Well it gets back to what you said earlier:

What makes someone poor is that they lack the skills necessary to function in society. I think that part you nailed.

The problem is that THAT isn't a root cause. That is a symptom of the root cause which is a lack of intelligence.

People who lack intelligence tend to not be able to consider the consequences of their actions, to look ahead and see what they should do. 

That is how you end up with people who are on drugs or are having children they can't afford. They aren't considering the consequences of their actions.

I don't think you're stupid. If I did, I would have removed your ability to particpiate on my blogs. I think you're naive but that is a different thing.

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.

I absolutely agree. Money is a means to an end. It's just a tool.

So the question is, what causes the people who are living in poverty who wish they weren't in poverty to be in poverty? The answer is either a) they're disabled or b) they're dumb and unmotivated.

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?

I think you know history reasonably enough. 

But yes, you definitely give reason to think people aren't responsible for themselves.  When you make endless excuses for other people's bad behavior, that is robbing those people of responsibility.

When you make arguments that are based on feelings rather than on facts, you are removing responsibility from the equation.

In this discussion you have gone through great lengths to try to "prove" something that is not really disputed -- that a random sampling of impoverished people will show that they're stupid.  That their being impoverished is due to their decisions and their mistakes that result from not being smart enough to know how to function in our society. 

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.

Again, this is one of those logic errors you keep making in these discussions.  Where did I argue that intelligence makes someone wealthy? I didn't.  I said that lack of intelligence is a key ingredient to being persistently poor.

As someone who grew up poor (and not "poor" as in can't afford a Playstation 3 poor but poor as in food being a concern) I have had ample opportunity to observe poor adults. But beyond that, I also have real world facts to go by too that corraborate what I saw first hand.

(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.

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).

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.

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).

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?

The problem is that many people can't make the distinction between what is a necessity and what is a nice to have.

Here are things we are not entitled to:

1. Owning your own home
2. Owning your own car
3. Saving for college
4. Having healthcare insurance

A lot of people consider not being able to afford those things as being the same as being in poverty. Being in poverty is (supposedly) about not being able to pay for food, clothing, and shelter.

12 years ago, my income was less than $10,000 and amazingly I didn't starve. I had to have roommates to help pay for rent. I couldn't eat out. I couldn't go out and drink. I couldn't go to the movies. I coudln't buy music or rent movies (let alone buy movies). I couldn't afford cable. But I survived and didn't think much of it. OH, and I didn't have health insurance either.

Why? Because I was just starting out. And when you just start out, you don't have the skills.  Being poor at 21 is pretty normal in an egalitarian society.  If you're still poor at 35, you should ask yourself why.

Where do you come from? It's been some years since I've seen a McDonalds or Burger King application that didn't pay at least $8 (and $9 is more typical these days). And I make a point to look when I see it when I travel because this issue comes up so often.

SilentPoet: She brings home 140 $ a week, 580$ a month. She gets 16-17 hours a week.

What is the reason why she is only working less than half-time?

Your mother lives in poverty because she is not working. So the question is why she isn't working. Is she disabled?

Why is she poor then? Does she have a job? What is that job?

How do you define poverty then? Burger flippers here get up to $9 an hour. That's $18k per year. Hardly poverty level.

I posted them once a long time ago and people in real poverty definitely had a significant % of substance abusers and unwed mothers (or both).

It costs nothing to get a job other than time. It may cost some money to get a better job. But teenagers have been getting jobs for years without spending hundreds of dollars.

Most people I've met who are on the bottom rungs of the economic scale are either content with what they have (a minority) or dumb (but ascribe all their problems to "Bad luck" as opposed to poor decisions).

This article was written a couple of years ago but events of the last couple years have convinced me more than ever that if you randomly select an adult poor person who isn't disabled that you're dealing with someone who is pretty dumb. The most charitable thing I can say is that they lack impulse control.

NK does not, and so does not even try to placate them.

No, neither rule the world.  But I think NK is going to overplay their hand, and the results will hopefully scare Iran back into reality.