January 26, 2012
— Ace Maetenloch linked this in the ONT last night. It seems like it should be discussed by people who aren't drunk.
He sets up two hypothetical towns -- "Belmont," upper middle class, and "Fishtown," working class; both are mostly white -- and uses thej to illustrate data from the latest General Social Survey.
In Belmont and Fishtown, here's what happened to America's common culture between 1960 and 2010.Marriage: In 1960, extremely high proportions of whites in both Belmont and Fishtown were married—94% in Belmont and 84% in Fishtown. In the 1970s, those percentages declined about equally in both places. Then came the great divergence. In Belmont, marriage stabilized during the mid-1980s, standing at 83% in 2010. In Fishtown, however, marriage continued to slide; as of 2010, a minority (just 48%) were married. The gap in marriage between Belmont and Fishtown grew to 35 percentage points, from just 10.
Single parenthood: Another aspect of marriage—the percentage of children born to unmarried women—showed just as great a divergence. Though politicians and media eminences are too frightened to say so, nonmarital births are problematic. On just about any measure of development you can think of, children who are born to unmarried women fare worse than the children of divorce and far worse than children raised in intact families. This unwelcome reality persists even after controlling for the income and education of the parents.
In 1960, just 2% of all white births were nonmarital. When we first started recording the education level of mothers in 1970, 6% of births to white women with no more than a high-school education—women, that is, with a Fishtown education—were out of wedlock. By 2008, 44% were nonmarital. Among the college-educated women of Belmont, less than 6% of all births were out of wedlock as of 2008, up from 1% in 1970.
Industriousness: The norms for work and women were revolutionized after 1960, but the norm for men putatively has remained the same: Healthy men are supposed to work. In practice, though, that norm has eroded everywhere. In Fishtown, the change has been drastic. (To avoid conflating this phenomenon with the latest recession, I use data collected in March 2008 as the end point for the trends.)
The primary indicator of the erosion of industriousness in the working class is the increase of prime-age males with no more than a high school education who say they are not available for work—they are "out of the labor force." That percentage went from a low of 3% in 1968 to 12% in 2008. Twelve percent may not sound like much until you think about the men we're talking about: in the prime of their working lives, their 30s and 40s, when, according to hallowed American tradition, every American man is working or looking for work. Almost one out of eight now aren't. Meanwhile, not much has changed among males with college educations. Only 3% were out of the labor force in 2008.
There's also been a notable change in the rates of less-than-full-time work. Of the men in Fishtown who had jobs, 10% worked fewer than 40 hours a week in 1960, a figure that grew to 20% by 2008. In Belmont, the number rose from 9% in 1960 to 12% in 2008.
I'm skipping the part on crime; see it at the link.
This is surprising. Those who bitterly cling to their religion ain't who the media thinks:
Religiosity: Whatever your personal religious views, you need to realize that about half of American philanthropy, volunteering and associational memberships is directly church-related, and that religious Americans also account for much more nonreligious social capital than their secular neighbors. In that context, it is worrisome for the culture that the U.S. as a whole has become markedly more secular since 1960, and especially worrisome that Fishtown has become much more secular than Belmont. It runs against the prevailing narrative of secular elites versus a working class still clinging to religion, but the evidence from the General Social Survey, the most widely used database on American attitudes and values, does not leave much room for argument.For example, suppose we define "de facto secular" as someone who either professes no religion at all or who attends a worship service no more than once a year. For the early GSS surveys conducted from 1972 to 1976, 29% of Belmont and 38% of Fishtown fell into that category. Over the next three decades, secularization did indeed grow in Belmont, from 29% in the 1970s to 40% in the GSS surveys taken from 2006 to 2010. But it grew even more in Fishtown, from 38% to 59%.
These numbers don't match The Narrative, which may be why the media was so utterly befuddled when reporting on the Tea Party. First thing out of the gate, they tried to report them as being Very Religious and, of course, Quite Poor and Uneducated.
Then they realized the Tea Party was actually wealthier than the mean, and began reporting on them being arch-plutocrats. Oddly, at this point, they dropped the "Very Religious" meme, I guess because It Did Not Compute that someone could be pretty wealthy and pretty religious.
Basically they just started to babble. On a dime they went from "Poor Jesus-Trash, let's mock them" to "Rich people, let's mock them."
I'm a little confused by the article, because it seems like he begins starting with an indictment of the New Upper Class (which he seems to scorn), implying that they've lost touch with the Working Class. But then he shifts, it seems, to a Upper Middle Class which he contrasts favorably with the Working Class.
Given the data points he cites, I'm not sure he can make the case the starts out making -- after all, if "Belmont" produces so many better outcomes, culturally, than "Fishtown," why would someone want to keep touch with the habits and practices of "Fishtown"? Seems like the more important question is "How do we get 'Fishtown' to take notice of the habits of 'Belmont'?"
Or is he actually saying that the true Upper Class is the most religious, and the Working Class much more secular?
Maybe it's just that the data won't support the typical screed about an out-of-touch elite or whatever but he tries to hammer the numbers into compliance. I'm not sure. But given his data, while I was all set to read a "Let's mock people who watch Mad Men" (even though I've seen the show myself) it's really, ultimately, "Hey, shouldn't people who aren't watching Mad Men try to change so they'd be the sort of people who would watch Mad Men"?
There's an old saw that goes thus: The Middle Class does most of the stuff they're supposed to do, because they are socially mobile, in both directions. Their status could rise; their status could also fall. They are then insecure in their position, which is a good thing, as it keeps them on the ball.
The elite class can afford to indulge themselves a bit, because seriously, they'd have to really try super-hard to fall into poverty. At worse they'd fall down a few pegs in the social ladder, and they've got a lot of cushion there.
But the true lower class -- not the striving class, but the lower class that doesn't hope for much improvement, and self-identifies as lower class and proud of it -- also mimics the bad indulgences of the elites, for similar but different reasons: They think they can't really fall too much farther (being near the bottom), and also doubt their ability to rise much, so it really doesn't matter all that much.
But of course it does; a steady salary of $35,000 per year is a lot different than a salary of $20,000 per year.
