Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
That's a very broad statement. Are you sure you're being fair, and not being rather patronising?Most people lack discipline.
Perfectly obviously the above is true. Perhaps I should have been more clear that when I asked the original question which began the thread, I wasn't including such obvious stuff as this.Yes, many find reason for `poor` in the individuals psychological makeup, just as you have done. It is obvious to me that a large proportion of this planets poor people are the direct result of oppressive leaders and the laws they create. Some other reasons are extreme climate, poor soil, little or no water supply, lack of knowledge, wars and disease.
Thank your lucky stars that this country has an abundance of life sustaining natural resources along with the intelligence of predecessor and present to create a civilised country resulting in a quality of life for the inhabitants.
So you're suggesting that all minimum wage earners are lazy? I can only assume that you have never been poor, don't truly know anyone who is poor, or at least have no idea of what they go through. If someone is barely making enough for the necessities, how are they meant to get ahead? Hard work alone is not enough.
If someone is barely making enough for the necessities, how are they meant to get ahead?
I refuse to believe that people cannot make enough for necessities. If you count necessities as basic food and a basic house then even 20k a year will suffice. No extra clothes, no socialising. just living within your means. sounds harsh but as a person who for many years lived in this manner - as a child then into studenthood - I will testify that what fits into needs is not really very much.
As a result of this experience my family has amassed considerable wealth in a short period of time (assets and cash over $3 mil) due to hard work, not making excuses and making some big sacrifices.
just my thoughts thats all.
Being very intelligent doesn't necessarily mean you're going to be wealthy. I don't think Einstein was a billionaire. Inability to spell words correctly doesn't necessarily indicate low general intelligence. But, highly intelligent people do tend to be wealthier than those with low intelligences.On a side note, I think I am proof it doesn't take high intelligence to build up a bit of wealth, I can't even spell properly most of the time.
What's your IQ? I'd be surprised if it was less than 90.
do you mean all the people who were saying that the poor weren't wealthy because they didn't have the intelligence or special gifts like the rich had.
I guess what I meant by that, was that some folks look down their nose at the poor for their lack of fiduciary power, whether it's from the reasons you mentioned or otherwise.
I question the accuracy of IQ tests in general but I did one about 5 years ago and I think I scored 124.
I was thinking about this matter while reading this thread and got curious, So I wonder what the IQ of participants on ASF/this thread, might be, and whether higher intelligence does correlate to higher wealth?
btw, the average IQ is actually 100
When I was in school, I covertly perused my file in both primary and high school,( while I was waiting to get disciplined in the principals room)and they had my IQ as respectively 130+ and 140, later when I did the adult Uni entrance exam, my mark was in the top 2%..although I should say plenty of people would probably reckon they were all mistakes
I have had a person tell me that could definitely not be right
anyone want to own up to being below average intelligence, and accumulated wealth?..dont worry...you are anonymous
If no one does, that means we are all above average
Tyson, I agree with most of what you have said, except your assertion that 99% of people could achieve an investment income of $50,000 pa by age 50, even with compounding. No way!I question the accuracy of IQ tests in general but I did one about 5 years ago and I think I scored 124.
Elementary for a person with an IQ of 130+, certainly!I do think that in my case, this has helped me accumulate wealth, but the concepts and maths of investing or trading are elementary.
True indeed. different tests can provide different results. When I joined my organisation over a decade ago I had to be in the top 1% to get in in terms of aptitude. Lucky I fluked it. My best friend, a Menza member didn't even get close to my score.Remember that IQ can be misleading. It really just measures who is better at that specific test. Change the questions and time and the results could be quite different.
True indeed. different tests can provide different results. When I joined my organisation over a decade ago I had to be in the top 1% to get in in terms of aptitude. Lucky I fluked it. My best friend, a Menza member didn't even get close to my score.
(This was referring to Tyson.)Being very intelligent doesn't necessarily mean you're going to be wealthy. I don't think Einstein was a billionaire. Inability to spell words correctly doesn't necessarily indicate low general intelligence. But, highly intelligent people do tend to be wealthier than those with low intelligences.
What's your IQ? I'd be surprised if it was less than 90.
That's a pretty insulting suggestion to make to Tyson, Chris45!Apparently, the IQ gives a good indication of the occupational group that a person will end up in, though not of course the specific occupation. In their book, "Know Your Child’s IQ", Glen Wilson and Diana Grylls outline occupations typical of various IQ levels:
140 Top Civil Servants; Professors and Research Scientists.
130 Physicians and Surgeons; Lawyers; Engineers (Civil and Mechanical)
120 School Teachers; Pharmacists; Accountants; Nurses; Stenographers; Managers.
110 Foremen; Clerks; Telephone Operators; Salesmen; Policemen; Electricians.
100+ Machine Operators; Shopkeepers; Butchers; Welders; Sheet Metal Workers.
100- Warehousemen; Carpenters; Cooks and Bakers; Small Farmers; Truck and Van Drivers.
90 Laborers; Gardeners; Upholsterers; Farmhands; Miners; Factory Packers and Sorters.
That's a pretty insulting suggestion to make to Tyson, Chris45!
Given that 100 is considered the average IQ, to suggest you would be surprised if Tyson's was less than 90 is at the very least patronising.
So you are lumping him in with the bottom order of workers in the table you quote.
Someone whose opinion I respect once said that IQ tests are a measurement of nothing more than one's ability to do IQ tests. I think that's often right.
I once bought a book of IQ tests. I was a helluva lot smarter at the end than when I did the first one.
That's a very broad statement. Are you sure you're being fair, and not being rather patronising?
Earn more, you are not born with a limit to your earning potential.
The amount you earn is a direct result of your education, effort, efficiancy, willingness to learn etc.etc
If someone is not earning enough they can choose to change that.
What's your IQ? I'd be surprised if it was less than 90.
Apparently, the IQ gives a good indication of the occupational group that a person will end up in, though not of course the specific occupation. In their book, "Know Your Child’s IQ", Glen Wilson and Diana Grylls outline occupations typical of various IQ levels:
90 Laborers; Gardeners; Upholsterers; Farmhands; Miners; Factory Packers and Sorters.
Julia, that is a ridiculous suggestion!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?