A note of appreciation from the rich

[Sasha]

A note of appreciation from the rich

Let's be honest: you'll never win the lottery.

On the other hand, the chances are pretty good that you'll slave away at some miserable job the rest of your life. That's because you were in all likelihood born into the wrong social class. Let's face it — you're a member of the working caste. Sorry!

As a result, you don't have the education, upbringing, connections, manners, appearance, and good taste to ever become one of us. In fact, you'd probably need a book the size of the yellow pages to list all the unfair advantages we have over you. That's why we're so relieved to know that you still continue to believe all those silly fairy tales about "justice" and "equal opportunity" in America.

Of course, in a hierarchical social system like ours, there's never been much room at the top to begin with. Besides, it's already occupied by us — and we like it up here so much that we intend to keep it that way. But at least there's usually someone lower in the social hierarchy you can feel superior to and kick in the teeth once in a while. Even a lowly dishwasher can easily find some poor slob further down in the pecking order to sneer and spit at. So be thankful for migrant workers, prostitutes, and homeless street people.

Always remember that if everyone like you were economically secure and socially privileged like us, there would be no one left to fill all those boring, dangerous, low-paid jobs in our economy. And no one to fight our wars for us, or blindly follow orders in our totalitarian corporate institutions. And certainly no one to meekly go to their grave without having lived a full and creative life. So please, keep up the good work!

You also probably don't have the same greedy, compulsive drive to possess wealth, power, and prestige that we have. And even though you may sincerely want to change the way you live, you're also afraid of the very change you desire, thus keeping you and others like you in a nervous state of limbo. So you go through life mechanically playing your assigned social role, terrified what others would think should you ever dare to "break out of the mold."

Naturally, we try to play you off against each other whenever it suits our purposes: high-waged workers against low-waged, unionized against non-unionized, Black against White, male against female, American workers against Japanese against Mexican against.... We continually push your wages down by invoking "foreign competition," "the law of supply and demand," "national security," or "the bloated federal deficit." We throw you on the unemployed scrap heap if you step out of line or jeopardize our profits. And to give you an occasional break from the monotony of our daily economic blackmail, we allow you to participate in our stage-managed electoral shell games, better known to you ordinary folks as "elections." Happily, you haven't a clue as to what's really happening — instead, you blame "Aliens," "Tree-hugging Environmentalists," "Niggers," "Jews," Welfare Queens," and countless others for your troubled situation.

We're also very pleased that many of you still embrace the "work ethic," even though most jobs in our economy degrade the environment, undermine your physical and emotional health, and basically suck your one and only life right out of you. We obviously don't know much about work, but we're sure glad you do!

Of course, life could be different. Society could be intelligently organized to meet the real needs of the general population. You and others like you could collectively fight to free yourselves from our domination. But you don't know that. In fact, you can't even imagine that another way of life is possible. And that's probably the greatest, most significant achievement of our system — robbing you of your imagination, your creativity, your ability to think and act for yourself.

So we'd truly like to thank you from the bottom of our heartless hearts. Your loyal sacrifice makes possible our corrupt luxury; your work makes our system work. Thanks so much for "knowing your place" — without even knowing it!

source: http://www.namebase.org/richnote.html

[RichardAWilson]

Americans still have this illusion of upward mobility. They still believe they stand a chance at moving up the socioeconomic ladder. - They, like Christians have faith in God, have blind faith in the American System.- Even though downward mobility has been the norm since 1968.

[Ose]

It's a bit Crimethincy, but that's not necessarily a criticism. This could be quite effective as a piece of jargon-free class consciousness-raising propaganda.

[Bud Struggle]

Americans still have this illusion of upward mobility. They still believe they stand a chance at moving up the socioeconomic ladder. - They, like Christians have faith in God, have blind faith in the American System.- Even though downward mobility has been the norm since 1968.

Maybe it's the people that fail the system. Me and mine have been upwardly mobil since Dad escaped Poland in 1934.

America has been producing to many slackers since 1968.

