Whose fault is it that people are poor?

[The Dark Lord]

It is the fault of government, not doing enough to help poor people or is it the fault of the individual's poor lifestyle choices?

EDIT: Poor being people without enough money to support themselves

[Korashk]

It is the fault of government, not doing enough to help poor people or is it the fault of the individual's poor lifestyle choices?
It's mainly the fault of the government for intervening in the economy.

EDIT: Although, you should clarify what you're talking about when you mean poor. Do you mean people without enough money to support themselves, or people with less money than others?

[steve1234]

I'd say it is both the government and the individual. The government obviously has the power to make people poor, i.e. with public sector cuts, tax rises etc. But, the individual has the power. Some poor people might be lazy, and maybe missed out on getting a good education or a good job. Thats certainly not the case for all poor people though.

I think it will always be impossible to stop people being poor. I can't imagine a country where everyone has enough money to support themselves. But, being poor in the UK is probably a damn sight better than being poor in Somalia. If you are poor in the UK, there is still a lot of hope, as the government can help. Even if you are homeless in the UK, you could be better off than a poor person in Somalia (for example).

[scuba steve]

In the UK i'd say mainly the government for handing out big pots of money to any twat that can't be bothered getting off their sorry ass to go to the job centre.

But generally I would say it's a mix of the Government and the individual. The government for taxing every expense in the name of the greater good to help the people but in the big picture is never seen and the individual for not preparing for such events and starting the likes of a savings account, or just making poor choices in life. Bear in mind that these are just examples and not the sole causes of poverty before someone comes banging my door.

[Kaius]

It depends on the circumstances.

[The Dark Lord]

Personally, I think a lot of its down to poor lifestyle choice, i.e. poor education and dependency on the state. Poor people, in many cases, lack the drive and determination to better themselves, although I accept this doesn't apply to a majority

[Fact]

Personally, I think a lot of its down to poor lifestyle choice, i.e. poor education and dependency on the state. Poor people, in many cases, lack the drive and determination to better themselves, although I accept this doesn't apply to a majority

I mostly agree with this.

My mother is relatively poor. She did shit in school and has no determination to do anything. She has been in the same job for years and her life is not going anywhere, she's just getting drowned in debt.

Having said that, when she was in school, they did not promote women to better themselves. They were only allowed to aspire to low paid jobs - to not break the mould and be successful so to speak.
Then and again, there are women of my mother's generation who are in powerful jobs, but I suppose that is also subject to their education and determination.

The current government is definitely going to keep poor people poor and rich people rich. I have the determination to go to university in order to better myself, however with the increasing fees, this will become much more challenging for me and if I can't go to university it's likely that I too will stay relatively poor for the rest of my life (exactly what I don't want).

There are also ofcourse those who are poor due to their own actions - gambling, addition etc. In that case, it's more personal and less government related in most cases.

So, I'd say it was almost a 50/50 split between government and personal issues. Ever persons' circumstances are different and will be affected by the government in different ways.

[Tristin.]

if you dont have benefits, people dont rely on them, so they go and look for work, so they are no longer poor (I)

[Fact]

if you dont have benefits, people dont rely on them, so they go and look for work, so they are no longer poor (I)

And if they can't get work? Like in the current economic climate?
Then they gradually can't pay their bills e.g. electricity, mortgage/rent, gas, food. So they become homeless and you can't have a job if you're homeless.

[Tristin.]

then persevere, nobody cared in the victorian times, and there was alot more selfpride then aswell

[Fact]

then persevere, nobody cared in the victorian times, and there was alot more selfpride then aswell

A lot of people also became seriously ill and died due to diseases such as cholera from raw sewage floating down the street and cramped housing situations.

[nick]

And if they can't get work? Like in the current economic climate?
Then they gradually can't pay their bills e.g. electricity, mortgage/rent, gas, food.
This is exactly the position we are in, my dad's been out of work for over a year now. He'd always worked, we were comfortably off, but its all gone. He gets a pension which means he is earning too much to get any benefits, but its not enough to pay the bills.

[Tristin.]

