Scan barcode
paola_mobileread's review
4.0
This book analyses class in the US from 1960s onwards. It consists of three parts: one dealing with the new elite classe, one with the new lower class, and the third part drawing some kind of conclusion.
In a nutshell, the core thesis is that a new elite class which is isolated from "mainstream" America, while at the same time a new lower class has emerged in which the core values of industriousness, centrality of marraige, religiousity and honesty have been ditched. According to Murray, the problem is that:
It is the first book by Murray that I read, and I think it is a very good read. The style is engaging, and it is packed with factual information.
I think readers of any political persuasion can safely sail through the first two parts - the last one is the more political, but in fairness to the author he makes his position clear at the outset:
Although the exposition appears to at least try to be objective, it does not always manage to: for instance, as a European I feel his description of what he calls "the Europe Syndrome" are exaggerated. Also, many people (me included) will disagree with large parts of his analysis, and a feeling of nostalgia for the good old days pervades the exposition - still, a very stimulating book even for people whose position in the political spectrum is quite far from that of the author.
In a nutshell, the core thesis is that a new elite class which is isolated from "mainstream" America, while at the same time a new lower class has emerged in which the core values of industriousness, centrality of marraige, religiousity and honesty have been ditched. According to Murray, the problem is that:
The new upper class still does a good job of practicing some of the virtues, but it no longer preaches them. It has lost self-confidence in the rightness of its own customs and values, and preaches nonjudgmentalism instead.
...
Personally and as families, its members are successful. But they have abdicated their responsibility to set and promulgate standards.
It is the first book by Murray that I read, and I think it is a very good read. The style is engaging, and it is packed with factual information.
I think readers of any political persuasion can safely sail through the first two parts - the last one is the more political, but in fairness to the author he makes his position clear at the outset:
Data can bear on policy issues, but many of our opinions about policy are grounded in premises about the nature of human life and human society that are beyond the reach of data. Try to think of any new data that would change your position on abortion, the death penalty, legalization of marijuana, same-sex marriage, or the inheritance tax. If you cannot, you are not necessarily being unreasonable.
So it has been with the evidence I have presented. A social democrat may see in parts 1 and 2 a compelling case for the redistribution of wealth. A social conservative may see a compelling case for government policies that support marriage, religion, and traditional values. I am a libertarian, and see a compelling case for returning to the founders’ conception of limited government.
In the concluding chapter, I try to explain why I see the facts in this light.
Although the exposition appears to at least try to be objective, it does not always manage to: for instance, as a European I feel his description of what he calls "the Europe Syndrome" are exaggerated. Also, many people (me included) will disagree with large parts of his analysis, and a feeling of nostalgia for the good old days pervades the exposition - still, a very stimulating book even for people whose position in the political spectrum is quite far from that of the author.
kimball_hansen's review against another edition
3.0
This was a pretty technical and heavy book full of facts and figures and acknowledgements. Not sure how people can read this stuff hard copy. I cranked this out in double speed. I've been able to do that a lot lately and I love it.
What a relief to read something by a Libertarian. So refreshing and so...right.
The author refrained from doling out specific acknowledgments to people because supposedly by being acknowledged in a book means you agree with everything they're saying and support it. What a crappy society we live in where you can't even be mentioned in a book. Perfect breeding ground for [b:The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure|36556202|The Coddling of the American Mind How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure|Jonathan Haidt|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1513836885l/36556202._SY75_.jpg|58291173]
Not sure why the author had to say "white America" in the title. It really was misleading and click-baity as everyone hates Whitey these days.
What a relief to read something by a Libertarian. So refreshing and so...right.
The author refrained from doling out specific acknowledgments to people because supposedly by being acknowledged in a book means you agree with everything they're saying and support it. What a crappy society we live in where you can't even be mentioned in a book. Perfect breeding ground for [b:The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure|36556202|The Coddling of the American Mind How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure|Jonathan Haidt|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1513836885l/36556202._SY75_.jpg|58291173]
Not sure why the author had to say "white America" in the title. It really was misleading and click-baity as everyone hates Whitey these days.
becca_g_powell's review
1.0
I admit I may have started this book from a biased point of view. I picked it up after reading at least 6 columnists in the New York Times hate on it, but I feel like I was willing to give it an honest read, but ... good heavens. Warning: this is not a nonfiction book based on evidence or studies. This is an extended op-ed, based on a false sense of nostalgia for the imagined America of the pre-1960s. It's almost entirely based on unsupported assumptions about what is True and Right and Moral, like "people used to be more honest back in the good old days," or "nobody cares about marriage anymore" or "without people caring about marriage and honesty as much, American society as we know it will implode."
I rolled my eyes so often they almost got stuck that way.