[RichardAWilson]

America has been producing too much Piss Down Economics since 1968. Labor is more productive than ever before.

Indeed, U.S. labor is twice as productive as in 1968. Slackers my ass.

[Tim Cornelis]

Maybe it's the people that fail the system. Me and mine have been upwardly mobil since Dad escaped Poland in 1934.

America has been producing to many slackers since 1968.

Those damn lazy slackers! How dare they not inherit their wealth like some 80% of the hard working rich people did.

[Le Socialiste]

Maybe it's the people that fail the system. Me and mine have been upwardly mobil since Dad escaped Poland in 1934.

America has been producing to many slackers since 1968.

Right, that's it. :rolleyes:

[Bud Struggle]

Right, that's it. :rolleyes:

Hey, it's a point. Lotsd of people do really well. (I live in the world of BIG houses) some, a couple, had money. Most did reasonable OK (not on any billionaire list) on their own.

[RichardAWilson]

No, you live in a world of big mortgages and big charge-card balances. Suburbia is indebted to the max. You don't think the Chevy Tahoe next door was paid for in cash, do you? Can we say home equity loan?

[OHumanista]

Bookmarking it :D

[ComradeMan]

source:

This obviously presumes that money can indeed buy class..... in my opinion how trashy.

[OHumanista]

Hey, it's a point. Lotsd of people do really well. (I live in the world of BIG houses) some, a couple, had money. Most did reasonable OK (not on any billionaire list) on their own.

Yeah of course, "lots". Like 1% while the rest keep going down. :rolleyes:

[Le Socialiste]

Hey, it's a point.

No, it's really not. People don't find themselves in dire straits due to laziness. It comes down to one's socioeconomic and political status and their relation to the capitalist modes of production. Social mobility isn't an inherent attribute of capitalism.


Lotsd of people do really well.

Really? Who?


(I live in the world of BIG houses)

Ah, now I see.


some, a couple, had money. Most did reasonable OK (not on any billionaire list) on their own.

People too often mistake the exceptions of "upward mobility" for the rule. Reality points to a different picture, however. The people in your community - the "world of BIG houses" - might have done reasonably well since the economic crisis hit, but that doesn't hold true for the vast majority of the working public. All signs point to a deterioration of social services and programs, leading - in part - to a significant decrease in the living standards for the majority of people. This isn't due to the laziness of the working-class; it's pushed through and enforced by those who make up this nation's political-financial class. Simply because your neighbors did splendidly doesn't mean the same held true for everyone else (but then you must have known that).

[RGacky3]

Maybe it's the people that fail the system. Me and mine have been upwardly mobil since Dad escaped Poland in 1934.

America has been producing to many slackers since 1968.

Think about that first sentance, its the PEOPLE that fail the system ....

As far as the slakers, worker productivity has been rising exponentially, yet wages have flatlined and unemployment blew up, its not like post 2007 everyone suddenly got lazy, thats an idiotic analysis.

[Revolution starts with U]

Seriously Bud. The only way for you to say "it's a point" would be to deny that productivity has gone up while wages and employment have gone down.
Come on man (not common man, RGacky). Just stop lying. :sleep:

[Geiseric]

Jeez how long have you been so reactionary? Never noticed up till now... Was your parents kinda like the cuban emigrees after their pseudo revolution?

[Drosophila]

Those damn lazy slackers! How dare they not inherit their wealth like some 80% of the hard working rich people did.

I think it's actually the other way around (80% didn't inherit), but it doesn't matter. They all used unjust means to get their money.

[Skooma Addict]

I fully expect to move up the economic latter when I graduate from college. Or at least, I feel like it is fully up to me whether or not I do. I think I have the means and the ability to do it. So if I fail, it would have been because of my own faults. However, this is just me, and I was given some opportunities that others were denied. But at the same time, it is not like I am that privileged.

[RichardAWilson]

Considering over a tenth of college graduates can't even find a job - don't be so quick to blame yourself. After all, there are experienced workers competing for the same jobs you'll be competing for when you're fresh from college. -- Not to mention that the tenth that are unemployed aren't accounting for the millions that are struggling at Starbucks and McDonald's.

