|
Zerstorung posted:My coworkers managed a majority vote for a no-strings-attached blanket pay cut for our entire department for this very loving reason almost a year ago. What the gently caress?
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:38 |
|
|
Seriously how does this happen?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 05:22
|
|
|
They are stupid. Especially given that they would have gone up a tax bracket and would have received more money. I've found numerous situations where people have come to completely retarded conclusions. In fact just like the retarded comments on this article about Council workers receiving a living wage instead of minimum wage. http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/68841637/living-wage-could-extend-to-council-cleaners-recycling-staff quote:I hope I can get a job with Wellington Council as a cleaner will do after all I am a skilled tradesperson earning only a bit more than that with responsibilities why bother going to school, educating yourself if unskilled workers can earn this sorry but it is unfair many ratepayers who only earn minimum wage should be funding this. quote:This socialist attitude is totally ridiculous. Many ratepayers are living on a drat sight less than the living wage, yet this pathetic cycle-riding loser, masquerading as mayor, has the audacity to kick them in the guts at every opportunity. It is nothing but a disgrace! They cannot see that they should be directing their rage at their own employers who are paying them minimum wage. They can't see that this puts pressure on employers as they could leave their job and work at the Council pool or whatever and have a better life. quote:Time is coming to get rid of this Mayor and her toss pot Council. Get of your backsides Wellington and vote this time, otherwise you only have your selves to blame for this mess. With the following rebuttal. quote:What 'mess' would that be. Paying someone enough to be able to live ? Why do people not get this angry when CEOs decide to pay themselves more?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
I generally like my company and its management, but I rolled my eyes so goddman hard when for a short period in 2009, the upper management of the company took a temporary 10% salary cut while the rest of the company (at least in the U.S.) took a 5% cut. Since most of upper management's compensation is in non-salary bonuses and stock, I can't really applaud them for demonstrating great leadership -- our CEO followed in the footsteps of prominent tech people like Steve Jobs, et. al., and went down to a $1 salary a year or two before that. So brave of you, sir, to sacrifice that $0.10 of earnings.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
Cicero posted:But then again, tons of people are also down financially just due to poor career choices, bad financial discipline, and other decisions that are entirely within their control. But is it REALLY in their control? Or are their choices predetermined by the programming they received by growing up in a household that was terrible with money? I hate thinking like this. I hate thinking that people are not in control of their own lives. But you see it all the time. It's so incredibly hard to reprogram your habits once they've been learned. Some researchers think it's impossible to eliminate a habit once it's formed over many years. All you can do is overcome it and ignore it, but the tendency will still be there. Habit formation is powerful stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 14:12
|
|
|
Rick Rickshaw posted:But is it REALLY in their control? Or are their choices predetermined by the programming they received by growing up in a household that was terrible with money? The evidence in the nature vs nurture research basically concludes that if they're path dependent, it's genetic and not their household. Basically the mountain of evidence points to anyone saying "so and so succeeded because of additional resources in their youth" as wrong in the long run, but the long run is pretty long (last number I remember settling on when doing research was about 35 years old). It feels worse to think this way (and you get called a monster a lot), but its likely that most people who end up poor do so because their skills and abilities aren't valuable in the institutions sets available to them (and that might mean institutions suck, of course).
