Eh, she's working but she's not working? How do you figure?

A full time job is 40 hours per week. Your mother works 17 hours a week according to you.

Money, you see, is exchanged for goods and services. In this case, services being rendered in the form of a job. If you are only working 17 hours per week, you will earn less than half of someone who is working full time.

Ergo, your mother is poor because she's only working 17 hours per week.

 

She hurt her back pretty bad a while back, classified as partially disabled, and 58 years old. There have been few who have hired her. Her current job, and one before that being the only ones since she lost her medical job (long story, not one to account here - i will leave it at: stuff happened, she disagreed with her boss based on ethics, so she lost her job and was pretty much black balled.)

I'm sad to here that.  So going back to what I posted earlier -- if you're consistently poor but not disabled you're probably not bright.  Your mother is partially disabled which limits her ability to work I presume?

But at the end of the day, if you work full time, it's pretty difficult in the United States to be in poverty. Even someone flipping burgers at McDonalds makes somewhere between $7 and $9 depending on geography. That's around $16,000 per year. Hardly poverty.  But you do have to work full time. If you aren't working full time, then you will be poor.

There are a lot of jobs out there to be had.

As far as I know that is what the job entails. She's been sending in applications to numerous jobs, but no reply.

She has been sending applications for "5 to 6 years" (length of time you said she's been in poverty)? Do you realize how that sounds?

So you were stupid when you made 10k/year but now you are smart. Congratulations.

That was a facetious remark, please take it as such. I'm learing to spell facetious.

I'm from Appleton, WI a nice well-educated and pretty much crime free community of 70,000 with about a dozen surrounding communities. Maybe 150,000 total.

I did a stint at BK for about 4 years, mostly during HS after that just for fun, I started at $4.25, and ended at $8.55, that was maybe 2001?

Today you walk into a BK, you start at $6.25/hr because of local competiton, but if there was no competition you'd be starting at $5.15, because minimum wage has gone no where.

You're from Michigan Brad, do they really pay $8-9/hr starting for entry level stuff? You must be living in a tight job market, or there must be a huge resurgence in manufacturing in Michigan, pulling midlevel applicants back into the $12-20 out of those entry level jobs, I wonder which.

So you were stupid when you made 10k/year but now you are smart. Congratulations. That was a facetious remark, please take it as such. I'm learing to spell facetious.

The KEY phrase in the discussion is CHRONICALLY poor. Or CONSISTENTLY poor. Or PERSISTENTLY poor. That's a key qualifier. I know you're kidding but I did make that qualifier very clear since many people, through birth or circumstance can find themselves poor.

You're from Michigan Brad, do they really pay $8-9/hr starting for entry level stuff? You must be living in a tight job market, or there must be a huge resurgence in manufacturing in Michigan, pulling midlevel applicants back into the $12-20 out of those entry level jobs, I wonder which.

It does vary. I looked up some online today and there are BK jobs that range from $6.50 an hour to $8 an hour. Bear in mind that those are the ultimate entry level job. One would expect a 40 year old to have enough experience to be a supervisor at a BK at the least (now you're at $9 to $11 an hour). 

Even a full time job at $6.25 is still over $12,000 per year.  You CAN live on it. But it's not relevant anyway as we return to the question: What kind of person has a career working at a burger flipper?

If you are 40 years old and are only qualified to be a burger flipper, then what would cause that? Talk to the average poor person and it's "not their fault".

What's really ironic is that this article was in response to an article I wrote and in that article I wasn't really tlaking about intelligence. I said, rather, that most chronically poor people (key word most for the Lucas's of the world) are either disabled or just losers.  JoeKnowledge got me to accept his strawman that it is based mostly on intelligence (shame on me).