A lot of people also became seriously ill and died due to diseases such as cholera from raw sewage floating down the street and cramped housing situations.

i know, but i suppose i have never really needed to worry about this sort of thing :/

[Fact]

This is exactly the position we are in, my dad's been out of work for over a year now. He'd always worked, we were comfortably off, but its all gone. He gets a pension which means he is earning too much to get any benefits, but its not enough to pay the bills.

Exactly. Your dad is probably more than entitled to more money from the government if he has worked his whole life, compared to those who haven't worked a day and just sit at home doing naff all and living off benefits.

EDIT: more specifically, those who do naff all and have no true expenses.

[Iceman]

It depends it could be that person or the government. If that person chooses to be that way because there lazy and actually had an oppurtunity it's their fault. Then there are those that are the governments fault. Some people say the government will keep the poor poor and rich rich but what is it supposed to do hand all the money out to the poor? The ones not doing anything will continue not helping at anything and sooner people are just going to say if there getting the same amount for not doing anything and I'm working why not just quit?

[Jess]

as most other people here said, it depends. it's the individual's fault if he/she chooses to live that way and he/she's lazy

[Amnesiac]

It's either the individual or the government. Each situation is different, every unemployed person has varying reasons for why they're unemployed.

[The Dark Lord]

I mostly agree with this.

My mother is relatively poor. She did shit in school and has no determination to do anything. She has been in the same job for years and her life is not going anywhere, she's just getting drowned in debt.

Having said that, when she was in school, they did not promote women to better themselves. They were only allowed to aspire to low paid jobs - to not break the mould and be successful so to speak.
Then and again, there are women of my mother's generation who are in powerful jobs, but I suppose that is also subject to their education and determination.

I disagree with this. I'm don't know how old your mother is, but our generation is the first to see men and women being paid equally, more women are in high-power jobs. In the past (Before Thatcher) there was a glass ceiling, not anymore. It's not a excuse to blame being poor on female.

The current government is definitely going to keep poor people poor and rich people rich. I have the determination to go to university in order to better myself, however with the increasing fees, this will become much more challenging for me and if I can't go to university it's likely that I too will stay relatively poor for the rest of my life (exactly what I don't want).

Again, I'm not sure how much of this I agree with. I think tutition fees being rised is wrong, but at the same I support making universities more elitest, when the state paid for higher education less than 20% of the population went to uni, not its roughly 50%. However, the coalition will do all it can to protect the interests of the rich and when the Tories win a majority in 2015, it'll get worse. Although the fees are ridiculously high, surely being put off going to uni as a result is the same lack of determination and aspiration that your mother suffered from?

[Fact]

I disagree with this. I'm don't know how old your mother is, but our generation is the first to see men and women being paid equally, more women are in high-power jobs. In the past (Before Thatcher) there was a glass ceiling, not anymore. It's not a excuse to blame being poor on female.

There is STILL a glass ceiling. That I can guarentee.
http://www.the-scientist.com/supplementary/html/25289/gender.html
Fair enough the latest data is four years old, but I doubt it has changed so much that it drastically affects the principle - men are still paid more than women.


Again, I'm not sure how much of this I agree with. I think tutition fees being rised is wrong, but at the same I support making universities more elitest, when the state paid for higher education less than 20% of the population went to uni, not its roughly 50%. However, the coalition will do all it can to protect the interests of the rich and when the Tories win a majority in 2015, it'll get worse. Although the fees are ridiculously high, surely being put off going to uni as a result is the same lack of determination and aspiration that your mother suffered from?

Do you not think though that if only rich people can go to University, poorer yet potentially more intelligent people miss out? Making University biased towards those with money, rather than elite to ALL those people who REALLY want to be educated, not just those who can afford it.
Also, if the margin of people going to University became small enough, it could in effect damage the economy if people cannot fill jobs that require higher education.

[The Dark Lord]

There is STILL a glass ceiling. That I can guarentee.
http://www.the-scientist.com/supplementary/html/25289/gender.html
Fair enough the latest data is four years old, but I doubt it has changed so much that it drastically affects the principle - men are still paid more than women.

Fair point, I accept that women are paid on average 23% less than men, but through the equality laws coming through, the glass ceiling has been destroyed in the legal sense at least.