Thus the old conservative saw that at the top and bottom of society, you find similar moral habits; but those at the top can afford the high costs of their indulgences, whereas those on the bottom -- and especially their children -- cannot.
Interesting food for thought. The data wound up going in places I didn't expect. I am chastened to find I've bought into The Narrative myself. But despite all the rhetoric about the virtuous and industrious non-elites, it turns out that it is, in fact, probably better to be more elite.
Which I guess should have been obvious, even absent the numbers.
Posted by: Ace at
08:01 AM
| Comments (220)
Post contains 1409 words, total size 8 kb.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Team Meteor. Now with Cheesecake at January 26, 2012 08:04 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: wheatie at January 26, 2012 08:04 AM (ALwK/)
Here it is in a nutshell:
http://www.fredoneverything.net/In1955.shtml
Posted by: Links Hinks at January 26, 2012 08:07 AM (cEdZt)
One of the aspects of religion (almost any religion, really, but especially Christianity) is a sort of voluntary collectivism- and idea that we're all "going the same place." As such, while it lauds benevolence and charity as virtues, it also makes no bones about "if a man won't work, he shouldn't eat," or that you should "work with your own hands," and all sorts of things.
Basically, Christianity (really any religion, but especially Christianity) can actually do (to some extent, anyway) what socialism claims it can do- get everyone to work for a common, instead of their individual, good.
Given that, it makes sense that Christians over the generations have generally prospered from their hard work (and thus have moved from FishTown to Belmont) and now are sharing the fruits of that labor with those around them.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Team Meteor. Now with Cheesecake at January 26, 2012 08:08 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Have Blue at January 26, 2012 08:08 AM (IKTC8)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at January 26, 2012 08:10 AM (0q2P7)
Thus the old conservative saw that at the top and bottom of society, you find similar moral habits; but those at the top can afford the high costs of their indulgences, whereas those on the bottom -- and especially their children -- cannot.
I think this a general theme of Adam Corolla's new book "Rich and Poor" or something. The Really Rich and Really Poor have Multiple Cars: The really rich have multiple nice new cars; the really poor have a bunch of cars in their back yard. etc...
The marriage/single parent stuff is critical to conservatism. There can not be small government in America AND a large number of single-parent homes. Such families simply need too much government support. I think 40% of all US births are out of wedlock. Once it's a majority: game over.
Posted by: CJ at January 26, 2012 08:11 AM (9KqcB)
Posted by: phoenixgirl....a voter without a candidate at January 26, 2012 08:12 AM (Ho2rs)
Posted by: Truman North at January 26, 2012 08:12 AM (I2LwF)
Posted by: CJ at January 26, 2012 08:12 AM (9KqcB)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Team Meteor. Now with Cheesecake at January 26, 2012 08:13 AM (8y9MW)
I had friends who thought that doing asbestos abatement was way beneath them when I did it for awhile. Several specifically mocked it as "working with your hands". Yet any of them would probably consider themselves working class.
Posted by: Have Blue at January 26, 2012 08:13 AM (IKTC8)
He is an idiot...pure and simple...end of story.
http://bit.ly/wnBEub
Posted by: ABO at January 26, 2012 08:14 AM (MbeEN)
"Rich people, let's mock them."
Not only mock them....but Teh Rich have become the boogey men, the demons who come in the night to eat your children.....the ones who are the cause of all that is bad in the world.
.
So would someone please explain to me.....why is it a good idea to run a guy like Romney at a time like this? .....If the "evil rich sumbitch" meme were not enough fodder for the Dims to exploit, then, as an added bonus....they've got the "Mormon cultist" thing to use as well.
Posted by: wheatie at January 26, 2012 08:14 AM (ALwK/)
Posted by: Avi at January 26, 2012 08:14 AM (Gx3Fe)
I'd like a further exploration of how upper-crust youth (Tom Wolfe wrote about them in I Am Charlotte Simmons) have adopted the culture of the lower classes -- the hip-hop, rank promiscuity, and only-slightly-higher falling-off clothing, for example.
I guess that crap disappears when it's time to see Daddy's contacts about a State Dept./Wall St. job.
Posted by: Michael Rittenhouse at January 26, 2012 08:15 AM (plI4b)
Posted by: Noot - the right choice for Fishtown! at January 26, 2012 08:15 AM (+lsX1)
Posted by: garrett at January 26, 2012 08:16 AM (nKPY4)
Posted by: DarkLord©, Rogue Commenter at January 26, 2012 08:16 AM (GBXon)
Posted by: Meggy Mac at January 26, 2012 08:16 AM (5wsU9)
Posted by: Count de Monet at January 26, 2012 08:16 AM (4q5tP)
They were doing it first. Well, they're the ones who popularized it.
And, again: they can afford to.
Coming up next week (a week from today, I think) I even have a post about this very subject (I'm tempted to go ahead and publish it... naaa. It'll keep.)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Team Meteor. Now with Cheesecake at January 26, 2012 08:16 AM (8y9MW)
Yeah, well: common sense isn't.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Team Meteor. Now with Cheesecake at January 26, 2012 08:17 AM (8y9MW)
Great. Because that whole Arab Spring has worked out so well.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at January 26, 2012 08:18 AM (UOM48)
12 YES RUSH, I DO MISS PERRY........
.
Me too. .....And now, after the carnage of all those dumbass debates is over, and Newt-the-best-debater is doing well.....this thing now about how "The Debates Don't Matter" is really hard to choke down.
Posted by: wheatie at January 26, 2012 08:18 AM (ALwK/)
Posted by: wheatie at January 26, 2012 12:14 PM (ALwK/)
My theory is they won't use it. The same reason they are hammering Noot on his dalliances: they need the Evangelicals to dump Noot in the primaries, because most of the Independants don't care about where Noot's Noot was 20 years ago. And I don't think the Indies care about Mittens being a Mormon, either.
Posted by: Country Singer at January 26, 2012 08:18 AM (L8r/r)
Posted by: Truman North at January 26, 2012 08:19 AM (I2LwF)
Posted by: Cricket at January 26, 2012 08:19 AM (DrC22)
Posted by: maddogg at January 26, 2012 08:19 AM (OlN4e)
Well, if there were any doubts that he supported (or at least was okay with) the Islamification (further Islamification?) of Egypt, those should be put to rest.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Team Meteor. Now with Cheesecake at January 26, 2012 08:19 AM (8y9MW)
Yes, he's out of fashion, and he's difficult to read, and he was a major egghead.