If you've got a criminal record it can blacklist you from most moderately to high paid jobs. One mistake in your youth can condemn you to a life of poverty, although admittedly that probably falls into your 'loser' category.

full time job is 40 hours per week. Your mother works 17 hours a week according to you. Money, you see, is exchanged for goods and services. In this case, services being rendered in the form of a job. If you are only working 17 hours per week, you will earn less than half of someone who is working full time. Ergo, your mother is poor because she's only working 17 hours per week.

Right, gotcha. Sorry about that, I've been winding down the term here, packing to move, and half a billion other things...so....yeah, my apologies , my head wasn't working at the time.

I'm sad to here that. So going back to what I posted earlier -- if you're consistently poor but not disabled you're probably not bright. Your mother is partially disabled which limits her ability to work I presume?

Well, as far as i know she went to college in dental hygene, to help a dentist. I know she has quite a bit of experience with clerical/office work, as well as medical office and billing work. She worked with the local hospital for a long time before shit hit the fan.

Correct.

She has been sending applications for "5 to 6 years" (length of time you said she's been in poverty)? Do you realize how that sounds?

Yep, she has.

"It does vary. I looked up some online today and there are BK jobs that range from $6.50 an hour to $8 an hour. Bear in mind that those are the ultimate entry level job."

$6.50-$8.00 sounds a little more accurate, you'd have to have about 5-10 years already in fast food to be able to walk in and command $8.00 starting pay even at entry level, never mind no benefits for the first 90 days.

What's so "ultimate" about being a burger flipper?

"Even a full time job at $6.25 is still over $12,000 per year. You CAN live on it."

Well if the definition of poverty defined by the same government that authorizes the minimum wage, i.e. the federal government of the United States, in 1989 concluded that a family of four cannot live on a single income of $6.25 a year, how do you expect that two people earning that income do it in 2006?

Poverty was defined as for a 4 person family was $12,700. Back then minimum wage would have pegged that family below poverty level, it's no different today.

www.census.gov/apsd/www/statbrief/sb93_15.pdf [PAGE 4]

My point is that anybody making the case that just because people are poor they are stupid, are assholes , and have no business making a generalization as such. I would also only expect such a generalization to come from someone who does not struggle with poverty and the limitations of it, everyday. Nuff Said?

When I was a newly graduate of highschool I read a billboard that said that "1/3 of criminals in prison didn't have their highschool diploma". So conversely 2/3's of criminals in prison do? It's perceived logic like this that faults peoples viewpoint of the world.

Certainly there is no argument that a person who is more highly skilled is better able to secure a posistion either actively looking for it or drifting through the employement. But I've worked for some really unintelligent people, as have many others, to concluded that simply because they are smarter, which in those cases would be directly opposite, they achieved those posistions, would be incorrect, as you amass more skills in life you become more marketable as well as employable, you also become dumber as you age.

Diversity of skills are the best indicator of how employable and how much money a person will make if they so choose economic wealth as their primary indicator.

Since you yourself Brad have largely "made it" through your own skills, luck, and diversity of skills, as well as taking the risk of being your own boss, I'm surprised you'd defend the argument that poor people are stupid. Would you all at least admit, that being poor is more tied to lack of proper skills, and lack of capitalizing on opportunities rather then a persons intelligence?

So what does diversity of skills, or lack thereof, say to the argument that poor people are stupid? Certainly it doesn't lend an elephant of credibility. Unless it's an elephant animal cracker.

My point is that anybody making the case that just because people are poor they are stupid, are assholes , and have no business making a generalization as such. I would also only expect such a generalization to come from someone who does not struggle with poverty and the limitations of it, everyday. Nuff Said?

I'm not an asshole. I'm a jerk. There's a difference. There's no malice in my beliefs.

But I am not sure you'll understand the difference because you seem completely unable to render a judgment. A decision.

So poor people just got poor by bad luck in your book? No real thought as to what causes people to be poor? Oh, that's right, you can't think about that because then you might have to generalize and if you generalize, you are doing a bad thing even though generalizing is required in order to find a solution.

