminded me, at the time that plaque was posted, the US dollar was backed by gold and silver ... meaning that the gov't could not simply 'print' additional dollars out of nowhere and in turn 'hand out' those newly printed dollars.

I don't know the stats but do know that immigrants use welfare at a higher rate than native born, including illegals. Everyone talks about USA being a country of immigration but never mentions immigration then versus now. I don't want immigrants who will dependent on welfare. If they can't afford to come here then we don't need them. We already have millions of unemployed Americans.

I don't think it's a good idea under any circumstance to have low IQs. It will affects everything, from culture, to society and things like libraries. We can't survive as a country if eventually we are left with dumbasses.

Melonie
08-23-2014, 01:56 PM
I don't know the stats but do know that immigrates use welfare at a higher rate than native born,

Are you referring to the 'Anchor Baby' phenomenon, where the US citizen child of both legal and illegal immigrant mothers / families makes the entire household eligible for medicaid and other social welfare benefits ? Where the US citizen child of illegal immigrant mothers / families makes the entire household 'immune' from potential deportation ?

One of the CIS study' understated points was that 'Anchor Babies', as well as additional US citizen children resulting in higher social welfare benefit payments, are likely to be major contributors to the elevated birth rates of both legal and illegal immigrants in America.



don't think it's a good idea under any circumstance to have low IQs. It will affects everything, from culture, to society and things like libraries. We can't survive as a country if eventually we are left with dumbasses.

For better or worse, as an earlier poster referenced via a George Carlin quote, there are lots of countries that function reasonably well with such a demographic. Generally speaking, such countries wind up with a comparatively small percentage of upper class 'elite' ( who own most of the assets and control most of the country's economy ), a very large percentage of poor 'working class' ( who may or may not actually have 'work' ), and very little 'middle class' in between. Obviously, this demographic doesn't bear a whole lot of resemblance to the 'classic' image of 20th century America. There is at least some evidence that 21st century America increasingly resembles this demographic - but that's a whole 'nuther story.

Also, in the way of full disclosure, the country way south of the border which I'm residing in right now has such a demographic. And life is very comfortable, providing you are a member of ... or have an 'in' with ... the upper class 'elite'. However, there is admittedly an element of 'fear' regarding the very large percentage of poor 'working class' residents potentially deciding to 'take matters into their own hands' ...as well as an element of 'relief' when they decide to ( mostly illegally ) immigrate to America.

threlayer
08-23-2014, 02:12 PM
Actually, we need fewer and fewer HUMAN drone workers every year. See https://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?194646-What-Are-the-Options-for-Those-Who-Can-t-Won-t-Get-a-Corporate-Government-Job .
And yet more and more jobs require skills well beyond a high school education due to advancing technologies and the push for cheaper ways of producing goods (and higher profits).


I would also point out a few historical facts. At the time that plaque was posted in the Statue of Liberty, there was no such thing as an income tax, food stamps, medicaid, welfare etc. At the time that plaque was posted, immigrants coming to America were 'forced' to do whatever they had to do to support themselves and their families, or bear the direct consequences if they failed. And at the time that plaque was posted, individual Americans were allowed to keep 100% of the 'fruits' of their labors.

Also, as the 'golden door' passage reminded me, at the time that plaque was posted, the US dollar was backed by gold and silver ... meaning that the gov't could not simply 'print' additional dollars out of nowhere and in turn 'hand out' those newly printed dollars.

This is indeed true. But this country has always been a haven for immigrants seeking a better life, even if they took jobs from previous waves of immigrants.

Melonie
08-23-2014, 02:22 PM
this country has always been a haven for immigrants seeking a better life, even if they took jobs from previous waves of immigrants.

Also true, historically speaking. But how can a new immigrant today take a job from a robot or automated machine ? At minimum, the gov't mandates that a human worker must be paid minimum wage plus provided some minimum amount of employee benefits at the employer's expense ... while the robot or automated machine can be paid nothing. Well, technically speaking, the business must pay a bank some amount for some years to repay the loan taken out to purchase the robot or automatic machinery ... but thank to today's record low interest rates that amount is comparatively small, and ends after X years while the robot and automatic machinery continues to 'work for free'.

Obviouly certain immigrants ... specifically college educated H1-B visa immigrants ... can take jobs programming and maintaining those robots and automatic machines. But as was previously posted, official figures show that only 14% of legal immigrants ( and only 7% of legal + estimated illegal immigrants ) have such qualifications. Where does that leave the remaining 86% / 93% of new immigrants ??? Arguably, the 'better life' that 86% / 93% of today's immigrants are able to achieve in America ( versus their home country ) is attributable, at least in part, to social welfare benefits made possible by having US citizen children.



And yet more and more jobs require skills well beyond a high school education due to advancing technologies and the push for cheaper ways of producing goods (and higher profits).

True as well ... but an overall perspective must be maintained. At that link, you'll find the story of StarKist Tuna ... with the bottom line being about an American canning factory which once employed 2000 unskilled and semi-skilled American workers. That factory was closed ... and the company went through some intermediate gyrations ... eventually building a brand new American canning factory a couple of years ago. While that brand new American canning factory is able to produce the same amount of canned tuna as the old and long since closed American canning factory, it does so with 200 workers instead of 2000. Indeed those 200 workers have a large contingent of well paid engineers and technicians, whose task is to program and maintain automated machinery which actually produces the canned tuna. And some would point out that StarKist's transition 'created' 200 well paying tech oriented jobs ... which is technically true if viewed in isolation.

