Why are intelligent people having fewer children than less intelligent people?

Why would you characterize anyone over the age of 30 who chooses to forsake life's most meaningful and fulfilling responsibilities as "intelligent"?

Anyways, as always the answer is the economy - it is in the interest of the capitalists to keep every adult in the state of mind you were formerly expected to grow out of by age 25. Mindlessly spending with no thought of the future, cycling through products in the desperate hope that these things will somehow confer on them the identity that TV told them they should have, that once secured will fill the void in their souls

fucking this
Hhkk in ddfhh

Intelligent basically means "I went to school". In my opinion, degrees don't prove real life intelligence. I've seen some of the "smartest" people I know get themselves into the worst situations because they're so stupid when it comes to real life.

Wow, imagine all the distractions you could buy with 3 mil, you could buy such cool ways to pass the time until you die with that kind of money!

>Intelligent basically means "I went to school".
intelligence is cognitive ability and has nothing to do with going to school, although the high ranked universities do discriminate against low intelligence people

Dumb women are sexy

Do you want to bring someone to this shit hole?

Again not the person you are responding to, but they don't have control over the rise or fall of IQ in the country by anywhere near a single point. They can't make everyone reproduce, but holy themselves. The burden should not be on them to reproduce, anymore than the burden to buy products made in an environmentally conscious way should be on individual consumers. In both cases, a measure of top-down coordination is needed. In the environmentalist case, this manifests as pro-environment regulations. In the IQ case, this manifests as eugenic policy.

>fucking retarded. $3mil what are you going to do with that?

Our $3 mil is almost entirely invested in stocks and CDs, which are used to generate income for our living expenses. (The rest of it is in our house equity (about $320K), which allows us to avoid paying rent.)

We are both retired, so we have no employment income, and we're both too young to get social security benefits.

We hope that our investments can yield 2% per year. For us, that's $60K per year. Of that $60K, we spend about $40K of it for our living expenses, and we save the remaining $20K as a hedge against future inflation. $40K per year is about what the median US household spends on living expenses.

We're somewhat pessimistic about the future of the stock market, so we're reluctant to assume more than an average of 2% annual stock growth in the future.

>i don't understand. do normies really love traveling so much to squander thousands on it?

We don't travel very much. I'd guess that we spend about $1500 per year on travel, mostly on gas and hotel rooms. That's 5 one-hundredths of one percent of our net worth, so I wouldn't characterize that as "squandering".

>the only purpose of acquiring lots of extra money is to get a gf and have children.

For me, the main purpose of extra money is the "peace of mind" of financial security. And, as a practical matter, we need that money to generate income to pay for our living expenses.

>there's no point besides to just be able to retire early
>what would i do with $3 million and no children? never work again, for fucking sure

I agree completely with you on this. That's why I'm retired.

what are your expenses besides: internet, utilities, food, gasoline

i don't understand why you wouldn't even have 1 child, $3 million is more than enough for any person... i know this based on how many people never have close to that much and still manage to eat every night

>This is what I don't get about you people. The most humanitarian act you could commit would be to produce lots of copies of your genes.

Well, that's one way to be humanitarian.

But my wife and I chose a different way to be humanitarian. In our Trust, we specified that once we are both dead, the remaining Trust money will be used to create a charitable Foundation. Assuming that my wife dies last, and dies in 2070, we project that our net worth will likely be in excess of $20 million in 2070 dollars. We specify that the entire Foundation be invested in growth stocks, and that the Foundation is to distribute 5% each year for charitable causes. If the stock market continues it long-term growth rate (7% per year), our Foundation has a chance of existing in perpetuity -- donating an increasing amount of money each year, until the world's financial system comes to an end.

Our Foundation will donate to human needs like food, shelter, and education. This Foundation is what allows my wife and I to feel that we're not just another couple of selfish, uncaring assholes. I don't know if we're justified in feeling that way, though -- so I'll put our final judgement in the hands of the people of the 22nd century and their descendants.

We all have our different ways of contributing to make the world a better place.

>i don't understand why you wouldn't even have 1 child

It was an either/or choice. We could have had a kid, or we could have become financially secure. But we didn't see how it was possible to do both -- because having a kid basically would have cut our income in half, since my wife would have felt obligated to raise the child properly as a full-time parent.

In the present-day US, a one-parent earner family is probably never going to achieve financial comfort. That's sad, but that's the system the people of the US have voted for, so that's what we had to live with.

> what are your expenses besides: internet, utilities, food, gasoline

There are some other things too, like taxes, charitable giving, and the occasional replacement appliance or car. The complete list is quite long, but our base expenses seem to be about $35K per year, and the "extras" push us to $40K or $45K in some years.

