Log in

View Full Version : IQ scores are Decreasing in Western Countries



Pages : 1 2 [3]

simone87
08-27-2014, 05:51 PM
in my state, it is very firmly within the poverty line, i used to make 15 an hour as an LNA..400 a week. with a kid, you are barely getting by. anyways, the ridiculous judgment in this thread, a woman has 3 kids so she must be stupid? i'm sorry but i've never heard of anything more disgusting, arrogant, or ignorant in my life. my mother had 3 kids, and both my parents have master's degrees.

GlamourRouge
08-27-2014, 06:43 PM
According to this study, 13 percent of children are born poor.



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.

Not to mention that many of the mothers could easily re-marry into upper middle class or something. Many are only poor because they just have one parent income coming in and high daycare costs. Hypothetically, if you were a sexworker & a single mom, it would be like having 2 incomes because you could work around the child's schedule and forego the costs of daycare, which can easily be a second parent's yearly salary.



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.

Yeah... I heard they are going to raise the Los Angeles minimum wage to $13.25, and San Francisco just put $15/hour for minimum wage on the ballot. That gets you NOTHING in a lot of places where it costs like minimum $800/month just to rent a room in a semi-poor or poor area.

minnow
08-27-2014, 07:41 PM
^^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.
<<<Snips>>> :soapbox:

:thinking::eyebrow: Where did you pull that $100M net worth figure from for the top 1% ? Just for ;D I did a search on "minimum net worth to be in top 1% (IMO, net worth a more valid metric than income on how "well" one is doing when you get up to that level). According to a 2009 study, a net worth of $13,987,000 would put one in the top 1%. Perhaps you meant to say "top 1/100%" (0.01%)? I haven't googled that yet, I'm not going to worry about what bracket $100M net worth would put oneself in until I get myself in the top 1%. :D

Kellydancer
08-27-2014, 08:00 PM
in my state, it is very firmly within the poverty line, i used to make 15 an hour as an LNA..400 a week. with a kid, you are barely getting by. anyways, the ridiculous judgment in this thread, a woman has 3 kids so she must be stupid? i'm sorry but i've never heard of anything more disgusting, arrogant, or ignorant in my life. my mother had 3 kids, and both my parents have master's degrees.

It wasn't that the woman I mentioned was stupid, but rather that she had two kids and is pregnant with a third on medicaid. That to me is stupidity. I understand accidents happen and all of that but THREE times? She's either stupid or an user. If I was on medicaid I'd make sure I didn't get pregnant again.

In Illinois the welfare system is a serious problem. 54% of all babies are born on medicaid and according to stats, 70% were accidents. It doesn't say what kind of accident as in birth control failed or no birth control at all. I had a friend on welfare and yes here you can live on it, especially if you have an under the table job as she did and so did her baby daddy. There's the Link Card which provides cash and food assistance, there's utilities paid, free cell (used to be home phone), education, section 8, WIC and so much more. In addition they get a gift certificate once a month. Meanwhile I have friends who were poor but because they were childless they got little, like $20 a month food stamps. A friend died because he couldn't afford medical and got cancer. If the welfare system was fair I would be more approving of it but the way it is now is a mess and encourages the wrong people to breed.

Melonie
08-28-2014, 03:06 AM
According to this study, 13 percent of children are born poor.



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.

^^^ actually, if you check the study's footnotes, 13% of American children WERE born 'poor' in the 1960's and 1970's - the baseline period for the study. That compares to recent statistics showing that some 45+% of American children are now being born to parents eligible for Medicaid ... which by definition means that 45%+ of todays American children are being born 'poor'. See . There are myriad reasons for this change ... from a redefinition of the gov't's official definition of 'poor', to 40 years worth of 'poor' foreigners immigrating into the USA, to a gradual decline in 'middle class' births as more and more wives embarked on careers or full time jobs over the last 40 years, to a gradual increase in births to 'poor' single mothers over the last 40 years.



in my state, it is very firmly within the poverty line, i used to make 15 an hour as an LNA..400 a week. with a kid, you are barely getting by. anyways, the ridiculous judgment in this thread, a woman has 3 kids so she must be stupid?