Do you not think though that if only rich people can go to University, poorer yet potentially more intelligent people miss out? Making University biased towards those with money, rather than elite to ALL those people who REALLY want to be educated, not just those who can afford it.

I think you've miss understood me. When I said more elitest I meant make University free but make the entry requirements straight A's.


Also, if the margin of people going to University became small enough, it could in effect damage the economy if people cannot fill jobs that require higher education.

Too many people go to university to gain a pointless degree that's irrelevant to their career. Look at business for example, much of that is good people skills and good maths/organisational skills, a 6month course could provide the same level of training required to succed. The most famous business man in Britain is Lord Sugar, who learnt the trade on a market stall in the east end.

[Fact]

Fair point, I accept that women are paid on average 23% less than men, but through the equality laws coming through, the glass ceiling has been destroyed in the legal sense at least.

I agree that in a legal sense it has indeed been destroyed. In the real world and socially? I don't think so, not from what I see.




I think you've miss understood me. When I said more elitest I meant make University free but make the entry requirements straight A's.
In which case yes I did misunderstand, sorry, I agree with the point you just made about straight A's.




Too many people go to university to gain a pointless degree that's irrelevant to their career. Look at business for example, much of that is good people skills and good maths/organisational skills, a 6month course could provide the same level of training required to succed. The most famous business man in Britain is Lord Sugar, who learnt the trade on a market stall in the east end.

Indeed, but surely pointless degrees won't be that much affected? I'm thinking about things you have to go to university for e.g. medicine, veterinary, dentistry, law etc.

Point taken, Lord Sugar is a business genius. But if it was all that fine and dandy, everyone would be doing it - so clearly it's down to a lot of luck and personal circumstance, which everyone who is capable and determined to be successful, but can't get to university, isn't going to have.

[The Dark Lord]

I agree that in a legal sense it has indeed been destroyed. In the real world and socially? I don't think so, not from what I see.

Inequality is always going to exist socially, I'm afraid legal equality is the best its going to get.

Indeed, but surely pointless degrees won't be that much affected? I'm thinking about things you have to go to university for e.g. medicine, veterinary, dentistry, law etc.

Point taken, Lord Sugar is a business genius. But if it was all that fine and dandy, everyone would be doing it - so clearly it's down to a lot of luck and personal circumstance, which everyone who is capable and determined to be successful, but can't get to university, isn't going to have.

I think you make a false assumption but you can only be successful going to University. No matter what way you look at it you'll need a University degree to practise Law or medicine, those courses wouldn't be affected. It's true you need luck to succed but as Gary Player said "the harder I work, the luckier I seem to get".

[Fact]

I think you make a false assumption but you can only be successful going to University. No matter what way you look at it you'll need a University degree to practise Law or medicine, those courses wouldn't be affected. It's true you need luck to succed but as Gary Player said "the harder I work, the luckier I seem to get".

What about those who work hard and never get anywhere simply because of lack of contacts or being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

I accept that University isn't the only route to success, but it's definitely a place to start.

[The Dark Lord]

What about those who work hard and never get anywhere simply because of lack of contacts or being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

I accept that University isn't the only route to success, but it's definitely a place to start.

Wrong place at the wrong time isn't an excuse for failure, but I agree that the middle class is at an unfair advantage in terms of contacts for work experience etc, but the counter argument is that if they are successful, then they should be able to take advantage of their success and it's easy enough to write/email/phone and ask for work experience.

[Fact]

Wrong place at the wrong time isn't an excuse for failure, but I agree that the middle class is at an unfair advantage in terms of contacts for work experience etc, but the counter argument is that if they are successful, then they should be able to take advantage of their success and it's easy enough to write/email/phone and ask for work experience.

I accept that one who is exceptionally ambitious wouldn't tolerate being in the wrong place at the wrong time and would make attempts to sort out their problem.
I'm not saying it's an excuse, but if people are persistently try and never give up or slack in their efforts and still are not recognised, isn't it a bit unfair on them?

I'd have never gotten work experience if it wasn't for contacts, I think they are quite important. Problem being, you have to know people to get you worth-while contacts and doing such things isn't always easy.