Since we're "supposedly wealthy", we don't make much of an effort to keep our spending down. I'm not too concerned about our level of spending, because we're at about the 50-percentile for spending by US households, which seems reasonable to me, so I don't fret about it. We spend about 1.5% of our net worth every year, which seems like a responsible rate to me, given that the stock market is "supposed" to yield an average of 7% in gains per year, according to its long-term history.

Because they're less likely to be influenced by popular culture that tells them that the only worth a person has is to to fuck, do drugs and drink alcohol then spend the rest of their time slaving away at a job that they hate.

It's because people with high IQs are better at delaying gratification, so they're less likely to do impulsive things like have sex without birth control, or try to have kids in spite of being in a precarious financial situation. The thing is, having kids in this day and age is kind of a drag because culturally, people are encouraged to go out and enjoy themselves, and kids are extremely expensive in first-world countries if you're conscientious enough to raise them fully and properly.

nigger you have 3 million you could raise a child and not work a single day in your life

food isnt more expensive for kids. school is free. yeah university isn't even that expensive if you say in state

>There are some other things too, like taxes, charitable giving, and the occasional replacement appliance or car.
where i live there is no property tax. taxes taken out of income don't factor in. food is not taxed

charitable giving isn't an expense, you don't have to do that

the only thing that is real is your replacement appliance/car

>The complete list is quite long, but our base expenses seem to be about $35K per year, and the "extras" push us to $40K or $45K in some years.

that's a lot. food should be 7-8 thousand a year for 2 people. maybe a kid would make that $10k/yr. honestly that's being generous, food is dirt cheap

a kid wouldn't be expensive. kids don't make cars cost more .instead of donating to charity, spend it on a kid

god damn you annoyed the fuck out of me, somehow. why the fuck do you thuink children are so expensive? they aren't

At its largest, that's a 3.6 point difference in IQ. Optimistically, that's a 3.53% difference. I have a hard time believing the statistical differences are anything other than margin of error.

Attached: 1544053585247.png (1000x1000, 832K)

>nigger you have 3 million you could raise a child and not work a single day in your life

You don't get the whole "either/or" thing, do you? Read my post again, this time with enhanced reading comprehension.

> that's a lot. food should be 7-8 thousand a year for 2 people.

Well, if we wanted to, we could see -- as an experiment -- if we could live on significantly less money. But I don't feel like doing that, because our spending is close to the median US household spending for 2 people, so I figure that our spending level is okay. You might be able to reasonably argue that the median US household spending is too high, but, realistically, what are you going to be able to do with that argument other than fill up blog comments with it?

My arrogant attitude about this is due to my "wealth privilege". One of the benefits of "wealth privilege" is that I get to go through life not worrying too much my spending level.

> where i live there is no property tax

Well, good for you.

> charitable giving isn't an expense, you don't have to do that

You are correct, sir. Our annual charitable giving is approximately $2000 per year. On a typical day in the stock market, it's common for us to gain or lose $20,000 in market value. Compared to what we can make in one day on the stock market, our charitable contributions are pathetically small, and we should be deeply ashamed of ourselves for it.

> why the fuck do you thuink children are so expensive? they aren't

Again, as I explained above, having a child would have resulted in the loss of half our income, because my wife would have felt obligated to not work so that she could be a full-time parent. That would have absolutely devastated our ability to save for retirement.

> you annoyed the fuck out of me

And you have very mildly annoyed me with your sub-par reading comprehension skills. So, apparently, you win, because you appear to be more annoyed than I am. Congratulations.

>Again, as I explained above, having a child would have resulted in the loss of half our income, because my wife would have felt obligated to not work so that she could be a full-time parent. That would have absolutely devastated our ability to save for retirement.

you have $3 million dollars. you have more than enough money for NEITHER of you to ever work a day in your lives, and you can still survive and live in luxury so long as you make good investments.

FAIL

>And you have very mildly annoyed me with your sub-par reading comprehension skills. So, apparently, you win, because you appear to be more annoyed than I am. Congratulations.
i have $1500 to my name. but i quit my job because it caused me depression due to severe chronic sleep deprivation due to "DSPS" (some normie doctors pathologized being a night owl). people always told me i would be rich growing up, my SAT and ACT were near perfect and i got a full ride to the best uni in my state.

but i'd rather live in poverty than work a 9-5 job, whatever. i wanted to have children but i can't without a job, it's not worth making my life miserable and wanting to kill myself every day becasue i'm not allowed to get enough sleep.

and now you have the perfect setup and you refuse to have children. instead, you will cuck yourself when you die and give all that extra money to some poor people. pathetic, you and your wife will grow old and miserable together. she'll be depressed once she realizes she's infertile and you guys have all this extra money and no child. sad!