In Illinois the welfare system is a serious problem. 54% of all babies are born on medicaid and according to stats, 70% were accidents. It doesn't say what kind of accident as in birth control failed or no birth control at all. I had a friend on welfare and yes here you can live on it, especially if you have an under the table job as she did and so did her baby daddy. There's the Link Card which provides cash and food assistance, there's utilities paid, free cell (used to be home phone), education, section 8, WIC and so much more. In addition they get a gift certificate once a month. Meanwhile I have friends who were poor but because they were childless they got little, like $20 a month food stamps.

This is the part of the 'equation' which we're unlikely to ever see accurate statistics for. Also, as I stated earlier, there is nothing 'stupid' whatsoever for a single mom with one child deciding to have two more children !!! Under present social welfare benefit formulas, this is a very sound business decision which provides much in the way of additional 'benefits' in exchange for little in the way of additional 'costs' to the single mother.

And as Kellydancer points out, there is another 'equation' to be considered ... which revolves around the 'equivalent cash value' of social welfare benefits, and a comparison of actual 'standard of living' versus a simple comparison of dollars earned. On that basis, a single mother with three children collecting all of the available social welfare benefits mentioned above is likely to be able to achieve a 'standard of living' that would otherwise require a $30,000+ per year cash income level. Again, there is nothing 'stupid' whatsoever about a decision to avoid taking an ( on the books ) job which provides zero net improvement in actual 'standard of living' for herself or her children.

Arguably, in today's culture, it is the single mothers who decide to take ( on the books ) jobs which disqualify them from social welfare benefit eligibility ... while not actually earning the $30,000+ per year necessary to provide a 'standard of living' equal to that which is available via social welfare benefits ... who are actually being 'stupid'. Obviously, such a viewpoint 'flies in the face' of many traditional American paradigms, but today's realities are what they are.

Eric Stoner
08-28-2014, 09:52 AM
^^^ actually, if you check the study's footnotes, 13% of American children WERE born 'poor' in the 1960's and 1970's - the baseline period for the study. That compares to recent statistics showing that some 45+% of American children are now being born to parents eligible for Medicaid ... which by definition means that 45%+ of todays American children are being born 'poor'. See http://publichealth.gwu.edu/content/medicaid-pays-nearly-half-all-births-united-states . There are myriad reasons for this change ... from a redefinition of the gov't's official definition of 'poor', to 40 years worth of 'poor' foreigners immigrating into the USA, to a gradual decline in 'middle class' births as more and more wives embarked on careers or full time jobs over the last 40 years, to a gradual increase in births to 'poor' single mothers over the last 40 years.






This is the part of the 'equation' which we're unlikely to ever see accurate statistics for. Also, as I stated earlier, there is nothing 'stupid' whatsoever for a single mom with one child deciding to have two more children !!! Under present social welfare benefit formulas, this is a very sound business decision which provides much in the way of additional 'benefits' in exchange for little in the way of additional 'costs' to the single mother.

And as Kellydancer points out, there is another 'equation' to be considered ... which revolves around the 'equivalent cash value' of social welfare benefits, and a comparison of actual 'standard of living' versus a simple comparison of dollars earned. On that basis, a single mother with three children collecting all of the available social welfare benefits mentioned above is likely to be able to achieve a 'standard of living' that would otherwise require a $30,000+ per year cash income level. Again, there is nothing 'stupid' whatsoever about a decision to avoid taking an ( on the books ) job which provides zero net improvement in actual 'standard of living' for herself or her children.

Arguably, in today's culture, it is the single mothers who decide to take ( on the books ) jobs which disqualify them from social welfare benefit eligibility ... while not actually earning the $30,000+ per year necessary to provide a 'standard of living' equal to that which is available via social welfare benefits ... who are actually being 'stupid'. Obviously, such a viewpoint 'flies in the face' of many traditional American paradigms, but today's realities are what they are.

The following has been posted before and has NEVER been refuted , let alone disputed : To almost guarantee that you will NOT live in poverty - 1. Do not get pregnant outside of marriage ; 2. Finish high school ; 3. Stay out of jail and 4.Do not get married before age 21. If you do any one of those things you greatly increase the odds that you will be poor. Do two and it is virtual guarantee.

For women , Number "1" (supra) is the biggie because most poor households are headed by a single woman. Most unwed mothers live in poverty. And they are the ones having children.

