You seem to have some weird theory that wealth is somehow correlated with genetics - a theory that you cannot support with any evidence, but continue to reintroduce.
And then you seem to make a conclusion that it's all quite ok and the research in question is totally pointless. I mean, what do all those former middle-class and newly-poor are whining about? There's nothing we can do if they were born with genetic defect, right?
Many of the traits that hugh3 refers to may well be a matter of culture and values. These are heritable traits, in that children tend to acquire them from their parents. But they have nothing to do with DNA.
Thus, there's very little in this claim condemning a person's offspring, for all of eternity, to menial drudgery, simply due to an accident of genetics. The children or grandchildren can learn a different way of life, and improve their lot -- and pass that on to their own children.
It's been observed that if you (1) finish high school; (2) get a job; and (3) get married before having kids, the chances that you'll wind up in poverty is virtually nil. This says nothing about ethnic groups, the finances of your parents, etc. It's just a matter of displaying the values that have proven to lead to success.
That's a weird theory? I think it follows quite naturally from:
1. Wealth is correlated with intelligence, and
2. Intelligence is at least partly inherited.
These both seem like they would be fairly obvious and noncontroversial, and I'm sure could be backed up with a few minutes googling. Which one would you like to take issue with?
PS. It's possible your misconception comes from thinking that "wealth is correlated with intelligence" allows us to make statements about specific cases -- like that rich person A is necessarily more intelligent than poor person B, or that the lower average wealth of group C than group D implies that group C is of lower average intelligence. Of course it means nothing of the sort.
From that paper's conclusion:
The results confirm other researchers' findings that IQ test scores and income are related. Depending on the method of analysis used and specific factors held constant, each point increase in IQ test scores is associated with $202 to $616 more income per year. This means the average income difference between a person with an IQ score in the normal range (100) and someone in the top 2% of society (130) is currently between $6000 and $18,500 per year. While income and IQ test scores are related, results do not suggest a link between IQ scores and wealth. Regression results range from a negative to a small positive relationship depending on the specific analysis done. Moreover, since most of the statistical results are not distinguishable from zero, this suggests IQ test scores and net worth are not connected.
What exactly does cause the concentration of wealth is an interesting question, but it appears to be more complex than simply making more income, and unlike income doesn't appear to be as strongly associated with intelligence (if associated at all).
While those with above-average IQs were three times more likely to have a high income as those with below-average IQs, they were only 1.2 times more likely to have a high net worth. "Simply put, there are few individuals with below-average IQ scores who have high income, but there are relatively large numbers (of those with below-average IQs) who are wealthy," he wrote.
"I was expecting that smarter people would have greater wealth," Zagorsky said. "And you kind of expect people with higher IQ to make fewer mistakes. . . . I thought, 'Wow, I must have made a mistake.' "
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/LearnToBu...