JESSE POWELL writes:

I have made the point before that there are serious problems with the thesis, put forth last week by Charles Murray, that “the upper class” is doing just fine in its family behaviors while “the lower class” is deteriorating dramatically. It is indeed true that “the upper class” is doing better than “the lower class” but this is merely a class distinction; it does not indicate a cultural divide. The same overall culture has within it people who are “better off” and people who are “worse off” and not surprisingly the people who are “better off” are better off; their social indicators show fewer problems. 

The key question is whether the “upper class” is maintaining its family cohesion while the “lower class” 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.

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 of 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.

Definitions: “White” means non-Hispanic white alone. “Top 0.1%” means that 99.9 percent of white children lived in Census Tracts with lower White MPRs and lower White MFRs in the state. The  White Married Parents Ratio is the proportion of white children who are “own children” that live with married parents. An “own child” is the biological or adopted or step-child of the householder. The White Married Families Ratio is the proportion of white families with “own children” in which the parents of those children were married.

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

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’t necessarily go together. As The New York Times headline says “A Village With the Numbers, Not the Image, of the Poorest Place:”

“The 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.”

The Times article is about the 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 and the White Married Families Ratio was 98.4 percent. In the 2000 Census, these ratios were 98.0 percent and 97.5 percent respectively. 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.

Mr. Powell adds:

To more specifically address Charles Murray’s article, I note that he says, “The 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.”

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.

Murray seems to be advocating for what I’ll call the “Class Approach” to solving America’s 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.

The approach that I advocate I’ll call the “Religious Approach;” 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.

The problem with the “Class Approach” 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 “the secret” of how to maintain a healthy family life from generation to generation. The second problem with the “Class Approach” 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.

The “Religious Approach” does not have the disadvantages of the “Class Approach” because the patriarchal religious value system truly is separate from the feminist secular value system. In addition, the “Religious Approach” 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.

To bolster my point that the “Religious Approach” is superior to the “Class Approach,” below are tables indicating the success in real life of each model. The first table is based on Charles Murray’s “Top 10 SuperZIPs” that represent the most upper class ZIP Codes in the United States in the year 2000; this table will represent the “Class Approach.” 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 “Religious Approach.”

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.

Definitions: “White” means non-Hispanic white alone. The White Married Parents Ratio is the proportion of white children who are “own children” that live with married parents. An “own child” is the biological or adopted or step-child of the householder. “WCP” stands for “White Child Population” and “WMPR” stands for “White Married Parents Ratio”.

Top 10 SuperZIPs – The leading upper class ZIP Codes in the 2000 Census: Number of White Children and White Married Parents Ratio in 2000 and 2010

Five Leading Haredi Jewish Communities in New York and New Jersey: Number of White Children and White Married Parents Ratio in 2000 and 2010

You will see from the above tables that in real life the “Religious Approach” is working much better than the “Class Approach.” 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.

Please follow and like us: