Yeah but I’m pretty sure the relative wealth/affluence of the neighborhood you grew up in is significantly more strongly correlated with overall life outcomes

That is, surprisingly, incorrect. A meta-analysis by Strenze (2007) showed that the predictive power of IQ is slightly stronger than that of parental socio-economic status (SES) (Table 1). Specifically, IQ measured before age 19 outdoes parental SES in predicting future educational attainment, occupational status, and income after age 29 (see “best studies” on Table 1). In other words, if you want to predict an adolescent’s success in adulthood along a given metric of success (e.g., income, educational attainment, or occupational status), it is more useful to know that adolescent’s IQ than to know the success of their parents along that same metric. In the conclusion of the analysis, Strenze (page 416) argues that this would be unexpected if the predictive power of IQ could be attributed primarily to its association with parental SES:

Despite the modest conclusion, these results are important because they falsify a claim often made by the critics of the “testing movement”: that the positive relationship between intelligence and success is just the effect of parental SES or academic performance influencing them both (see Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Fischer et al., 1996; McClelland, 1973). If the correlation between intelligence and success was a mere byproduct of the causal effect of parental SES or academic performance, then parental SES and academic performance should have outcompeted intelligence as predictors of success; but this was clearly not so. These results confirm that intelligence is an independent causal force among the determinants of success; in other words, the fact that intelligent people are successful is not completely explainable by the fact that intelligent people have wealthy parents and are doing better at school.*

The meta-analysis does find that parental SES also correlates significantly with the future outcomes of the child. However, because youth IQ and parental SES are correlated, it is possible that some unspecified portion of the predictive power of youth IQ is due to its correlation with parental SES (or vice-versa). To get a more precise estimate of the effects of youth IQ (independent of parental SES), we need to estimate the predictive power of IQ after controlling for parental SES.

Success is undoubtedly multi-factorial. Who you know is important. So is parental educational achievement, access to nutritional food, an absence of violence in the home, IQ, etc.

Thanks for the study. I agree on all points. This is the challenge with sociological research: it is unethical to conduct controlled studies. We will never have controlled IQ research. The study suggests we continue to perform better quality primary research, and I fully agree. Until then, as per the data in the study, the correlative evidence remains compelling. At least as far as sociological research goes.

I tend to think this research is more compelling and useful at the macro level. We should bear in mind that the correlative coefficient between IQ and income is only between 0.2 and 0.4. There are many other factors which also impact outcomes.

IQ is highly correlated with life outcomes like income, life expectancy, employment, and crime. Maybe it doesn’t measure “intelligence,” but it measures something which appears to be very important for modern society. There are undoubtedly different forms of intelligence which are not measured by an IQ test.

But how would I telegraph my desire to murder the Jews if I did that?

Lifting the minimum wage directly impacts the available income of the lowest income classes, who in turn spend most of their income on consumption, increasing domestic demand and thus also helping the economy.

Only around 3.7% of German workers earn minimum wage. Increasing their wages a little won’t move the needle on the economy. I generally support a healthy minimum wage, but Germany’s economic issues are systemic, and require much broader solutions. Making the cost of doing business even higher right now in Germany - which is what raising the minimum wage does - is antithetical to fostering weak economic growth. Industrial production in particular continues to decline, which is a big problem for Germany. Merkel’s strategy of going all-in on Russian natural gas turned out to be catastrophic. The cost of energy is just too high now for a raft of different sectors. I’m sure you’ve heard all of this before in economic analysis, but these are some of the primary issues and tactical solutions Germany should tackle.

1. Cheaper energy. This is strangling industries which employ millions and have been the backbone of the economy for decades. Germany needs to build nuclear capacity ASAP, or begin importing massive amounts of Russian natural gas, or begin burning a lot more coal. For environmental, economic, and ethical reasons, I support nuclear. Renewables are about 4x more expensive than nuclear after imputing costs like storage and grid architecture [1].