Kellydancer
08-28-2014, 10:19 AM
Melone, you do have a point. It really is smart if one is a single poor woman to use social programs. In Illinois and other states the programs are so generous it makes more sense to have kids while single and poor versus having kids while working. The irony is Illinois has a high standard of living that middle class women can't afford many kids and often can't have kids at all. Part of the reason why is because of high taxes to support these families and other things like high rents to help off set the rents of those on section 8.

Melonie
08-28-2014, 01:27 PM
^^^ well, that certainly jives with the authors' 'theory' regarding the reasons that middle class and 'professional' women are having fewer children, while social welfare benefit recipient single mothers and ( legal or illegal ) immigrant mothers are having more children.

Indeed, generous social welfare benefit program 'costs' do wind up having to be paid for in one way or another. When that happens via the state imposing higher income tax rates, middle class and 'professional' working women become less able to afford to have children. When that happens via the state imposing higher property tax rates ( thus larger mortgage payments / higher rents ), by the state imposing higher sales tax rates ( thus higher prices for almost everything ), by the state imposing higher excise tax rates ( thus higher utility bills ), middle class and 'professional' working women become even less able to afford to have children. Obviously, these higher tax rates have very little effect on social welfare benefit recipients, since their incomes are so low that no income tax will be leveed, since their rent and utility bills are subsidized by 'someone else', etc.



To almost guarantee that you will NOT live in poverty - 1. Do not get pregnant outside of marriage ; 2. Finish high school ; 3. Stay out of jail and 4.Do not get married before age 21. If you do any one of those things you greatly increase the odds that you will be poor. Do two and it is virtual guarantee.

All documented to be true by multiple past studies. However, these days, it's no longer safe to assume the reciprocal is true going forward into the future ... i.e. if a 16 year old girl today #1 avoids pregnancy, #2 finishes high school, #3 stays out of jail, and #4 does not get married before age 21, odds are that she will STILL be 'poor' !!! But that's not directly relevant to the topic of this thread. What IS relevant is whether or not that 16 year old girl decides to try following the four steps and then working at an unskilled / semi-skilled job for a number of years ... to live cheaply and save money in the meantime ... and eventually have a child if and when she can afford to - or whether that 16 year old girl decides to get pregnant and have a child right away and collect social welfare benefits ( with two more children to quickly follow ).

eagle2
08-28-2014, 07:17 PM
^^^ 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.

There are far more wealthy people immigrating to America than leaving, especially from China.

lestat1
08-28-2014, 10:37 PM
And this surprises anyone? As if it's the smartest guy at the bar getting all the sex? LOL

Isaac Newton invented calculus and discovered the equations for classical physics. He died a virgin. We could have been piloting flying cars right now, but no. I have to drive on the ground because some 17th century tavern wenches were all: "Math is stupid. Check out the biceps on that sailor!"

Melonie
08-29-2014, 01:30 AM
There are far more wealthy people immigrating to America than leaving, especially from China.

We've already covered this earlier in the thread. While the immigration of 'rich' Chinese, as well as 'rich' South Americans, has drawn some headlines as well as bidding up luxury real estate prices in a few large US cities, in point of fact they represent just 0.4% of legal immigration. And while the amount of 'wealth' being brought with them is questionable, another 14% of legal immigrants come into the USA via H1-B visas ... which at least means that they have the education and skills to earn a living after arriving in the USA. However, the remaining 86% of legal immigrants are predominantly relatives of previously admitted legal immigrants and/or are 'refugees' ... who come into the USA with little 'wealth', and few 'marketable' skills. And on top of the 86% of the 1 million annual legal immigrants whose 'financial independence' is doubtful, there another estimated 500k to 1 million illegal immigrants who are crossing the US border with little more than the shirts on their backs.

Yes you are technically correct that, at the moment, the official statistics for immigration of Chinese 'multi-milllionaires' ( ~7000 ) exceeds the official number of renounced citizenships by US 'multi-millionaires' ( ~3000 ). However, there is reason to question both the accuracy and the 'sustainability' of those numbers. See and

And, of course, this does not cover 'wealth' exiting the USA via other means ... from corporate 'inversions' to Cayman Island vacations !

Regardless, in terms of this thread topic, a few thousand immigrant 'multi-millionaires' giving birth to a few hundred children per year amounts to 'a drop in the bucket' compared to 48% of 3.8 million or 1.9 million US births being funded by Medicaid in 2010. See



And this surprises anyone? As if it's the smartest guy at the bar getting all the sex? LOL

Isaac Newton invented calculus and discovered the equations for classical physics. He died a virgin. We could have been piloting flying cars right now, but no. I have to drive on the ground because some 17th century tavern wenches were all: "Math is stupid. Check out the biceps on that sailor!"

Not wanting to drift off topic, but this has always been true at the 'hard-wired' level. From caveman times to the Industrial Revolution, choosing a 'mate' based on physical strength made a great deal of sense for the female, because that physical strength directly contributed to a high probability that her family would be well provided for. However, once the ( post Isaac Newton ) Industrial Revolution arrived, a 'mate's physical strength no longer went hand in hand with a higher 'standard of living'. Also, at the extreme, an inability of the father to provide for the family also meant that children might not survive to pass on the genetic attributes.

However, with the advent of social welfare benefit programs ( circa 1930's in Europe and 1960's in America ), the 'state' began to fulfill the role of substitute family provider. Thus women, for the first time, were able to de-couple their 'hard-wired' choice of 'mates' from that 'mate's actual ability to provide for the family ... given the fact that the 'state' would insure that her children would survive and be able to pass on genetic attributes regardless of how well the father was able to provide for the family. As you imply, it is likely that the result has been the birth of lots more 'physically strong, attractive' children. But, as you and the author's 'theory' also assert, those increased numbers of 'physically strong, attractive' children are also less likely to grow up to be 'the smartest guy at the bar'.

But in terms of the topic of this thread, the authors' research clearly shows that genetics isn't the major factor where IQ is concerned. Much importance is placed on parental communication / interaction with children. Thus, regardless of genetics, children raised in a two parent household have a higher probability of testing high for IQ than the same children raise in a single parent household. Similarly, children raised by 'educated' parents have a higher probability of testing high for IQ than the same children raised by less 'educated' parents.

Eric Stoner
09-02-2014, 11:33 AM
^^^ well, that certainly jives with the authors' 'theory' regarding the reasons that middle class and 'professional' women are having fewer children, while social welfare benefit recipient single mothers and ( legal or illegal ) immigrant mothers are having more children.

Indeed, generous social welfare benefit program 'costs' do wind up having to be paid for in one way or another. When that happens via the state imposing higher income tax rates, middle class and 'professional' working women become less able to afford to have children. When that happens via the state imposing higher property tax rates ( thus larger mortgage payments / higher rents ), by the state imposing higher sales tax rates ( thus higher prices for almost everything ), by the state imposing higher excise tax rates ( thus higher utility bills ), middle class and 'professional' working women become even less able to afford to have children. Obviously, these higher tax rates have very little effect on social welfare benefit recipients, since their incomes are so low that no income tax will be leveed, since their rent and utility bills are subsidized by 'someone else', etc.




All documented to be true by multiple past studies. However, these days, it's no longer safe to assume the reciprocal is true going forward into the future ... i.e. if a 16 year old girl today #1 avoids pregnancy, #2 finishes high school, #3 stays out of jail, and #4 does not get married before age 21, odds are that she will STILL be 'poor' !!! But that's not directly relevant to the topic of this thread. What IS relevant is whether or not that 16 year old girl decides to try following the four steps and then working at an unskilled / semi-skilled job for a number of years ... to live cheaply and save money in the meantime ... and eventually have a child if and when she can afford to - or whether that 16 year old girl decides to get pregnant and have a child right away and collect social welfare benefits ( with two more children to quickly follow ).

WHAT ??? Huh ? Whoa ! Where do you get the facts and figures to support the assertion that a 16 year old who remains chaste ; stays out of jail ; waits to get married and finishes high school will still be poor ? The studies all say that she will avoid a life of poverty.

Melonie
09-02-2014, 02:37 PM
The studies all say that she will avoid a life of poverty

the PRE-2008 studies indeed show this was true in the past. But these studies were reliant on an economic 'reality' that existed in the past that arguably no longer exists today ... i.e. that a high school diploma, a clean criminal record, etc. will translate into being hired for a job whose earnings potential is sufficient to provide an after-tax net income level which is above the officlal poverty level. These days, a high school diploma plus a clean criminal record will get you into the line of 5+ similarly qualified applicants who are vying for a single burger-flipping minimum wage job opening.

