Wednesday, December 25, 2013

Below Average IQs and Below Average Jobs

"Deprived of meaningful work, men and women lose their reason for existence; they go stark, raving mad." - Dostoevsky

The average IQ in the United States is 100. It doesn’t particularly matter if you’re talking about mean or median average; either way, it means one-half of the people in the U.S. have IQs below 100, and the other half have IQs above 100.

About five percent of all people in the U.S. have IQs of 125 and above. Less than ten percent have IQs above 120, which is the cut-off point for “very bright.” Before the days of Political Correctness, those with IQs 85 and below were called "morons" (Muhammed Ali scored 78 on a military IQ test - and even his best friends claimed he was a moron).

What does all of this mean? Nothing good for the vast majority of people, which means nothing good for the United States.

As the political scientist Kevin Phillips has pointed out in several of his books, empires (and the U.S. is an empire) go though three phases: agricultural, industrial, then in decline they develop financial industries. Actually, countries are already in decline when they enter that last phase.

Phillips used the now-gone empires of Spain, Holland and England as examples. All went though all three phases, then collapsed. These days, he writes about the United States – which mired deep in its financial bog is in decline.

If this decline isn’t bad enough, it’s made worse by the exporting of our highly-paid industrial jobs, which the feds encourage because they delude themselves they’ll be replaced by better financial or service (“Do you want fries with that?”) jobs. Which they’re not, and won’t be.

Many of these now-gone jobs didn’t require high IQs to do them. You don’t have to have an IQ of 120 to work in a steel mill or on an auto-assembly line. In fact such an IQ would be a detriment in such jobs due to boredom.

Those high-paying jobs requiring average IQs are now gone. What’s left for these people? Jobs paying minimum-wage or slightly above. Either that, or welfare. Or crime (the average IQ of those in prison is 93).

The United States is stratifying itself by IQ. We’re going to end up without much of a blue-collar middle-class since their jobs are being outsourced. We’re going to end up with a poorly-paid lower-class partly supported by marginal welfare payments and a highly-paid upper class with higher IQs, who are partly supporting the lower classes through transfer payments. While they hide in their gated, armed communities.

I’ll give one example of what happens when the middle-class collapses: in Germany the Nazis were bought to power by the economically-ravaged middle class. You can fill in the blanks about our future (it won’t involve Nazis, contrary to the hallucinations of leftists, who don't know the Nazis were leftists).

Liberals, who delude themselves human nature is completely plastic and therefore don't understand it at all, claim IQ can be raised substantially. How they think someone with an IQ of 85 can raise it to 125 is beyond me, but then, I’m not a leftist, all of whom are about four years old emotionally.

Your IQ is pretty much set by the time you are 12 years old. It can go up and down a little bit but it’s not going to go up and down by 20 points. There is no way to make it go up 20 points, and barring some major neurological insult, it can't drop 20 points, either.

Education does help in developing what IQ a person has, but the public schools haven’t done that for a long time, not with a 50% drop-out rate. It’s got to the point where if you have a lot of money you can get a fairly decent education but if you don’t have money these days you can’t even go to college unless you go into debt $30,000 – and sometimes a lot more. The smarter people are home-schooling their kids.

Personally, I'd live in a rural hobbit-hole and home-school my kids before sending them to many of the public (read fascist/socialist) schools.

One of the things that the financial “elites” do is what to flood the country with low-IQ illegal immigrants. Why? To drive down wages, which means more money for the elites. The fact that many “libertarians” are too blind and ignorant to realize that by supporting open borders they are cutting their own throats – and that of the nation – would be amusing if it wasn’t so tragic.

This stratification into socio-economic classes won’t last, since the financial phase never lasts. If whatever administration that is in power had any sense, it would set up laws to reindustrialize the U.S. It wouldn’t be that hard.

Only making things produces wealth. Shuffling “money” around is not wealth; for that matter, money is not wealth. Gold and silver are not wealth; they're money. Agriculture is wealth; manufacturing is wealth; a financial economy is an economy on its way down and out.

The Constitution not only demands that only gold and silver be money, it also forbids "Bill of Credit," i.e. paper money. Any economist who does not understand this is not an economist.

