AT HIS site, Gary North offers an intriguing thesis for why American neighborhoods are less close-knit than they once were. He writes:

 What ever happened to the social phenomenon known as “neighbor”? It moved out of the neighborhood sometime around 1960.

If I were to blame a single factor, it would be government-subsidized mortgages. When the Federal government created insurance for depositors in savings & loans, it subsidized the destruction of community. When people could afford to move up, for 20% down, they did. They moved out in order to move up.

The ultimate carry trade — borrowed short and lent long — has undermined modern society. The subprime mortgage crisis is the latest installment of the housing market’s carry trade. The undermining of community is still going on.

Youngfogey writes:

Easy credit probably hurt the neighborhood in more ways than one. When my parents bought my boyhood home in 1970, they paid $11,000.

The same home easily costs ten times that amount today. I’m sure there are many factors behind this, but one of them is the ease with which most people can get loans to pay higher prices. When there is a lot of easy credit available the market clearing price of goods goes up. The same thing has happened to the price of a college education with the advent of student loans.

Neighborhoods have been hurt not just by the changes that have made it easier to move, but by the fact that in order to be in the middle class, everyone who lives in those neighborhoods must carry a staggering debt load.

Jesse Powell writes:

It is an interesting question, what has led to the decline of the “neighbor” and the “neighborhood.” Increased mobility whether caused by easier lending or a need for people to move to keep their jobs and to advance in their careers is a likely culprit. It is very obvious that the hyper-easy lending of recent years has done great harm to the economy. 

A subject that I think is often overlooked is the huge costs associated with class segregation, the need to move into a “good” neighborhood that forces people to move from where they used to be and that forces them to spend a lot of money to be in environments that poorer people cannot afford. 

The issue is, high income is associated with low levels of social problems. This is because people who make lots of money tend to be high functioning overall, meaning their family lives are more functional in addition to their work lives. A neighborhood with lots of low functioning people not only is poorer but also has higher crime and worse schools. You don’t want to live in a neighborhood with high crime and you don’t want your kids to go to a failing school. 

What is the solution to this problem, on an individual basis? To use your greater earning power to move to a richer neighborhood that poor people cannot afford that will therefore have lower crime and better public schools. 

There are two problems with this phenomenon. First of all, the poorer kids left behind will not have the positive influence of living near and around higher functioning children and higher functioning adults. The second problem is that those who move away have to spend a lot of money to afford to live in the better neighborhood. This increases economic pressure and the incidence of the two income family. 

If social problems were not endemic to the society, poverty would not be associated with high crime and failing schools, poverty would simply indicate a lack of money, nothing more. It is not true that poverty and crime go together by their nature; they only go together in an environment of failing families. There would be no great pressure to move out of a poor neighborhood that is easier to afford if family life overall was high functioning. 

So add to the list of problems caused by family breakdown the need to live in a “good” neighborhood that puts a greater strain on the family budget.

Laura writes:

You say, “If social problems were not endemic to the society, poverty would not be associated with high crime and failing schools…” and “it’s not true that poverty and crime go together by their nature.”

That’s not quite correct. Poverty does not necessitate crime or family breakdown but it contributes to it. And low ability contributes to poverty.

Easy lending facilitated the growth of the suburbs. This meant that lower functioning groups, particularly inner city blacks, became more isolated. If middle class whites had not been able to move in such high numbers and so far away, they would possibly have asserted their interests and imposed middle class standards, perhaps ultimately benefiting blacks and controlling crime. That’s a possibility. But easy lending wasn’t the only factor. Cars and highways also were an important influence. However, these too brought their own expenses, leaving the middle class suburban family with higher debt and the need for two incomes, and leaving blacks at a further disadvantage in some cases. 

Jesse writes:

Laura writes:

“That’s not quite correct. Poverty does not necessitate crime or family breakdown but it contributes to it. And low ability contributes to poverty.” 

How does poverty contribute to crime? Are you saying if a family has more money they can spend that money on services that will keep their children away from crime? Are you saying a family that has money through legal means will not be motivated to earn money through illegal means? I don’t know what you’re referring to when you say that poverty contributes to crime. 

As for my understanding of what you mean, a family with greater resources might be able to damage control the effects of family breakdown more effectively but if family breakdown wasn’t there in the first place there would be no crime problem to minimize regardless of the poverty or wealth of the family. 

As far as middle class whites imposing middle class standards on their poorer black neighbors if they were unable to simply move away, that is an interesting idea, and quite plausible. In reality, when the family functioning of whites was in good shape, the family functioning of blacks was also in good shape, compared to how things are today. The black and white family started their serious deterioration at the same time, in the 1960s. It might be hard to say who influenced whom but when the overall culture declined both blacks and whites suffered, regardless of whether they lived near each other or not.

Laura writes:

Poverty obviously increases the temptation to commit certain crimes and increases the chances of encountering other criminals. Also, the social factors that cause poverty may also contribute to crime. Family breakdown is not the only contributing factor in crime. There are neighborhoods with many broken families but almost no criminals and neighborhoods where organized crime is common that have a high percentage of intact families.

Vanessa writes:

“There are neighborhoods with many broken families but almost no criminals and neighborhoods where organized crime is common that have a high percentage of intact families.”

Really? Do you have any proof of this? I suspect you would be hard-pressed to even find a poor community where the majority of families are intact, as the poverty rate for married couples is only 6.4%, and it is rare for them to stay poor for any length of time.

Married fathers are society, so their absence makes their children, and their neighbor’s children, antisocial. The statistical evidence of this is easily accessible, absolutely overwhelming, and completely undisputed. Poverty does not cause crime, it is merely that criminals are more likely to be — and stay — poor. This is both because fatherless children are more likely to be poor, and because never-married men are more likely to be criminal.

Please also note that the income or education-level of a never-married mother has little to no impact upon the delinquency rate of her children. It doesn’t matter how much money she makes, where she lives, or whether she has a college degree. Her kids are still much more likely to be anti-social. We don’t notice the strength of this correlation in everyday life because such women are less likely to have children out of wedlock than their poorer counterparts. But this is changing, so expect to see a dramatic increase soon in drug-dealing, violent, and sexually promiscious, suburban kids. Actually, we are already seeing that. See this report.

Laura writes:

I was thinking of middle class neighborhoods where, say, 20 percent of the families have divorced parents. (The organized crime families are well documented and that’s a separate issue.)  There may be no street crime in these neighborhoods but it is true that these families are overwhelmingly more likely to see serious problems in the future and that includes the possibility of criminality. So perhaps I overstated my point when I said “there are neighborhoods with many broken families but almost no criminals.” By “many,” I meant about 20 percent. Family breakdown is quite high in some wealthy enclaves, but it usually comes with involved fathers. This breakdown manifests itself in different ways from lower class neighborhoods; that is obvious and I do not deny it has its own consequences at all.

I don’t dispute the main point both you and Jesse are making. Family breakdown, particularly when it involves fatherlessness and large numbers of never-married men, is the greatest single predictor of lifetime failure.

Please follow and like us: