I think it would be reasonable to claim that the larger the proportion of smart people in your population, the better. If that's true, than any number of below average intelligence people would be a surplus.

I get your point, but I think what your describing isn't particularly meaningful. By definition, nearly 50% of any population is categorically an undesirable surplus.

Yes, you could argue that. But a _nation_ could improve its proportions by restricting immigration to a subset of the _global_ population.

To a certain extent, this principle is applied today. But I imagine it could be scaled up to something akin to highly selective university admissions process (e.g. interviews, standardized testing, resume critique, references). If a country starts with sufficient desirability, this could result in a positive feedback loop -- an increasingly competent and productive society.

I agree with you there. Unfortunately, the greatest motivation to bring in someone outside the country is rarely for their exceptionalism, its usual about making/saving money. And at most institutions, its far more cost effecting to get individuals who are just sufficient and will accept a substantially lower compensation than their domestic peers. The individuals who are exceptional have loads of options/opportunities in their own homeland.

> The individuals who are exceptional have loads of options/opportunities in their own homeland.

That is simply not true. Most countries do not have the demand, willpower or money to sustain, say, a world-class research institution.

There's also the networking effect of wanting to work were there is already an established community.

Not necessarily. Average =/= median. But with a population as large as the US, they will be pretty close to each other.

I grew up in Appalachia. You don't have to look hard...

So did I, and I disagree with you.

The part of Appalachia I grew up in for example, in Maryland, had among the best public schools in the state, and had among the highest testing outcomes in the state. That's still true to this day.

I'd like to see you prove your claim and define what a surplus of below average intelligence people means.

Given the small population base of Appalachia, you're not providing meaningful evidence of anything by referring to that location. The median standard of living in Appalachia is higher than that of Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy, Russia, China, Latin America, and so on.

What I see, is that the intellectual floor for high-quality employment that results in traditional middle-class security continues to rise. In my grandfather's generation, somebody who could chew gum and walk at the same time could get a decent union industrial job and live the proverbial "two cars and a picket fence" lifestyle. In my father's generation, you had to at least graduate high school, and odds are, you needed your wife to work as well. In my generation, a college degree is table-stakes, and really, you need a degree from one of the places that has more legitimacy, and really, a degree in one of the harder, more intellectually demanding subjects. Roughly, at every generation here, I'm approximating the floor of intelligence and ability to increase at around one standard deviation.

> The median standard of living in Appalachia is higher than that of Spain, Portugal, Greece, and Italy.

Fuck, that's bad news for Europe, I suppose. I knew people that had dirt floors and no indoor plumbing.

> I knew people that had dirt floors and no indoor plumbing

That isn't a very strong data point. The median household income in Appalachia - which also includes eg Pittsburgh - is above all but a dozen or so major nations, and is above that of the EU and Eurozone. The unemployment rate there is also lower than the EU and Eurozone (in fact, it's about ~45% lower).

Including Pittsburgh in Appalachia is being very generous. You're way too far west there.

Unemployment numbers are mostly bullshit, to boot. Depending on which set of them you are using, that can have huge discrepancies with the actual labor force numbers percentages, since after so many months of a hopeless situation, people drop off the unemployment rolls and into the masses of the long-term unemployed.

It's like you're dangling a pinata and yanking it away at the last second. If you want to talk about your particular backwoods place, name it with greater specificity. If you want us to focus on labor force participation rates vice unemployment stats, offering those up would be similarly wise.

For the record, my Appalachia town also had good schools, though we had more than our fair share of meth and poverty as well.

>For the record, my Appalachia town also had good schools, though we had more than our fair share of meth and poverty as well.

Good on you. We had the poverty, although weed was the favorite cash crop, rather than meth. Growing some plants out in the woods is easier to hide than a lab that might blow up and catch the double-wide on fire...

This discussion reminds me of http://www.radicalcartography.net/index.html?midwest

Well, when comparing Appalachia with some countries, does that include HDI? Some of those "poorer" states might be welfare states that don't have the "benefit" of some large US corporation being located there and skewing statistics.

> The median standard of living in Appalachia is higher than that of Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy, Russia, China, Latin America, and so on.

Care to give a reference?