The overall point, of course, is that 1800 net American jobs were eliminated altogether by StarKist's transition from conventional to highly automated manufacturing. It is unknown how many of the 200 current engineers and technicians actually started out as part of those 2000 unskilled or semi-skilled production workers whose jobs were eliminated ... odds are that the actual number is very small. But even if the 10% or 200 former unskilled or semi-skilled workers ALL made the effort to attend college and become engineers and technicians, that still leaves 90% or 1800 former unskilled or semi-skilled workers with little in the way of future job prospects. And if food stamps, medicaid, and other social welfare benefits enter the picture, that also leaves 200 high earning taxpayers being responsible for covering the associated costs of providing such benefits for 1800 beneficiaries.



I can't stand when someones intelligence is judged by their background or how priviliged they are. A big percentage of the geniuses throughout history definitely did not come from privileged backgrounds

Indeed this is also true. For example, one of my 'all time heros' in this regard is Nikola Tesla ... who invented our AC power systems, who invented flourescent lighting, who was eventually ( and correctly ) credited with the invention of radio, and who reportedly invented particle beam weapons. See

Tesla was an immigrant from Serbia who came to America with next to nothing in the way of money, but with an education and job experience sufficient for Thomas Edison to immediately hire him. Same is true for Einstein, although by the time he immigrated to America he was already a professor and had already won a Nobel prize. Today both would be H1-B visa candidates.
And today, as then, many foreign countries still provide 'free' college educations at well respected educational institutions for large numbers of students who demonstrate sufficient intelligence. However, today as then, with the exception of a comparative handful of academic scholarship 'winners', college educations at well respected American educational institutions cost big money.

But, again, an overall perspective must be maintained. For every Tesla, Einstein, and thousands of other 'geniuses' who made significant contributions toward advancing science and/or the human condition over the past century, there were tens of millions of other immigrants without such 'gifts'. And of todays 14% ( legal ) / 7 % ( legal plus illegal ) of intelligent, educated H1-B immigrants, there are 86% / 93% of other immigrants who don't have educations, and who arguably have lower intelligence.

There is also another present day issue to consider ... that even if a particular legal or illegal immigrant, or the child of such an immigrant, is a bona-fide 'genius', odds are that without Tesla or Einstein-esque educational and work experience credentials, that 'genius' is unlikely to be provided the access / resources needed to accomplish much in real world terms. And, for better or worse, the present day America reality is that a pre-requisite to that sort of access / resources is an advanced college degree from a well respected educational institution ... which, even with the aid of scholarships, still costs big money.

Kellydancer
08-23-2014, 04:06 PM
Are you referring to the 'Anchor Baby' phenomenon, where the US citizen child of both legal and illegal immigrant mothers / families makes the entire household eligible for medicaid and other social welfare benefits ? Where the US citizen child of illegal immigrant mothers / families makes the entire household 'immune' from potential deportation ?

One of the CIS study' understated points was that 'Anchor Babies', as well as additional US citizen children resulting in higher social welfare benefit payments, are likely to be major contributors to the elevated birth rates of both legal and illegal immigrants in America.




For better or worse, as an earlier poster referenced via a George Carlin quote, there are lots of countries that function reasonably well with such a demographic. Generally speaking, such countries wind up with a comparatively small percentage of upper class 'elite' ( who own most of the assets and control most of the country's economy ), a very large percentage of poor 'working class' ( who may or may not actually have 'work' ), and very little 'middle class' in between. Obviously, this demographic doesn't bear a whole lot of resemblance to the 'classic' image of 20th century America. There is at least some evidence that 21st century America increasingly resembles this demographic - but that's a whole 'nuther story.

Also, in the way of full disclosure, the country way south of the border which I'm residing in right now has such a demographic. And life is very comfortable, providing you are a member of ... or have an 'in' with ... the upper class 'elite'. However, there is admittedly an element of 'fear' regarding the very large percentage of poor 'working class' residents potentially deciding to 'take matters into their own hands' ...as well as an element of 'relief' when they decide to ( mostly illegally ) immigrate to America.

Yes, I am referring to illegal immigration mostly. From the stats I have read a huge majority of illegals are on welfare. In many states (Illinois is one)this means the entire family are eligible for welfare. There are welfare programs in Illinois that state on their website "regardless of immigration status" and "you don't need a social security number to enroll".

I know a lot of other countries have a system where people tend to make their own goods and sell. I don't think this is a bad thing actually and I feel when people realize there is no safety net and they want to eat they make their own success. We don't have that here because not only with the safety net but also the strict regulations regarding starting a business.

Melonie
08-23-2014, 04:39 PM
know a lot of other countries have a system where people tend to make their own goods and sell. I don't think this is a bad thing actually and I feel when people realize there is no safety net and they want to eat they make their own success. We don't have that here because not only with the safety net but also the strict regulations regarding starting a business.

The motivation versus 'safety net' of social welfare benefits issue is indeed a valid point. And particularly so in a situation where the standard of living which can be achieved via a $10 an hour job is essentially no different from the standard of living which can be achieved via no job but eligibility for social welfare benefits. But, again, that's a whole 'nuther story.

So is your observation about America being increasingly 'unfriendly' to the formation of small independent businesses. As written up by Forbes ... see ...