When I was a newly graduate of highschool I read a billboard that said that "1/3 of criminals in prison didn't have their highschool diploma". So conversely 2/3's of criminals in prison do? It's perceived logic like this that faults peoples viewpoint of the world.

That you fail to see the logic in that statement speaks volumes.  What % of people don't finish high school? The best I could find in a hurry was from way back in 1990 (and the trend is declining) where it was 6.2%.   Therefore, people who don't finish high school are much more likely to end up in prison.

But getting back to the point, if you go through life thinking no one is responsible for anything, then it's easy to show endless sympathy because nothing is anyone's fault.  I shouldn't condemn poor people because I'm wealthy right? And the reason I'm wealthy is luck right? Because with just some bad luck, I could be living in poverty and so therefore I shouldn't be hard on other poor people since I was just lucky enough not to be one of them. Isn't that your line of thinking?

Certainly there is no argument that a person who is more highly skilled is better able to secure a posistion either actively looking for it or drifting through the employement. But I've worked for some really unintelligent people, as have many others, to concluded that simply because they are smarter, which in those cases would be directly opposite, they achieved those posistions, would be incorrect, as you amass more skills in life you become more marketable as well as employable, you also become dumber as you age.

How old are you Dan? I'm curious.  I mean, your logic is wayyy off here.

First off, I never said wealth or success is based on intelligence.  I have said that being stupid is an ingredient for being consistently poor. That doesn't make the reverse true.

Since you yourself Brad have largely "made it" through your own skills, luck, and diversity of skills, as well as taking the risk of being your own boss, I'm surprised you'd defend the argument that poor people are stupid. Would you all at least admit, that being poor is more tied to lack of proper skills, and lack of capitalizing on opportunities rather then a persons intelligence?

Given that wealth of evidence that demonstrates a connection between poverty and intelligence (heck, the infamous book, The Bell Curve, explores this data considerably).

It's not an argument that the poor, on average are dumb. It's a statistical fact. If you take 1000 people living in poverty and take 1000 middle class Americans and have them take an IQ test, you'll find that the ones living in poverty are significantly less intelligent. Period.

However, being dumb is not the only ingredient to being chronically poor. You also have to be unmotivated as well.  A motivated dumb person can still do pretty well.

The problem dumb people have is that they tend to make poor decisions and have a tougher time acquring skills. 

The problem with your position is that you desync intelligence from the ability to acquire skills needed to work.  That we are all equally capable of acquring the skills necessary to succeed in our society. And that's clearly not the case. Intelligence, ambition, motivation, etc. are all key ingredients that help us determine whether we can obtain those skills.  Those who don't learn those skills end up impoverished.

"It's not an argument that the poor, on average are dumb. It's a statistical fact. If you take 1000 people living in poverty and take 1000 middle class Americans and have them take an IQ test, you'll find that the ones living in poverty are significantly less intelligent. Period."

OK Post some statistical facts. Show us one survey and I'll yield.

"How old are you Dan? I'm curious."

Looking for a date later? I'm 25.

"I'm not an asshole. I'm a jerk. There's a difference."

Is that a fact or a matter of opinion. To me it's opinion, live with it, lol.
Btw I don't think you "in particular" are a jerk or an asshole but however you see fit to define yourself, go right ahead. I personally, am a swell guy.

"Statistically, the persistently poor are stupid - in general" Said first...
"First off, I never said wealth or success is based on intelligence." Said later...

Brad I know your going to ban me eventually but... Do you know what pathological hyprocracy is? Does this all make sense to you some how some way?

I'm not president Bush here, but that looks like a contradiction.

So is it like if people are persistently wealthy, they are smart, in general? Or is this all wishy-washy b.s.?

MOJO JO JO

Is this difference similar to the murder/violence question? Or does it only count when the words difference exists in your mind?

Is this all even worthy of debate/discussion?