Granted that lack of a high school diploma, and/or the existence of a criminal record etc. will pretty much guarantee a life of poverty going forward. But my point was that avoiding these negatives doesn't guarantee a damn thing in the post-2008 economic 'real world'.

However, having a child ( or better yet 2 or 3 children ) does guarantee a 'comfortable' standard of living thanks to social welfare benefits ... even though the amount of actual 'cash' income involved will definitely fall below the official poverty line. Arguably, the 'non-cash' value of having 1/2 of one's rent payment, a portion of one's utility bills, all of one's cell phone bill, all of one's health care costs, etc. subsidized by 'somebody else' would place the household well above the official poverty line if the actual value of these subsidies were treated as additional income.

Eric Stoner
09-03-2014, 08:07 AM
^^^ O.K. Now I see where you are coming from. Yeah, things are probably tougher now than previously for our hypothetical chaste H.S. grad with a clean record. But his or her chances are still a lot better than those with one , two or more of the self imposed handicaps we have been discussing. Would he or she have better prospects with certain college degrees ? Yes. Same for grads of reputable trade schools and training programs. We still need auto mechanics , plumbers , electricians , LPN's, technicians of all kinds etc.

Melonie
09-03-2014, 09:45 AM
^^^ There you go !!!

However, this still sidesteps an issue raised by several posters ... that not scoring well on IQ tests doesn't necessarily equate to a lack of intelligence. Indeed, if faced with the choice of working 40+ hours per week to achieve a certain 'standard of living' while paying for one's own rent, utilities, groceries, health care etc. ... or a choice to have a child ( or two or three ) and achieve the same 'standard of living' while allowing 'someone else' to pay towards your rent, utilities, groceries, health care etc. while spending those extra 40+ hours at home ... which choice is actually more 'intelligent' ???

Kellydancer
09-03-2014, 09:52 AM
True not to mention what I saw in college. I had a scholarship because of grades. My friend who barely graduated high school, who was on drugs and had a kid out of wedlock also got a scholarship because she was on welfare. She dropped out after a semester but likely would have gone all 4 years with more scholarships than me.

eagle2
09-03-2014, 06:03 PM
the PRE-2008 studies indeed show this was true in the past. But these studies were reliant on an economic 'reality' that existed in the past that arguably no longer exists today ... i.e. that a high school diploma, a clean criminal record, etc. will translate into being hired for a job whose earnings potential is sufficient to provide an after-tax net income level which is above the officlal poverty level. These days, a high school diploma plus a clean criminal record will get you into the line of 5+ similarly qualified applicants who are vying for a single burger-flipping minimum wage job opening.

Granted that lack of a high school diploma, and/or the existence of a criminal record etc. will pretty much guarantee a life of poverty going forward. But my point was that avoiding these negatives doesn't guarantee a damn thing in the post-2008 economic 'real world'.

However, having a child ( or better yet 2 or 3 children ) does guarantee a 'comfortable' standard of living thanks to social welfare benefits ... even though the amount of actual 'cash' income involved will definitely fall below the official poverty line. Arguably, the 'non-cash' value of having 1/2 of one's rent payment, a portion of one's utility bills, all of one's cell phone bill, all of one's health care costs, etc. subsidized by 'somebody else' would place the household well above the official poverty line if the actual value of these subsidies were treated as additional income.

You're always exaggerating how bad things are for working class people and how good things are for people on welfare. There are plenty of good jobs available if one is willing to look hard enough and is willing to relocate. I read an article that Caterpillar is having such a hard time finding technicians that they're paying more than $100k and are willing to pay for technical school.

The average monthly food stamp benefit is $133. That's less than $35 a week. I hardly consider that a 'comfortable' standard of living.

GlamourRouge
09-03-2014, 06:21 PM
You're always exaggerating how bad things are for working class people and good things are for people on welfare. There are plenty of good jobs available if one is to look hard enough and is willing to relocate. I read an article that Caterpillar is having such a hard time finding technicians that they're paying more than $100k and are willing to pay for technical school.

The average monthly food stamp benefit is $133. That's less than $35 a week. I hardly consider that a 'comfortable' standard of living.