2. Germany needs to embrace efficiency at a cultural level. In 2023, 51 % of all point-of-sale transactions were made using banknotes and coins. I cite this not because I think cash is a perfect analogue for efficiency, but to underscore the distrust so many Germans have in technology. Most government departments still use fax machines. Germany’s internet infrastructure is just terrible. There is an astounding lack of digitisation across both the public and private sectors. This aversion to efficiency becomes an increasingly heavy anchor around the neck of the nation as the rest of the world embraces new technologies to build and serve more products and services, faster.

3. Germany needs a new strategic focus in the economy. Even with cheap energy, industrial production can and will be done cheaper in developing nations. Their car industry is clearly unable to pivot to EVs, and it’s going to completely miss automated driving. Using VW software is like going back to a Nokia flip phone. They need to figure out how to invest in and excel at services and software. This is almost impossible to mandate at a governmental level in a democratic nation. This one will be the toughest to turn around and for this reason, my long term prognosis for Germany is poor relative to many other European nations.

4. Restructuring Germany’s immigration system to block low and no skilled immigrants, and greatly simplify immigration for high skilled immigrants. Research by the ifo Institute concludes that the 2015 immigration wave has widened the implicit long-term debt burden, i.e., including future pensions, by almost 10 percent of GDP. According to this, every admitted refugee costs the budget around 225 thousand euros over the course of her or his entire life. [2] This problem is getting worse every year. Germany’s immigration system is very difficult to navigate, and can be quite hostile for legal, qualified migrants.

5. Compounding all of the above is a declining fertility rate. Few countries have solved this issue, meaning [highly skilled and qualified[ immigration is more important than ever. I don’t think we can rely on improving native fertility rates.

When an economy is performing as poorly as Germany, economic stimulus is required. This means lower taxes and increased government spending. QE is not possible for those using the Euro so it might mean accepting higher levels of debt. This is a distinctly un-German proposition. The current government has secured the right to increase national debt but only in the context of Russian aggression. Debt by itself is bad, but if used prudently to stimulate the economy in the right direction, can be useful. I sadly do not trust the German government to invest it wisely. It’s much more likely to go towards manufacturing mortar rounds, and to pay for ever increasing social services.

No, rape is always bad, whether or not the media reports it.

You didn’t just “contextualize.” You minimised the number: “Yeah, that totally sounds like a lot in a country of 84m. /s” Those are your words, verbatim.

It was 3,000 officers. Germany has 333,000 full time officers. That’s 0.9% of the force. Hardly grossly disproportionate to the benefit. There are undoubtedly far less “efficient” endeavours they use police resources on. The clearance rate for burglary in Germany, for example, was 19.5% in 2001. If we extend your logic, police should just stop investigating burglaries. I might even agree. I consider catching smugglers and terrorists more important.

I see, so you believe it has low benefit for the cost? Surely you would need to know the cost (e.g. number of personnel deployed) to make that judgement?

I would also caution you against attempting to hide big numbers behind even bigger numbers. 35 arrests a day is 12,775 per year. That might not be a proportionally big number, but it is a big number. Especially when we remember that the majority of violent crime is committed by just 1% of the population. Detecting and arresting criminals is often even more effective than harsh sentences.

I think criminals of all levels should be appropriately punished. Otherwise the law should change to reflect what is and is not criminal.

It doesn’t look like any were turned away, but please correct me if you have another source. In this case it’s hard to imagine those smugglers and terrorists were about to turn their lives around and begin taking care of elderly people.

I don’t understand what you’re arguing. That because Germany has 84M people they should just let smugglers, people with open arrest warrants, terrorists, and extremists into the country as they please? Why? That seems crazy to me.

Bild reported that over two days, authorities also detained 14 smugglers, carried out 48 open arrest warrants, and apprehended nine individuals under extremism laws targeting hard-left, far-right, and Islamist ideologies, among others.

Holy shit. Two days. Imagine how many more criminals and terrorists they’re going to find if they retain this policy. Previously these people just came and went as they pleased.

