Poverty May Affect the Growth of Children's Brains

sciencehabit writes: Stark and rising inequality plagues many countries, including the United States, and politicians, economists, and — fortunately — scientists, are debating its causes and solutions. But inequality's effects may go beyond simple access to opportunity: a new study finds that family differences in income and education are directly correlated with brain size in developing children and adolescents. The findings could have important policy implications and provide new arguments for early antipoverty interventions, researchers say.

Comments

Cause, or effect?

[Anonymous Coward]

They may have found a correlation, but that's not the same as determining the direction of causation.

Re:Cause, or effect?

[reboot246]

There you go, making sense again.

I was raised in a very poor family, one of the poorest in our city, but I have an IQ that's very high, and I always made good grades in school. I don't see the relationship between poverty and smaller brains, nor do I see the relationship between poverty and crime. Of course I was raised in a good family that wasn't trash.

Parental involvement makes more of a difference, and unmarried teens are simply not the best parents. Ask any teacher and they can tell you which students have parents who care.

Re:Cause, or effect?

[MightyMartian]

The link is between nutrition and brain development, and considering the odds of poor nutrition is higher in poorer families than in wealthier families, the conclusion does not seem bad at all. Nothing says that all families that live in poverty will have children with developmental problems, but it does argue you're much more likely to see the phenomenon in such families.

I can't imagine why anyone would see this as controversial.

Re:Cause, or effect?

[ahodgson]

Probably because there just aren't all that many people in the 1st world who are truly going hungry.

Re:Cause, or effect?

[bobbied]

The link is between nutrition and brain development, and considering the odds of poor nutrition is higher in poorer families than in wealthier families, the conclusion does not seem bad at all. Nothing says that all families that live in poverty will have children with developmental problems, but it does argue you're much more likely to see the phenomenon in such families.

I can't imagine why anyone would see this as controversial.

EXACTLY...

For instance, there is a whole generation in North Korea where starvation was common during the second Kim's reign and they show marked problems with mental development if they where malnourished during specific phases of their development. They will NEVER recover, nor will they reach their potential but the real tragedy is that this will affect their children too. So you loose not one but two generations. (According to the documentary I remember watching once.)

Re:Cause, or effect?

[Lord Crc]

The link is between nutrition and brain development

Could it also be related to poorer parents working more hours, thus having less time to be with the kids during their early years playing with them, reading for them and otherwise stimulating their brain development? Or has that been corrected for?

Re:Cause, or effect?

[jblues]

Its common for poor folks to suffer from ill health, including being overweight as a result of eating calorie dense but nutritionally poor foods. In the country where I live there's a huge wealth gap, with a proportion of the population being malnourished and another being overweight, and possible to fall into both categories. Its not always the case of course. My wife had a very poor upbringing - they had a dirt-floor kitchen, no refrigerator, wood-fired stove, and no running water (only hand pumped). Income trickled in just enough to cover daily food and kids' school fees (public school system not yet up to par in the country of origin). Yet their diet consisted only of whole agricultural foods and almost no processed food whatsoever. They'd have a variety of fare, depending on what was cheap/growing/available. I think farming in their community was pretty low-tech and compensated with cheap labor, so doesn't have a lot of pesticides and other contaminants. Furthermore she's happy to eat nutritionally dense foods like eyeballs, hearts, livers and intestines that are not considered appetizing in other cultures. Generally fish and vegetable based though. Anyway, I think despite poverty their nutrition was pretty good as far as I know.

Re:Cause, or effect?

[AmiMoJo]

Malnutrition has measurable, physical effects on brain development. If you measure the average amount of growth a child's brain does from birth to adulthood you will find it is less if the body is starved of nutrition. The effects are permanent and irreversible, and cannot be fully counteracted with education. The brain is simply less able to grow and to learn during those critical early years.

Re:Cause, or effect?

[LaurenCates]

I believe the phrase "Fuck you, I've got mine" that I'd say is a common attitude of many among even the better-off middle classes seems to indicate there are plenty of fucks to be given, and they all land squarely among the have-nots.

For instance, I was at some point not too long ago, subject to a Facebook rant among a guy my age (mid-30s) with a stable Government job that netted him six-figures easily, because he had a high clearance, railing against Obamacare. With no evident whiff of parody, he basically said that he was going to be forced to give up space in his basement and even one of his kidneys to "someone who will never contribute to society". He said money would be stolen from "his family" for this.