He did, however, point out something that applies here.
Society becomes more like those who they hold in regard. Prior to the mid-1960s, this would have been the successful, whether in business, science, or government. After the 1960s, it included musicians (Jim Morrison, Kurt Cobain, Amy Winehouse) and actors and sports stars.
Religion, by the way, acts as a sort of brake on cultural change - it's relatively consistent through time, and overall is much more resistant to change than government or musical taste or hollywood fashion...
What is surprising is how few (myself included) get this.
Mew
Posted by: acat at January 26, 2012 08:20 AM (4UkCP)
Posted by: Muslim Brotherhood at January 26, 2012 08:21 AM (jucos)
I'm a little confused by the article
It's just grampa Charles "Bell Curve" Murray being grumpy again because kids today don't like taffy pulls and barbershop quartets like in the good old days.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 26, 2012 08:21 AM (3wBRE)
You just have to know how to ask nicely.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Team Meteor. Now with Cheesecake at January 26, 2012 12:13 PM (8y9MW)
italics
<i>italics</i>
<em>italics?</em>
Posted by: CJ at January 26, 2012 08:22 AM (9KqcB)
Posted by: Bill C at January 26, 2012 08:22 AM (EbFF3)
Well, if there were any doubts that he supported (or at least was okay with) the Islamification (further Islamification?) of Egypt, those should be put to rest.
Who the hell could have doubted that he allegiance is owed to the likes of Rashid Khalidi? Why would the LA Times have hidden that video, otherwise?
Posted by: garrett at January 26, 2012 08:22 AM (nKPY4)
Well, it's more than that. It's sort of pointing out that the 1% really is the problem. On both ends of the income spectrum. The upper 1% can afford to be lazy and immoral- so they are. The bottom 1% think nothing worse can happen to them if they're lazy and immoral- so they are.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Team Meteor. Now with Cheesecake at January 26, 2012 08:23 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: ace at January 26, 2012 08:23 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: garrett at January 26, 2012 08:24 AM (nKPY4)
**It's just grampa Charles "Bell Curve" Murray being grumpy again because kids today don't like taffy pulls and barbershop quartets like in the good old days.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 26, 2012 12:21 PM (3wBRE)**
Or marry their children's father. That too.
Posted by: CJ at January 26, 2012 08:24 AM (9KqcB)
<em>italics?</em>
Posted by: CJ at January 26, 2012 12:22 PM (9KqcB)
.
CJ, you have to use [ i] and [ /i] to get italics. Remove the space I put to show you how it works in between the brackets.
Posted by: Tami at January 26, 2012 08:24 AM (X6akg)
Just let it go dude. They all suck at this point. They just all suck differently. Let yourself give up hope and die inside, and you'll feel better.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at January 26, 2012 08:25 AM (0q2P7)
No offense intended but, you often believe The Narrative, ace.
It may be your location, or just the bubble you inhabit.
Posted by: toby928© at January 26, 2012 08:25 AM (GTbGH)
Posted by: ace at January 26, 2012 08:25 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Palerider at January 26, 2012 08:25 AM (vL0Nv)
You have to use square brackets [ ] instead of angle brackets < >
so <i>italics</i> becomes [ i ]italics[ /i ]
Just remove the spaces in those square brackets.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Team Meteor. Now with Cheesecake at January 26, 2012 08:25 AM (8y9MW)
31 they've got the "Mormon cultist" thing to use as well.
Posted by: wheatie at January 26, 2012 12:14 PM (ALwK/)
My theory is they won't use it. The same reason they are hammering Noot on his dalliances: they need the Evangelicals to dump Noot in the primaries, because most of the Independants don't care about where Noot's Noot was 20 years ago. And I don't think the Indies care about Mittens being a Mormon, either.
.
You must believe in the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny too.
.
Why do you think that there have been so many anti-Mormon tv shows and movies in recent years? .....People have largely been indifferent to Mormonism. .....But if Romney is our nominee, the anti-Mormon propaganda will flow 24/7 on all the liberal-controlled media-entertainment outlets.
Posted by: wheatie at January 26, 2012 08:25 AM (ALwK/)
Posted by: phoenixgirl....a voter without a candidate at January 26, 2012 08:26 AM (Ho2rs)
Posted by: Inspector Asshole at January 26, 2012 08:26 AM (K1qrq)
Posted by: Auntie Doodles at January 26, 2012 08:26 AM (6uXZa)
hey, you see this?
Scott Brown approached Obama right after the STFU speech and told him all he needs to do get the insider trading ban done was call Harry Reid. Obama said yeah yeah, sure sure, I'm gonna tell him.
Well, Scott Brown has the video up and he's holding Obama to it!
Just words, Obama? Yeah, that's what we thought.
Posted by: soothsayer at January 26, 2012 08:26 AM (sqkOB)
Posted by: Hollowpoint (circa 1500) at January 26, 2012 08:26 AM (ggRof)
Posted by: ace at January 26, 2012 08:26 AM (nj1bB)
***
Ignoring the actual religious aspects of religion, and just focusing on its function this is EXTREMELY disconcerting.
Organized religion is what allowed for societies above tribal stage to exist in the first place.
When religion has successfully been purged from the governing class of society - see National Socialist Germany or the USSR - the effects are horrific.
Posted by: Bill Clinton at January 26, 2012 08:27 AM (7BU4a)
It's allbeengoing downhill since women got the vote.
Posted by: garrett at January 26, 2012 12:24 PM (nKPY4)
Stands, begins slow clapping.
Posted by: Count de Monet at January 26, 2012 08:27 AM (4q5tP)
Posted by: CheshireLion at January 26, 2012 08:29 AM (tqE0E)
Posted by: Dr Spank at January 26, 2012 08:29 AM (Sh42X)
The crowd of a few thousand watching his every move and cheering every chance they got.
Not a lot of Republicans around here.
