{"id":33902,"date":"2012-01-31T18:36:34","date_gmt":"2012-01-31T23:36:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thinkinghousewife.com\/wp\/?p=33902"},"modified":"2012-10-07T07:46:15","modified_gmt":"2012-10-07T11:46:15","slug":"the-mythical-class-divide","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thinkinghousewife.com\/2012\/01\/the-mythical-class-divide\/","title":{"rendered":"The Mythical Class Divide"},"content":{"rendered":"<p class=\"first\">&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>JESSE POWELL writes:<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">I have made\u00a0the point before that there are serious problems with the thesis,\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.thinkinghousewife.com\/wp\/2012\/01\/charles-murray-on-class-and-sexual-morality\/\">put forth<\/a>\u00a0last week by Charles Murray, that \u201cthe upper class\u201d is doing just fine in its family behaviors while \u201cthe lower class\u201d is deteriorating dramatically. It is indeed true that \u201cthe upper class\u201d is doing better than \u201cthe lower class\u201d but this is merely a class distinction; it does not indicate a <em>cultural divide<\/em>. The same overall culture has within it people who are \u201cbetter off\u201d and people who are \u201cworse off\u201d and not surprisingly the people who are \u201cbetter off\u201d are better off; their social indicators show fewer problems.\u00a0<!--more--><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">The key question is whether the \u201cupper class\u201d is maintaining its family cohesion while the \u201clower class\u201d continues to deteriorate; if that was the case that would indeed indicate a real difference in culture between the two groups. When looking at the statistical evidence however both the upper class and the lower class continue to deteriorate.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">To illustrate family deterioration among the white upper class, below is a table showing the White Married Parents Ratio (White MPR) and the White Married Families Ratio (White MFR) in the top 0.1 percent\u00a0of Census Tracts in California, Texas, and Florida from the 2000 and 2010 Census. The table shows deterioration in white upper class neighborhoods among whites even at the very, very top of the neighborhood distribution.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">Definitions: \u201cWhite\u201d means non-Hispanic white alone. \u201cTop 0.1%\u201d means that 99.9 percent\u00a0of white children lived in Census Tracts with lower White MPRs and lower White MFRs in the state. The\u00a0 White Married Parents Ratio is the proportion of white children who are \u201cown children\u201d that live with married parents. An \u201cown child\u201d is the biological or adopted or step-child of the householder. The White Married Families Ratio is the proportion of white families with\u00a0&#8220;own children&#8221; in which the parents of those children\u00a0were married.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><strong>Top 0.1% Level of White Married Parents Ratio and White Married Families Ratio by Census Tract for the white child population; 2000 and 2010 Census<\/strong><\/p>\n<table style=\"padding-left: 30px;\" width=\"724\" border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\">\n<colgroup span=\"1\">\n<col span=\"1\" width=\"149\" \/>\n<col span=\"1\" width=\"161\" \/>\n<col span=\"1\" width=\"116\" \/>\n<col span=\"1\" width=\"175\" \/>\n<col span=\"1\" width=\"123\" \/> <\/colgroup>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"149\" height=\"16\"><\/td>\n<td width=\"161\">\n<p align=\"right\">White MPR<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"116\"><\/td>\n<td width=\"175\">\n<p align=\"right\">White MFR<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"123\"><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td height=\"16\"><\/td>\n<td align=\"right\">2000<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\">2010<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\">2000<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\">2010<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td height=\"16\">California<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\">96.3%<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\">95.0%<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\">95.5%<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\">94.1%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td height=\"16\">Texas<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\">97.0%<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\">95.7%<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\">96.5%<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\">94.7%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td height=\"16\">Florida<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\">95.0%<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\">92.6%<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\">93.9%<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\">91.8%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">Ironically, the place in America that is the poorest is also the place with the highest level of intact families, proving by example that poverty and family deterioration don\u2019t necessarily go together. As <em>The<\/em>\u00a0<em>New York Times<\/em> headline <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2011\/04\/21\/nyregion\/kiryas-joel-a-village-with-the-numbers-not-the-image-of-the-poorest-place.html?_r=1\">says<\/a> &#8220;A Village With the Numbers, Not the Image, of the Poorest Place:&#8221;<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">\u201cThe poorest place in the United States is not a dusty Texas border town, a hollow in Appalachia, a remote Indian reservation or a blighted urban neighborhood. It has no slums or homeless people. No one who lives there is shabbily dressed or has to go hungry. Crime is virtually nonexistent.\u201d<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">The <em>Times<\/em> article is\u00a0about\u00a0the village of Kiryas Joel, New York. Kiryas Joel is indeed the poorest place in America with over 10,000 people but it is made up of Ultra-Orthodox Satmar Hasidic Jews. According to the 2010 Census, the White Married Parents Ratio of Kiryas Joel was 98.9 percent\u00a0and the White Married Families Ratio was 98.4 percent. In the 2000 Census, these ratios were 98.0 percent\u00a0and 97.5 percent\u00a0respectively. The religiously oriented village of Kiryas Joel actually got better in its family formation from 2000 to 2010 while the rich white areas in the nation overall tended to get worse.