That's honestly it. Most people aren't willing to relocate for jobs, but there ARE jobs available out there.

eagle2
09-03-2014, 06:51 PM
Yes, there are definitely jobs that pay well if you're willing to relocate. I saw this photo from a Walmart store in Williston, North Dakota:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BpslMHgCAAEGo0O.jpg

lynn2009
09-03-2014, 08:05 PM
Yes, there are definitely jobs that pay well if you're willing to relocate. I saw this photo from a Walmart store in Williston, North Dakota:


While I do agree there is work out there, relocation is not practical for most people. I have done it before for vanilla work and it is a giant pain in the ass, even w/ no major assests like a house, only a couple furniture items and no kids. Likely by the time someone is desperate enough to leave the city they've lived in for X years, their friends, take their kids out of school, leave family etc., they have NO money left to even put a deposit down on an apartment. I really don't think a Wal-Mart in ND is going to hire someone who lives in Michigan and even if this person in Michigan were to get invited to an 'interview' they'd have to front their travel costs, get rid of their apartment or house, find a new apartment or house. It just doesn't work.

Not to mention I am really weirded out that a wal-mart would be that desperate for employees they would advertise those hourly wages. That's almost as much as I made right out of college working in STEM.

Kellydancer
09-03-2014, 08:10 PM
I've heard North Dakota has a great economy which means higher wages I'd think. Out here Wal-Mart pays about 8-9 hour I believe, maybe more for certain positions.

Melonie
09-04-2014, 03:38 AM
You're always exaggerating how bad things are for working class people and how good things are for people on welfare. There are plenty of good jobs available if one is willing to look hard enough and is willing to relocate. I read an article that Caterpillar is having such a hard time finding technicians that they're paying more than $100k and are willing to pay for technical school.

The average monthly food stamp benefit is $133. That's less than $35 a week. I hardly consider that a 'comfortable' standard of living.

OK I'll bite. To that $133 monthly food stamp benefit, add another $133 in EBT 'cash' ... plus what another $400 in rent subsidies, plus another $100 in utility bill subsidies, plus another $300 in health care subsidies. Leaving out other potential benefits, that already amounts to over $1000 per month in 'equivalent cash value'. Throw three children into the equation and the food stamp / EBT 'cash' benefits, the 'free' health care benefits, and other potential benefits ( i.e. school breakfasts and lunches ) increase substantially. However, the real question isn't about the 'absolute' amount of money ... it's about the 'relative' amount provided by the 'equivalent cash value' of social welfare benefits, versus the amount of after-tax money remaining should the single mom decide to take an unskilled / semi-skilled job while also being required to pay the full costs themself. Arguably, the 'relative' difference is rather small ... at least up to the point where the job pays $30k per year.


In regard to Caterpillar's need for additional heavy equipment technicians, there are very real reasons for this ...

- the locations where such technicians are needed are typically near oil fields, mines, etc. ... which raises all of the issues regarding a decision to permanently relocate to a 'high cost of living' and otherwise 'undesirable' area.

- the working conditions for such technicians are likely to be high pressure, hot/cold, dirty, after hours etc. ... which are a 'hard sell' even for a $100k pay rate

- people taking the 'risk' of becoming Caterpillar techs are also at risk of being quickly fired if their tech school training + natural abilities does NOT quickly result in a productivity level which is acceptable to Caterpillar. Thus the fired former Caterpillar tech will be left in an undesirable location, away from family support, etc.

Circling back on topic, one must separate the ability to score well on an IQ test, with the 'intelligence' involved in making decisions to have 3 children and collect social welfare benefits ( vs working at a job paying less than $30k per year ), with the 'intelligence' involved in making decisions to relocate to an 'undesirable' area with no long term job guarantees ( vs remaining unemployed in a city near family and friends while collecting some benefits ), etc.


I've heard North Dakota has a great economy which means higher wages I'd think.

Indeed oil field, mine, and other 'boom town' area economies do ( must ) pay wages which are much higher than normal. That's because local costs of living are also much higher than normal. this leads to the same sort of questions regarding de-facto 'standard of living' available after the much higher tax rates take a big chunk of the $100k income, after expensive rents, expensive local food and consumer goods prices, etc. consume a big chunk of the remaining after-tax income, etc.

Eric Stoner
09-04-2014, 11:47 AM
I agree with Melonie that in SOME cases working might not always be the "intelligent" choice. Yet a lot of people WOULD rather work than just collect benefits. Maybe they understand the inherent value of working and the corollary benefits of having a job. For one thing , if you stay home and collect benefits ( and how much you get depends a LOT on which state you live in ) there is no way to go up. No way to improve your lot in life. but if you are working you can get raises , apply internally for other and better jobs and go work for someone else for better pay and working conditions.

Melonie
09-04-2014, 12:13 PM
^^^ again, that paradigm may have been true pre 2008. Eric, I know you appreciate studies and analysis ... so what does this graphic 'tell' you ?

http://www.schwab.com/public/file/Wages-Impact-Inflation/Wages_Impact_Inflation

... it tells me that working at an unskilled / semi-skilled job has NOT resulted in significantly increased pre-tax earnings since 2008, and that after-tax, inflation adjusted earnings are likely to have declined.


and what does this graphic tell you ?

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/sites/downsizinggovernment.org/files/food%20stamps.jpg

... it tells me that total money spent on food stamps is increasing faster than the number of recipients since 2008 ... or stated another way, that the 'equivalent cash value' of food stamp benefits per recipient has increased since 2008.

Also, the 'newest' social welfare benefit program to be offered ... from

(snip)Weed welfare?

That's what the Berkeley City Council in California has unanimously approved, ordering medical marijuana dispensaries to donate 2 percent of their stash to patients making less than $32,000 a year.

The new welfare program in the liberal-leaning city is set to launch in August 2015.(snip)


Again this brings us back to the question of which 'path' actually being the more 'intelligent' choice ???

Eric Stoner
09-05-2014, 10:48 AM
^^^ All true BUT even if the odds of improving one's lot in life are worse now than then ; the POSSIBILITY still exists. With a job the possibilities are more and better than for benefit recipients.

threlayer
09-05-2014, 03:14 PM
That's a REALLY sharp reduction in the late 70s. The remainder of that chart is mostly "noise."

Djoser
09-05-2014, 03:38 PM
That's a REALLY sharp reduction in the late 70s. The remainder of that chart is mostly "noise."


Maybe part of the solution is cultural, such as valuing intelligence more (both emotional and cognitive) and being less accepting of the garbage our society consumes via the media.

This. People don't read books anymore. They watch television. That would certainly explain the apparent dramatic dropoff in the late 70s--it was about that time that television really took hold of the US population. Nowadays, if you don't watch TV, you are weird...

:D

eagle2
09-06-2014, 12:42 PM
OK I'll bite. To that $133 monthly food stamp benefit, add another $133 in EBT 'cash' ... plus what another $400 in rent subsidies, plus another $100 in utility bill subsidies, plus another $300 in health care subsidies. Leaving out other potential benefits, that already amounts to over $1000 per month in 'equivalent cash value'. Throw three children into the equation and the food stamp / EBT 'cash' benefits, the 'free' health care benefits, and other potential benefits ( i.e. school breakfasts and lunches ) increase substantially. However, the real question isn't about the 'absolute' amount of money ... it's about the 'relative' amount provided by the 'equivalent cash value' of social welfare benefits, versus the amount of after-tax money remaining should the single mom decide to take an unskilled / semi-skilled job while also being required to pay the full costs themself. Arguably, the 'relative' difference is rather small ... at least up to the point where the job pays $30k per year.


$133 + $400 = $533 a month. If you're earning $8 an hour and working 40 hours a week, that's over $1,200 a month. If you're earning $8 an hour, you're probably eligible for health insurance subsidies or Medicaid. Depending on where you work, you could be getting health insurance from your employer and other benefits. You may also qualify for other government benefits such as EITC. A young person that is earning $8 an hour now, will most likely see his or her salary go up over time. Chances are, he or she will be earning a lot more in their 40's and 50's. Someone who decides to live off welfare will see a major loss of income in their 40's and 50's, after their children are grown. They will most likely end up destitute.

It is definitely better for most people to get a job than to go on welfare and sit home all day. The only time I can think of when it may be better to go on welfare is if you're a single mom with a young child or children who need day care all day, and you're unable to get any subsidies for child-care, so all of your earnings would go to daycare. Some states do provide subsidies for child-care for poor working mothers. I'm not sure if they all do.