The PresidentÂ’s speech lasted less than 30 minutes than he headed off to Las Vegas.
http://tinyurl.com/729paeh Posted by: phoenixgirl....a voter without a candidate at January 26, 2012 12:26 PM
It looks like the SEIU and other union slugs have been ordered to show up and cheer for the SCOAMF wherever he goes.
Posted by: kbdabear at January 26, 2012 08:29 AM (Y+DPZ)
maybe italics work in different browser; they do not work in firefag
I can't even use the ampersand &-test in firefag.
Posted by: soothsayer at January 26, 2012 08:29 AM (sqkOB)
You have to use square brackets [ ] instead of angle brackets < >
so <i>italics</i> becomes [ i ]italics[ /i ] Just remove the spaces in those square brackets. Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Team Meteor. Now with Cheesecake at January 26, 2012 12:25 PM (8y9MW)
Thank you, sir. It is vital in reminding me the difference in what others said, and what I said.
Posted by: CJ at January 26, 2012 08:29 AM (9KqcB)
Posted by: BlackOrchidHeartlessAgain at January 26, 2012 08:30 AM (SB0V2)
The various forms of govt social welfare programs ensure (or encourage) lack of marriage. People lose funding for becoming a traditional family.
Of course, replacing the family (and religion) is a priority for socialists and commies.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 26, 2012 08:30 AM (XrrP7)
Posted by: Dave at January 26, 2012 08:30 AM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: phoenixgirl....a voter without a candidate at January 26, 2012 08:30 AM (Ho2rs)
49.....They all suck at this point. They just all suck differently. Let yourself give up hope and die inside, and you'll feel better.
.
Oh, I know they all suck at this point. .....But I am still clinging to the hope that we can beat the SCoaMT. .....And with Romney I really don't think we have a chance.
Posted by: wheatie at January 26, 2012 08:31 AM (ALwK/)
Posted by: Typical Liberal at January 26, 2012 08:31 AM (F6KtL)
Posted by: Tami at January 26, 2012 12:24 PM (X6akg)
Thanks. Now I can italicize the shit out of this place.
Posted by: CJ at January 26, 2012 08:31 AM (9KqcB)
Posted by: ace at January 26, 2012 12:26 PM (nj1bB)
I never thought of the Tea Party as fulminating against the elites (unless you mean the elite media or DC elite). I thought they fulminated against big government and spending.
Posted by: Tami at January 26, 2012 08:31 AM (X6akg)
"Just Words?"
Would make for a good vid to cut our teeth on. Play all of Obama's empty promises and then follow it with Obama asking, "Just words?"
Posted by: soothsayer at January 26, 2012 08:31 AM (sqkOB)
The crowd of a few thousand watching his every move and cheering every chance they got.
Not a lot of Republicans around here.
We have to remember Congress has stopped him at every turn” said one supporter.
“He knows more than any of us, we have to remember that” said another.
Dear God. There's so much stupid there it hurts.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at January 26, 2012 08:32 AM (UOM48)
Posted by: phoenixgirl....a voter without a candidate at January 26, 2012 08:32 AM (Ho2rs)
Posted by: phoenixgirl....a voter without a candidate at January 26, 2012 08:32 AM (Ho2rs)
>>>no brown was up on a step, you can see him step down after the crowd passes
oh, okay
I was gonna say, wow, Scott Brown must be close to 7' tall!
Posted by: soothsayer at January 26, 2012 08:32 AM (sqkOB)
But hold on. Is that statement even true? It all depends. If moving from 20K to 35K moves you from a taker to a taxpayer it probably means you end up with the same OR LESS ability to buy stuff. It gets better because it is all 'needs based.'
Compare a single male earning $20K to a single female with two crotchfruits earning $10K from some part time job and compare and contrast their total lifestyle. One won't get much of anything from the government while the other gets housing, utilities and food right off the top free and clear. Then add another approx $4K in EIC coming from uncle sugar every January in a nice lump sum to buy a vehicle or flatscreen with. The poor guy almost certainly has no medical coverage while her and her sprogs get a free ride from Medicaid.
Posted by: John Morris at January 26, 2012 08:32 AM (sCRhB)
The rich have their own means, and can do pretty much what they want. They're largely amoral and will pursue pleasure assuming the money stays intact. They're liberal or mildly leftist because it allows them to keep the money and get government to act as their shield against the lower classes.
The middle class has means created through their work, usually intellectual work. They have come to realize that hard work and religious faith, combined with a disdain for government intervention, can create a good life. They are more conservative largely because they must be vigilant against attempts to reduce their class. Note also that the higher in the middle class you go, the more liberal you tend to get, as those at the top of the middle class are more likely to work for or with the government.
The lower class is the class most connected to government; in this sense they are essentially serfs. They are paid by the government not to make trouble. As such, they feel entitled to assuage their feelings of despair and ennui with booze/drugs/random sex.
Posted by: joncelli, too stressed by half at January 26, 2012 08:33 AM (RD7QR)
I was completely a-religious through college although I had gone to a religion affliated prep school (if you can call episcopalianism a religion), started researching religion in grad school, started attending mass after my first master's, and converted after my second. My husband went back to Church after he got his law degree and saw the sonogram of his first child.
Guess we completely throw off their meme.
Posted by: dagny at January 26, 2012 08:34 AM (w+PM8)
Posted by: Hollywood at January 26, 2012 08:35 AM (Xm1aB)
Constitutional scholar bitches!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Typical Liberal at January 26, 2012 08:35 AM (F6KtL)
I'm not buying that. Being "elite" is not strictly a function of station, it is a function of social division, that is formed by the "elite". Hence you have to believe your group is "elite" in order to be one. Usually once a group identifies itself as elite, it looks for ways to exclude and differentiate itself from those outside the group.
You yourself have written article after article about this social division. You even discovered the word shibboleth. Your material standing in the social structure is only one small part of what it takes to be "elite" these days. Part of being "elite" nowadays includes a strong belief that government should run everything because it would be "better and more fair for everyone"
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at January 26, 2012 08:35 AM (0q2P7)
He's not using 2 classes.
The middle class is the middle class.
Belmont is the New Upper Class, and Fishtown is the New Lower Class.
Posted by: Entropy, Racism Delenda Est at January 26, 2012 08:35 AM (mf67L)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 26, 2012 08:36 AM (N09cC)
Culture leads Politics. Politics follows Culture. Not the other way around.
A lot of conservatives cringe at "social issues," thinking it's just about gay marriage and abortion, and dismiss it as beneath them. They work top-down. The Left knows better. They shape culture, and the politicans, and the resulting government, follows.
Posted by: CJ at January 26, 2012 08:36 AM (9KqcB)
When I read sentences like that, it doesn't make me very optimistic for the future
Posted by: Captain Hate at January 26, 2012 08:36 AM (yowgW)
It's over guys. The white population is steadily declining, and we will be a one party state by 2030 by virtue of the non-white vote. Mark my words.
The non-white population does not accept American culture, in fact they are told that said culture is evil and keeps them down.
Just don't act shocked when it happens.
Posted by: Chris at January 26, 2012 08:36 AM (fsFpl)
---
The best example of this are at bowling alleys.
And, yes, the "elite" bowlers have asked me to leave on occasion. ;-)
Posted by: Y-not at January 26, 2012 08:37 AM (5H6zj)
Why do you think that there have been so many anti-Mormon tv shows and movies in recent years?
Evidently I need to watch more TV and movies.
Posted by: Country Singer at January 26, 2012 08:37 AM (L8r/r)
The non-white population does not accept American culture, in fact they are told that said culture is evil and keeps them down.
Just don't act shocked when it happens.
Posted by: Chris at January 26, 2012 12:36 PM (fsFpl)
As portly as I am I'll probably be dead by then. And if not I'll have a stroke from the rage and despair, so win/win.
Posted by: joncelli, too stressed by half at January 26, 2012 08:37 AM (RD7QR)
44.....Anyone buying that class is emerging now or strengthening to a noteworthy degree?
It's the 'union-izable class', Ace. .....The narrative that "you need to be in a union to survive" has been in the works since the 80's when the unions began to start declining, because of so many jobs being lost here and sent overseas.
.
And who do the union bosses demonize? .....The Rich.
Posted by: wheatie at January 26, 2012 08:38 AM (ALwK/)
whose best friend floats in the bottom of a glass..."
Posted by: M. Murcek at January 26, 2012 08:38 AM (ToZXn)
I guess I am reading it different, maybe I am reading it wrong even, but I think he is pointing out that Fishtown is being influenced in the wrong direction due to the culture (which is being overly influenced by the govt).
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 26, 2012 08:39 AM (XrrP7)
We have lost the ability to feel shame at our actions. It's okay to give birth out of wedlock, it's encouraged. It's okay to spew filth out of your mouth in a public place. It's okay to be rude and impolite to other people. The coarsening of the culture and the debasing of life.
Posted by: mpfs at January 26, 2012 08:39 AM (iYbLN)
It's over guys. The white population is steadily declining... Mark my words.
The non-white population does not accept American culture...
Posted by: Chris at January 26, 2012 12:36 PM (fsFpl)
Glad to know that I have your support!
Posted by: luaP noR at January 26, 2012 08:39 AM (nKPY4)
Posted by: dagny at January 26, 2012 08:39 AM (w+PM8)
Posted by: ace at January 26, 2012 08:39 AM (nj1bB)
Anyone buying that class is emerging now or strengthening to a noteworthy degree?
Posted by: ace at January 26, 2012 12:23 PM
No. Class is an isolated circle of people that is careful of whom it allows in, whether poor or rich. They tak pride in the elements of their class. I think it will always exist. Our whole history has been a struggle of the lower class to move up. Just because they have the opportunity and are often successful doesn't mean that class doesn't exist. Again, it's a guarantee of the pursuit of happiness not a guarantee of success. And there are various forms of class, from the money makes things possible to the cultural elites with their puersuit of education and culture. So it's difficult to define as a monolithic stuctrure.
Posted by: Deanna at January 26, 2012 08:39 AM (xDEoe)
Martha Thurson, from Tucson, came because her son, in Intel employee invited her. She calls it one of the best days of her life. “He is great. His mind is sharp. And when people don’t like what he is doing I just think he knows more than they do. And I was right."
ms. thurson, you are an idiot
Posted by: phoenixgirl....a voter without a candidate at January 26, 2012 12:32 PM (Ho2rs)
Don’t underestimate the appeal to “normal” people of having someone smarter than they are in charge. People have a natural tendency to want to believe there are a group of “betters” who are thinking all the hard thoughts and coming up with answers for the benefit of the masses.
Democrats play to this all the time.
Posted by: jwest at January 26, 2012 08:40 AM (FdndL)
I said this the other day and someone, Allen I think, wanted to argue that religion/shame/prosperity were unrelated.
Posted by: dagny at January 26, 2012 08:40 AM (w+PM8)
CHANDLER, AZ - President Obama was treated like a rock star in Chandler today.
“We have to remember Congress has stopped him at every turn” said one supporter.
“He knows more than any of us, we have to remember that” said another.
Martha Thurson, from Tucson, came because her son, in Intel employee invited her. She calls it one of the best days of her life. “He is great. His mind is sharp. And when people don’t like what he is doing I just think he knows more than they do. And I was right."
$20 bucks says each of these 3 Obamabots displays their Obama commemorative plates in a prime location in their homes.
Posted by: Count de Monet at January 26, 2012 08:40 AM (4q5tP)
Posted by: Avi at January 26, 2012 08:41 AM (Gx3Fe)
Posted by: Deanna at January 26, 2012 08:41 AM (xDEoe)
Classes are absolutely emerging and taking root in our society.
The entire prog welfare state is actually very regressive. It makes it almost impossible to cross class barriers except for that government might give you handouts to cross it.
Posted by: Entropy, Racism Delenda Est at January 26, 2012 08:41 AM (mf67L)
The non-white population does not accept American culture, in fact they are told that said culture is evil and keeps them down.
Just don't act shocked when it happens.
About fucking time!
Posted by: Diversity at January 26, 2012 08:41 AM (F6KtL)
Posted by: dagny at January 26, 2012 08:42 AM (w+PM8)
Posted by: Chris at January 26, 2012 12:36 PM
They've taken over my waterpark!
Posted by: Eric Cartman at January 26, 2012 08:42 AM (Y+DPZ)
I never thought of the Tea Party as fulminating against the elites (unless you mean the elite media or DC elite). I thought they fulminated against big government and spending.