This guy had clearly never been impoverished, knew anyone who was, or even spoken to anyone near the poverty line. He (despite being rather book-smart) understood nothing about class mobility (or lack thereof), the cycle of poverty, or personal responsibility to being your brother's keeper.

Point being, this guy sure gave a fuck.

People who don't give a fuck can reasonably be expected to say "You know what? I can live without a new luxury car every few years because I'm helping make the country stronger by having less impoverished people in it."

You may think it's apathy that drives people not to help others, but apathy implies no expenditure of anything. It takes far more energy to be selfish.

Correlation is not Causation

[Archangel Michael]

Poverty doesn't cause it, most likely has to do with poor Nutrition.

Which is why, if I were in charge, Food Stamps would be for Fruits, Veggies, Meat, and Milk only. If you add anything else, it is abused. Cereal? FruitLoops is a cereal, and currently counts as "food".

Re:Correlation is not Causation

[phantomfive]

I don't know why you think so.

Here's an interview on PBS: "I went to visit indigenous people and hunter-gatherers...they don’t get that much meat because hunting is hard work."

Look at the chart half-way down, of some of the hunter/gatherer tribes that still exist. There is huge variety in one they eat....some are mostly meat, some are mostly plants.
The Paleo diet today isn't good for your health.
Unsurprisingly, here is a study in Nature that points out copying Paleolithic diets would not be very useful anyway (not in the least because we've evolved since then, through the Neolithic era).

The paleo diet is yet another fully trademarked fad diet.

Re:Correlation is not Causation

[Dutch Gun]

My first thought was poor nutrition as well. It's the same sort of claim that dentists make, like how unhealthy teeth can lead to other health problems. I've always figured it's more likely that people who don't take care of their teeth also don't take care of their bodies in general.

About your proposed food stamp rules... you're missing the "grains" food group (bread, flour, rice, etc) entirely, not to mention a few other fundamental things like eggs, butter, salt, and sugar. I'm going to take a wild guess that you don't do the bulk of the shopping and cooking for your household.

You can read the rationale as to why the US government currently does not restrict any "food" item, no matter it's health value. Personally, I think it's more worthwhile to focus on working to get people off food stamps altogether than trying to add a bunch of regulatory burdens to the program. If you want to focus on abuse, let's look at more rampant fraudulent welfare claims to start with. Buying a candy bar instead of an apple is a terrible health choice, but I'd hardly count it as "abuse".

Re:Correlation is not Causation

[__aaltlg1547]

Roots are usually included in the term "vegetables."

Yeah, it's true that modern people have some adaptations due to what they call "niche construction" which appears to be a fancy term for "agriculture" + "cooking" when it comes to diet.

For example, most modern people can digest milk, whereas our paleolithic ancestors mostly couldn't, and some populations of humans have developed heightened tolerance for carbohydrate-heavy diets that probably would have given our paleolithic ancestors diabetes. They still do that to many people today.

And the fact that we can tolerate foods our ancestors couldn't doesn't necessarily mean they're better for us than the kinds of foods they ate are for us. Humans never lost the ability to digest meat, fish, fruit and vegetables. All evidence shows that a diet heavier in fruits and vegetables with some fish and meat (not as much as most Americans eat) is optimal, and whether you attribute that to the adaptations of two million years of evolution or not doesn't really change the bottom line.

Re:Correlation is not Causation

[mjwx]

The Paleo diet today isn't good for your health.
Unsurprisingly, here is a study in Nature that points out copying Paleolithic diets would not be very useful anyway (not in the least because we've evolved since then, through the Neolithic era).

The paleo diet is yet another fully trademarked fad diet.

The Paleo diet was originally known to most Australians as the CSIRO diet and it's meant for weight loss, not as a regular diet. Its the same with Paleo which has the same high protein, low carbohydrate principles. The CSIRO diet is coupled with exercise and other elements as a 12 week program. Like Paleo, it's designed to induce Ketosis which isn't a healthy state to be in for years, but is just fine for a few months whilst you drop a few kilos.

Unlike fad diets, high protein, low carb diets are proven to reduce weight when combined with moderate exercise.

Re:Correlation is not Causation

[Neil Boekend]

It all depends on lactase persistence and that depends on genetics. The relevant mutation in the gene for lactase is relatively new, without it you simply can't handle lactose after puberty.
The mutation is common in people with Caucasian ancestry, in purely non-Caucasian ancestry lactose intolerance is extremely common. If 90% of your adult population gets the runs from lactose then cows milk isn't going to appear in the national cuisine, except for maybe as a drink for children.
It is an interesting gene to trace because it isn't old enough to have spread over the globe yet.

