This is a book that might answer some of your questions about the destruction of US families, divorce, morality and community. If you have time, consider giving five or six minutes to this elucidation of contemporary problems.
The author, Prof. Charles Murray, is quite an unusual fellow. His doctoral work was at MIT. For those not in the know, MIT is one of the best schools in the world. In realms of technology and science it might be number one.
He has composed half a dozen books and his work entitled the Bell Curve was discussed around the world. It was a topic in both major media and intellectual circles. His labor in this book pertains to the evolution of American society. In the past, most sociologists discussed the middle and lower classes and touched race. In these 417 pages there's a great deal pertaining to education and economic stratospheres. Weaved into his thoughts are the fibers of morality, stability, marriage and religion. If you adjudicate by this book it seems that after the ideological battles that emanated from the Bell Curve, he has left the table containing delicacies cooked from ingredients oscillating around race. This might have been due to a knowledge that such enticing foodstuff could be drainfully toxic.
Professor Murray’s tale about Coming Apart can draw you in. In presenting his story he uses various stats from the census, institutes of higher education, surveys and socio-political observations. His PhD is in political science and he once labored at the American Enterprise Institute. It's a prestigious neo-conservative think tank.
Murray entertains by taking his readers on an adventure through two communities. The tour begins in the 1960s and ends in 2010. He uses elite zip codes and two cities as an example of change in wealth and morals. In the 1960s his two picked cities were relatively similar in many aspects. Crime was comparatively low, as was divorce.
We read that back then people drank like fish and smoked like chimneys. However, illegal drugs were like rare birds. Marriage the substance that holds communities together was solid. The USA did have her social problems. JFK and MLK were shot.
As the author takes us along his pleasant journey we see that many things in the life of yesterday would be laughable today. Back in 2009 the top 1% of family income was a little over half a million dollars. Earlier President Eisenhower's initial cabinet contained 9 millionaires and a plumber. (p. 21) In 1963 only 8% had college degrees. Also, fewer than 8% of families in that year had Incomes of around $100,000. Few people bought Mercedes or Jaguars and even the upper-middle-class did not purchase Cadillacs. A Caddy was too ostentatious. (p. 27)
It’s recorded that the great 1963 symbol of wealth, the private plane, consisted of Cessnas and Beechcrafts. These existed only in the hundreds and they are all driven by propellers. (p. 28) There were few millionaires.
We read that one special place within the world of American intellectuals was Cambridge Mass. It was the home of Harvard University, MIT and other intellectual settings. The author wants his readers to know there were more bookstores in Harvard Square than the entire city of Des Moines. (p. 31) The median family income was $43,641. He continued by telling us about the new forming upper class. Then, he ventures off to trends in cultural separation.
In mainstream “schoolville” two thirds of the parents were overweight. At private elite schools, parents were thinner. The upper class was eating whole grains and green vegetables, while limiting their intake of meat and butter. (p. 36) We read that the new intellectual class felt more comfortable around other intellectuals, even if they were from other countries. (p. 38) This kinda reminds me of Prof. Putnam’s writings. Murray tells us new upper class infants were smothered with intellectual stimulation, while mothers put their careers on hold. (p. 39) We learn some of the upper class in NY and Washington secured a starting salary of six figures. However, they give a good chunk of their life by working over 60 hours every week. Murray emphasizes the new upper class was evermore living in a world of its own. Here, one pondered about sacrifice. How much did 60 hours a week take away from the job of being a father? Some of the programmers at Apple and Google were notorious for working around the clock. (p. 43) Unfortunately, the book loses some of its flavor with moldy graphs.
It was ever more evident that the richer new upper-class was isolating itself. This could even be gauged by the cost of living in certain neighborhoods. He believes that nearly everyone in the new upper class, when finishing college were developing a distinct culture of inbreeding amongst themselves. Whiz kids of high cognitive ability dominated Ivy League facilities. We read that nearly 80% of the students in elite educational institutes, came from the top economic stratosphere. Only 2% came from the bottom quartile.