(snip)"In Coralville, Iowa police shut down 4-year-old Abigail Krstinger’s lemonade stand after it had been up for half an hour. Dustin Krustinger told reporters that his daughter was selling lemonade at 25 cents a cup during the Register’s Annual Great Bicycle Race Across Iowa (or RAGBRAI), and couldn’t have made more than five dollars, adding “If the line is drawn to the point where a four-year-old eight blocks away can’t sell a couple glasses of lemonade for 25 cents, than I think the line has been drawn at the wrong spot.”

Nearby, mother Bobbie Nelson had her kids’ lemonade stand shutdown as well. Police informed her that a permit would cost $400.

Meanwhile, in Georgia, police shut down a lemonade stand run by three girls who were saving money to go to a water park. Police said the girls needed a business license, a peddler’s permit, and a food permit to operate the stand, which cost $50 per day or $180 per year each, sums that would quickly cut into any possible profit-margin.(snip)


While Forbes' choice of the lemonade stand example was undoubtedly extreme, indeed the underlying growth of regulations affecting small independent businesses is true enough. And this trend would appear to be particularly 'damaging' to recent immigrants, given that immigrants had historically been very active in forming entrepreneurial small businesses.

However, I'm not sure how this relates to the central topic of this thread, since ( as GlamourRouge indirectly pointed out earlier ) a willingness to work extremely hard, and to work outrageously long hours, doesn't necessarily correlate to intelligence !!!

eagle2
08-24-2014, 05:25 PM
Again, the real world statistics don't bear this out. At present, the number of Americans who don't have a job is at a record high.



Our population is also at record high and the percentage of Americans who are seniors is at a record high and will continue to get higher. In 5 - 10 years there will probably be labor shortages in the US and other countries with aging populations.

Melonie
08-25-2014, 05:10 AM
^^^ indeed there is a contingent of 'talking heads' who make that prediction. But their math draws questions when 2 million people are immigrating to the USA each year, when US companies are adding robots and automatic machinery at a record pace, etc. ... from

(snip)Ann Arbor, Michigan – Following a strong year in 2012, the North American robotics market recorded its best year ever in 2013 in terms of robot shipments, according to new statistics from Robotic Industries Association (RIA), the industry’s trade group.

A total of 22,591 robots valued at $1.39 billion were shipped to companies in North America in 2013, beating the previous record of 20,328 robots valued at $1.29 billion shipped in 2012. These new records for robotic shipments represent growth of 11% in units and seven percent in dollars.(snip)

Given that one robot or automatic machine ( with automatic machines vastly outnumbering the 22,600 actual 'robots' added by US companies last year ) can effectively replace multiple human jobs, the effect of this 'second wave' of automation is actually unknown at this point. But it certainly reduces present and future demand for US labor.

... and on the 'flip side' , when one looks past massaged and cherry-picked statistics, 'real' jobs data is a bit surprising. Per the BLS, total US non-farm payroll employment in 2000 was 130.8 million people. The most recent July 2014 BLS report shows total US non-farm payroll employment at 139 million people. Thus 8 million jobs were added during that period. But during that period, the US population went from 282 million to 319 million. Thus 37 million additional American residents got to 'fight' over 8 million additional jobs.

In reality, the number is somewhat less given that newly born Americans and some number of new immigrants have yet to reach 'working age'. But that means that when they DO reach 'working age', they will instantly add to the supply of available US labor without an associated population increase. Again, this certainly doesn't appear to represent a 'tightening' of US labor supply. And it goes without saying that reaching 'working age' also means reaching 'voting' age.

Yes, granted that more and more Americans are entering the arena of 'self-employment', which arguably adds jobs without adding payroll employment. But on the other side of that is the shrinking number of full time jobs, versus the rapidly expanding number of part time jobs. I'll leave the issue as a 'maybe' ... given that we really won't find out for another decade.

However, in the shorter term, there's no question that America has an over-supply of available labor. But, as touched on earlier in this thread, there in fact may be a shortage of 'WILLING' labor !!! While the authors' 'theory' claims that immigrants / social welfare benefit recipients have, on average, lower IQ's, that certainly doesn't mean that they can't do some basic algebra and figure out that taking a $10 an hour unskilled job, but losing eligibility for medicaid, subsidized rent, subsidized utilities, SSI disability etc. leaves them 'worse off' by working than if they 'avoid' a job offer. And on the other end of the skills scale, some number of unemployed US skilled labor and/or 'professionals' may not be 'willing' to accept a replacement job offer - with a pay rate driven down by H1-B skilled immigrants, with after hours / travel requirements etc. which their previously eliminated job did not carry - versus collecting extended unemployment benefits and then filing for SSI disability ( or taking early retirement ).

Melonie
08-25-2014, 01:54 PM
... and circling back on topic, by 'pure coincidence' ... from

(snip)Are people dumber than they used to be? Were previous generations mentally sharper than us? You may have suspected that people are getting stupider for quite some time, but now we actually have scientific evidence that this is the case. As you will read about below, average IQs are dropping all over the globe, SAT scores in the U.S. have been declining for decades, and scientists have even discovered that our brains have been getting smaller over time. So if it seems on some days like you woke up in the middle of the movie “Idiocracy”, you might not be too far off.(snip)

(snip)There is other evidence that people are getting stupider as well. For instance, SAT scores in the United States have fallen significantly in recent years…

There appears to be a disturbing trend in American high schools. If we judge the quality of education by the scores that students get on their SATs, then it appears that things are getting worse. Since 2006, the overall average SAT score has fallen by 20 points, dropping from 1518 to 1498 in 2012. Scores are also down in each of the three categories tested, with reading dropping 9 points, mathematics dropping 4 points, and writing falling 9 points. It’s a fair bet that students aren’t becoming less intelligent, so exactly what is going on?

And this decline in SAT scores is not just limited to the past few years. As the following chart from Zero Hedge demonstrates, SAT scores have been declining in America for decades… (snip)

http://endoftheamericandream.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/SAT-Scores-declining-Zero-Hedge.png


However, the authors' 'theory' potentially provides reason to question the assertion that 'students aren't becoming less intelligent'. In fact, the late-70's sharp decline in SAT scores roughly corresponds to children born in the midst of 'Great Society' social programs reaching the age to take SAT's, the late 80's sharp decline in SAT scores corresponds to Reagan era 'amnesty', and the late 00's sharp decline in SAT scores arguably corresponds to court rulings that required illegal immigrant children be admitted to US public schools. Admittedly, correlation does not equal causation.

eagle2
08-25-2014, 06:33 PM
^^^ indeed there is a contingent of 'talking heads' who make that prediction. But their math draws questions when 2 million people are immigrating to the USA each year, when US companies are adding robots and automatic machinery at a record pace, etc. ... from http://www.robotics.org/content-detail.cfm/Industrial-Robotics-News/North-American-Robotics-Shipments-Grow-in-2013-While-New-Orders-Contract/content_id/4648

(snip)Ann Arbor, Michigan – Following a strong year in 2012, the North American robotics market recorded its best year ever in 2013 in terms of robot shipments, according to new statistics from Robotic Industries Association (RIA), the industry’s trade group.

A total of 22,591 robots valued at $1.39 billion were shipped to companies in North America in 2013, beating the previous record of 20,328 robots valued at $1.29 billion shipped in 2012. These new records for robotic shipments represent growth of 11% in units and seven percent in dollars.(snip)

Given that one robot or automatic machine ( with automatic machines vastly outnumbering the 22,600 actual 'robots' added by US companies last year ) can effectively replace multiple human jobs, the effect of this 'second wave' of automation is actually unknown at this point. But it certainly reduces present and future demand for US labor.

... and on the 'flip side' , when one looks past massaged and cherry-picked statistics, 'real' jobs data is a bit surprising. Per the BLS, total US non-farm payroll employment in 2000 was 130.8 million people. The most recent July 2014 BLS report shows total US non-farm payroll employment at 139 million people. Thus 8 million jobs were added during that period. But during that period, the US population went from 282 million to 319 million. Thus 37 million additional American residents got to 'fight' over 8 million additional jobs.

In reality, the number is somewhat less given that newly born Americans and some number of new immigrants have yet to reach 'working age'. But that means that when they DO reach 'working age', they will instantly add to the supply of available US labor without an associated population increase. Again, this certainly doesn't appear to represent a 'tightening' of US labor supply. And it goes without saying that reaching 'working age' also means reaching 'voting' age.

Yes, granted that more and more Americans are entering the arena of 'self-employment', which arguably adds jobs without adding payroll employment. But on the other side of that is the shrinking number of full time jobs, versus the rapidly expanding number of part time jobs. I'll leave the issue as a 'maybe' ... given that we really won't find out for another decade.

However, in the shorter term, there's no question that America has an over-supply of available labor. But, as touched on earlier in this thread, there in fact may be a shortage of 'WILLING' labor !!! While the authors' 'theory' claims that immigrants / social welfare benefit recipients have, on average, lower IQ's, that certainly doesn't mean that they can't do some basic algebra and figure out that taking a $10 an hour unskilled job, but losing eligibility for medicaid, subsidized rent, subsidized utilities, SSI disability etc. leaves them 'worse off' by working than if they 'avoid' a job offer. And on the other end of the skills scale, some number of unemployed US skilled labor and/or 'professionals' may not be 'willing' to accept a replacement job offer - with a pay rate driven down by H1-B skilled immigrants, with after hours / travel requirements etc. which their previously eliminated job did not carry - versus collecting extended unemployment benefits and then filing for SSI disability ( or taking early retirement ).

Immigration is way down, at least from Mexico.

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/04/23/net-migration-from-mexico-falls-to-zero-and-perhaps-less/

Approximately 80 million Americans were born between 1946 and 1965. Once these people start retiring in large numbers, the demand for workers should increase significantly.

GlamourRouge
08-25-2014, 07:02 PM
^^^ Maybe SAT scores are decreasing because people don't have to take them? They don't have to, and they don't need to.

Many people have no need to take an SAT test if they plan to do technical jobs (manual labor, etc), entrepreneurial business, and even a lot of universities. I even made it into graduate school without ever taking an SAT or GRE test. Neither were ever required, for some reason.

And I think a lot of other people just don't want to be book-smart, so those people also never take SATs or standardized testing after high school. There's really no point for them to do so if they don't want to. SAT scores were higher before now because not everyone attended college... and it was only the people that really wanted to be there.