[The Dark Lord]

I accept that one who is exceptionally ambitious wouldn't tolerate being in the wrong place at the wrong time and would make attempts to sort out their problem.
I'm not saying it's an excuse, but if people are persistently try and never give up or slack in their efforts and still are not recognised, isn't it a bit unfair on them?

That would suggest, something other than bad luck for their failures

I'd have never gotten work experience if it wasn't for contacts, I think they are quite important. Problem being, you have to know people to get you worth-while contacts and doing such things isn't always easy.

It's easy enough to write an email, as an employer I'd be much more likely to employ someone who shows that level of ambition than some middle class kid whose living on the success of his dad.

[Fact]

It's easy enough to write an email, as an employer I'd be much more likely to employ someone who shows that level of ambition than some middle class kid whose living on the success of his dad.

I'd like to think so too. Ambition and determination are qualities employers look for I suppose.

[Lasky]

(I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but whatever)

I think it's the persons poor lifestyle choices. If they graduate high school, they can work some type of job, even if it's minimum wage.

[Korashk]

Exactly. Your dad is probably more than entitled to more money from the government if he has worked his whole life, compared to those who haven't worked a day and just sit at home doing naff all and living off benefits.

EDIT: more specifically, those who do naff all and have no true expenses.
Nobody is entitled to money from the government. It's that kind of mindset that makes people poor.

Poverty is almost completely an invention of the state, meaning that without the state intervening in the economy there would be almost nobody that couldn't support themselves on the pay they make.

[Fact]

Nobody is entitled to money from the government. It's that kind of mindset that makes people poor.

So a person who has been taxed on their income their whole lives, paid increasing rates of VAT, been charitable, been a good citizen, doesn't deserve anything back in their hour of need?

It's mentality like that which makes people poor - rubbing salt in the wounds they created for your sake.

[Korashk]

So a person who has been taxed on their income their whole lives, paid increasing rates of VAT, been charitable, been a good citizen, doesn't deserve anything back in their hour of need?
The government had no right to demand that money in the first place, let alone give it away.

[Fact]

The government had no right to demand that money in the first place, let alone give it away.

But the fact that the government demanded money surely means that they are in some way in debt to the people who gave it the money? It's a simple basis of giving and receiving whenever is needed.

[Korashk]

But the fact that the government demanded money surely means that they are in some way in debt to the people who gave it the money?
Yes, and you should get restitution for that amount. They should then stop demanding more.

It's a simple basis of giving and receiving whenever is needed.
That shouldn't be the government's job.

[Fact]

That shouldn't be the government's job.

Well they've made it their job by taking hard earned money off people to use at their own leisure. Therefore those who have paid this money should be entitled to gain something back at a later date.

[Peace God]

Whose fault is it that people are poor?
It depends on whose fault it is because it depends on the situation.

It could be the government... for bad policies that kill corporate competition and job opportunities through over-regulation. A history of discrimination and segregation (NOT JUST RACIALLY!). And terrible drug policies that end up destroying neighborhoods (*cough*Reagan*cough*).

It could be society or certain parts of society that negatively influence people and indirectly promote things like... a) poor financial skills (like saving money/investing), b) a low importance on a good education and having bad schools(a lot of inner city schools are a joke), c) promoting drug use, drug trafficking d) promoting other criminal activity and e) an overall feeling of hopelessness and feeling "stuck" in an economic class. All of these things can be because of society as a whole, certain parts of society or certain neighborhoods.

And lastly it could just be the individual... there are lazy and ignorant people out there. But certainly not a majority.

Also, people shouldnt act like the majority of citizens that are poor and/or dependent on government aid are that way because...
they dont work hard or are lazy.
they think it's fun or easy.
they are addicted to drugs or have an expensive habit.

People also should act like there's jobs out there just waiting for most unemployed people to get of their asses and easily get.

[The Dark Lord]

The government had no right to demand that money in the first place, let alone give it away.

You are right wing for your own good

[Korashk]

You are right wing for your own good
Right wing is not really an appropriate descriptor for libertarians, but what do you mean "for my own good" ?

[The Dark Lord]

Right wing is not really an appropriate descriptor for libertarians, but what do you mean "for my own good" ?

Your extreme views on government's role in society are wrong, what happens when you need government's support?