Murray sings about attending college. However, is it not true that a sea of colleges today don't require knowledge of a foreign language, or the ability to compose a scholarly dissertation? Is it not true that other than paper, most college sheepskins have lost their former value?
Here we get a comparison. In 1963 only 3% of American couples had a college degree. By 2010 colleges were a successful business entity and the figure stood at 25%. Universities were bringing youth together at an age in their life when they are looking for partners. These exceptionally bright individuals produce children.
We read that in 2009 official segregation had ended. However, socio-economic segregation had been increasing. (p. 69) Affluent Americans started to separate themselves off from the general society. In other words, they were distancing themselves from the poor. (p. 70) Here, readership is told about changing job skills. For example, by the year 2000 30% of all Manhattan jobs were in the financial, professional, scientific or technical services. Another 9% were in the field of information. We read that diversity existed on the streets. In other areas income denoted environment. Murray refers to famous places. I enjoyed reading about Beacon Hill, in Boston. I had friends in that ancient historical neighborhood. I had brought a Soviet Senator to that old haunt on our way to the United Nations. It was a super ZIP code and has remained such. Murray records 882 super zips as becoming whiter and more Asiatic than the rest of America. We learn that in the 1979 Harvard graduating school of business they were 51 CEOs, 107 presidents, 13 board chairmen and 96 others who were directors, partners, owners of their own businesses. That speaks volumes about elite institutions.
Murray slips into politics. He mentions several elite Zip code regions around the country, denoting their political ideology. Info on voting was quite extensive. Whites plus Asians constituted 90% of the super zip population in 2000 and 86% in 2010. (p. 100) In addition to reading about the great divide in zips, he speaks about the high proportion of the new elite residing in four metropolitan regions (NY, Washington, LA and SF). Readers learn the group under discussion continues to live in enclaves. Two of the most pertinent are in Washington and New York. These people make decisions for the nation but often know very little about the masses of poorer populations.
When I buy a book it’s for enjoyment. If a puzzle was desired, I’d buy the NYT. Unfortunately, there are pages devoted to questions. One of the inquiries asks if an individual has ever resided in a neighborhood in which the 50 closest neighbors did not have a college degree! How many Americans even know their 50 closest neighbors?
Moving on, we see info about the formation of a new lower class. We discover a substantial proportion were former workers. In the past America had few people on the public dole. That's no longer the case. How could it not be so? After all, millions of jobs had been outsourced to China and other places, where semi-slave labour is a fact of life. Also, there’s factors of high tech eradicating more and more positions each and every day.
Around the middle of the book the author concentrates on two cities; one is wealthy and educated (Belmont). The other is Fishtown. In 2000 that municipality had only 8% as college graduates. Family incomes were around $41,000.
The author’s quite concerned with integrity, honesty and morality. This is why he devoted a great deal of time to marriage. He writes that over the last half-century marriage has become the fault line that divides American classes. His premise seems quite reasonable. I have heard similar hypotheses in European intellectual circles.
In 1962 a poll showed 96% of wives with family considering themselves happier than single women. However, more than a third of happily married woman knew of a female engaged in adultery. Yet, 84% said that there was absolutely no justification in having sexual adventures outside of marriage. Do these figures get thrown out due to the pondering about who were the adulterous gals?
In the 1960s the percentage of married couples in the two communities were separated by about 10 percentage points but both were high on the positive end. It was 94% in Belmont and 84% in Fishtown. By 2010 only 48% of prime age White Fishtowners were married. Men begin to retreat from marriage obligations.
Whereas Fishtown declined in marriage aspects, in Belmont the percentage of people staying in their marriages and being happy had an upward trend. Implications seem to oscillate around cognitive abilities amongst those in that educated environment.
The diversion between the two cities is quite substantial. A high percentage of Fishtown kids are living alone with one parent (22%). In highly educated Belmont the number is a mere 3%. When I was a kid our family knew only one divorced person.
The author speaks about the phenomenal breakup of families in the USA. What could be the primal cause? Statistics revealed early relationships of uneducated females. That indicated the likelihood of giving birth as an unmarried woman. (p. 165) We read that about 60% of woman who did not finish high school were closing in on obtaining ever lower socio-economic levels.
