Originally Posted by
accountinquestion
Originally Posted by
The Boz
I feel the exact same about you. You and your views make little sense. And where the helll did I say anything about Leave it to Beaver? Way before my time.
And if your fairy tale beliefs are Correct, you probably shouldn’t scratch your head.
And I am trying to insult you, but like Tasha, you are just too stupid to insult.
But every forum needs a stereotypical liberal and you are filling to roll just fine.
So I got you and bosox mixed up. He's the one who said the nonsensical stuff about Leave It To Beaver. It is pretty easy to do. I believe it is in this thread. If you want to help me figure out what he meant....
I'm about the last thing from a stereotypical liberal. I could ask you how you came to that conclusion and it'd be typical <crickets>. Seeing Trump for the middling IQ conman he is does not auto-make one some huge liberal. (Whatever that even means.) I did get the Beaver thing confused but you still just talk total nonsense.
Anyway, I saw somewhere else that someone pointed out that after this testing fiasco, it is somewhat apparent the US isn't really a first world country anymore. Somewhat accurate IMO.
Gentlemen,
There are literally thousands of studies of what correlates with someone's income in the United States. The positive correlates include race, parents' income, parents' education, education, parents' marital status, IQ, and on and on. Anything I know is dated, but back in the 80's, when Michigan did much of the big survey work, I believe parents' income was the top positive correlate, but you can check me on that. I am out of touch with how those variables have shuffled around in importance in this country. The problem with trying to assign "hard work" as a correlate is that (1) "work" has an actual specific definition most of the time, namely calories burned, and calories burned doesn't correlate with income, (2) "work" can be defined as hours invested in training or wage job, and while I think that there is some correlation, other variables are much stronger, (3) it's been shown that for some sub-groups, namely college students, working more than about 15/16 hours per week in jobs unrelated to your degree is actually a negative to future income because the time that could be spent becoming expert is spent on something unrelated. So the latter points firmly to the wealthy having an enormous advantage.
Best that I know, parents' income and education level are probably still the two biggest positive correlates.
Now you can argue that correlation is not cause-and-effect, and you would be absolutely correct.
All of the above points will, I think, be moot in a few years, as there will be programs that will be able to take your life variables and plot your probabilistic course through life and project income and "success" and so on. Of course, these programs currently exist in various forms, but I can't see a top-down plutocratic culture being motivated to publicize a public game of "let's see how you'd likely do if you were me."