Re:Correlation is not Causation

[jabuzz]

It is more likely to be down to the input from the parents, or in the case of poverty lack of input. The basics are that poor parents are on average less well educated and don't have either the inclination or knowledge to give their children quality input especially in early years.

The is also a growing problem with the children of wealthy/educated parents who are too busy with their jobs to give their children the quality input they need to thrive.

Diet has very little or nothing to do with it. Any sensible early years teacher could tell you this in an instance. If you arrive at school knowing your letters, being able to count to 10, recognizing your name when written down, being able to hold a pencil properly etc. you have a massive head start in life and this can NEVER EVER be closed by anything the state can do in the educational system.

The reality is that the children of wealthier and/or better educated parents are more likely to turn up on their first day at school being able to do all those things. The cost of getting your child to be able to do these things is minimal and "poverty" in the western world is not a barrier to achieving it either.

Even when we get to school the attitude that the parents hold to the value of an education and behaviour of their children has a huge impact on the how well a child will perform throughout their school career.

Poverty is a symptom of low educational achievement on average and it breads low educational achievement on average. How you break the circle is difficult to know, but throwing money on diet and/or the educational system won't work and does not work.

Re:Correlation is not Causation

[Archangel Michael]

I was once in the poverty state, food choices between Manufactured "food" and fresh foods wasn't that much. It is a lifestyle choice. I've seen what poor people eat. And here, in America, you can be poor, and obese, and that is a choice.

Bank accounts might matter if you're buying a lot of meat, but my guess is poor people shop once a month, for the whole month, and thus don't buy non-processed foods. It is a discipline to be able to keep money through the month, so you can buy fresh food. IMHO many (perhaps most) poor people simply don't have self discipline to do so, to their own detriment.

Re:Correlation is not Causation

[bluefoxlucid]

They've found a correlation between poverty and small brain size, but it's a complex issue that's not as simple as money or food or whatnot causing a small brain. You have a point about nutrition, and that's an important consideration going forward; it is unfortunate that we can't solve this readily, but it's a good consideration to make.

Still, nutrition is only one small part of it. The brain isn't a muscle: you don't get stronger at math by flexing your math brain parts; you only get better at the particular techniques in use for the mode of math you're studying, and can thus apply those techniques to similar problems. Even so, the brain changes dramatically in structure during learning: people who learn to navigate cities for a living (e.g. black car taxi cab drivers) show a 7% growth in their anterior hippocampi, as they learn to use visualization more effectively. They don't magically gain a better memory, but they do find it easier to visualize and internally inspect things using their spatial reasoning, which forms the basis of techniques to remember all kinds of facts and figures and places.

Poverty is correlated with not learning, which is a direct cause of a smaller brain: by not learning, you don't use the parts of your brain that execute important reasoning and memory tasks; this in turn causes those parts to stay smaller. We know, as well, that poverty is correlated with certain social atmospheres which make learning more difficult. A small child in a poverty-stricken family will face more social pressure, as the social imperative is the natural survival behavior for humans: unable to hunt and gather effectively, humans form communities to hunt and gather more effectively, bringing down large animals to feed the group; one deer can feed twenty people, so you only need an average of one deer every twenty days per person to feed the group. To use less esoteric, more factually reliable arguments, impoverished children suffer from a loss of feeling of importance, and focus more on peer pressure to adapt to a social need and justify their marginal lives.

The larger part of the solution would be to adjust the education system for poverty-stricken communities. We should focus more on bringing children in an impoverished community together in the classroom, granting them a feeling of importance directly beneficial to their educational performance. Early grade school should encourage impoverished children to work together toward goals, to make friends in the pursuit of things they can be proud of, and to guide themselves through a variety of activities all able to serve similar educational needs. While this may create some small gaps in education, it will maximize the breadth of intellectual skills these children develop: we might not be able to teach them an exact, consistent set of memory, mathematical, and social skills, but we can improve their feeling of self-worth and of community while conveying at least some. A middle-class district might get a head start on these impoverished children, but the difference won't be mere success versus failure.