Renewables correct prices downward from where a fossil-only system would price electricity …

They would, if they weren’t four times more expensive than nuclear, and 13 times more expensive than gas.

… so that’s the heart of the matter: Russia’s actions increasing the price of fossil fuels.

It’s certainly one of the issues, but not the only issue. The gas price is close to historical averages now, yet UK electricity prices remain very high.

And does that make any sense at all, given Russia’s domination of nuclear supply chains? France’s nuclear program is mortally dependent on Russian cooperation in a lot of ways too.

Russia controls approximately 22% of the world’s uranium conversion capacity and 44% of its enrichment capacity. This is hardly insurmountable. It should spur investment from other nations. China accounts for approximately 70–90% of the global market across all stages of the lithium-ion battery value chain. Does that mean the world should give up on EVs and battery storage? Surely not.

Meanwhile over here in Germany, the designated chancellor and his “Christian Democrat” party quickly stowed away their pre-election rhetoric about building new nuclear plants/reviving existing plants, after an informal paper from their own party made the rounds, outlining that reviving nuclear in Germany would necessitate massive state aid or even having the state itself run the plants.

I don’t know what you mean by “stowed away,” but their policy shows they are still very much open to nuclear energy.

But realistically, I think they’d need 2 or 3 times that, right? Afaik, France is currently building just a single domestic plant and they’re not exactly executing there. Neither are they executing on the Hinkley Point project. And Olkiluoto was a massive shitshow where French taxpayers financed the 3/4 of the costs that constituted the cost overrun. There are basically two countries that still know how to build nuclear reactors, those are Russia and China, everyone else just incurs perverse cost and build-time overruns. And it does make sense: A centralized, dangerous, expensive technology that works best for centralized, authoritarian regimes that can afford to put all their state power behind these projects. (And yet, China is building out solar/wind much more aggressively than nuclear.)

France definitely doesn’t need 2-3 times that based on current implementation of renewables.

You won’t catch me defending the speed of large reactor roll-outs. Despite this, and the high costs, it’s still much cheaper than renewables. SMRs will be much faster to deploy, much more flexible, much cheaper, and require much less planning.

China is also building two “mega” coal lignite power plants per week. I don’t think we should use them as a role model.

New nuclear plants are also completely useless against climate change, given their decade/multi-decade build times, especially compared to renewables where plants can be rolled out in a matter of months. Meanwhile, existing French reactors need to be taken offline in summer because their water consumption is woefully ill-adjusted to climate change and they turn France’s rivers into bouillabaisse.

CO2 production is expected to continue to climb for 50-100 years, and we won’t reach CO2 neutrality for hundreds of years, if ever. A 7-10 year timespan is very little compared to the enormous environmental benefits.

Nuclear capacity has been flatlining (at best) for two decades, while renewables have exploded. Even if you assume just 10% utilization for the renewable plants, yesteryear’s addition of 6GW nuclear capacity pales in comparison to the 600GWp PV/wind capacity.

This is a political decision, not one based in science or finance. Despite renewables being far from ready to replace Germany’s nuclear generation, the public voted to switch to much more environmentally damaging gas generation. That gas was primarily coming from a hostile, authoritarian nation. The public voted to place the economic prosperity of Germany in the hands of Russia. It was one of the most tragic examples of democratic self immolation in all of history.

Even the author of that study admits to (latently pro-fashy shitrag) NZZ that cheaper batteries would solve the issue. Incidentally, what we’ve been seeing over the past decade is steadily decreasing battery prices, as scale goes up and cheaper materials substitute more expensive ones.

And I fully agree with the author. In 30-50 years when battery technology becomes cost effective at grid scale, we’ll be having a very different discussion.

I don’t really want to know what else is wrong with that study of his, given that the largest part of it is concerned with the near-pointless thought experiment of using 100%/95% exclusively solar+batteries. It seems massively more pertinent to worry about the final 10% renewables when the time has come. One major bit that I don’t see reflected in the study is flexibilization of demand e.g., which is a thing already. I recently saw a documentary that e.g. included a cold warehouse that could scale up/down its cooling in response to renewables availability. I visited a company producing electric componentry which is doing its electronic component testing on sunny days where they have a lot of solar. I know similar concepts exist for aluminum smelters.