[Korashk]

Your extreme views on government's role in society are wrong,
pWdd6_ZxX8c

what happens when you need government's support?
Depends on what you mean by "government's support." There would still be the military, cops, and courts.

If you mean stuff like welfare then you don't get it from the government. You find some other way, likely insurance.

[The Dark Lord]

pWdd6_ZxX8c


Depends on what you mean by "government's support." There would still be the military, cops, and courts.

If you mean stuff like welfare then you don't get it from the government. You find some other way, likely insurance.

And when people are too poor to afford insurance?

[Korashk]

And when people are too poor to afford insurance?
Private charities, and if that doesn't work then tough nuts.

[scuba steve]

Private charities, and if that doesn't work then tough nuts.

This in my opinion is far too harsh for a modern developed society to have in place. Every citizen should be provided with a helping hand at some stage if they are completely in need. Socialist values are as crucial as capitalist, the government should pay for medical treatment if the citizen literally has no way to pay the sum required. Of course this shouldn't apply to everyone but a system in which the government supplies a fraction of the healthcare budget in my opinion would put alot of people at ease.

[Korashk]

This in my opinion is far too harsh for a modern developed society to have in place. Every citizen should be provided with a helping hand at some stage if they are completely in need. Socialist values are as crucial as capitalist, the government should pay for medical treatment if the citizen literally has no way to pay the sum required. Of course this shouldn't apply to everyone but a system in which the government supplies a fraction of the healthcare budget in my opinion would put alot of people at ease.
I'm going to quote a friend of mine on the issue. We have the same position, but he is more eloquent in its presentation:

True capitalist are unapologetic, because they know capitalism is not meant to benefit all evenly. It is meant to reward producers and brutally punish non-producers. We capitalists realized there is no moral way to curb poverty other than by voluntary charitable donations from free people. But again, the goal is not to wipe out suffering, but to make sure it is visited upon only those who ought to be poor.

In contrast, proponents of socialism are bent on punishing producers for the sins of the non-producers, while at the same time rewarding lack of production. Since human nature dictates that undeserved rewards lead to more laziness and dependence, non-producers are happy to stay unproductive and may ven convince their friends to enjoy the spoils of personal failure by accompanying them to the polls. Socialists realize their unaffordable and undeserved handouts must become popular to survive in a democracy. As far as they are concerned, the more non-producing dependents the better. It's a loser's mentality.

[scuba steve]

As I have pretty much stated in the previous post i'm not fully socialist in the issue as I have stated a pretty fair even point in between Socialism and Capitalism no state IMO can be overly successful by staying strict to one method. Socialism should only be used to bounce those who have fallen back on their feet and then removed once they are believed stable again, but capitalism is needed to motivate free working in the busienss environment and not to keep people reliant of government handouts.

[dmeek7]

We all started out as kids with options for higher learning and better lifestyle choices. For those who made certain choices excelled over people who made other choices. So to some extent it is the person's fault they are in a less fortunate position.

On the other hand, living a healthy, high classed life is becoming expensive b/c of governments of different countries and the many many different things that causes governments to have taxes, and tariffs, and other stuff that costs extra money.

Money is a huge problem i sometimes think. People are all about money. WE all want money. Money buys anything you want.. Even happiness in some cases. Everything has a price, and some people are willing to go to extremes to get it, and this also causes people to lose money or not make enough of it to support themselves.

Therefore i have to come to a conclusion with myself while typing this that I think the reason for "poorness" is:
1.People themselves
2. Governments and all their mumbo jumbo bull-crap
3. MONEY

[Continuum]

Mixed feelings. I believe the person who was poor had some responsibilities for his/her failures in life, like to say not even trying to go up the hierarchy, then stagnated profusely. The governments though, may lack the proper resources for someone to do so, let's say a stable economy for a stable job; but nonetheless I'm all equal. Money is only a catalyst. People need brains, and in some instances some lack it totally.

[SwimTech]

Partly government and the individuals. Banks gave out bad loans, policies set by republicans (cough cough Bush) stocks dropped, people didnt pay back credit cards, loans, etc, but if the person spent all their money on liquor, cigarettes, vacations, and stupid material goods, its their fault, not Obamas. And to everyone who is blaming obama for the economy, look how shitty Bush made it. Look at america Pre-Bush, and post-Bush. BIG difference. Obama cant top the problems in just a few years, its like a man trying to stop a train going full speed with their hands. And take a look at history. Who brought us into the depression? Republicans during the 1920's & 30's. Who kept the cold war cold? JFK Who brought us into the recession? Republicans....

[Sith Lord 13]

Partly government and the individuals. Banks gave out bad loans, policies set by republicans (cough cough Bush) stocks dropped, people didnt pay back credit cards, loans, etc, but if the person spent all their money on liquor, cigarettes, vacations, and stupid material goods, its their fault, not Obamas. And to everyone who is blaming obama for the economy, look how shitty Bush made it. Look at america Pre-Bush, and post-Bush. BIG difference. Obama cant top the problems in just a few years, its like a man trying to stop a train going full speed with their hands. And take a look at history. Who brought us into the depression? Republicans during the 1920's & 30's. Who kept the cold war cold? JFK Who brought us into the recession? Republicans....

Interesting fact:


TEN POOREST CITIES
City, State, % of People Below the Poverty Level
1. Detroit , MI 32.5%
2. Buffalo , NY 29.9%
3. Cincinnati , OH 27.8%
4. Cleveland , OH 27.0%
5. Miami , FL 26.9%
5. St. Louis , MO 26.8%
7. El Paso , TX 26.4%
8. Milwaukee , WI 26.2%
9. Philadelphia , PA 25.1%
10. Newark , NJ 24.2%

What do the top ten cities
(over 250,000) with the highest
poverty rate all have in common?



Detroit, MI (1st on the list)hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961.
Buffalo , NY (2nd) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1954.
Cincinnati , OH (3rd) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1984.
Cleveland , OH (4th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1989.
Miami , FL (5th) has never had a Republican mayor.
St. Louis , MO (6th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1949.
El Paso , TX (7th) has never had a Republican mayor.
Milwaukee , WI (8th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1908.
Philadelphia , PA (9th) hasn'telected a Republican mayor since 1952.
Newark , NJ (10th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1907.


Einstein once said, 'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.'

[The Dark Lord]

Partly government and the individuals. Banks gave out bad loans, policies set by republicans (cough cough Bush) stocks dropped, people didnt pay back credit cards, loans, etc, but if the person spent all their money on liquor, cigarettes, vacations, and stupid material goods, its their fault, not Obamas. And to everyone who is blaming obama for the economy, look how shitty Bush made it. Look at america Pre-Bush, and post-Bush. BIG difference. Obama cant top the problems in just a few years, its like a man trying to stop a train going full speed with their hands. And take a look at history. Who brought us into the depression? Republicans during the 1920's & 30's. Who kept the cold war cold? JFK Who brought us into the recession? Republicans....

That's right blame the nasty Conservatives, It's a Conservative conspiracy that poor people will remain poor for the rest of time

[Bluesman]

It can be either... there have been plenty of people screwed over by the government, especially today's government. It can also be the person's fault... spending money on alchohol, drugs, or unnecessary items can all put a person into poverty.

Interesting fact:


TEN POOREST CITIES
City, State, % of People Below the Poverty Level
1. Detroit , MI 32.5%
2. Buffalo , NY 29.9%
3. Cincinnati , OH 27.8%
4. Cleveland , OH 27.0%
5. Miami , FL 26.9%
5. St. Louis , MO 26.8%
7. El Paso , TX 26.4%
8. Milwaukee , WI 26.2%
9. Philadelphia , PA 25.1%
10. Newark , NJ 24.2%

What do the top ten cities
(over 250,000) with the highest
poverty rate all have in common?



Detroit, MI (1st on the list)hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961.
Buffalo , NY (2nd) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1954.
Cincinnati , OH (3rd) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1984.
Cleveland , OH (4th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1989.
Miami , FL (5th) has never had a Republican mayor.
St. Louis , MO (6th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1949.
El Paso , TX (7th) has never had a Republican mayor.
Milwaukee , WI (8th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1908.
Philadelphia , PA (9th) hasn'telected a Republican mayor since 1952.
Newark , NJ (10th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1907.


Einstein once said, 'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.'

Thank God... someone has an IQ of over 60!