Unfortunately, I have little answer for that. I know the tools and techniques to teach, but I don't know much about managing a room full of school children; I can't structure an educational system for this purpose, although I know what would go into it. I know how to solve poverty absolutely, but that's of little use in this context; simply guaranteeing every American gets the basic needs of food, shelter, clean clothes and personal hygiene, and the like won't eliminate the hierarchical nature of our society, and will still leave people struggling at the bottom, even if all those at the bottom are readily surviving and under no immanent threat of starvation and homelessness. In any realistic society, the problem of social pressure within the communities of the poor will always have such implications as must be addressed as I have said; I have not solved that problem, but I would like to.

Re:Correlation is not Causation

[phantomfive]

The 'high number' of people with gluten intolerance suggests there are idiots who self-diagnose, wrongly.

Re:So What

[Balial]

Why isn't everyone entitled to a brain of the same size, if it's feasible?

Re:So What

[ColdWetDog]

So there will finally be a financial benefit to using Slashdot after all?

Brain size?

[riverat1]

I'm not sure that brain size by itself is a particular indicator of intelligence but when it's combined with poor nutrition and stressful living it probably is correlated. If you're concerned about the welfare state then it's something that should concern you. People with low intelligence are much more likely to require welfare to get along in life.

Re:Brain size?

[MightyMartian]

I don't know what is surprising about this. We've known for decades that poor nutrition during the developmental years can lead to poor brain development and permanent cognitive problems.

Re:in that case how does that explain politicians

[ColdWetDog]

most of our ruling class aren't poor!

Don't conflate intelligence (or, in the case of TFA, certain aspects of learning and higher order function) with social success. Politics is more emotional than technical. It is abundantly clear that intelligence (whatever the hell that actually happens to be), the ability to learn, the ability to think have only a modest bearing on what happens to an individual throughout their lives.

Besides, the actual magnitude of the effect in TFA seems rather small - there are likely a number of other factors involved to determine if you are fated to be Steve Woz or Idi Amin.

Re:So What

[phantomfive]

Why isn't everyone entitled to a brain of the same size, if it's feasible?

The language you use there is weird. The world is cold and hard, and any of us could be dead tomorrow; entitlements aren't a god-given right, there's no such thing (and that's true whether you're atheist or strongly believe in God).

Why don't you say, "hey guys, these poor people are out there with deficient brains, let's go help them!" Helping people is something we can actually accomplish as a society, and saying it like that would rally a lot more people to the cause.

Re:So What

[TWX]

Being somewhat above or below median brain size does not equate to better or worse mental faculties. One has to be far, far worse off in the smaller department before it actually starts to be relevant, and that's usually because whole structures are malformed or missing.

If anything in poverty affects brain development I expect that it's chemical or in the way that structures are formed. It's been demonstrated that some structures are larger in both musicians and mathematicians and that there's a direct correlation, the brain improves that structure as the person develops the skill.

I'm going to venture a guess that some people that are poor, particularly those that do not find themselves in a position to really be able to make important choices due to financial constraints or to exercise their brains in higher thinking, will have brains less suited to that kind of decision making until they're forced to start making those kinds of decisions regularly. I expect conversely that many wealthy people that have never been poor can't empathize with the poor because they simply have no idea how to do so, that their brains do not understand the concepts of making very seemingly small decisions that actually are very important when one has almost no resources.

Re:So What

[sumdumass]

I'm sorry but what was your point?

Its not like they did anything different than what was already happening. They just did it better. And in my neck of the woods, the vast majority of natives simply blended into society. They were not killed for the land.

Re: So What

[Tuidjy]

We get more from taxes. A poor person may get a pittance for food and lodging, but we, and by that I mean middle class professionals, get roads on which to drive our nice cars, police protection for our belongings, safe streets around where we live... and basically a nice life. And yes, we get it from the society that is made possible by taxes.

If you are one of the brainless retards who think that their guns and mad macho skillz will keep them on top if there is a breakdown in law and order, I won't even bother arguing with you. I'll just say that I lived through Bulgaria's transition from a police state to a society run by organized not-quite-criminals, and saw how happy people were to see an end of the truly lawless times.

Without taxes, there is no law enforcement. Without law enforcement, there is no security. No one is tough enough to guarantee their own security without organizing with like minded and skilled people. Once they have organized, they decide that they don't be keeping themselves secure, they are protecting others as well, and... start collecting taxes.

Top 1 %

[BeemanIT]

So the Top 1% needs to give the bottom 99% all their money. Problem solved.

Re:Top 1 %

[Obfuscant]

So the Top 1% needs to give the bottom 99% all their money. Problem solved.

