There is blogger and podcaster whose identity I will not disclose, but given all of the clues supplied in this article it should not be that hard to figure out, who is tangentially related to the alt-right but in recent years has disavowed the movement. Like Roosh, he is itinerant, moving from one part of Europe to another on a seemingly weekly basis. A frequent topic on his podcast are his pecuniary anxieties. Despite living in Eastern Europe, which is very cheap relative to the United States, he barely has enough money to live on. Writing and podcasting, for most people, just does not pay that much.
Yet I still think there is little excuse to complain about money if it is within your power to do something about it. Yeah, I can understand someone with an IQ of 90 or so not having any power over their predicament, but this does not apply to this particular individual, who has a degree in literature. Said podcaster, in his defense, probably made himself persona non grata through his politically incorrect views, but there is no reason why anyone who is as competent of a writer as he is should not be able find gainful, good-paying employment given that writing and verbal ability are g-loaded, and that superior verbal ability as measured by the SAT is predictive of high IQ. Writing is harder than speaking because the former necessitates precision and exactness through a set of rules. When speaking, if you merge and slur your words and sentences and use incorrect syntax, it is not as jarringly obvious as doing so in writing.
This is why philosophy is as competitive as STEM when it comes to earning power, not because employers care about philosophy per say, but because the ability of philosophy majors to parse dense, complex texts and philosophical abstractions is predictive of high intelligence and the ability to parse practical, real-world abstractions, too. According to 538, “philosophy majors have the fourth-highest median earnings, $81,200 per year, out-ranking business and chemistry majors…”
This relates to the post earlier about the the role of personal preferences in regard to IQ vs. wealth, because there are a lot of high-IQ people who willingly choose creative and intellectual pursuits over expediency and making money. But are these people justified to complain if the marketplace undervalues creative work? I dunno . The conservative impulse in me is to say they are not, but there is value in the arts in ways that cannot be quantified economically. The ideal job is both intellectually rewarding yet pays enough to not be poor (i.e., being a professor), yet such jobs are few and far between.