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
MJBuddy posted:The evidence in the nature vs nurture research basically concludes that if they're path dependent, it's genetic and not their household. It makes me wonder how much is linked to poverty thinking. What people around you tell you to do and what you see them doing as a kid has an influence on you. It's also difficult for students to figure out what skills would actually be useful as their family and teachers will tell them a bunch of crap that is wrong. Being brought up in poverty gives people a very short term view on money and training/education.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
Devian666 posted:It makes me wonder how much is linked to poverty thinking. What people around you tell you to do and what you see them doing as a kid has an influence on you. It's also difficult for students to figure out what skills would actually be useful as their family and teachers will tell them a bunch of crap that is wrong. Being brought up in poverty gives people a very short term view on money and training/education. Again, the research tends to say that genetics dominates eventually. Most of that is borne out with twin studies that show that one adopted by a wealthier family ends up virtually in the same place as the other twin who is in the worse house.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
MJBuddy posted:Again, the research tends to say that genetics dominates eventually. Most of that is borne out with twin studies that show that one adopted by a wealthier family ends up virtually in the same place as the other twin who is in the worse house. I'm not sure what the point is here. Genetics dominates because our society rewards a limited, increasingly homogenous range of human abilities/traits. This is equivalent to saying that people who are good at math earn more than people who aren't. Some people will just never be good at math, therefore...?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
tuyop posted:I'm not sure what the point is here. Genetics dominates because our society rewards a limited, increasingly homogenous range of human abilities/traits. This is equivalent to saying that people who are good at math earn more than people who aren't. Some people will just never be good at math, therefore...? The point is a society that continually tells people who are bad at math that they are bad at math is not what keeps them underpaid, which is a popular thought (mentioned above, or on my facebook feed). The solution isn't going to be to change people, but to change institutions to serve people better, especially the worst off; globally, this kind've occurs, but within arbitrary borders (like say, the US), our poor face competition from huge bundles of poor in other countries who can replicate their skills cheaply. It'll probably take until third world development catches up before the market will address the US poor (and there's lots of trends to this effect in say, China being a huge manufacturer in the 90s but falling off in recent years to next-cheapest countries while China's middle class emerges and prices themselves out of outsourced labor markets). The possible answers all depend on which group of people you're including in who you care about and what your goals are, but if those goals are to transform a person, raw resource allocation is basically worthless beyond one time bumps.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
MJBuddy posted:The evidence in the nature vs nurture research basically concludes that if they're path dependent, it's genetic and not their household. Cite your claims.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
So minor tip, if you have quickbooks and a major bank, you can import transactions for budgeting for individual accounts just like you can for business accounts. Just download the Quicken file, then rename the extension to the Quickbooks extension and it works just the same. I bet this effects like 4 people, but having the full force of qb for individual budgeting and analysis is super overkill and awesome.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
tuyop posted:I'm not sure what the point is here. Genetics dominates because our society rewards a limited, increasingly homogenous range of human abilities/traits. This is equivalent to saying that people who are good at math earn more than people who aren't. Some people will just never be good at math, therefore...? Some people will just never be good at hunting or gathering. They died 20 thousand years ago. That's natural selection for you!
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
pr0zac posted:Cite your claims. This. Definitely at odds with what I've learned on the subject. Twin studies etc find huge differences in the heritability of IQ based on class differences, and I find it very hard to believe that this doesn't translate to class differences. Here's an example of a widely cited twin study which shows this: http://m.pss.sagepub.com/content/14/6/623.short Really absurd claim that two twins with identical genetics and different family status end up at the same level given time. Please provide a correspondingly high level of evidence.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
semicolonsrock posted:This. Definitely at odds with what I've learned on the subject. Twin studies etc find huge differences in the heritability of IQ based on class differences, and I find it very hard to believe that this doesn't translate to class differences. So yeah, this paper cited is consistent with my current understanding of twin studies: Things in the early years of development can have significant, if not large, impact on heritable traits like IQ (and as such literally everything else we'd like people to have). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9549239 This study is my point, though. Near-zero to zero environmental influence by adulthood; twins raised together or separately, regardless of upbringing situation stabilize at the same rate (and cool bonus, genius level variations correlate at .5 between twins. For reference, the highest a parent - child correlation reaches is about .42 depending on where you're looking. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9242404 This study displays that co-variance of IQ to parent is very strong, but diminishes with age. Particularly, this paper doesn't say that heritability increases with age, but that IQ is more influenced by maternal effects at younger ages (a lower IQ parent lowers inherited IQ and vice versa, before giving way to their genetic heritability as they age), which is an important distinction. http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.77 The APA officially endorsed a higher heritability of adolescent and older individuals than children. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614000889 And this paper looks at survey data of students across the country, asking them about their home life and environment and determines that there is is no statistical relationship between their environment and their IQ. Totally fine with being called out to cite; much more fair than "gently caress YOU, rear end in a top hat", and I hope those are good enough for yall. In this case the cited paper from semicolonsrock is about the only piece I've seen that supports that side of the argument (and I'm not doubting it's results are legitimate in their study; it's also very interesting).
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
Let's get back on track here: In America, 2015, a group of workers rose up in the spirit of Ghost Marx, met with their bourgeois overlords, and demanded a pay cut.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
District Selectman posted:Let's get back on track here: In America, 2015, a group of workers rose up in the spirit of Ghost Marx, met with their bourgeois overlords, and demanded a pay cut. I'm sure they were shouting at those overlords demanding the business capital needs to produce more profit at the expense of the workers. They must have been outraged.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
MJBuddy posted:So yeah, this paper cited is consistent with my current understanding of twin studies: Things in the early years of development can have significant, if not large, impact on heritable traits like IQ (and as such literally everything else we'd like people to have). You're drawing from old, flawed research. A really big problem with most pre-2000 studies is that they aren't using representative samples -- they are biased towards a higher, white socioeconomic class. The last study you cite is based on the same 90s dataset and doesn't have any SES info apart from parental education -- which it actually finds has an effect. Those studies have massive selection bias. For example, the APA now rejects that study by Neisser -- it was fine at the time, but has been proven wrong. Modern psych classes teach that heredity is responsible for a majority of g factor variance for high income people and a small minority of variance for low income people -- primarily because there is more variation in environments for those with low incomes. This was discovered when SES started being controlled for in research -- the study I linked is one of the first to do so. Read this APA update to the 1996 study you cite: http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-67-2-130.pdf and its citations if you want to learn more about the current state of knowledge in the field. Anyways, back to your regular FI programming. E: I understand why it's confusing tho semicolonsrock fucked around with this message at 06:20 on May 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 06:15
|
|
|
semicolonsrock posted:You're drawing from old, flawed research. A really big problem with most pre-2000 studies is that they aren't using representative samples -- they are biased towards a higher, white socioeconomic class. The last study you cite is based on the same 90s dataset and doesn't have any SES info apart from parental education -- which it actually finds has an effect. Those studies have massive selection bias. For example, the APA now rejects that study by Neisser -- it was fine at the time, but has been proven wrong. The article you've linked agrees with me. Specifically it points out that despite many attempts, only one study of adults displays affects from SES. And I'm not saying environmental effects cannot have an effect, I'm saying that in reality they don't. And the research shows that extensively. For children? Yep. There's effects from things other than heritability that we can consistently measure. By the time you're 35? Not that we can see.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
MJBuddy posted:The article you've linked agrees with me. Specifically it points out that despite many attempts, only one study of adults displays affects from SES. And I'm not saying environmental effects cannot have an effect, I'm saying that in reality they don't. And the research shows that extensively. Yeah because sampling error is higher for adults. See page 135 and 137. Inconclusive doesn't mean that the effects don't exist, it means we can't say either way with statistical significance. Will stop the derail now, but would encourage anyone still curious to read the article above or pm if they have questions (feel free to as well MJ).
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 07:37
|
|
|
I really like this derail.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 14:50
|
|
|
MJBuddy posted:The article you've linked agrees with me. Specifically it points out that despite many attempts, only one study of adults displays affects from SES. And I'm not saying environmental effects cannot have an effect, I'm saying that in reality they don't. And the research shows that extensively. Nothing you cited supports the argument: MJBuddy posted:Basically the mountain of evidence points to anyone saying "so and so succeeded because of additional resources in their youth" as wrong in the long run, but the long run is pretty long (last number I remember settling on when doing research was about 35 years old). I will point out that having similar base IQs doesn't matter since being poor literally impedes mental function because of the imposed cognitive load. So again, cite your claims. pr0zac fucked around with this message at 15:24 on May 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
So...twins are better at FI?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
If I marry a twin, can I obtain FI? What if I sleep with her sister?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
MrKatharsis posted:So...twins are better at FI?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
MrKatharsis posted:So...twins are better at FI? My wife and I are adopting, and long story short it's about $20k for a kid going through an open adoption. All the paperwork, legal fees, background checking, the "outreach," etc. If the birthmother we're matched up with has twins, it's only $500 more to do all the paperwork for the second human being.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
If you don't do that, do you get to like, choose which twin you want? Check their teeth and all? That'd be pretty weird.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
You could just sell that extra kid for $20k and pocket the difference!