"if you go through life thinking no one is responsible for anything, then it's easy to show endless sympathy because nothing is anyone's fault."

This is an assumption you've created of me, not one I've ever stated, kinda scary actually because I am all about responsibility.

Economic and social correlates of IQ

IQ	<75	75-90	90-110	110-125	>125
US population distribution	5	20	50	20	5
Married by age 30	72	81	81	72	67
Out of labor force more than 1 month out of year (men)	22	19	15	14	10
Unemployed more than 1 month out of year (men)	12	10	7	7	2
Divorced in 5 years	21	22	23	15	9
% of children w/ IQ in bottom decile (mothers)	39	17	6	7	-
Had an illegitimate baby (mothers)	32	17	8	4	2
Lives in poverty	30	16	6	3	2
Ever incarcerated (men)	7	7	3	1	0
Chronic welfare recipient (mothers)	31	17	8	2	0
High school dropout	55	35	6	0.4	0
Values are the percentage of each IQ sub-population, among non-Hispanic whites only, fitting each descriptor. Herrnstein & Murray (1994) pp. 171, 158, 163, 174, 230, 180, 132, 194, 247-248, 194, 146 respectively. Interesting table that shows how IQ and economic situation are related (along with a lot of other factors).

"if you go through life thinking no one is responsible for anything, then it's easy to show endless sympathy because nothing is anyone's fault."

This is an assumption you've created of me, not one I've ever stated, kinda scary actually because I am all about responsibility.

"But I am not sure you'll understand the difference because you seem completely unable to render a judgment. A decision."

Well if I'm too stupid, and maybe I am, to get it, why are you wasting your precious expensive time?

I've got 5 days of vacation, with little to do by fly the Falcon and clean the garage, so I've got time to burn, but I'm not sure you do.

How does anyone get any logic out of the argument that "poor people are stupid"? LOL. I find that silly and funny.

If you want to be rich, all you have to do is work, and sacrifice, leverage your skills, and time, build new skills, invest, do what it takes to become rich. If you want to develop other areas of your life, beyond the economic realm which is what most people choose to do, right or wrong, middle class or not, life is not all about making money.

If I'm really the silly youth of 25 that knows nothing of history, current events, Islam, and poverty and it's effects on people why debate/discuss with moi? Have I ever given you a reason to not believe people should be responsible for themselves, not try to do their best, not sacrifice, keep their eye on the prize at the end of their goals, improve their life? Stupid or smart?

In my opinion I don't find intelligence to be a determining factor in wealth, but I don't have any studies to back it up just personal thoughts and observations. Which I'll share with you for free. Because I am just that nice.

Ok, little hard to read but I got it, you win. Congratulations. I yield.

"Statistically, the persistently poor are stupid - in general" Said first... "First off, I never said wealth or success is based on intelligence." Said later... Brad I know your going to ban me eventually but... Do you know what pathological hyprocracy is? Does this all make sense to you some how some way?

(rubs forehead). 

Poor people tend to be stupid.  But that doesn' t mean that rich people have to be smart. 

BTW, as I said, I wouldn't ban you. The most I'd do is black list you from participating on my particular blog writings.

You do seem to have some fundamental logic issues. Or, at the very least, you like to make strawman arguments (i.e. if I say that the peristently poor are generally dumb that somehow also means that I think that rich people are smart which is a logical falacy, one does not imply the other).

I asked for your age, btw, because I was trying to figure out whether you were a naive young person or a foolish old person. Thank you for answering.

Ok, little hard to read but I got it, you win. Congratulations. I yield.

One thing about the study though, the other factors suggest that being divorced, effectively splitting income, and having kids, effectively dividing income among them, is equally likely if not more so to push you into poverty.

Would you not agree?

Interesting how closely having illegitimate children affects your likelyhood of being impoverished. But you've proven your point. Atta boy

"naive young person" You got it

So what do you think of the correlation of illegitimate children to poverty? Pretty close aye?