Posted by: Tami at January 26, 2012 12:31 PM (X6akg)
And your thoughts are correct. Tea partiers think people ought to be more Belmonty and WOULD be if there were less sympathy for deadbeat fishtown habits and fewer vultures of the poor who lard their own fortunes by creating a dependent class.
More to the point they think that they will be more prosperous themselves if allowed to profit from good choices and more likely to lift other's boats if they deliver or support private charity themselves.
Posted by: SarahW at January 26, 2012 08:43 AM (LYwCh)
Oh, now that just doesn't fit anyone's narrative (except Steve Sailer's), so it can't possibly be true. Tribalism is just soooo last 14K years of human history.
Posted by: Links Hinks at January 26, 2012 08:43 AM (cEdZt)
Posted by: SarahW at January 26, 2012 08:44 AM (LYwCh)
Posted by: Count de Monet at January 26, 2012 12:40 PM
Another 20 says they got the day off with pay for "union business". How many fatasses in purple t-shirts 2 sizes too small were there?
Posted by: kbdabear at January 26, 2012 08:45 AM (Y+DPZ)
I'm with you, it's all related.
There is no right or wrong, everyone gets a blue ribbon, it's celebrated in popular culture to call women whores do drugs and blow off responsibility. Someone else will pay for my mistakes so why worry? My family is going through this with my sister in law right now. Never had a job, two children by two different fathers. Married my brother who tried to raise them right but they followed the example of their mother. Son is a heroin addict and criminal (he is the one who robbed my mom's house on Thanksgiving) a daughter with an out of wedlock child letting the state of PA pick up the tab for everything. No shame, no responsibility.
Posted by: mpfs at January 26, 2012 08:45 AM (iYbLN)
Posted by: Dr Spank at January 26, 2012 08:46 AM (Sh42X)
The well-off can afford to indulge, but only for so long. Bad habits catch up with the well-to-do eventually. A coke habit can end your career, end your marriage, and bankrupt you. A woman who decides she can afford a child without benefit of marriage may find everything she's worked for gone in a generation or two, especially if her child suffers the consequences of a fatherless home even if said child isn't without economically. Spoiled, lazy kids frequently don't become super-productive adults.
They say a society where the lower classes aspire to be like the upper classes is a society that thrives. There was a time when the poor still kept clean homes, believed in presenting themselves well, and learned the importance of good manners. They wanted their kids to do better.
Now, the upper classes want to be trashy like the worst of the lower classes. Adults want to act like perpetual teenagers while middle class and wealthy youth speak like thugs, let their pants drag on the floor, and get ugly tramp stamps. Girls want to be like porn stars because boys would rather look at porn all day than try and form a relationship.
Posted by: greenfairie at January 26, 2012 08:46 AM (NG7MG)
Posted by: Avi at January 26, 2012 08:46 AM (Gx3Fe)
“We have to remember Congress has stopped him at every turn” said one supporter. “He knows more than any of us, we have to remember that” said another.
Martha Thurson, from Tucson, came because her son, in Intel employee invited her. She calls it one of the best days of her life. “He is great. His mind is sharp. And when people don’t like what he is doing I just think he knows more than they do. And I was right."
Was Barry in North Korea?
Posted by: TheQuietMan at January 26, 2012 08:46 AM (1Jaio)
Posted by: ace at January 26, 2012 12:39 PM (nj1bB)
.
Romney has been trying to pander to those 'populist winds' too, Ace.
.
I just saw a clip of him railing against "crony capitalism". ....Yeah. He used that term "crony capitalism".....which makes it sound like cronyism is the fault of capitalism.
Posted by: wheatie at January 26, 2012 08:47 AM (ALwK/)
If you try too hard, they rebel and head in that direction for spite. I have a cousin who did this. Raised upper-middle, the best private schools, genius IQ, etc, etc, but his mother was too protective and domineering and he rebelled and went the other way.
He's in his 40's now and will probably never make it back to Belmont.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 26, 2012 08:47 AM (N09cC)
Haha, try $5000 per year...I know people getting by like this, but it helps to have someone in the family getting SSD, then you get EBT and section 8 with that, even Medicare after awhile..with SSI you get Medicaid I think. So, just pick up some more money working off the books...I know people doing this shit. And yeah, they're definitely Fishtown.
I call it premature retirement.
Posted by: jeanne! with two N's and an E at January 26, 2012 08:47 AM (GdalM)
Posted by: cackfinger at January 26, 2012 08:48 AM (a9mQu)
And another $20 says they're sporting Obama 2012 and Coexist stickers on their Subarus.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at January 26, 2012 08:50 AM (UOM48)
Posted by: greenfairie at January 26, 2012 12:46 PM (NG7MG)
Admit it. You've been watching Keeping Up With the Kardashians haven't you? And Jersey Shore. What you said is all on display right there for all to see.
Posted by: Count de Monet at January 26, 2012 08:51 AM (4q5tP)
"The Middle Class" : Those making between $35,000 and $250,000 per year, and then those making between 1 million and 30 million per year.
See, that still makes myself and my fellow journalists, academics, Hollywood stars, and professional athletes who donate to Obama the "Middle Class" and therefore "Not Rich"
Got it?
Posted by: Paul Krugman, Super Genius at January 26, 2012 08:52 AM (Y+DPZ)
Posted by: sTevo at January 26, 2012 08:52 AM (q1Tbv)
Posted by: Dave at January 26, 2012 08:52 AM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: Jean at January 26, 2012 08:54 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: mpfs at January 26, 2012 08:55 AM (iYbLN)
They don't call it the Protestant Work Ethic for nothing.
Christianity is too broad a brush.
See PIIGS.
Posted by: Rodent Liberation Front at January 26, 2012 08:55 AM (lgw0N)
Posted by: Jean at January 26, 2012 08:55 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: Raul Johnson at January 26, 2012 08:56 AM (MiBr0)
This is a huge piece of it, in my opinion, and I think a big part of that problem in turn is that it allows young men to get by without working. There is nothing more dangerous than a young man with too much time on his hands, especially when the girls are not the kind of girls they look up to and live up to.
That and the whole Entitlement mindset the welfare system breeds is what will bring this country down.
Posted by: Tammy al' Thor at January 26, 2012 08:56 AM (SsG4J)
Belmont: Has the exclusive and private Bushwood Country Club
Fishtown: Supplies the caddies and Asst. Greenskeepers
Moron Horde: Al Czervik coming in to liven things up a bit.
Posted by: Count de Monet at January 26, 2012 08:56 AM (4q5tP)
Posted by: Barky S. H. O'pantload, 12 handicap at January 26, 2012 08:56 AM (GBXon)
Posted by: Rich Coke Addict at January 26, 2012 08:57 AM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: madamex at January 26, 2012 08:57 AM (5+Fw+)
For a while I was overjoyed at just the though of plain old italics being back. Now I see the "No Italics Allowed" sign is back on the comment section.
Damn racists.
Stay strong, my italic brethren.
Posted by: imp at January 26, 2012 08:58 AM (UaxA0)
Posted by: Fishtown Resident at January 26, 2012 08:58 AM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: Dick Nixon at January 26, 2012 08:59 AM (kaOJx)
Posted by: joeindc44 - tebow's new lifting coach at January 26, 2012 08:59 AM (QxSug)
Posted by: Barky S. H. O'pantload, 12 handicap at January 26, 2012 08:59 AM (GBXon)
Posted by: DarkLord©, Rogue Commenter at January 26, 2012 09:00 AM (GBXon)
Now, the upper classes want to be trashy like the worst of the lower classes. Adults want to act like perpetual teenagers while middle class and wealthy youth speak like thugs, let their pants drag on the floor, and get ugly tramp stamps. Girls want to be like porn stars because boys would rather look at porn all day than try and form a relationship.
Posted by: greenfairie at January 26, 2012 12:46 PM
I agree with the first paragraph to an extent. My parents were both immigrants in the early 1900s, so I heard quite a bit about the culture and ethics of those times. Yes some did keep clean houses, those often were the ones that came from countries where they were middle or upper class and kept those values even though they were poor here. But many came from lower class and did not, hence the terms "white trash" and "dirty dozen." And even though they all wanted their families to move up, some had no idea how to accomplish that.
As for the upper class acting "trashy," again that's nothing new. My parents told me stories of the rich who were the most extreme "flappers" and illegal booze offenders. My mother told me how a couple of "rich" girls in her high school had "secret" abortions. I think it's always been a sort of thrill to flaunt your upbringing and the rich have the money to do it.
Posted by: Deanna at January 26, 2012 09:02 AM (xDEoe)
That's the way it was at the ones I went to...there seemed to be a collective, unspoken decision to not talk about social issues. But it was ascribed to us anyway.
Guys - and I'm looking at you, Mitch Daniels - we did try to "drop it" for this election, but they won't *let* us.
Posted by: jeanne! with two N's and an E at January 26, 2012 09:02 AM (GdalM)
Belmont: Has the exclusive and private Bushwood Country Club
Fishtown: Supplies the caddies and Asst. Greenskeepers
Moron Horde: Al Czervik coming in to liven things up a bit.
Late addition
OccupyBelmont: Led by Spaulding Smails
Posted by: Count de Monet at January 26, 2012 09:03 AM (4q5tP)
Damn racists.
Stay strong, my italic brethren.
Posted by: imp at January 26, 2012 12:58 PM
Damn, we might have a good case for italics discrimination here.
Posted by: Deanna at January 26, 2012 09:04 AM (xDEoe)
Posted by: Deanna at January 26, 2012 09:05 AM (xDEoe)
And yet ace rails against the morality brigade!
The pompous self-righteous moralizers are a bore, but damnit that was the point of trying to maintain traditional morality.
What is marriage, really? A way to keep the man around to raise his young. For millenia we have been demanding marriage before sex, for just that reason, to keep cads form ditching. How is it possible to enforce marriage behavior on a cohort that sees their "differently minded" NTTAWWT friends having sex when they want with whomever they want.
But it doesn't work that way for the "heteronormative." Babies have a way of popping out when they try living that life.
So what happens: no one gets married (because why?, really), and you have all the pathologies that accompany the breakdown of moral society.
But God forbid someone try to say that conveying societal approval on a cohort that inevitably engages in un-normal (not majority) sexual behavior is wrong and deleterious of society. That would be just FUNDIE to do.
If the only way to get sex is in marriage, then men marry. If its not, they don't. And you can see the glorious benefits of single motherhood on any number of brass poles around town.
Posted by: imp at January 26, 2012 09:06 AM (UaxA0)
I don't know if the damage can be undone....there just seems to be too many stupid people living in this country now.
Posted by: Dave at January 26, 2012 12:52 PM (Xm1aB)
It started in the 50s but exploded in the 60s. A lot of fellow travelers laid the ground work to undermine the country in the 1950s. They needed to damage or destroy HUAC and other anti-communist entities like churches. The commies realized, at the time, even if they got rid of HUAC most of the country wasn't behind them and wouldn't be so they started the brainwashing in schools, mostly in colleges back then. And now we are living with the consequences.
Posted by: TheQuietMan at January 26, 2012 09:07 AM (1Jaio)
Posted by: Fat Tony at January 26, 2012 09:09 AM (Y+DPZ)
Posted by: h0mi at January 26, 2012 09:10 AM (0f5+I)
Posted by: jeanne! with two N's and an E at January 26, 2012 01:03 PM
Boldface is the way you rethuglikkkans mock black people!
Posted by: Janeane Garofalo, expert on black people because she reads about them at January 26, 2012 09:11 AM (Y+DPZ)
Posted by: Janeane Garofalo, expert on black people because she reads about them at January 26, 2012 01:11 PM (Y+DPZ)
Word! Peace, sister.
Posted by: Ted Danson at January 26, 2012 09:13 AM (4q5tP)
As to why it happened - the media, Hollywood and academia has been telling poor people for 50 years that it is perfectly o.k. to a) not marry b) have kids unmarried and c) live on entitlements.
Of course they are going to do those things. The only thing that kept the poor from doing those things as much in the past was social stigma. Once social stigma turned into public approval, the behavior increased.
Only a fool couldn't have foreseen that.