It was estimated that, as of 2008, within all birth stats, the unmarried in Belmont was around 6 to 8%. As noted, in lesser educated Fishtown it ran slightly less than 50%. (p. 167) The author believes it’s a disaster. According to statistical evidence, the above occurs with people who have lower levels of education. We read that mothers having lower education, have lower psychological adjustment, less social support and less money than happily married mothers.
We read about the family being the engine of American communities. Correlating knowledge about children having both parents to unmarried mothers shows obvious observations. The diversions between the two cities is so large that they have different family cultures. (p. 171)
The author returns to divulging in the topic of honesty. He talks about an era of greed and gives examples. Then, he dwells upon religion. Like most studies we see that there’s strong evidence that religion creates much happiness and satisfaction with less depression and less substance abuse. The best selling books of Prof. Ed Dutton follow this path.
The author refers to lower socio-economic environments. Again we see the evolution of the USA. Culturally single women are raising children. This exacerbates problematic situations in cities. He touches upon mothers leaving children to go out and have fun. In the 1960s census about 90% of Fishtown’s men were in the labor force. Four decades later the number was 30%. Adding to this we see churches are closing. Besides that, Fishtown, has become economically ineffectual. Other areas wish to isolate themselves from such problematic environments. For some reason, throughout the book the author refers to different parts of the world and social disengagements. We are told that people in Fishtown generally are just looking out for themselves. Is that not the consensus of many hustle and bustle large cities?
Conclusio- Murray spends a great deal of time speaking about education, cognitive abilities and overall virtues. Lots of stuff is common sense. For example, marriage and motherhood are the engines for running communities. The products from that are progeny. Teenagers can be a source of horror and unhappiness. However, when children turn out decent they’re the source of immense happiness. Youth nurturing is all about the future.
After consuming Murray’s labour readers come across with a better understanding of socio-economic change. Stats and other observations demonstrate that traditional values, such as marriage, have stayed intact within the new upper opulent America class. It is a class from elite institutes of education and has high cognitive qualities. It is isolating itself. On the other hand, in the lower educational arenas marriage and many ethical traditions have plummeted.
As far as Murray’s song about attending college, if you take elite schools out of the equation, I don’t buy it. In general a sea of colleges today don't require knowledge of a foreign language, or the ability to compose scholarly dissertations. Most college sheepskins lost their former value. In all probability, in the age of cyberspace, children today have a wider range of knowledge than those in Murray’s range of study (1960- 2010). The economic market has changed. Some of our children were no smarter than their siblings, but learned computer programming and started off making six figures.
One can abide by the author’s affirming marriage is a foundation for a successful community. Throughout history most would agree with his premise about divorce being a third rail. However, how much should we believe about education curtailing the failure regarding parents abandoning their family (spouse and children)? What's the cut off pertaining to education and/or opulent affluent green variables? After all, who has not seen the mass of college professors who have deserted to secure a prettier, younger mate? Who does not know about the enormous number of exceedingly rich entrepreneurs going after beauty?
Prof. Murray tells us there's a collapse of moral pillars. He touches upon the growth of welfare and (2) unmarried woman being a social catastrophe. As repeatedly indicated, the author has proven that on the top there is a new opulent less colourful class in the USA.
The elite educated class has retained many traditional values and most of all has plenty of virtue. He attributes the failings of the lower class essentially to lesser education and cognitive qualities. As for the fall of society, there’s another, more famous study, worth reading. It’s entitled Bowling Alone. In that work a Professor Putnam’s hypotheses is that there is a loss of trust. If we cement these two premises together, should we not include the curtailing of open communicate due to censorship that borders on Sovietski realms? Also, what about the indoctrination elicited by monopolio media?
Prof. Murray Is correct, culture has shifted from the 1960s. Murray indicates that America has lost its way and is losing many of its virtues.
Despite all of the above, Murray deems that America is an exceptional place and the upper elite could do much to alleviate certain dilemmas.