Kellydancer
08-25-2014, 07:44 PM
That is a good point about tests. I did take the PSAT in school but never took the ACT or the SAT because the schools I attended never required them, they had their own tests. When I got to graduate school some degrees required it but my degree didn't, just required a related undergraduate and a GPA of at least 3.0. If I go and get my Ph.D I'll have to take the GRE but otherwise haven't needed any of them.

simone87
08-25-2014, 07:51 PM
psshh when i took the SATs i was 16 or 17, stoned, daydreaming out the window half the time, they probably thought i had an IQ around room temperature.. i was a teenager, i couldn't have cared less about it at that time so those are probably not a good measure haha, i know i can't be the only kid who got a bad score because i just didn't care

Melonie
08-26-2014, 03:07 AM
Immigration is way down, at least from Mexico.

Agreed that this is a recent phenomenon ... with 'net' migration meaning that many illegal immigrants have recently chosen to return to Mexico because they couldn't find American jobs ( legal or illegal ) which made it worthwhile for them to stay in the USA. Arguably, this is the result of increased enforcement toward US employers who hire illegal immigrants, combined with automation continuing to reduce the need for low skill workers. Also, this mostly applies to single male immigrants who came to the US with the intention of 'remitting' their American earnings to families back in Mexico. See your same source

It arguably does not apply where US citizen children, thus social welfare benefit eligibility for the entire household, are involved.



Approximately 80 million Americans were born between 1946 and 1965. Once hese people start retiring in large numbers, the demand for workers should increase significantly.

... and, right now, there are 92 million Americans who are 'not in the workforce' - see . This means that a significant number of those born between 1946 an 1965 have already 'retired', and also means that ... in addition to ongoing legal and illegal immigration ... there will still be an overhang of tens of millions of Americans without jobs available to fill those future retirement based job openings.

Of course, the real question is whether or not those tens of millions of unemployed Americans, or those 2 million legal and illegal immigrants per year, will be 'qualified' to fill those future retirement based job openings. Based on the author's 'theory', in many cases, the answer will likely be no !!! Based on the authors' 'theory', American companies will continue to reach out to foreign countries for more skilled H1-B workers to fill many of those future retirement based job openings ... because the vast majority of 'available' American labor either isn't qualified, or isn't 'willing' to deal with the employer's requirements of long hours, unexpected travel, putting job before family etc. As pointed out at , both doctors and engineers are now taking early retirements in unprecedented numbers for related reasons.

The implied point, of course, is that the vast majority of Americans who have 'left the workforce', as well as the vast majority of legal and illegal immigrants, are not qualified to fill openings created when doctors and engineers ( or a host of other 'professions' and 'technical specialties' ) retire. Moreover, the vast majority do not have the prerequisites necessary to become qualified, even if they had the motivation to do so. Instead, what you have are tens of millions of unemployed US residents who do not have skills which are of 'value' to employers, and who also do not have the aptitude nor the motivation to acquire such skills.

As the authors' 'theory' speculates, what many of those Americans who have left the workforce, and the majority of legal and illegal immigrants DO have motivation for is to make babies ... because additional children increases social welfare benefit amounts the household receives. Also, in the case of illegal immigrants, US citizen children provide protection against possible deportation.

As the author's 'theory' implies, the additional costs associated with those increased social welfare benefits winds up causing increased taxes on US businesses and US workers, as well as causing increased costs for all Americans as a result of the gov't 'printing money out of nowhere' to help pay for social welfare benefit costs which tax revenues cannot cover. This in turn motivates US businesses to expect 'more' out of their workers. And with US workers thus facing both increased job pressures and increased financial pressures due to their own rising costs, the authors' 'theory' states that those US workers are less likely to disrupt their careers / earnings / standard of living by having ( more ) children.

Eric Stoner
08-26-2014, 08:05 AM
Fascinating discussion. Just a few points if I may :

I think there is a dietary connection.
I think all this texting and gaming is limiting to children when it keeps them from THINKING and playing intellectually stimulating games.
Part of it might be more intelligent women having fewer children. Genetics certainly plays a role.
I think that education and intelligence ARE connected. Every brain study says "use it or lose it ". So the more intellectual stimulation the better. BUT then the question arises as to whether children are being taught to think ; to reason; OR just how to take tests .
Are there any studies showing INCREASED I.Q. scores ? In Asia ? Anywhere in the world ? If so , how do we account for the increase ?

Melonie
08-26-2014, 08:31 AM
^^^ in regard to your question ... from


(snip)If you look at the Wechsler [ Wechsler Intelligence Scale - sic ] gains abroad, they are pretty close to U.S. gains. There was a period of high historic gains in Scandinavia; these seem to have tailed off as the century waned. I thought that might be true of other countries as well. Maybe the engine that powers IQ gains was running out of fuel? But the latest data from South Korea, America, Germany and Britain show the gains still humming along at that same rate into the 21st century.(snip)

(snip)The ultimate cause is the Industrial Revolution. It affects our society in innumerable ways. The intermediate causes are things like smaller family size. If you have a better ratio of adults to children in the home, than an adult vocabulary predominates rather than a child vocabulary. Family size fell in the last century throughout the Western world. Formal schooling is terribly important; it helps you think in the way that IQ testers like. In 1910, schools were focused on kids memorizing things about the real world. Today, they are entirely about relationships. There is also the fact that so many more of us are pursuing cognitively demanding professions. Compared to even 1950, the number of people who are doing technical, managerial or professional jobs has risen enormously. The fact that our leisure has switched away from merely recovery from work towards cognitively taxing pleasures, like playing video games, has also been important.(snip)

(snip)The question is why are parents less capable of socializing their children into their own vocabulary than they were 50 years ago? I can only imagine that some cultural barrier has built up that insulates the speech of children from the speech of adults.

