|
|
| Re: Why Socialism Doesn't Work In America (not that it can't) (779372) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Why Socialism Doesn't Work In America (not that it can't) |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Fri May 13 23:22:12 2011, in response to Re: Why Socialism Doesn't Work In America (not that it can't), posted by orange blossom special on Thu May 12 20:28:34 2011. IQ is positively correlated with work ethic. This is true both within races, where higher IQ individuals also tend to be more disciplined and conscientious, and between the races, where individuals matched for IQ vary in their level of discipline, with East Asians working harder than Whites, who work harder than brown people, who work harder than Blacks. Even within the races there appears to be a variation in work ethic—as you noted. Europeans of Germanic descent (English, Germans, Scandinavians) tend to be harder working than those of more Romance descent (French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italians). This is perhaps due to genetic differences between these groups, and may explain the different attitudes Germanic peoples have towards work than Romanesque Europeans.IQ is far from all that is important for success, as it only explains roughly 30% of the variance in income, but it is the single largest factor that does so. Other traits, like conscientiousness, determination are also at play. But these traits are also partly heritable, just as is IQ. Taken together, IQ, personality, and other heritable traits explain most of the variance in earnings. In fact, the correlation between parents and children in income is almost entirely explained by heredity. But leaving work ethic aside, IQ is still important because work—especially for cognitively demanding work—is much easier to do when you have a higher IQ. Higher IQ individuals do not need to work as hard to get the same work done as do those with lower IQ’s. Ashkenazi Jews are a perfect example. They clearly do not work as hard as E. Asians do, but as a group perform as well or better, and this is because they have higher IQ’s (µ=113 vs 106, respectively), and better verbal intelligence. The modern economic paradigm is that all people can be uplifted to Western standards of economic performance if they just had the capital investment; this is false, because all people do not have the traits of Western peoples. My contention is that one of the factors that has inhibited European-style socialism from taking hold in America is this country’s large population of underperforming groups. Most people who make social policy are aware—either consciously or unconsciously—that the darker minorities would not make such a system efficient, as they’d take more out of the system than they’d contribute. Even in that past, the U.S. was never truly homogeneous, but this irrelevant, because Europe was not socialist then either. The foundation of the modern European social welfare model mostly came about in the 20th century, and then most in the Post-War era. The U.S. never developed that social harmony because it for so long consisted of distinct groups tribally fighting for their own stake, and America failed to adopt a social welfare system despite FDR’s desire to create one. "why 5 weeks guaranteed paid vacation, free day care, mandated parental leave, and free universal health care are bad things " They are only bad for people who are unemployed. Get a job and you can get this in some companies. Bring back Bush or Gringrich and give us full employment and we will be soon on a 4 day workweek. All people in European countries have these things, as a right. Americans have to work hard to get them, and most do not, many Americans only getting two weeks paid vacation, if that, which they often do not take. This still doesn’t answer the question why—if these things were rights—they would be bad. |
|
|
|