Until next year, when the ones who suddenly find themselves in the new 1% have everything taken away from them and given to everyone else. As in, what do you do when the money you've just given away is gone and you need to do it again? Do you really imagine that those people who had no money will save whatever windfall they get by eating the rich for use over a long period of time? (And taking everything away from the 1% is as close to "eating the rich" as you can get without actually eating them.) The vacuum created by emptying out the 1% will create endless opportunities for the 5% to move up, creating the same 1% all over again.

I can think of no better incentive to be non-productive than to know that if you make the magic 1% level you'll have everything confiscated. No better way to destroy any idea of the "land of opportunity" than to reward the use of opportunity with total abject poverty. Well, no, I guess knowing that if you sit on your backside all day you'll get enough to live on is a pretty good incentive to not be productive, too.

Re: So What

[ahodgson]

Total government expenditures in the US were around 10% of GDP in 1930. Was the US a lawless hellhole at 10%?

Cause it's around 40% today.

Re:Caution

[Alomex]

This study may only be referenced by Liberals when promoting new ways to take from those who produce.

You mean the workers on the production lines? because those are the only ones who do any producing.

Rich people allocate capital and if they do it well this is a Good Thing (TM), but certainly on and itself does not produce anything.

Re:So What

[sumdumass]

I'm going to guess that it has a lot to do with nutrition too. But in the US, there is quite a few people who are considered in poverty who are there by choice. I don't mean they choose to be in poverty but choices they make places and keeps them there.

Re:Stupid opening line

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a dig. The U.S is always boasting and purporting itself as a piece of heaven, but the country is in fact a third-world shit-hole in many places and aspects. Look up the documentary "Lalee's Kin" f.ex. to see some of the stark, rising inequality. The kind of inequality and shit-hole seen in this documentary doesn't exist in the little European country I live in, nor in many other places in the world. But it does in the U.S, and it's not a rare sight.

Correlation v Causation, yada yada

[Anonymice]

But inequality's effects may go beyond simple access to opportunity

I'm not sure what they're defining as "opportunity" here, but it clearly doesn't include access to a healthier diet, better educational tools, more experiences in life, quality time & attention from their guardians, etc, etc.

In fact, I'd like to know exactly what they what they think opportunity is if it's *not* those things?!

Re:Would We Even Want That?

[Ichijo]

No, but it would be nice to have one where everybody has the exact same amount of opportunity.

This should be obvious

[GoodNewsJimDotCom]

Poor people have less nutrition for their body. Poor people have less access to toys and media which exercise the brains. Thankfully smart phone prices are coming down in price, and educational apps are popping up all the time. So in third world countries, people may be able to get education straight from a smart phone. We as app developers should have education in mind. Whether we're doing illustrated story books which the spoken word synched with highlighted words, or we're doing K-12-University lectures and workbook activities... We should focus more on education and helping out over directly our own pocketbooks to a degree.

Re: So What

[xevioso]

The intentional homicide rate in the 1930s in the US was more than twice what it is today. So, yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

Re:Would We Even Want That?

[JeffOwl]

We could do that. We could take all children away from the parents as soon as they are born and make them wards of the state. That way they would all get the same amount of attention and stimulation at an early age, the same nutrition, the same access to the same government schools, etc...

Re:Stupid opening line

[xevioso]

But it does in every other place in the world with the population the US has, which is more than most places. The larger the population, the larger the disparity. Comparing economic disparity of people in, say, Sweden, to the entire US is pretty silly when you realize Sweden's population is less than that of L.A county.

Re:It's genetics really...

[Ichijo]

Studies have been done and published then buried over the last 100+ years that clearly show intelligence differences between races.

After correcting for cultural differences (e.g. Asians focus on education more than other races), does your claim still hold true?

Re:So What

[hey!]

The world is cold and hard as we allow it to be. It is a *choice*, albeit one made by default for people who think like you.

Re: So What

[Tuidjy]

Well, I think that ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE agrees that our taxes are spent on the wrong things. The young think too much is spent on the elderly, the healthy think too much is spent on the sick, the pedestrians think too much is spent on roads, the childless think too much is spent on education, etc... And I bet there are people who think that homeland security, the police and the military are getting way too much.

But until someone comes with a better way to decide where the money gets spent we are stuck with the time honored one: wherever it will bring the politicians more power, which in the US means votes and campaign contributions.

And a lot of noise will be made as to where expenses will be cut... usually, whatever programs do not have powerful, organized groups benefiting from them. You can't cut grandpa's check without losing his vote, but you can cut school lunches or fail to fund infrastructure maintenance.