Could teenage subculture be this barrier? The word “teenager” didn’t exist in 1950. I was a teenager in 1950, and like everyone else, I wanted to become an adult as quick as possible to get access to money, sex, privacy and a car. Today, teenagers have all of those things without becoming adults. They have enormous purchasing power, and they have developed their own subculture, which is often antagonistic towards their parents. They often have their own speech patterns from texting and slang. I suspect that at least for teenagers a cultural barrier has developed between parent and child. What has happened with younger children, I am still investigating.(snip)


... thus the Smithsonian author's analysis actually comes to similar conclusions as the original author's 'theory', but via the back door. Larger family sizes, as well as 'poor communications' between parents and children, contribute to lower IQ scores. By extrapolation, so does the presence / absence of the father in the child's household. These factors obviously directly correlate to the significant number of US citizen single mothers having Medicaid covered births, to the majority of legal and illegal immigrants having large family sizes once they are residing in the US, to a majority of US citizen single mothers and legal / illegal immigrants having a limited amount of formal education themselves, etc.

Also, by extrapolation, parents who are not themselves educated or 'assimilated' are less able to communicate 'valuable' information ( valuable regarding IQ test results, at any rate ) to their children. Also, by extrapolation, the likelihood of ongoing increases in IQ's of foreign countries would appear to be related to the relative rates of immigration they allow, and the relative size of any 'unassimilated' immigrant groups present in those countries.

Lastly, in regard to IQ scores no longer rising in Scandinavian countries, by 'pure coincidence' ...

(snip)While the fifth night of unrest was not as bad as the previous four, signs indicate it may be spreading to other cities across the country.

These riots are yet another social problem directly caused by Europe’s financial crisis.

When times are good, EU nations are able to sustain high levels of immigration with relatively few problems. However, rising unemployment is fueling anger and even hatred among immigrants and natives.

While Sweden’s overall unemployment rate is at 8.2 percent—well below the EU’s average of 10.9—its youth unemployment is high, at 23.5 percent. With unemployment at this level, people begin to blame immigrants: Our children can’t find work, because the immigrants are taking all the jobs.(snip)

Kellydancer
08-26-2014, 12:58 PM
This kind of relates to this but I saw something like this today. I had to take my mom to the doctor. The receptionist had an Indian accent and likely from India. There were several moms who came in who were receiving welfare. One had two small kids and pregnant with a third. She had trouble reading the papers she had to sign (no she wasn't an illegal). She's been on welfare a few years according to her conversation with the receptionist. This means someone too stupid to use birth control is also creating more who will also likely be stupid.

GlamourRouge
08-26-2014, 01:04 PM
This kind of relates to this but I saw something like this today. I had to take my mom to the doctor. The receptionist had an Indian accent and likely from India. There were several moms who came in who were receiving welfare. One had two small kids and pregnant with a third. She had trouble reading the papers she had to sign (no she wasn't an illegal). She's been on welfare a few years according to her conversation with the receptionist. This means someone too stupid to use birth control is also creating more who will also likely be stupid.

Wait how can you look at someone and know they are receiving welfare? Even paperwork, that's typically general.

And even with welfare, you can only be on it for a maximum of 5 years ever, regardless of how many kids you have.

Lastly, lots of people get pregnant on birth control, even with perfect use.

Melonie
08-26-2014, 01:13 PM
^^^ if it involved a doctor's office, it would have been Medicaid ... which has no time limit. Also the 'clock' on other social welfare benefits won't 'expire' until the youngest child reaches age 18, and Medicaid eligibility goes hand in hand with eligibility for food stamps, subsidized rent, subsidized utilities, cash TANF, etc. But that's somewhat off topic.

Also, the presence of a H1-B visa immigrant health care office assistant is no surprise. Medicaid / Public Exchange health insurance has reduced 'reimbursement' rates paid to doctors treating Medicaid / Public Exchange health insurance patients significantly ... thus doctor's offices need to cut costs wherever possible to counteract the reduced payments they are receiving ( which in many cases are now below the actual doctor's cost of providing that medical service ). An obvious way to do that is to replace native US health care workers with H1-B visa health care workers who are 'happy' to work for a lower hourly pay rate. Again this is somewhat off topic.

Kellydancer
08-26-2014, 10:08 PM
I knew she was on medicaid because she mentioned it and showed a card. Yes birth control fails but THREE times? I call bullshit on that. She was probably getting pregnant for more welfare, that has been what I've seen.

I suspect the worker was a visa worker because this system is known for bringing in visa workers. It goes without saying that perhaps this system is getting too many medicaid patients and yes they need to cut costs somewhere.

Melonie
08-26-2014, 11:50 PM
^^^ again not wanting to drift off topic, but previous comments tend to indicate that the concept of 'reimbursement rates' might not be fully understood. Basically, Medicare, Medicaid and narrow network Public Health insurance, simply 'dictate' that they will pay a certain amount to a doctor for performing a particular service ... with no regard to the doctor's actual costs to provide that service. So, for example, the 'reimbursement rate' for a sonogram might be $250 ... while the all-in cost to the doctor's office to pay for the sonogram machine, the personnel costs for record-keeping and billing, the doctor's time, office utility bills and rent etc. might come out to be $350. The doctor's office would typically offset this 'loss' by charging a privately insured or self-pay patient $400 for the same sonogram. However, as the relative number of Medicaid, Medicare and Public Health insured patients increases, and the relative number of privately insured or self-pay patients declines, this cost shifting becomes less and less viable ( because the $400 overcharge might need to increase to $500 or $600 for the doctor's office to still 'break even' ) .