[Skooma Addict]

Considering over a tenth of college graduates can't even find a job - don't be so quick to blame yourself. After all, there are experienced workers competing for the same jobs you'll be competing for when you're fresh from college.

Well I think a lot of college degrees are not helpful for finding employment (but they can be rewarding in other ways). I also think it depends on the college you go to. Personally, I think it is in my abilities, but I don't doubt that some people are never given a chance.

[RichardAWilson]

The issue is that employers aren't going to care about your abilities.

A young college grad vs. a middle aged college grad with work experience.

Which do you think a business is going to hire?

Unless you're attending a world renowned Ivy League (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc.), it's going to be tough.

There are Americans out there that'd make much better workers than those being hired.

However, for various reasons, employers aren't even looking at them.

[Skooma Addict]

The issue is that employers aren't going to care about your abilities.

A young college grad vs. a middle aged college grad with work experience.

Which do you think a business is going to hire?

Unless you're attending a world renowned Ivy League (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc.), it's going to be tough.

There are Americans out there that'd make much better workers than those being hired.

However, for various reasons, employers aren't even looking at them.

I don't accept the premise that employers don't care about my abilities. That makes absolutely no sense.

[RichardAWilson]

As for useless college degrees - that changes from year to year. In 2000, everyone imagined that Information Technology would be the "big thing." So, everybody pursued a degree in Computer Science and Programming. Now, those jobs have been relocated to Bangladesh and India, making those degrees worthless.

[RichardAWilson]

I don't accept the premise that employers don't care about my abilities. That makes absolutely no sense.

I'm saying that employers aren't even going to look at you if someone else (with work experience) is applying for the same job.

[RichardAWilson]

Your abilities won't mean a damn if you're not given a chance to use them.

[Skooma Addict]

As for useless college degrees - that changes from year to year. In 2000, everyone imagined that Information Technology would be the "big thing." So, everybody pursued a degree in Computer Science and Programming. Now, those jobs have been relocated to Bangladesh and India, making those degrees worthless.

A computer science degree is not useless. It isn't what it used to be, but it certainly isn't useless.



I'm saying that employers aren't even going to look at you if someone else (with work experience) is applying for the same job.

Are you supposed to be yelling or something? I can read what you type fine without the bold. I also do think employers will still look at you even if you don't have relevant work experience (all college grads should have some work experience). You might be at a disadvantage, or you might not be. It depends. But right now I am looking for internships, not jobs. Many people are offered jobs by the company they intern for.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

The issue is that employers aren't going to care about your abilities.

A young college grad vs. a middle aged college grad with work experience.

Which do you think a business is going to hire?

Unless you're attending a world renowned Ivy League (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc.), it's going to be tough.

There are Americans out there that'd make much better workers than those being hired.

However, for various reasons, employers aren't even looking at them.
Yep. For the last two years all I've gotten are loaded questions in interviews, illegal questions in interviews, and condescending talk.

"How long does it take you to change a hard-drive?" (computer repair place)
"Well, I suppose a minute or so."
"HAHAHA, no, no, no, you have to back-up data, then replace the hard-drive, then install an operating system, then replace the data."
"Well that's not what you asked me."
"Sure. Now name a political figure you admire and explain why you like them."
"That's none of your business."
"Okay, we'll be in touch with you in about a week."

Right. Yes, the guy laughed in my face. One of his employees knew me and told him I'm extremely competent and would work out great there. He said I look like a jackass and decided he didn't want to hire me when I walked in for the interview. He then hired 3 people instead of me, all of whom were fired within 30 days for incompetence and lying about their knowledge of computers.

Another interview:
"How old are you?"
"20" (was a couple years ago ... technically illegal but I didn't mind)
"So you still live with your parents, then."
"No."
"How did you manage that? Do they pay your rent, or...?"
At that point I just kind of stared at him. Didn't get that one either.