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:If you don't do that, do you get to like, choose which twin you want? Check their teeth and all? That'd be pretty weird. Celador posted:You could just sell that extra kid for $20k and pocket the difference! It'd be nice to offset the fees, but no. We had to specify our preference for twins (y/n) on forms we filled out. We said yes.  If we said no, a birthmother is having twins wouldn't "match our filters" and we wouldn't even hear about her.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
pr0zac posted:Nothing you cited supports the argument: IQ correlated to income across every possible demo. Also correlates with just about everything people want more of. And yes everything I posted supports that argument. Your paper is cool, and it's clearly a topic of research that's not regress x on y, publish and get tenure, but we're barely touching research on what variables actually matter and we have mountains of research that says that for the most part, none of them do.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
MJBuddy posted:IQ correlated to income across every possible demo. Also correlates with just about everything people want more of. And yet you've posted none of it? Your claim was environment does not effect long term success of people financially. You're suggesting the bars in this graph should all match the others of the same color exactly if all variables but parent income were controlled. In particular the top and bottom quintiles, ie the people most affected by the benefits of being rich and the detriments of being poor.  You're claiming there is research that demonstrates this. Show me the comparable graph. Yes, IQ correlates to income. This is why I posted research showing effective IQ is negatively affected by financial stress. This is demonstrating the effect wealth as an independent variable has on IQ as a dependent variable. You're implying higher IQ => higher wealth when the science states higher wealth => higher IQ. Yes, people who perform higher on intelligence tests are generally better off financially long term. But performance on intelligence tests is directly affected by current financial circumstances. This means that the same person with the same mental capabilities raised in an environment with higher financial stress (ie: poorer) will perform worse mentally and as a result will perform worse financially going forward. If equally capable people were performing the same long term regardless of environment this feedback loop would have to be incorrect in all cases. Demonstrate how. Of course being smarter is a beneficial trait regardless of current income level. No one would claim differently. The differences between college and non-college in the above chart show that. Claiming that starting wealth and financial security has no effect of one's chances of succeeding long term just seems wrong though. pr0zac fucked around with this message at 19:13 on May 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
The science doesn't say that. A single study of people in a new jersey shopping mall and some farmers in India is not a sample I can compare to "every male in multiple countries". The study you provided is a great piece of evidence, but if you see that and reject the null hypothesis that IQ is mostly heritable despite the fact that it's makes no effort to control for heritability of IQ at all, you're giving it too much weight in your analysis. One small study is not "the science" and a single study should rarely if ever meaningfully change your position of a topic, but should just shift you more or less to one hypothesis or the other. The null through the 90s was environmental effects were nil, and now we have evidence that sometimes we can see some environmental effects. Mostly that we believe them to be there and we have a huge problem isolating them, but constantly studies (referenced in the post earlier from semicolon) cannot produce those effects. It's great that people are creating novel approaches to finding them, but it's not at the level yet of overturning the null, just a hint as to where we should be looking. Also your study absolutely does not say that anyone raised under financial stress will have a lower IQ. It's a point in time study whose theory is based on a lower measured IQ as a result of known calculating stressors. The second those stresses are removed, the effect goes away. I thought this was your point (because there's huge policy implications for it), but it's not what you said. It also doesn't differ from the position I posted outside of the idea of a vicious cycle which would only affect the bottom end of the bell curve (maybe? The study you linked doesn't really show the affect magnitudes in the abstract so it could be more or less). MJBuddy fucked around with this message at 19:51 on May 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Inverse Icarus posted:My wife and I are adopting, and long story short it's about $20k for a kid going through an open adoption. All the paperwork, legal fees, background checking, the "outreach," etc. An FBI Criminal Records check is like $20, what other ones are there for adopting?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
