Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Despite the misleading headline, richest/poorest is not what the data is showing. Income in NYC would have to be substantially more than in Fargo just to be equal in terms of real wealth. What about debt? That isn't even considered.
I think the reason the so called red states fair poorly here is more a function of the disparity between rural and urban economies. Urban areas are more expensive and, as a result, have higher paying jobs. Rural areas pay less and rural areas are predominantly red politically. High population areas are almost always blue and more expensive. More expensive because of the nature of cities, not because they are blue. But certainly blue because of the nature of people living in close proximity. There are no dense areas that are red.
Winter_Sucks got it right. Most of the Red states recieve money from the Blue states due to Federal subsudies so they are not only broke they are on welfare as well.
Not true. Most of the LAND receiving crop subsidy may be in a red state but it is often OWNED by people in blue states. There were reports done on how many people living in manhattan (ny) received huge crop subsidy checks lol.
In addition, the more rural states get money for the interstate highway system that benefits the entire country as well as unpopulated states where we put ICBM silos, nuclear waste storage etc.
P.S. They aren't broke, that's the beauty of not having to pay 500k to live in a mediocre house and have a 90 minute one way commute.
Where did I say it was used since 1957? In this same thread I said it was used since 2000.
Democratic governor for 50 of the last 75 years. Democratic Senators for more than 50 years.
I think Jay Rockefeller would disagree with your assessment.
The IQ differences, while statistically significant, are not stunning -- on the order of 6 to 11 points -- and the data should not be used to stereotype or make assumptions about people, experts say
Quote:
Bailey also said that these preferences may stem from a desire to show superiority or elitism
I don't have time to look at that study further right now, but either way, that does not even remotely support the claim you made earlier int he thread, but nice try. Let's look back at your own words, shall we?
Quote:
I'd guess the IQ of the whites matter as well. Germans, Scandanvians, Ashkenazi Jews (mainly in the North/Northeast) have higher IQ's than Scotts-Irish who migrated South.
Sorry but that's the brutal truth.
The brutal truth is you were wrong and are desperately trying to google to cover yourself.
ETA: well, there you go, mathguy has already shown that the study itself said not to use this as a generalization as it might not have causation.
I don't have time to look at that study further right now, but either way, that does not even remotely support the claim you made earlier int he thread, but nice try. Let's look back at your own words, shall we?
The brutal truth is you were wrong and are desperately trying to google to cover yourself.
It doesn't say anything about my claim earlier. One has nothing to do with the other. Do you not understand the the term "Dems" includes many minority voters who have lower group IQ scores than white voters and are social conservatives who do not self identify as "liberals"?
You understand most blacks in California voted against the latest State proposition that would have expanded gay rights? You think they are "liberals"?
Yeah you're so smart you can't tell a completely garbage study when you see one. Have you actually read it? Because if you haven't, spare yourself the embarrassment make a graceful exit now.
And some of the smartest people are complete idiots when it comes to common sense. I'm conservative because nobody, including any of you 106-IQ'd liberal nanny statists is smart enough to make better choices concerning my life than I am. You don't have to be a genius to understand that.
Yeah you're so smart you can't tell a completely garbage study when you see one. Have you actually read it? Because if you haven't, spare yourself the embarrassment make a graceful exit now.
And some of the smartest people are complete idiots when it comes to common sense. I'm conservative because nobody, including any of you 106-IQ'd liberal nanny statists is smart enough to make better choices concerning my life than I am. You don't have to be a genius to understand that.
Ok you go with "Shawn" the blogger and I'll go with a Phd in that field of study from London School of Economics and Political Science one of the most respected Universities in Europe.
And what does that fact the YOU are conservative have to do with "group outcomes" in IQ scores?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