[Le Rouge]

This note is probably made by a worker, not by a rich.

[Revolution starts with U]

It was probably made by a student, I would think.

[Judicator]

Americans still have this illusion of upward mobility. They still believe they stand a chance at moving up the socioeconomic ladder. - They, like Christians have faith in God, have blind faith in the American System.- Even though downward mobility has been the norm since 1968.

Clearly they need to read The Bell Curve.

[RGacky3]

Clearly they need to read The Bell Curve.

If you want to ignore economics, its basically the same bullshit ideology that europeans had in colonial days.

[danyboy27]

Maybe it's the people that fail the system. Me and mine have been upwardly mobil since Dad escaped Poland in 1934.

America has been producing to many slackers since 1968.

You do realize that the main reason why your family did okay was beccause of this massive labour movement in america was going on at the time your Dad went to america right?

Also, you do realize that the labour movement have been basically obliterated over the last 40 year, labour have been massivelly outsourced over the last 30 years, and a truckload of socialistic programs of the U.S governement you benefited from back then are currently gone.

I would bet a billion dollars that all those so called ''slackers'' would do pretty well if they had the same social goodies that you and your father had back then.

[Judicator]

If you want to ignore economics, its basically the same bullshit ideology that europeans had in colonial days.

What do you think their argument is and why is it wrong?

[RGacky3]

That the main cause of success in a capitalist society or social stratification is intelligence i.e. competance.

Its wrong, because there is no way to measure that and it ignores all the other factors that are much much more tied in with systemic structures.

[Judicator]

Its wrong, because there is no way to measure that and it ignores all the other factors that are much much more tied in with systemic structures.

You measure it (roughly) with IQ. Other factors matter, but IQ is very important among them. Consider:

Real-life accomplishments
Average adult combined IQs associated with real-life accomplishments by various tests:[6][80]
Neurosurgeons, research scientists, university professors 135+
MDs, JDs, or PhDs 125 (WAIS-R, 1987)
College graduates 112 (KAIT, 2000; K-BIT, 1992), 115 (WAIS-R)
1–3 years of college 104 (KAIT, K-BIT), 105-110 (WAIS-R)
Clerical and sales workers 100-105
High school graduates, skilled workers (e.g., electricians, cabinetmakers) 100 (KAIT, WAIS-R), 97 (K-BIT)
1–3 years of high school (completed 9–11 years of school) 94 (KAIT), 90 (K-BIT), 95 (WAIS-R)
Semi-skilled workers (e.g., truck drivers, factory workers) 90-95
Elementary school graduates (completed eighth grade) 90
Elementary school dropouts (completed 0–7 years of school) 80-85
Have 50/50 chance of reaching high school 75
Average IQ of various occupational groups:[6]
Professional and technical 112
Managers and administrators 104
Clerical workers; sales workers; skilled workers, craftsmen, and foremen 101
Semi-skilled workers (operatives, service workers, including private household) 92
Unskilled workers 87

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Reliability_and_validity

[RGacky3]

Yeah, people who go to school more and study more have higher intelligences .... This is more a nature vrs nurture argument, I'd also presume that places with better education for all have higher IQs as well.

[Bud Struggle]

Yeah, people who go to school more and study more have higher intelligences .... This is more a nature vrs nurture argument, I'd also presume that places with better education for all have higher IQs as well.

You really think? Just by sitting in class--you get a higher IQ? You think that anyone, if they take enough classes can be a brain surgeon?

[RGacky3]

You really think? Just by sitting in class--you get a higher IQ? You think that anyone, if they take enough classes can be a brain surgeon?

.... yes, sitting in a class and learning and having the opportunity to learn does give you a higher IQ, using your brain grows it.

[molotovcocktail]

You really think? Just by sitting in class--you get a higher IQ? You think that anyone, if they take enough classes can be a brain surgeon?
here are some facts for you:

A substantial body of research establishes that preschool education can improve the learning and development of young children. Multiple meta-analyses conducted over the past 25 years have found preschool education to produce an average immediate effect of about half (0.50) a standard deviation on cognitive development. This is the equivalent of 7 or 8 points on an IQ test, or a ascent from the 30th to the 50th percentile on test scores.