Summary of social science research on heritability: - for kids and young adults SES overwhelms genetics in lower socioeconomic classes. All the studies I linked reproduce this. It is accepted. - we can't yet say with statistical certainty what happens at older ages. This doesn't give a shred of positive evidence for your claim that all these SES differences fade away in the long term. It's far more likely that due to selection bias in older studies it is hard to get a representative sample. Seriously, familiarize yourself with research that wasn't contemporaneous with The Bell Curve. Actually read the summary from the APA I linked. Go to the psychology thread and ask them.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:An FBI Criminal Records check is like $20, what other ones are there for adopting? He can be more clear, but I believe that *just* the adoption fee itself in the US is 14,500 USD (though there is some kind of tax credit related to it). Before my husband and I went the surrogacy route with a good friend, we were thinking about adopting, and needed to budget the savings to do it. Agency fees, home study fees, etc etc etc.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:An FBI Criminal Records check is like $20, what other ones are there for adopting? I'd need to pull out the "fee sheet" we have at home to get real detail, but I think the majority of it (~$14k) are the home studies (4 visits / interviews from a licensed social worker), "outreach" such as connecting with hospitals to find birthmothers looking to place their child, and general legal fees associated with taking guardianship of another human being. We've paid this already and are currently waiting to be matched. We also created some "dear birthmother letters," essentially pamphlets that show who my wife and I are, where we live, etc. Marketing for mommies. Had a bunch printed up for about $300, and they're being passed around. Once matched with a birthmother, there's a chance she might require financial assistance. For example, if the mother of your child couldn't afford prenatal vitamins, would you opt to pay for them? What if they don't have insurance at all? What if they're in a really bad way and can't afford good food? Or rent? From what we've heard some people spend a lot of money there, but my wife and I told the agency that we're hoping to not go crazy with this. We've earmarked~$5k for this and are hoping we don't need it, but we're worried that is causing more birthmoms to not match our "filters." Adoption is bad with money, but here we are. If only it was as cheap as ejaculating in my wife and setting her to bake for 9 months. Edit: There are tax credits for adopting, and my job offers $3k in "adoption cost relief," so we'll get some of it back, but yeesh. Inverse Icarus fucked around with this message at 23:47 on May 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
It sure is good to know that a girl who grows up in a loving, upper class household has the same chance of success (by age 35 apparently) as the same girl growing up in a dirt poor trailer park with a father who beats and rapes her during adolescence. In our next lesson, we will learn that doctors and heroin dealers are equally valuable to society.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
I mean, the fundamental problem is that you don't get to pick what jobs are available or what they pay. If some Horatio Alger jumps a class, it means by necessity that somebody had to drop a class. There's no way capitalism can function without a massive class of wage workers - there'd be no way to skim off profit, no way to reinvest profits into new businesses. Lemme put it another way: if we all woke up tomorrow with identical, 200-point IQs, we wouldn't suddenly all be managers. I don't really understand the point of this derail because: no matter if people are genetically smart or are smart due to supportive environments, if they're genetically hard workers or people who learned to work hard, if they're women/black/brown/white, there's a set number of slots in each class. There's a set number of slots in each class. It's the same number of people suffering overwork in poo poo jobs, why does it matter that they're the correct people (ie the dumb people) you feel should suffer?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
Droo posted:It sure is good to know that a girl who grows up in a loving, upper class household has the same chance of success (by age 35 apparently) as the same girl growing up in a dirt poor trailer park with a father who beats and rapes her during adolescence. these are fantastic, intellectually honest and representative examples of the two sample groups
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:38 |
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:these are fantastic, intellectually honest and representative examples of the two sample groups 1 in 5 girls will be the victim of sexual abuse, 22% of children grow up in poverty, so I think I just compared the shittiest 4.5% of girls' childhoods to the best 4.5%. Maybe you're right though, it makes more sense to trim off the best and worst thirds and then look at how remarkably similar everybody left is.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 02:39
|
|