Thus to reduce this 'loss' the doctor's office must find other ways to reduce their actual costs of providing the sonogram ... with one obvious way being replacement of a $20 per hour US citizen medical assistant with a $12 per hour H1-B visa foreign medical assistant. This phenomenon also creates pressure on a currently employed $20 per hour US citizen medical assistant NOT to 'quit' her job to have children ... since there is a fair probability that a $12 an hour H1-B visa medical assistant will be hired to replace her. And if the $20 an hour US citizen medical assistant does decide to 'quit' her job and have a child, when the child reaches school age such that she can again seek work as a medical assistant, the future 'going rate' for medical assistant job offers will likely be at the H1-B visa worker based $12 an hour level !

Also, under current law, food stamp, TANF and other social welfare benefits generally continue to increase with the number of minor children ... up to 3 children. Some states provide further increases in benefit levels beyond 3 children, but many no longer do. Thus it is probably more than just pure coincidence that social welfare benefit recipient US citizen single mom birth rates, as well as legal and illegal immigrant birth rates, all hover near 3 children.

circling back on topic, this is yet another specific example of the authors' 'theory' in action. And, as the authors' 'theory' implies, 18 years from now the single mom and her three children will probably be casting votes in favor of sustained or increased social welfare benefits via increased income taxes, while the childless $20 an hour US citizen medical assistant will be casting a vote to try and prevent her income tax rate from being increased.

Kellydancer
08-26-2014, 11:53 PM
That is very true. It also explain when I had insurance or self paid why I was paying more. I changed dentists because of it.

Snow X
08-27-2014, 12:16 AM
^^well at 38,400 a year before taxes...it put her in a middle class bracket... one that is a minority when we are discussing economic classes. If we tax the middle class(up to 160,000 yearly at the moment I believe) than we get a backlash because there are working class people who's lives would be changing for the worse. I think a good solution would probably(if we're still talking bout insurance):
A)regulate the cost of medical care(i.e. flat rate care for everyone)
B)tax the 1% (100,000,00 mil+ net worth)who currently hold 90% of the world's riches. Hardly make a dent in their wallets.
C)provide mandatory universal family planning services{limit # o' kids}
D)provide tax relief for business(doctors office) with 90% citizen employment.
F) Verify financial needs in accordance to assets including cars...you can't drive a Bentley or have a mansion (like that lottery winner) and still be in financial need; despite not being liquid(cash) they can still be sold for $$$.




Just a few a of my ideas that I think would be applicable in the U.S. at least.

Snow X
08-27-2014, 12:19 AM
^^well at 38,400 a year before taxes...it put her in a middle class bracket... one that is a minority when we are discussing economic classes. If we tax the middle class(up to 160,000 yearly at the moment I believe) than we get a backlash because there are working class people who's lives would be changing for the worse. I think a good solution would probably(if we're still talking bout insurance):


A)regulate the cost of medical care(i.e. flat rate care for everyone)
B)tax the 1% (100,000,00 mil+ net worth)who currently hold 90% of the world's riches. Hardly make a dent in their wallets.
C)provide mandatory universal family planning services{limit # o' kids}
D)provide tax relief for business(doctors office) with 90% citizen employment.
F) Verify financial needs in accordance to assets including cars...you can't drive a Bentley or have a mansion (like that lottery winner) and still be in financial need; despite not being liquid(cash) they can still be sold for $$$.




Just a few a of my ideas that I think would be applicable in the U.S. at least. :soapbox:

Melonie
08-27-2014, 12:29 AM
^^^ you're getting into areas of discussion which are 'political' rather than factual.

All I can safely say in the way of a strictly factual response is that, where the 1% earners are concerned, expatriations are now at record levels. Same is true of high earning, high tax rate US corporations ( see today's news blurbs about the Burger King 'inversion' takeover of Canadian company Tim Hortons ). The point of course is that imposing high tax rates on 'rich' US citizens and corporations is already resulting in some of those 'rich' citizens and corporations no longer remaining in the US ... and as such, putting themselves beyond the reach of the IRS. This obviously defeats the purpose of US tax increases on those 'rich' citizens and corporations since US tax revenues collected from expat American citizens and 'inverted' former US corporations will be vastly reduced, along with creating other negative 'unintended consequences' to the US economy because they ( and their money ) have 'left the building'.

GlamourRouge
08-27-2014, 12:41 AM
The 1% can afford to hire the best lawyers, accountants, and other people to make their taxes as low as possible. The only way you can be part of the 1% is if you own a business or inherited the money. Inherited money cannot be taxed because its already yours. So unless you're doing some heavy investing or something, you are a business owner if you're part of the 1%.

So the only other stupid shit that can be done is to pose additional taxes on business owners and the self-employed, and that fucks over sexworkers.

Snow X
08-27-2014, 12:48 AM
Although the 1% is 97% inherited riches and 3% self made...being a business owner doesn't mean you're in the 1% or are one of the few who are worth enough to be considered 1%. Even if you made a million a year (average life expectancy being 75 for females) you would still only have 75,000,000......25,000,000 short of being one percent.