There are no easy solutions. And speaking for myself, I can a lot more benefit, for myself, by working harder, than trying to influence how much I pay in taxes, and where it gets spent.

I have a choice where I live and work. I chose the US in the 90s, and I do not regret that choice, not even when I have to deal with our healthcare (which is the only thing I think is done better elsewhere). Pre- or post- Obamacare, with my experience of other healthcare systems, the changes are not worth commenting on. It was terrible, it is terrible, but as long as I have a good income, it's survivable.

Re:So What

[phantomfive]

The world is cold and hard as we allow it to be.

Then allow it to end death: for that is the coldest and hardest thing we all face.

More BS blaming 'the system' for bad parenting

[johnlcallaway]

In theory, anyone can scrimp and save and work hard and get ahead. I've done it .. without a college education and growing up in a from a family barely getting by, I've managed to improve my income starting as a minimum wage bike repair worker, working two years as an office clerk, and 35 years later clear over $130K/year. I did it because I'm smart, reasonably personable, and have a strong work ethic that makes it easy for me to do just about any job my company asks for, yet strong enough to go look elsewhere when the time is right.

So .. should stupid people have the same opportunity that I have had?? How about lazy people??? How about liars and thieves???

So what type of opportunity are they talking about?? My son and daughter took two different paths through life, she took the college/marriage/house/kid route and she and her husband, who just got his doctorate, are doing much better than I was at 30 years young.

On the other hand, my son took a more laid back, artsy, 'no working for the man' route. While fiscally, he is far worse off than I was at 32, he has traveled the entire United States, has friends in probably every state, does what he wants, doesn't pay taxes, and yet makes enough money to not live off the state. He is 100% debt free. He lives on what he makes, and occasionally dumpster dives for food and materials. Yet .. it's what he has chosen to do. Because he feels we throw away far too much stuff, buy way too much stuff, and spend too much of our lives doing work we don't like.

The things they both have in common is they are both very smart, have good work ethics, and both know the importance of living within their means. I'm sure my son would qualify as someone below the poverty line. Yet he has never gotten food stamps in his entire life and has never asked me for money. Except that one time he broke his glasses jumping off a freight train in Kansas City.

He also is far more in touch with the nutritional value of food and makes good choices when he can than I am. He's pretty darn healthy for someone that doesn't have a regular job. Yet also knows how to pour concrete, build a boat, restring a fiddle bow, and a dozen other things. He has become a modern jack-of-all-trades than can make a few bucks in just about any town, any time he wants to.

So is opportunity just getting what you want?? Or is it having a specific income level??

'Equal opportunity' is a phrase that means nothing, and is constantly overused by those willing to take things from other people and give to others under the guise of 'doing good'. Or as an excuse to control people's behaviors or, in this case, probably their children.

What a great excuse, taking children away from people simply because they are poor. What will the progressive's think of next ....

Re:More BS blaming 'the system' for bad parenting

[Bite The Pillow]

Are you statistically the same as the studied subjects?

I did it because I'm smart, reasonably personable, and have a strong work ethic that makes it easy for me to do just about any job my company asks for, yet strong enough to go look elsewhere when the time is right.

Nope, you are an outlier. Thanks for your Republicanism, but try actually understanding things.

Re:More BS blaming 'the system' for bad parenting

[johnlcallaway]

You do realize that 35 years ago I lived with my parents and didn't get married or raise kids until my income became enough to actually move out and do it. By then I was a computer programmer. Took me 5 years to go from office clerk to junior programmer, and then 20 more to make the salary I make today.

Please explain why people today can't do the same thing I did (it's called living within one's means) Just because somebody wants to get married and have kids doesn't mean they should do it and then expect taxpayers to pay for it. No harm in taking it if it's available, but still pretty shortsighted.

My oldest step-son lived with his mother until he was in his late 20s. Married a woman who made enough together to have a kid, then was able to get a job himself in computers. They now own their own home. He's 32.

My other step-son joined the navy at 24, and will probably be in the navy until he retires. He has learned some great IT skills himself.

BTW ... she was a single divorced mother before we got married 8 years ago, barely making ends meet. But she never took charity (except from family) or food stamps. So don't tell me it can't be done today. Sure, she had to go without cable or cell phones and drove junk cars, but she made sure her kids were well fed and educated using today's public schools.