That’s fair. It expands on the even more flawed LCOE metric which is widely (and incorrectly) used to compare wind/solar with nuclear/gas/coal.

Are there even SMR projects that haven’t been cancelled?

Rolls Royce isn’t due to deliver commercial SMRs until the early 2030s. Until then designs are either bespoke (and expensive, and untested), or using the GE Hitachi BWRX-300, which is also very expensive because it’s only licensed, and built on site to spec. It has many of the same issues as traditional large reactors. GE began licensing that design in 2020, and the most advanced project is I think in Canada, due to be completed in 2028. Once RR figures out their production lines, I think we see huge efficiencies of scale and much easier planning.

I’m much more optimistic about nuclear power in Europe. Given the high pricing volatility induced by renewables and the gas supply shock after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, nine European countries are now intending to build new reactors. Even Denmark is softening its stance on nuclear power, with the entire right wing bloc proposing lifting the ban. France intends to build 14 new reactors by 2050. While conventional reactors are expensive, they’re four times cheaper than solar and wind with all costs imputed. Further, we are about to enter a new age of SMRs, and all preliminary data suggesting a per unit capex cost of almost half, and the ability to extend networks as needed far more flexibly to better align with modern grids comprised of more renewables.

Well spotted. The difference between the UK and the rest of the EU is that the latter relies more heavily on contracts for difference. Renewable projects and installations negotiate a strike price up front (and often on an ongoing or scheduled basis). If the highest bid price (e.g. gas) exceeds the strike price, the renewable installation repays or foregoes the difference. The UK is very slowly moving in this direction, but has been criticised for its lack of action on older installations (which retain their direct pricing mechanisms), and slow pace of change for newer installations.

This is compounded by the UK’s comparative lack of EU interconnections which help these other countries smooth out volatility. By, for example, relying more on France’s nuclear power generation. This means the UK more frequently sees high clearing prices.

This one is pretty good.

While I agree that energy-intensive business should always be pushed onto flexible-pricinv contracts, as a private consumer, uniform pricing is an advantage imo. You don’t need to think about whether running the washing machine will cost you 0.2¤ or 0.6¤ or whether there’s a price surge, and it’s even more expensive.

Fixed pricing happens in Europe too. The retailer prices the volatility into a fixed pricing plan. It still ends up much cheaper than how the UK has structured their grid, which ensures electricity companies are making massive piles of money.

UK’s uniform pricing is intended to ensure renewables are artificially profitable, incentivising more production. In most other countries, suppliers charge competitive rates, and brokers buy on an open market. This allows demand-based generators (like gas) to charge more during high demand periods (when wind isn’t blowing and sun isn’t shining). The flip side of this is that prices crater during high wind and sun periods. This leads to volatility which can be smoothed with futures contracts. The net effect is that renewables become less profitable, but consumers pay a lot less for electricity.

The UK needs to restructure their energy market to better align with the rest of Europe. It would significantly reduce prices for everyone.

Removed by mod

in germany, for example, the population that immigrated since 2012 makes up approx. 3% of the total population. that means that the population is roughly 3% larger than it would be without that immigration.

That doesn’t sound correct. Source? As of 2022, 19% of Germany was foreign born. Unless there was some kind of mass immigration prior to 2012 - which I don’t see in the stats - you appear to be mistaken.

Makes me wonder where all that money is going?

Scroll down to spending categories. Most money is spent on things like social security, medicare, veteran care, unemployment insurance, and health. Defense is 13% (and absolutely needs to be audited ASAP). Interest payments on debt is now 13% and growing fast. This is why it’s important to at least reduce the deficit as fast as possible. Imagine how much good the government could do with another $400B each year without those interest payments. (well, maybe not this government, but the next one).