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Mr. Powell adds:<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">To more specifically address Charles Murray\u2019s article, I note that he says, \u201cThe economic value of brains in the marketplace will continue to increase no matter what, and the most successful of each generation will tend to marry each other no matter what. As a result, the most successful Americans will continue to trend toward consolidation and isolation as a class.\u201d<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">Regarding the issue of family formation competence, what is important is whether the upper class is becoming culturally isolated from the rest of America, not merely whether economic segregation is growing. Family formation is more about cultural values than it is about money.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">Murray seems to be advocating for what I\u2019ll call the \u201cClass Approach\u201d to solving America\u2019s social problems; namely that the upper classes should teach and promote their virtues to the lower classes and should seek to interact more with the other classes of society on a social basis.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">The approach that I advocate I\u2019ll call the \u201cReligious Approach;\u201d that people should adopt a more religious and patriarchal view of family life and in that way will be able to regain the competent family formation practices of the past.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">The problem with the \u201cClass Approach\u201d of Murray is two fold. The first part is that the upper class is deteriorating in its family life just like the lower class; it does not possess \u201cthe secret\u201d of how to maintain a healthy family life from generation to generation. The second problem with the \u201cClass Approach\u201d is that a society overall cannot reproduce the success of its upper class; not everyone can be above average. A cultural value system that requires above average intelligence or above average income in order to work cannot work for the society overall precisely because most people do not possess above average intelligence or above average income. Another factor that should not be overlooked is that a cultural system based on privilege cannot be maintained from generation to generation because of the phenomenon of regression towards the mean. Not all children whose parents have a college degree will get a college degree themselves; not all children of high income parents will earn a high income themselves.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">The \u201cReligious Approach\u201d does not have the disadvantages of the \u201cClass Approach\u201d because the patriarchal religious value system truly is separate from the feminist secular value system. In addition, the \u201cReligious Approach\u201d does not rely on class privilege; everyone can adopt and live according to the values taught by religion regardless of how smart they are or how much money they make.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">To bolster my point that the \u201cReligious Approach\u201d is superior to the \u201cClass Approach,\u201d below are tables indicating the success in real life of each model. The first table is based on Charles Murray\u2019s \u201cTop 10 SuperZIPs\u201d that represent the most upper class ZIP Codes in the United States in the year 2000; this table will represent the \u201cClass Approach.\u201d The second is based on the five Haredi Jewish communities in New York and New Jersey that are large and cohesive; this second table represents the \u201cReligious Approach.\u201d<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">The tables give the white child population and the white Married Parents Ratio (MPR) for each place or ZIP Code for the years 2000 and 2010.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">Definitions: \u201cWhite\u201d means non-Hispanic white alone. The White Married Parents Ratio is the proportion of white children who are \u201cown children\u201d that live with married parents. An \u201cown child\u201d is the biological or adopted or step-child of the householder. \u201cWCP\u201d stands for \u201cWhite Child Population\u201d and \u201cWMPR\u201d stands for \u201cWhite Married Parents Ratio\u201d.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><strong>Top 10 SuperZIPs \u2013 The leading upper class ZIP Codes in the 2000 Census: Number of White Children and White Married Parents Ratio in 2000 and 2010<\/strong><\/p>\n<table style=\"padding-left: 30px;\" width=\"929\" border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\">\n<colgroup span=\"1\">\n<col span=\"1\" width=\"279\" \/>\n<col span=\"2\" width=\"159\" \/>\n<col span=\"2\" width=\"166\" \/> <\/colgroup>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"279\" height=\"16\"><\/td>\n<td width=\"159\">\n<p align=\"right\">WCP-2000<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"159\">\n<p align=\"right\">WCP-2010<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"166\">\n<p align=\"right\">WMPR-2000<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"166\">\n<p align=\"right\">WMPR-2010<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"279\" height=\"16\">60043: Kenilworth, Ill.<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"159\">877<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"159\">823<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"166\">94.6%<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"166\">93.0%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"279\" height=\"16\">60022: Glencoe, Ill.<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"159\">2,535<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"159\">2,337<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"166\">93.1%<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"166\">91.4%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"279\" height=\"16\">07078: Short Hills, NJ<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"159\">3,624<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"159\">3,556<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"166\">93.6%<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"166\">93.0%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"279\" height=\"16\">94027: Atherton, CA<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"159\">1,380<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"159\">1,203<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"166\">94.1%<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"166\">92.4%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"279\" height=\"16\">10514: Chappaqua, NY<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"159\">3,585<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"159\">3,355<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"166\">93.6%<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"166\">92.5%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"279\" height=\"16\">19035: Gladwyne, PA<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"159\">859<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"159\">788<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"166\">91.7%<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"166\">87.9%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"279\" height=\"16\">94028: Portola Valley, CA<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"159\">1,331<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"159\">1,277<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"166\">93.8%<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"166\">91.2%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"279\" height=\"16\">92067: Rancho Sante Fe, CA<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"159\">1,891<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"159\">1,848<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"166\">92.0%<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"166\">86.9%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"279\" height=\"16\">02493: Weston, MA<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"159\">2,816<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"159\">2,584<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"166\">92.6%<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"166\">91.3%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"279\" height=\"16\">10577: Purchase, NY<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"159\">637<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"159\">625<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"166\">93.7%<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"166\">93.2%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><strong>Five Leading Haredi Jewish Communities in <\/strong><strong>New York<\/strong><strong> and <\/strong><strong>New Jersey<\/strong><strong>: Number of White Children and White Married Parents Ratio in 2000 and 2010<\/strong><\/p>\n<table style=\"padding-left: 30px;\" width=\"929\" border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\">\n<colgroup span=\"1\">\n<col span=\"1\" width=\"279\" \/>\n<col span=\"2\" width=\"159\" \/>\n<col span=\"2\" width=\"166\" \/> <\/colgroup>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"279\" height=\"16\"><\/td>\n<td width=\"159\">\n<p align=\"right\">WCP-2000<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"159\">\n<p align=\"right\">WCP-2010<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"166\">\n<p align=\"right\">WMPR-2000<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"166\">\n<p align=\"right\">WMPR-2010<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"279\" height=\"16\">Lakewood, NJ<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"159\">11,003<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"159\">22,105<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"166\">96.6%<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"166\">98.3%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"279\" height=\"16\">Kiryas Joel, NY<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"159\">7,433<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"159\">12,014<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"166\">98.0%<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"166\">98.9%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"279\" height=\"16\">Monsey, NY<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"159\">6,659<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"159\">9,115<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"166\">95.6%<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"166\">98.0%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"279\" height=\"16\">New Square, NY<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"159\">2,736<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"159\">4,179<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"166\">97.6%<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"166\">98.5%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"279\" height=\"16\">Kaser, NY<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"159\">1,748<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"159\">2,808<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"166\">95.7%<\/td>\n<td align=\"right\" width=\"166\">99.1%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">You will see from the above tables that in real life the \u201cReligious Approach\u201d is working much better than the \u201cClass Approach.\u201d The Top 10 ZIP Codes meant to exemplify upper class white America all lost white child population and all deteriorated in their white Married Parents Ratios from the 2000 to the 2010 Census. In stark and total contrast the five communities that are based on strong religious belief (all Haredi Jewish communities) all saw their white child populations grow strongly from 2000 to 2010 and all saw their already very high white Married Parents Ratios increase markedly towards 100 percent.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 90px;\">\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>&nbsp; JESSE POWELL writes: I have made\u00a0the point before that there are serious problems with the thesis,\u00a0put forth\u00a0last week by Charles Murray, that \u201cthe upper class\u201d is doing just fine in its family behaviors while \u201cthe lower class\u201d is deteriorating dramatically. It is indeed true that \u201cthe upper class\u201d is doing better than \u201cthe lower [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-33902","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thinkinghousewife.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33902","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thinkinghousewife.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thinkinghousewife.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thinkinghousewife.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thinkinghousewife.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=33902"}],"version-history":[{"count":12,"href":"https:\/\/www.thinkinghousewife.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33902\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":33912,"href":"https:\/\/www.thinkinghousewife.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33902\/revisions\/33912"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thinkinghousewife.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33902"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thinkinghousewife.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33902"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thinkinghousewife.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33902"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}