Re:More BS blaming 'the system' for bad parenting

[AmiMoJo]

I don't think you understand what "equality of opportunity" means. For example, it means that all children would have the opportunity to get a high quality education. Obviously some children are less bright than others, but the high quality education is offered to everyone. More over, children shouldn't be disadvantaged because of their parents failings, because that isn't fair to them. That's one of the reasons why children must attend school by law in most countries - even if the parents would prefer them to stay at home or work they must be given the opportunity to learn.

As for jobs, equality of opportunity means that everyone can apply for a particular job, i.e. the employer can't arbitrarily discriminate against say Latino people. It also means that we should try to make high quality jobs available everywhere, or ensure that people can relocate if necessary without artificial barriers. Imagine there was some bright kid just out of college who couldn't afford to move to where high end jobs in his field were. Someone might decide to help give him the opportunity to apply for and get those jobs by offering assistance to move.

Re: So What

[Anonymous Coward]

Another advantage to the middle-class is paradoxically welfare. People in good jobs like to rant about how their taxes are paying for some deadbeat but... ... if there was zero welfare the employment market would be flooded by the unemployed willing to work for anything - a couple of dollars, some free food etc. This would allow employers to reduce wages and middle-class earners would suddenly find their wages dissolve to whatever the 'free market' allowed - i.e. in most cases about the same as welfare levels are now.

Of course you might be in a protected industry like law enforcement, military or teaching. Good look keeping that job when the tax base of the country erodes and no one will pay for you (the billionaires certainly won't).

So many intelligent types are too busy spewing the hate about the poor without noticing that the countries with the largest (relative to pop size) middle-classes are all those with 'tax and spend big government'. There is a connection, people...

Re:Would We Even Want That?

[Ichijo]

Aren't there any ways to get us a step closer to the goal of equal opportunity for all that doesn't take away freedoms?

Re: So What

[Anonymous Coward]

As a teacher for over 15 years , public subsidized populations are usually the result of unplanned pregnancy and parents drink, smoke and don't take prenatal precautions that regular parents do . Low income Mexican and Asian immigrants parents take care of themselves public assistant parents do not . Iq is lower on average vs normal children . Major prenatal outreach is needed before children get pregnant

Re: So What

[TsuruchiBrian]

Well I suppose it depends on what you consider to be "coming up with a better solution". If you mean figuring out where money is better spend on improving society, then lots of people have already come up with better solutions. If you mean figuring out a way to convince a democratic country full of idiots voting for other idiots to do anything right, then the fact that we still have this particular problem is pretty good evidence that no one has figured out the solution yet.

Re: So What

[pnutjam]

Yes, living in the 1930's would be hell for anyone accustomed to modern living.

Re:So What

[Your.Master]

That's rather Lamarckian though. You'd have to demonstrate a selection mechanism that applies to those who have power in society, which has lasted for enough generations to generate a measurable response.

Re:So What

[hey!]

It is your choice to make your eventual obliteration the focus of your life. That's something you can either try to change (good luck with that), or it's something you can choose to accept. But choosing to accept that doesn't mean you have to sit around being miserable and resentful while you wait for the Grim Reaper. The world is only as cold and hard as the things in it you choose to focus on. There's also more wondrous and amazing and even funny things in the world than you an get around to thinking about in a lifetime.

It's like summer vacation when you're in school. You only get ten weeks or so of it, not nearly enough to get to all the things you want to do. And there are some people who will react to that by spending the whole time from day 1 unhappy about going back to school. What a waste of existence! But that's definitely a choice open to you.

Imagine your last few seconds of consciousness before you die. How would you like to spend them? Being angry? Sad? I think that's a waste of precious time. I'd like to have someone I love very much tell me a very funny joke.

Re:Take a bus, sometimes

[ArmoredDragon]

I don't see what that has to do with anything. I always see a lot of people with very high end degrees eating a lot of junk food. For example, I know of few programmers whose dinner doesn't routinely consist of doritos and mountain dew.

Re: So What

[ArmoredDragon]

Strange, I read that the cause of this was high amounts of lead in the environment. Why is it that all of a sudden the low tax rate is the cause of it?

Re:Take a bus, sometimes

[manwargi]

In places like that there is an abundance of inexpensive garbage filled with very stimulating ingredients and an uphill battle towards the less available, more expensive, all-natural options. This is why there's a bizarre regulatory mess in South LA about curbing the number of fast food joints all packed into a concentrated area.

See in this video where the chef teaches some kids how to make home made breaded chicken breast, but they still find the McNugget more appealing. It reminds me of Dave Chappelle's old sketch about the rich kids having grape juice where he only knew "grape drink."

