If you want to get technical then we need to be precise with what we mean, and if you want objective data then we will have to base the discussion on
measureable intelligence quotient.
Paper from 2006 shows Intelligence (70 to 130) is correlated (
0.297) to income, but has
almost no link to wealth.
"
Since intelligence is not a factor for explaining wealth, individuals with low intelligence should not believe they are handicapped in achieving financial success, nor should high intelligence people believe they have an advantage."
Note the IQ data is from
2006 1980, given Flynn Effect, the "comparable" low-end of the curve would have be roughly 50-55 in 1920s. What happened to people in that range back then? I prob don't need to remind you. Now, let's focus on the treatment of this particular group, of whom today we would label "ID" or "borderline ID".
A couple hundred years ago, a stupid person with a strong back ....
A couple hundred years ago, a "stupid" person had no right and couldn't even manage their own affairs or "income". 13th century England declared ID people to be incapable of making decisions or managing their affairs. Fifty years ago the cutoff was 50-70 (comparable to 65-85 today),
Today, that cut off is usually around 60.
For a person of ID group, being physically
strong was almost a necessary trait if they were to have any hope to be self-sufficient in the past, but today, we have a huge variety of jobs suitable for ID people that may not be physically strong. Visited a bottle depot recently? Assembly line quality control? Not to mention all the jobs that consist of mundane but repetitive tasks but not strength based.
In the 18th and 19th centuries ID people were removed from their families and housed in large "professional" institutions. The lucky ones went by as farmhands, many were treated as criminals (men) and prostitutes (women). They were not even "allowed" to work, in which case the correlation between ID group vs "average" group to income would have been much higher than today's 0.297.
What changed? A whole bunch of things: commercial fertilizers, popularization of plastics, electronic hardware, etc. More importantly, the Western nations had an abundant surplus product:
http://visualizingeconomics.com/blog/2011/03/08/long-term-real-growth-in-us-gdp-per-capita-1871-2009Social equality is built on economic equality. Economic equality, essentially a wide redistribution of an abundant surplus product, cannot come to pass until that society's ability to produce wealth is built up enough to satisfy its whole population and to support marginalized groups.
With the abundant resources we were able to form various programs to help the ID groups realize their full potential and become more equal with the rest of the population, not only in income, but also socially.
Prof. Peterson gives Marxism a lot of crap, and rightly so, but his interpretation on how social progress is made (mainly fueled by technology) is similar to the Marxist view.
An office job in the 1950s didn't require significant brawn. Yet women were routinely discriminated against and prevented from getting these jobs. What technological advances have occurred since the 1950s that changed this?
Office jobs were not common back in the 50s, as can be seen in
bls report. When the demand for office worker picked up in the 60s and outpaced qualified men, women,
with the help of the pill, arguably one of the most important tech advancement in human history, filled the void.
a simple wiki yields:
"
In the first place, it was more effective than most previous reversible methods of birth control, giving women unprecedented control over their fertility.[170] Its use was separate from intercourse, requiring no special preparations at the time of sexual activity that might interfere with spontaneity or sensation, and the choice to take the pill was a private one. This combination of factors served to make the pill immensely popular within a few years of its introduction.[108][115]"
"Claudia Goldin, among others, argue that this new contraceptive technology was a key player in forming women's modern economic role, in that it prolonged the age at which women first married allowing them to invest in education and other forms of human capital as well as generally become more career-oriented. Soon after the birth control pill was legalized, there was a sharp increase in college attendance and graduation rates for women.[171] "
"From an economic point of view, the birth control pill reduced the cost of staying in school. The ability to control fertility without sacrificing sexual relationships allowed women to make long term educational and career plans.[172] "Culture, is a response to the physical constraints that societies face.