Home of the Muppet Imperial Moderator Corps

You don't have to be smart to be rich

http://www.physorg.com/news96694731.html - It doesn't take a rocket scientist to make a lot of money, according to new research. A nationwide study found that people of below average intelligence were, overall, just about as wealthy as those in similar circumstances but with higher scores on an IQ test.

But God still loves you more if you are rich.
Permalink son of parnas 
April 26th, 2007 10:36am
That's true. How much ya got - including the offshore accounts.
Permalink First Deity 
April 26th, 2007 10:38am
> How much ya got

Not much of deity if you don't already know.
Permalink son of parnas 
April 26th, 2007 10:46am
Guess it's not a meritocracy then.

I wonder how the figures would look if you factored out inheritance money (which accounts for 40% of rich people).
Permalink Colm 
April 26th, 2007 10:49am
>That's true. How much ya got - including the offshore accounts.

Heh. Good point. Smart people hide their money.
Permalink Colm 
April 26th, 2007 10:50am
A friend of mine was saying there are people lot richer than Gates in the Middle East. But since their laws don't require as much transparency as in the West, a lot of assets they have are hidden.
Permalink Send private email Senthilnathan N.S. 
April 26th, 2007 11:02am
The best wealth predictor is working hard, this even works for artists - the wealthiest are the most prolific.
Permalink Billx 
April 26th, 2007 11:04am
>It doesn't take a rocket scientist to make a lot of money

The article actually says that there's a close correlation between *income* and IQ.

What they are measuring, however, is wealth. The more you make, the more debt capacity you have (not just in absolutes, but relative to income).

So smarter people are dumb about the big paycheques they do get. Not a big surprize.
Permalink DF 
April 26th, 2007 11:12am
> So smarter people are dumb about the big paycheques they do get. Not a big surprize.

If they are smart then why isn't surprising they are dumb?
Permalink son of parnas 
April 26th, 2007 11:34am
"Guess it's not a meritocracy then."

Uhm, your IQ is supposed to measure value in some way?

LOL.

What's merit got to do, got to do with it?
Permalink JoC 
April 26th, 2007 12:06pm
> You need to build up wealth to help buffer life's storms and to prepare for retirement.

I guess smart people feel their income-producing power will last longer than those for average smartness. They make discounts for current nest-eggs acordingly.

If you're A-Rod or Kate Moss, you should be squirelling your income away as quickly as possible in your 30's. It'll will be all downhill from here.
Permalink strawberry beeswax 
April 26th, 2007 12:31pm
------"A friend of mine was saying there are people lot richer than Gates in the Middle East. But since their laws don't require as much transparency as in the West, a lot of assets they have are hidden."-------
Yea, I mean if you let on about it you might get hit by the 0% income tax, or the 0% alimony.
Permalink Send private email Stephen Jones 
April 26th, 2007 1:47pm
Maybe I was incorrect about it being in the Middle East. I was reminded of this when Colm said that smart people hide their money.
Permalink Send private email Senthilnathan N.S. 
April 26th, 2007 1:52pm
-----""Professors tend to be very smart people," he said. "But if you look at university parking lots, you don't see a lot of Rolls Royces, Porsches or other very expensive cars. Instead you see a lot of old, low-value vehicles."----

Perhaps they've used their intelligence to decide you don't need a flash car to be happy.
Permalink Send private email Stephen Jones 
April 26th, 2007 1:53pm
The rich lists leave out those who got their money from goverment. So Prince Talal features but other members of the Saudi Royal family don't.

Somehow, I don't think stashing away tens of billions is that easy.
Permalink Send private email Stephen Jones 
April 26th, 2007 1:55pm
-- Somehow, I don't think stashing away tens of billions is that easy. --

True. Maybe at smaller levels it can be done but not when it is higher and almost certainly not in the highest ones.
Permalink Send private email Senthilnathan N.S. 
April 26th, 2007 1:58pm
Exactly.  It COULD be a meritocracy, just not one based on IQ.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
April 26th, 2007 2:15pm
I would say it almost certainly must be a meritocracy by definition of currency.

Most meaningful is the misconception that malicious muscling is not meritous. In so much as such many meticulously maligned machinations are monetarily magnetic.

You see, money must mean mericy mostly. The malleable movement between men for manpower and its makings is afterall more than marginally meaningful.
Permalink JoC 
April 26th, 2007 3:56pm
Magnificiently managed.
Permalink strawberry beeswax 
April 26th, 2007 5:17pm
"Most meaningful is the misconception that malicious muscling is not meritous. In so much as such many meticulously maligned machinations are monetarily magnetic. "


SIDEBAR!
Permalink Send private email sharkfish 
April 26th, 2007 6:10pm
Big money's easy to make.  It's almost retardedly easy.

Take on lots of responsibility and risk.  Make it your #1 goal.  Every decision you make has to be about money.  Sacrifice everything to this goal.

Most people destroy themselves doing this (myself included).  Their health, happiness, relationships all suffer.

Joel Spolsky, for example.  Every time I see a picture of him I remark to myself at how overweight he is, and how healthy that can't be for him.  Maybe the camera just adds 30 pounds?

I've seen people who have the discipline to generate big money without the outward appearance of hurting themselves, but I don't really believe it.  I suspect there's some trick or a trust fund.
Permalink Michael B 
April 26th, 2007 7:14pm
I guest there are more rich people due to inheritance as compared to hard work.
Permalink Lele 
April 26th, 2007 8:06pm
Probably more due to luck than either.

In any case, there's very often not one sole factor why somebody is rich (unless it's inheritance).

Good timing also factors in more than people realize (e.g. the Russian oligarchs were in the right place at the right time when all the public properties were being sold off ridiculously cheap).
Permalink Colm 
April 26th, 2007 8:14pm
> Probably more due to luck than either.

Yes, luck plays a huge factor in determining whether someone wins the game or not, but most people don't even show up.  Their chances of winning are ZERO.
Permalink Michael B 
April 27th, 2007 12:20am
The harder I work, the luckier I get.

  --  Samuel Goldwyn
Permalink Billx 
April 27th, 2007 4:41am
>Yes, luck plays a huge factor in determining whether
>someone wins the game or not, but most people don't
>even show up.  Their chances of winning are ZERO.

Yes, so go show them by playing the lottery.
Permalink Colm 
April 27th, 2007 5:18am
>The harder I work, the luckier I get. --  Samuel Goldwyn

Some more amusing quotes by him:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Samuel_Goldwyn
Permalink Colm 
April 27th, 2007 5:20am
isn't that kind of obvious?

getting rich is about being good at getting money. so it's "a certain kind of smart". But totally unrelated to, so, understanding multidimensional geometry.
Permalink $-- 
April 27th, 2007 9:32am

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: April, 2007 Other topics: April, 2007 Recent topics Recent topics