Re:Take a bus, sometimes

[michelcolman]

I think that's just a small part of it, I know plenty of rich people who give their children junk food, and poor people who make a big effort to only buy healthy stuff.

I think the researchers simply got cause and effect mixed up.

People with smaller brains tend to end up with a lower income and get less education. And their kids end up inheriting the smaller brain from their parents.

Obviously that doesn't mean than all poor people are stupid, just that statistically, people with larger brains tend to do better in life, and this results in a correlation when you look at a sufficiently large number of people.

Makes a lot more sense to me.

Re: So What

[Sique]

Grandpa probably could have been entitled to his own generation's money[...]

Actually no. Money is only worth what you can buy for. The work, the good or the service Grandpa wants to pay for has to be done right now for today's prices. And while people working today also get today's payment, Grandpa has no negotation lever on today's pricing. He earned his money in former times at former prices, and now he is retired. If the older generation which doesn't work anymore has too much money, we the working generation will (free market to the win!) just increase prices until the purchasing power of the older generation fits again the amount of work we want to spend on them. If there is too much money on the market, we always can have an inflation until purchasing power and goods creation are in balance again. Working people can deal with it thanks to increasing wages in an inflation. Retired people can't. Their retirement funds compete against the retirement funds of all the other retired people, but the share of goods and services they compete on is defined by the people still working.

Interests, payouts for 401k, house prices and all those money sources non-working people may have access to are only possible because people today are creating the surplus value which can be paid out as interests, as profits on shares or be spend on ever increasing house prices. Every retirement scheme where one stops working and still has access to goods and services is in a way a Ponzi scheme because someone else is creating the actual value the retired one is using up.

Re: So What

[mjwx]

Total government expenditures in the US were around 10% of GDP in 1930. Was the US a lawless hellhole at 10%?

Cause it's around 40% today.

Bonnie and Clyde, heyday of the Mafia... Sure sounds like it was much safer in the 30's.

Re: So What

[silentcoder]

There is strong evidence that the lead ban had a direct causal impact on lowering the crime rate post-1990.
But it couldn't have been a factor in 1930 since the lead pollution levels at that time was still ridiculously low. The single biggest contributor: tetra-ethyl-lead (as was used in gasoline) wasn't even invented yet.

Root causes, poverty, smaller brains, etc

[Ada_Rules]

While there are almost certainly multiple factors at play (nutrition, environment, etc) it would be nice if we could all stop pretending to not understand one of the root causes of negative impacts on brain development - specifically spanking.

There are no studies that show spanking has any long term positive outcomes. There are plenty of studies that show negative correlation with long term negative outcomes. Just as is the case with this study, it is fair to call into question correlation and causation but if there were some food additive, fertilizer or herbicide that had even 1/10 of the correlative impact on children, the public would be freaking out and protesting around some multinational business but when it is parents damaging their own children we get relative silence.

Studies have shown that poor parents are more likely to spank their children. Studies have shown a correlation in spanking with smaller brain sizes, lower IQs, lack of self control. Studies have shown a high correlation between lack of self control and poverty. Again we don't have great data on cause v.s. effect but there are good indications that the early violence is causative in this chain.

Re:Take a bus, sometimes

[gl4ss]

was it like that when growing up?
also, what about the parents brain size?

what kind of poverty are we talking here anyhow? if you have money to feed your kids with overpriced flavored ice just wtf kind of poverty is that compared to europe directly after and during ww2?+??

or is it that if the parents constantly tell their kids that they are poor, then their brains don't grow?

Re:So What

[houghi]

That is you personal opinion. I know I would not want to live forever. That does not mean I want to die soon, nor that I am suicidal.

And yes, the world is as cold and hard as we want it to be. e.g. what is important is in the first place not living forever. It is living a healthy and productive live.

Unfortunatly that is not what hmankind wants. We want money, not health. We could easily give food and medicial attention to everybody in the world. We decided that money and power is of higher importance.

We do want death. We kill. We let others starve. We let them be unable to get medical attention, although we have the knowledge to help. We decide that even if this is available, we put our kids in harms way by not giving them vacinations.

Some people do wish well upon others, but they are a minority. I am guilty of this as well. Why do I have so many clothes when others have nothing? Why do I need a new computer every X years? Why do I not live in a smaller house? Why do I need a car, when alternatives are possible?

Look at those things before you say you want eternal life and see if you REALLY want to change things. I bet you don't.