It has come to my attention that several of the Oscar movies are on my cable on demand movie thingy. Now playing: The Constant Gardner.

The plan is to watch at least half of it tonight and finish it off in the morning.

The Constant (Except for the Overnight Pause) Gardner.

Tommyrot made me snort lemonade up my nose.

What does "adjusted for IQ" mean? That having a high IQ means you're supposed to earn more money, and if you chose not to, then that's bad?

It sounds like they mean in a statistical sense, which would involve them regressing incomes against IQ in some kind of survey deal. Of course it's on average, and will remain so until Jessica Simpson is housed in a dumpster. So the statement says that scientists, on average, are the furthest below the average income that would be expected given their IQs and working incomes. Frankly, I think if they are the lowest of all, that sounds pretty bad to me. I'd regard it as a characteristic of the job, though, not the scientist. Who I'm hoping is good enough at maths to make an informed decision on such matters.

Yeah, that article seemed...odd.

Today, you can't spit in the street without hitting a millionaire and oftentimes it is simple wages that got him or her to that point.

I mean, what?

And then the out-of-nowhere reference to Goethe. Weird.

Yeah, I don't know that I buy a lot of what that guy was saying -- people suddenly discover at 44 they'll never make tenure and head off to be high school teachers? -- but it was interesting at least.

and oftentimes it is simple wages that got him or her to that point.

I find this statement extremely dubious. I suspect it is the rare specimen indeed that got to be a millionaire on simple wages alone.

There are plenty of people living in million-dollar homes that they bought with wages, don't you think?

PR: OMG is Daniel totally crashing and burning? Is Santino winning? Good LORD.

There are plenty of people living in million-dollar homes that they bought with wages, don't you think?

Hmm... I suppose. I guess I forgot you include assets when figuring a person's worth, which would make million dollar home owners technically millionaires, provided they've fully, or even mostly paid off the loan.

I still find the statement a little... off somehow. It's not like people who got their million dollar home through wages alone are living the high life, millionaire style. Plus, I'm still getting stuck on the word "oftentimes," as it makes it sound like a significant minority, or even a mojority of millionaires got there through wages alone, and I still find that hard to believe. Even the people who got there mostly through wages probably also managed some good investment moves to get over the hump. And wouldn't those count as not just "wages alone"? For that matter, if someone is technically a millionaire because of the value of of their home, doesn't that mean they became millionaires through real estate investement, particularly if their home appreciated in value, even if the original home loan was obtained and paid off through "wages alone"?

I guess the statement is just striking me as too vague and broad to actually contain the meaning it seems to want to impart.