Melonie
08-27-2014, 12:52 AM
the only other stupid shit that can be done is to pose additional taxes on business owners and the self-employed, and that fucks over sexworkers.

Again not wanting to stray off topic, but you actually understate this point. Dancers, camgirls, escorts etc. wind up being 'fucked twice' in this scenario. The first is via the fact that business owners and other high earners have less money left to spend on lap dances, paid webcam, escort bookings etc. thus directly reducing sex worker income. The second is that a higher effective tax rate would be applied to the income which sex workers are still able to earn.

Similarly, rich Americans who choose not to leave the country to escape increased taxation have a number of other options available to avoid an increase their actual effective tax rates ... among these are triple tax free municipal bonds, tax favored investments in 'green energy' partnerships, and a host of other alternatives that 'average' Americans can't afford to get involved in directly.

Again, can we please try to stay away from 'political' issues such as theoretical future tax policy ...

Snow X
08-27-2014, 12:52 AM
Oh forgot to mention even inheritance is taxed...at least in the U.S.
Although you can receive 5,000,000(each) with out tax from any person who leaves you inheritance, but after 5 mil it's a 15% tax rate.

GlamourRouge
08-27-2014, 01:12 AM
Although the 1% is 97% inherited riches and 3% self made...being a business owner doesn't mean you're in the 1% or are one of the few who are worth enough to be considered 1%. Even if you made a million a year (average life expectancy being 75 for females) you would still only have 75,000,000......25,000,000 short of being one percent.

What? I never said you are part of the 1% if you're a business owner. I just said if you didn't inherit the money or get it through investing, the only way you can possibly earn millions per year (needed in order to be apart of the 1%) is by being a business owner. If you work for someone else, you won't be making that kind of money.



Again not wanting to stray off topic, but you actually understate this point. Dancers, camgirls, escorts etc. wind up being 'fucked twice' in this scenario. The first is via the fact that business owners and other high earners have less money left to spend on lap dances, paid webcam, escort bookings etc. thus directly reducing sex worker income. The second is that a higher effective tax rate would be applied to the income which sex workers are still able to earn.

Exactly




Rich are getting richer, poor are getting poor (well, middle class is the new poor due to debt). Definitely a big impact on IQ for sure.

Melonie
08-27-2014, 05:27 AM
Rich are getting richer, poor are getting poor (well, middle class is the new poor due to debt). Definitely a big impact on IQ for sure.


... which very conveniently brings us back to the central topic, because this is yet another aspect of the authors' 'theory'. Middle class Americans are now having fewer children because they cannot afford the costs of raising children while at the same time being able to afford to make student loan payments, mortgage debt payments, car lease payments, paying higher prices for 'necessary' items like food, energy, health care etc.

On the 'flip side', social welfare benefit recipient single mothers, and immigrants with US citizen children, don't share these concerns because ... in lots of cases ... there isn't any student debt ( thus there isn't any college education either ), and 'someone else' is paying for at least part of their rent, food, utility bills, and health care. And, as mentioned earlier, the more children they have ( up to 3 anyhow ) the more 'someone else' pays.

eagle2
08-27-2014, 05:03 PM
... which very conveniently brings us back to the central topic, because this is yet another aspect of the authors' 'theory'. Middle class Americans are now having fewer children because they cannot afford the costs of raising children while at the same time being able to afford to make student loan payments, mortgage debt payments, car lease payments, paying higher prices for 'necessary' items like food, energy, health care etc.

On the 'flip side', social welfare benefit recipient single mothers, and immigrants with US citizen children, don't share these concerns because ... in lots of cases ... there isn't any student debt ( thus there isn't any college education either ), and 'someone else' is paying for at least part of their rent, food, utility bills, and health care. And, as mentioned earlier, the more children they have ( up to 3 anyhow ) the more 'someone else' pays.

According to this study, 13 percent of children are born poor.

http://www.urban.org/publications/901356.html

That's pretty close to the percentage of Americans who are poor, so poor people are having children at about the same rate as the rest of the country.

simone87
08-27-2014, 05:35 PM
idk what welfare is like in other states, but in mine its certainly nothing to write home about. if you want housing, you best get on a fucking FIVE TO TEN YEAR waiting list. you don't just show up and say "boohoo i'm poor help me" and they hand you a free apt. lmao. food stamps are extremely hard to be eligible for unless you are unemployed. tanf ( cash benefits) you can only get up to 5 years, and its only enough to buy diapers, formula, and possibly gas. for one child you may get 2 or 3 hundred BUT you must log 20 hours a week of job searching, and yes you have to prove this. welfare isn't what it was in the 80s where you could just live off of it. my friend just got a job making 14 or 15 bucks an hour, and she has been completely cut off from all forms of assistance. making 14 an hour, you are still in poverty.
once again this has turned into some bullshit welfare debate, and its unfortunate..i thought this was going to be an intelligent thread

lynn2009
08-27-2014, 05:42 PM
making 14 an hour, you are still in poverty.

maybe with a kid, but I lived off 15/hr for about a year, for a position that required a bachelor degree (and the school loans to go with it). and this was not in a cheap area, all I could afford for housing was to rent a room in a house, not a real apartment. this is actually when I started moonlighting at clubs.

do agree that the value of welfare programs is overstated. but as someone from the outside sometimes it is hard not to get frustrated.