I rolled my eyes so often they almost got stuck that way.
richard_f's review
3.0
Also see the critiques:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/mind-gap_633403.html?page=1
and
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jared-bernstein/charles-murrays-coming-ap_b_1307926.html
among many others.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/mind-gap_633403.html?page=1
and
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jared-bernstein/charles-murrays-coming-ap_b_1307926.html
among many others.
wmapayne's review
2.0
Murray is a charming writer and a dogged researcher, qualities which make this book relatively good. His broad thesis--that America is developing isolated upper and lower classes that did not exist at other times in history--is defensible, and he does a good job of proving it.
However, I found some components of Murray's work to be less than satisfying. For one thing, his view of the poor is often pejorative. He seems unsympathetic to the questions of civic justice that are fundamental to any discussion of mass incarceration and the criminalization of the lower class. Also, his libertarian political views are very tightly intertwined with his thesis, causing him to make certain claims that are somewhat questionable--for instance, that the European welfare state signifies the death of all that is good in society. No one denies that welfare states have their own pitfalls, but they are the wrong culprit to blame for inequality.
This book might be worth reading for the sake of Murray's careful research, and for the little-known but alarming socioeconomic trends which he identifies, but his value judgments should be taken with a grain of salt.
However, I found some components of Murray's work to be less than satisfying. For one thing, his view of the poor is often pejorative. He seems unsympathetic to the questions of civic justice that are fundamental to any discussion of mass incarceration and the criminalization of the lower class. Also, his libertarian political views are very tightly intertwined with his thesis, causing him to make certain claims that are somewhat questionable--for instance, that the European welfare state signifies the death of all that is good in society. No one denies that welfare states have their own pitfalls, but they are the wrong culprit to blame for inequality.
This book might be worth reading for the sake of Murray's careful research, and for the little-known but alarming socioeconomic trends which he identifies, but his value judgments should be taken with a grain of salt.
thejdizzler's review
4.0
I don't agree with the solutions presented in this book, nor to the really for the explanation of the diagnosis. However, Mr. Murray has done his research, the stats don't lie. America is coming apart at the seams, and not along racial lines.
It is not hard for me to relate to the part of his thesis that deals with the upper class. Anecdotally, I would say 99% of all my friends would be in the same boat. I don't know how it was in the 60s, but at least today there's a fairly obvious segregation in all aspects of life between rich and poor people, which is also likely somewhat of an IQ divide because the increasing amounts of homogamy that Mr. Murray also talks about.
I'm not sure I agree with his solution, which involves a lot of libertarian hand-waving and relies an awful lot on the existence of "free will" (newsflash, there is no such thing). Automation is only going to make the problem worse. However, where can agree is that this fixation on race doesn't seem to be helping much. I have no doubt that our justice system is unjust, but both this and Just Mercy make me think that is biased towards poor people in general, not just poor black people. Telling poor white people their problems don't matter because they're "privleged" seems like a great way to start a race war.
It is not hard for me to relate to the part of his thesis that deals with the upper class. Anecdotally, I would say 99% of all my friends would be in the same boat. I don't know how it was in the 60s, but at least today there's a fairly obvious segregation in all aspects of life between rich and poor people, which is also likely somewhat of an IQ divide because the increasing amounts of homogamy that Mr. Murray also talks about.
I'm not sure I agree with his solution, which involves a lot of libertarian hand-waving and relies an awful lot on the existence of "free will" (newsflash, there is no such thing). Automation is only going to make the problem worse. However, where can agree is that this fixation on race doesn't seem to be helping much. I have no doubt that our justice system is unjust, but both this and Just Mercy make me think that is biased towards poor people in general, not just poor black people. Telling poor white people their problems don't matter because they're "privleged" seems like a great way to start a race war.
liberrydude's review
1.0
A major disappointment- I got one third of the way through it and couldn't go further-even started spot reading the rest and the summary, if there was one. Started off rather interesting but descended into mind numbing graphs and matrices to prove his point. I grew up in a super zip. I'm worse off now than I was thirty years ago and I've reached the pinnacle in my former profession. He doesn't give any treatment of the impact of the car and suburbs on society-that leads to isolation surely. Yes, there is a class divide but rich people marrying rich people and college people marrying college people isn't the cause. Then there's the loss of virtue by America and we are no longer exceptional due to our loss of virtue. America was such a virtuous place in days bygone denying women the right to vote,killing Indians for sport, and keeping blacks as second class citizens while asking them to fight for their country. Maybe the continual emphasis on this egomaniacal American exceptionalism is why we are in our current state. By denying our exceptionalism we've become more European-wouldn't want to do that now-socialism, welfare state. And the more we exhort our exceptionalism the more we really aren't-how true. And it's all my fault because I don't drink Budweiser any more because I'm a college educated person who lives in a gated community.
almartin's review
1.0
Bottom line: this is a vicious, vicious book.
The questions that Murray is writing about (inequality, poverty, ever-advancing class segregation) are really important, and there's some extremely clever methodological stuff at play here (the super-Zips analysis was profound and revealing; the class directory analysis for Harvard Business School alums was ingenius), but fundamentally this book is a jeremiad, castigating poor people for vice, laziness, and immorality.
They don't get married:
They don't go to church:
They don't work:
And Murray's not just describing the ravages of poverty - this isn't How The Other Half Lives - it's How The Other Half's Vices Are Destroying The Republic--actually, take it way, Charles:
And the solution? In part, shame, scorn, and judgement:
Let me put it plainly - this isn't a serious book. It's ideology masquerading as social science. It cites the GSS an awful lot for ideology, but the methodological rigor involved in cataloguing Fishtown's ills is completely absent in conversations about causality or consequences.
Let's close with Murray on public policy, which I will present without further editorial comment:
The questions that Murray is writing about (inequality, poverty, ever-advancing class segregation) are really important, and there's some extremely clever methodological stuff at play here (the super-Zips analysis was profound and revealing; the class directory analysis for Harvard Business School alums was ingenius), but fundamentally this book is a jeremiad, castigating poor people for vice, laziness, and immorality.
They don't get married:
...the percentage of children living with both biological parents when the mother was 40 was sinking below the 30 percent level, compared to 90 percent of Belmont children who were still living with both biological parents. The divergence is so large that it puts the women of Belmont and Fishtown into different family cultures. The absolute level in Fishtown is so low that it calls into question the viability of white working-class communities as a place for socializing the next generation.
They don't go to church:
People who don’t go to church can be just as morally upright as those who do, but as a group they do not generate the social capital that the churchgoing population generates—it’s not “their fault” that social capital deteriorates, but that doesn’t make the deterioration any less real. The empirical relationships that exist among marriage, industriousness, honesty, religiosity, and a self-governing society mean that the damage is done...
They don't work:
To sum up: There is no evidence that men without jobs in the 2000s before the 2008 recession hit were trying hard to find work but failing. It was undoubtedly true of some, but not true of the average jobless man. The simpler explanation is that white males of the 2000s were less industrious than they had been twenty, thirty, or fifty years ago, and that the decay in industriousness occurred overwhelmingly in Fishtown.
And Murray's not just describing the ravages of poverty - this isn't How The Other Half Lives - it's How The Other Half's Vices Are Destroying The Republic--actually, take it way, Charles:
people who have never quite gotten their acts together and are the despair of the parents and siblings, even though they seem perfectly pleasant when you meet them. That’s mostly what the new lower class involves. Individually, they’re not much of a problem. Collectively, they can destroy the kind of civil society that America requires.
And the solution? In part, shame, scorn, and judgement:
Nonjudgmentalism ceases to be baffling if you think of it as a symptom of Toynbee’s loss of self-confidence among the dominant minority. The new upper class doesn’t want to push its way of living onto the less fortunate, for who are they to say that their way of living is really better? It works for them, but who is to say that it will work for others.
Let me put it plainly - this isn't a serious book. It's ideology masquerading as social science. It cites the GSS an awful lot for ideology, but the methodological rigor involved in cataloguing Fishtown's ills is completely absent in conversations about causality or consequences.
the labor force problems that grew in Fishtown from 1960 to 2010 are intimately connected with the increase in the number of unmarried men in Fishtown.It's as if public policy or changes in the macroeconomy simply didn't exist between 1960 and 2010 - you simply have private men and women, making choices wholly in a vacuum. The closest thing we get to an acknowledgement that private choices intersect with broader structures is a sidenote about changes to Ivy League admissions in the 60's - but that takes us to another of Murray's hobby-horses, IQ, and let's not go down that road.
Let's close with Murray on public policy, which I will present without further editorial comment:
When the government intervenes to help, whether in the European welfare state or in America’s more diluted version, it not only diminishes our responsibility for the desired outcome, it enfeebles the institutions through which people live satisfying lives. There is no way for clever planners to avoid it. Marriage is a strong and vital institution not because the day-to-day work of raising children and being a good spouse is so much fun, but because the family has responsibility for doing important things that won’t get done unless the family does them. Communities are strong and vital not because it’s so much fun to respond to our neighbors’ needs, but because the community has the responsibility for doing important things that won’t get done unless the community does them. Once that imperative has been met—family and community really do have the action—then an elaborate web of expectations, rewards, and punishments evolves over time. Together, that web leads to norms of good behavior that support families and communities in performing their functions. When the government says it will take some of the trouble out of doing the things that families and communities evolved to do, it inevitably takes some of the action away from families and communities. The web frays, and eventually disintegrates.
indianajane's review
4.0
This is one of those books that puts into hard facts the things that we can see happening all around us. And, not surprisingly, those who don't like the facts choose to blame the messenger.