The above reports demonstrate that schooling is an important factor that affects intelligence. By schooling, one can improve knowledge of specific facts for intelligence tests, familiarity with testing practices, concentration and attention span, and verbal problem solving skills. Therefore, there is no doubt that education helps raise one's IQ.

http://www.iqtestexperts.com/iq-education.php

[ComradeMan]

The trouble is that intelligence itself is not such an easily defined concept and many have criticised such things as IQ tests and so on for not being objective.

[molotovcocktail]

The essence in the article, is a meta-analysis that proved a rise of 7-8 IQ points by attending to a preschool in addition to elementary school. So the results of attending to some sort of school vs. no school is even higher. That means that the economic benefits to a society by providing free school are enormous, and also give a reason to why several tests claim that Africans got low IQ.

[Nehru]

Poor people who complain ... they'd do the exact same thing they're accusing the rich of doing, if they were to be rich themselves. Revolutions have revealed that over and over ... victims becoming oppressors, and all that.

Edit: I'm a reactionary capitalist racist that's banned from revleft permanently.

[RGacky3]

NO shit, which is why we should get rid of the system, not juts replace the leaders.

[Nehru]

NO shit, which is why we should get rid of the system, not juts replace the leaders.

Agreed, just pointing out that there's no need to glorify the poor/working class (which most leftists do, unfortunately).

[Bud Struggle]

You measure it (roughly) with IQ. Other factors matter, but IQ is very important among them. Consider:

Real-life accomplishments
Average adult combined IQs associated with real-life accomplishments by various tests:[6][80]
Neurosurgeons, research scientists, university professors 135+
MDs, JDs, or PhDs 125 (WAIS-R, 1987)
College graduates 112 (KAIT, 2000; K-BIT, 1992), 115 (WAIS-R)
1–3 years of college 104 (KAIT, K-BIT), 105-110 (WAIS-R)
Clerical and sales workers 100-105
High school graduates, skilled workers (e.g., electricians, cabinetmakers) 100 (KAIT, WAIS-R), 97 (K-BIT)
1–3 years of high school (completed 9–11 years of school) 94 (KAIT), 90 (K-BIT), 95 (WAIS-R)
Semi-skilled workers (e.g., truck drivers, factory workers) 90-95
Elementary school graduates (completed eighth grade) 90
Elementary school dropouts (completed 0–7 years of school) 80-85
Have 50/50 chance of reaching high school 75
Average IQ of various occupational groups:[6]
Professional and technical 112
Managers and administrators 104
Clerical workers; sales workers; skilled workers, craftsmen, and foremen 101
Semi-skilled workers (operatives, service workers, including private household) 92
Unskilled workers 87

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Reliability_and_validity

You know, I often wonder exactly why after all is said and done the Proletariat keeps getting beaten so badly. They can do co ops--but they for the most part, don't. They can form political association, but for the most part don't. They watch Fox News and wish they hand more money.

Maybe the above is the answer. People with higher IQs get bumped up into the upper or upper middle classes and get taken out of the Proletarian fight. So it's only those with the lower IQs that get to carry on the sruggle.

If that's true--and I'm only guessing here, then Capitalism as we have it now is a "perfect" system and he Proletarians can never win.

I don't really know if that the case--but from what stats show it seems to be likely.

[RGacky3]

Same argument used against slaves, same argument used against serfs.

[ComradeMan]

Same argument used against slaves, same argument used against serfs.

Was IQ a factor in the emancipation of the serfs or slavery? Did IQ tests, or the concept of IQ even exist really before the 19th century?

[Bud Struggle]

Same argument used against slaves, same argument used against serfs.

Then it's a damn good argument. :)

Do you think that freeing slaves was a blow against Capitalism? Freeing the slaves was just good business. Do you really think owning and feeding caring for slaves was as profitable as having them working and spending all their money and credit on consumer items that they may or may not need? As a matter of fact--do you think it was that much better of a life being a factory worker in the 1850s than it was being a slave in the South?

The bankers of today are a million times richer than the slave owners of the Old South. And the bankers could even go to sleep thinking themselves wonderful human beings.

Freeing the slaves was a win-win deal with both wins going to the Capitalists. Now, I'm mot making a case for slavery--but the Capitalsits came out quite well from the entire deal.

[RGacky3]

Then it's a damn good argument. http://www.revleft.com/vb/note-appreciation-rich-t162359/revleft/smilies/001_smile.gif


Sure, if you believe Slavery and feudalism was justified.


Do you think that freeing slaves was a blow against Capitalism? Freeing the slaves was just good business. Do you really think owning and feeding caring for slaves was as profitable as having them working and spending all their money and credit on consumer items that they may or may not need? As a matter of fact--do you think it was that much better of a life being a factory worker in the 1850s than it was being a slave in the South?


All true ... Don't know what it has to do with what we are talking about.


Now, I'm mot making a case for slavery--but the Capitalsits came out quite well from the entire deal.

Not all Capitalists, either way, the point was, the argument defending wealth inequalities due to intelligence is the same used to justify slavery and fuedalism ...

[RGacky3]

Was IQ a factor in the emancipation of the serfs or slavery? Did IQ tests, or the concept of IQ even exist really before the 19th century?

No but they had different lines of reasoning and different "evidence," if you go back and read the literature from back then its the EXACT same argument.

[ComradeMan]

No but they had different lines of reasoning and different "evidence," if you go back and read the literature from back then its the EXACT same argument.

For example? Anything you can suggest?

[ComradeMan]

Do you think that freeing slaves was a blow against Capitalism? Freeing the slaves was just good business. Do you really think owning and feeding caring for slaves was as profitable as having them working and spending all their money and credit on consumer items that they may or may not need? As a matter of fact--do you think it was that much better of a life being a factory worker in the 1850s than it was being a slave in the South?.

Freeing slaves was not a blow to capitalism at all. The rising capitalists modes of production and the industrial revolution meant that factories needed factory workers and machines needed people to run them. Plantation slavery was more to do with the old regime that was being replaced. It was not about dealing any blow to capitalism whatsoever.

[Bud Struggle]

Not all Capitalists, either way, the point was, the argument defending wealth inequalities due to intelligence is the same used to justify slavery and fuedalism ...

Not at all. Smart people can produce more benefit to society than not so smart people. Why not pay them for the benefit they do?

And in Capitalsim for the most part that's the way it works. Maybe things are off a bit with Corporate raders and hedge fund operators. But doctors should get paid more than janitors.

[molotovcocktail]

You know, I often wonder exactly why after all is said and done the Proletariat keeps getting beaten so badly. They can do co ops--but they for the most part, don't. They can form political association, but for the most part don't. They watch Fox News and wish they hand more money.

Maybe the above is the answer. People with higher IQs get bumped up into the upper or upper middle classes and get taken out of the Proletarian fight. So it's only those with the lower IQs that get to carry on the sruggle.

If that's true--and I'm only guessing here, then Capitalism as we have it now is a "perfect" system and he Proletarians can never win.

I don't really know if that the case--but from what stats show it seems to be likely.
Slave owners used to say that the slaves, were simply too stupid to be anything else. They could not read, and they had little general knowledge. This was of course due to their suppression. Your arguments are very similar.

The argument of the stupid masses have been used for ages. The fact is that suppressed peoples are less successful than their suppressors. The suppressors use this fact to prove that the masses are stupid\lazy.

[Bud Struggle]

Slave owners used to say that the slaves, were simply too stupid to be anything else. They could not read, and they had little general knowledge. This was of course due to their suppression. Your arguments are very similar.

The argument of the stupid masses have been used for ages. The fact is that suppressed peoples are less successful than their suppressors. The suppressors use this fact to prove that the masses are stupid\lazy.

I agree. But now in America anyone can get any education the want. The public schools while certainly not perfect in general do a pretty good job in educating people. My two kids are the product of PSs and I'm quite happy with their education.

Plenty of colleges--good colleges offer full boat scholorship to people who need them. I was at Darthmouth the other day and they offer complete scholorships to anyone who's family income is below $75,000 a ear--the other Ivys do the same or similar.

The opportunities are there as far as I can see.

[molotovcocktail]

Everyone can not get the education they want. The scholarships are only to those with very good grades, if you get grades that are slightly below the level you need. You don`t get scholarships. However, if your parents are wealthy they can buy you a scholarship.

It is also a social aspect to it. If you have a IQ at, for example, 145. You will on average get lower grades if you grow up in a poor neighborhood, than in a rich one. Because in the poor neighborhood, there is maybe not a cultural or social norm on being good at school. Therefore, you will care less about school and you will have lower grades than if you grew up in a rich neighborhood.

[Bud Struggle]

Everyone can not get the education they want. The scholarships are only to those with very good grades, if you get grades that are slightly below the level you need. You don`t get scholarships. However, if your parents are wealthy they can buy you a scholarship. I agree. But that's way the smart get ahead of those that aren't so smart. So they make more and get rich and leave the poor not so smart people on the bottom. That is what I was saying.



It is also a social aspect to it. If you have a IQ at, for example, 145. You will on average get lower grades if you grow up in a poor neighborhood, than in a rich one. Because in the poor neighborhood, there is maybe not a cultural or social norm on being good at school. Therefore, you will care less about school and you will have lower grades than if you grew up in a rich neighborhood. You will also score 7-8 lower on an IQ test, like the article I linked earlier on this thread.

I agree there. I don't think it's so much the neighborhood as it is the family
environs. The family makes all of the difference. And a lot of that is socializing preschool kids and use of complex and varied vocabulary.

[molotovcocktail]

So they make more and get rich and leave the poor not so smart people on the bottom. That is what I was saying.
The problem is that intelligence only goes in heritage to a certain point. In the next generation, the "distribution" of intelligence will be different. I don`t mean to be hostile, but after some generations there will be many intelligent working class people. They will not have the same possibilities as the rich ones. In other words, it will get unfair after some generations.

One of the benefits with socialism, is that when people don`t inherit, they are not destined by their parents, and it is what you do that matters.:thumbup1:

[Bud Struggle]

I agree there.

[RGacky3]

Not at all. Smart people can produce more benefit to society than not so smart people. Why not pay them for the benefit they do?

And in Capitalsim for the most part that's the way it works. Maybe things are off a bit with Corporate raders and hedge fund operators. But doctors should get paid more than janitors.

I agree, pay people that benefit society more, how do you decide that? The market does'nt compensate based on benefit to society, I say the way to do it is democratically.

[molotovcocktail]

Today, people do not get paid after their benefits to society. In southern European countries like Spain, it is 50% unemployment for young people. This is often highly educated people who could contributed massively to their societies. But the capitalist society so not need them, so they fall outside society.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Not at all. Smart people can produce more benefit to society than not so smart people. Why not pay them for the benefit they do?


Sorry, idiot, but how are you judging 'smart'?

Many people who someone like you might count as an idiot actually have the potential to succeed academically, but don't have the chance.

People like you are stupid enough to believe that rich people have higher academic attainment because they are smarter, when really its because they have access to far greater educational resources than workers, and when they hit 16 or so, they spend their time enriching their brains with extra-mural activities, whilst the rest of us go and spend our free time in a job.:rolleyes:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

America has been producing to many slackers since 1968.

2 quick questions:

How many unemployed/economically inactive are there inthe USA right now?

How many job vacancies are there in the USA right now?

Yep, thought so.:rolleyes:

And also, if many who are already working are slackers, I wonder why. Might be something to do with shitty low pay, mundane jobs and getting shat on by their bosses 24/7.