Half the population (graph displayed at the link below....) has an IQ of 100 or less. All of us know both curious and incurious individuals; driven folks, ambitious folks, and lazy folks. All of these factors influence success, even if they are not predictive....
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ#IQ.2....2C_and_income
The view of the American Psychological Association
In response to the controversy surrounding The Bell Curve, the American Psychological Association's Board of Scientific Affairs established a task force to write a consensus statement on the state of intelligence research which could be used by all sides as a basis for discussion. The full text of the report is available at a third-party website. <a href="http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/apa_01.html">[18]</a>
The findings of the task force state that IQ scores do have high predictive validity for individual (but not necessarily population) differences in school achievement. They confirm the predictive validity of IQ for adult occupational status, even when variables such as education and family background have been statistically controlled. They agree that individual (again, not necessarily population) differences in intelligence are substantially influenced by genetics.
|
In another thread, roachboy briefly mentioned that business owners must pay enough compensation to those who they employ to enable them to have enough wealth to successfully reproduce and feed and nurture a new generation to regenerate the labor pool......that seems obvious.....but it is not recognized universally.
Even slaveowners provided that much.....food, clothing, shelter, medical care, to insure that their "asset" could continue to produce and reproduce to replace itself....
Ford paid his workers $5 per day before 1915. He reasoned that his workforce would be more committed if they could afford to buy the product that they were building.....that wage also created a new consumer class, and spurred other employers to match that wage.....raising the number of other Americans who could afford to buy a model T Ford.
Immediately after WWII, the freight logistics and the large number of ships existed to move numerous U.S. factories to other countries where labor costs would have been much lower. That did not happen. I can't believe that no one thought to do it.....it was probably due more to moral and ethical influences.....and because factory owners just would not "dare" to do that to veterans returning for war duty who were looking for decent paying jobs.
Women who had toiled on war material assembly lines were laid off without anyone batting an eye.....but male American workers were still regarded highly enough and treated with enough respect to be offered jobs at pay levels that were much higher than employers could have gotten away with paying if they had relocated their factories to, say....allied European port cities. It just was not done, and it turned out to be smarter not to....and better for busines.....because it created a strong middle class, and a boom in the domestic economy.
The unwinding of that momentum is happening in the U.S. now. Earlier, I cited figures from a FED web page that showed wealth distribution to half of the U.S. population was just 2-1/2 percent of total wealth. Any discretionary income controlled by that group will take a big hit from stagnant or declining real estate prices, and higher gasoline prices. How will revenue increase at shops like Wal-Mart and Home Depot?