To use Thom Hartmann’s phase, we need to reboot the country. That rebooting would in many ways take us back to the past, to ideas that worked for decades. The ideas of today are not working; they are destructive.

The financial “elites,” for all their vaunted high IQs (which doesn’t have much of anything to do with wisdom or even common sense) are extraordinarily short-sighted. They won’t change their policies until there is revolt.

Which, of course, sooner or later, there will be.

Myself, I give the U.S. until about 2030. Then, kablooie.


Mark G said...

Large amounts of money is being wasted in the higher educational system trying to train low IQ kids for jobs they could never do. This money would have been better spent building factories they could have gone to work in. Once out of college, a lot of these kids end up working someplace like Starbucks or getting some government job where they really aren't doing much productive all day. With affirmative action, the highest paid government employees are often the least productive of all. Some of them do so much damage with their bad decisions that their productivity may even be less than zero.

Anonymous said...

The elite have always been exploitive, but in eariler times, they had no choice but to live in the same areas as the people who work for them and/or affected by them. That is no longer the case. Now, the elite live in gated communities, attend and send their children to overseas boarding schools or isolated academies which have many elite foreign students. As a result, they no longer have American identities. They have more in common with the elite overseas than with their fellow American citizens. This has contributed to their arrogant disregard for them. Technology helps them escape from the consequences of their actions in a way that once wasn't possible.

Geodkyt said...

This is a generally good article. Unfortuantely for the strength of the argument, UncaBob apparantly either hasn't actually read the Constitution, or suffers from a severe lack of reading comprehension.

For example:

"The Constitution not only demands that only gold and silver be money, it also forbids "Bill of Credit," i.e. paper money. Any economist who does not understand this is not an economist. "

US Constitution, Article I, Section 10:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

That's a prohibition on the states, not the federal government, and it is in the same section that bars them from conducting foreign affairs, coin money, or other things that are expressly reserved to the national government.

Bob Wallace said...

Bills of Credit are paper money, and there is nothing in the Constitution about the Federal Reserve Bank. So much for what you think you know.

His Majesty said...

The Nazis were NOT leftists. It's as ridiculous as the deluded leftists who claim that communism was rightist. (See commenter bbface212, here: )

Bob, you have some good insights on women and society but you need to stay out of politics and history, or do a whole lot of studying.

Amethyst said...

Left, right.....nitpicking. Both Fascism and Communism were Statist philosophies and as such, both equally bad:

The Anti-Gnostic said...

"The Nazis were not leftists..."

Nonsense. The inter-war European right was monarchist, Catholic and laissez-faire, none of which described the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei.

You shouldn't be slinging insults around as you've apparently never considered any political history outside the US and before 1965.

The Anti-Gnostic said...


You need to read in pari material.

If the USG can "coin money",

But the States can't permit anything but gold and silver as legal tender,

Then the USG must coin money out of gold and silver.

His Majesty said...

I suppose Franco and Mussolini were leftists too? Fella, you're too funny. Don't tell me, you're an American libertarian, right?

The Anti-Gnostic said...

Don't tell me: you're a British homo with bad teeth.

Catholic, loyalist Franco was certainly no leftist, on that we agree. Those two facts alone put him well to the right of the NSDAP.

Mussolini didn't have much in common with the NSDAP either. It's hard to be fascist when you don't preside over a real country.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

Apologies. You're a West Coast hippie with bad teeth.

That link is hilarious.

His Majesty said...

Read Mein Kampf. AH refers many times to "the Jews".

Substitute "the left" for his "the Jews". Then practice the same exercise with "the right". One of these will fit right in. The other will sound ridiculous, like you.

Here's a condensed version of MK for beginners like you. If you want to read more you can google the entire book yourself.

Anonymous said...

H.L. Mencken wrote, in a letter to a friend, that the United States would "blow up" (in the sense of blow over, go away) in not longer than 100 years.

The date of his letter? 1920.

Bob, with your prediction of 2030, you are 10 years more optimistic than Mencken. Which is about right, since Mencken could be pretty bitter.