Posted by: Monkeytoe at January 26, 2012 09:13 AM (sOx93)
Posted by: BuddyPC at January 26, 2012 09:14 AM (KCuY9)
You're comparing apples to oranges, dude...you should be comparing a single male who makes $20k at a straight job and sees a chunk of it lost to child support vs. one who makes $20k selling dope when he's not in prison, and keeps moving from baby mama's couch to baby mama's couch to avoid paying rent and support.
Then, compare a single female who hasn't whelped any bastards to the one who has. Only an idiot would bother with birth control or education. Add in...your mother, your aunts, your cousins, and all your friends are living off the gov't with their half-neglected dirty kids; even there weren't negative financial incentives to avoiding that life, your culture says "this is how we live. Who you think you are, trying to act better than the rest of us?"
(If I'd known when I was 16 what I know now, I'd have spent less time doing math homework, and more time fucking anyone who asked. Society would respect me more.)
Posted by: HeatherRadish needs italics. And a beer. at January 26, 2012 09:14 AM (ZKzrr)
Posted by: mpfs at January 26, 2012 12:45 PM
Sounds like your brother married into the Ewells from To Kill a Mockingbird
Posted by: Janeane Garofalo, expert on black people because she reads about them at January 26, 2012 09:16 AM (Y+DPZ)
Posted by: Katy Beth at January 26, 2012 09:17 AM (sgovg)
If I may be so bold I'll disagree.
Posted by: Schrödinger's cat at January 26, 2012 01:08 PM
Hmm let's see.
Posted by: Deanna at January 26, 2012 09:17 AM (xDEoe)
His point is that the Belmonters support all sorts of programs that make no sense given the reality of life in Fishtown. They assume that Fishtowners are just like them. They ain't.
Same thing as with the black family in the 60s.
Posted by: Emperor of Obama at January 26, 2012 09:18 AM (epBek)
Posted by: Sgt Hartman at January 26, 2012 09:18 AM (Y+DPZ)
Posted by: Schrödinger's cat at January 26, 2012 01:08 PM
Hmm let's see.
Posted by: Deanna at January 26, 2012 01:17 PM
Looks like you were discriminated against by association. LOL
Posted by: Deanna at January 26, 2012 09:18 AM (xDEoe)
Posted by: joeindc44 - tebow's new lifting coach at January 26, 2012 09:20 AM (QxSug)
Men have always been able to get sex outside of marriage. There's a reason they call it the world's oldest profession.
But there used to be a stigma against becoming a "fallen woman", and charities used to help widows with children to keep them out of that business. (Note the phrase "widows with children"; we've lost the distinction between needing help because something tragic happened and needing help because you made stupid choices.)
Posted by: HeatherRadish needs italics. And a beer. at January 26, 2012 09:20 AM (ZKzrr)
Posted by: HeatherRadish needs italics. And a beer. at January 26, 2012 09:21 AM (ZKzrr)
Posted by: mpfs at January 26, 2012 09:23 AM (iYbLN)
The author makes largely the same point in the article:
As I've argued in much of my previous work, I think that the reforms of the 1960s jump-started the deterioration. Changes in social policy during the 1960s made it economically more feasible to have a child without having a husband if you were a woman or to get along without a job if you were a man; safer to commit crimes without suffering consequences; and easier to let the government deal with problems in your community that you and your neighbors formerly had to take care of.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 26, 2012 09:25 AM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: A Reasonable Person at January 26, 2012 09:26 AM (Wptmt)
A second problem is that Belmont has imposed a very unhealthy attitude towards work into the entire public education system. In most school systems the kids who aren't going to college are treated as second rate despite the fact that many jobs in the trades pay more than most jobs in the arts. Making $15,000 a year creating odd looking pottery is celebrated as being true to your creative self while someone who earns $60,000 a year as a machinist in a tool and die shop is just an oaf with dirty fingernails. We've always had a class system in America but it was based more upon income than birth or education. Now we are shifting closer to the British class system in which someone who gets driven to school in a Rolls is considered working class if his dad owns a welding and fabrication business rather than being a banker or a solicitor.
Posted by: NC Mountain Girl at January 26, 2012 09:27 AM (YxaYH)
Of my cousins (big extended family all over the income scale, some rich, most middle, some on welfare) it's the lower-middle class ones who are supporting Ron Paul. It's the educated ones mostly support Obama.
Posted by: Clubber Lang at January 26, 2012 09:27 AM (ZPrif)
Suffice it to say, this is death.
Not just suffering, death.
Rear guard action is just slower death.
If we will not fight it, we may as well join them.
Posted by: Entropy, Racism Delenda Est at January 26, 2012 09:29 AM (mf67L)
@181 The two (or more) state solution is becoming increasingly likely.
Balkanization... it's what's for dinner.
Posted by: Jaws at January 26, 2012 09:30 AM (4I3Uo)
I'm not familiar with this marring ritual of which you speak, but I'll skip the YouTube video thankyouverymuch.
Posted by: ontherocks at January 26, 2012 09:31 AM (ZJCDy)
That said, another bit of data I've seen is that it's not that being rich makes you left or right, it's that being rich gives you time and reason to care about politics. This is often class signalling.
When you sort people by income, broadly speaking, the higher the income the more people have strong ideologies. The break away from the mushy middle and become "strongly liberal" or "strongly conservative". It's the poorer classes who haven't put much thought into it who are content to claim they are moderate.
Posted by: Clubber Lang at January 26, 2012 09:32 AM (ZPrif)
The result of the rise of anti-judgmentalism.Thank you pop psychology.
Posted by: Heorot at January 26, 2012 09:33 AM (Nq/UF)
Posted by: Entropy, Racism Delenda Est at January 26, 2012 09:37 AM (mf67L)
Posted by: jeanne! with two N's and an E at January 26, 2012 01:16 PM (GdalM)
Feel free to put me some knowledge if you think I'm lacking.
Posted by: Rodent Liberation Front at January 26, 2012 09:37 AM (lgw0N)
Posted by: lauren at January 26, 2012 09:41 AM (nnUf6)
The two (or more) state solution is becoming increasingly likely.
-----------------
What are the odds? I don't know... if TX tried to secceed I think a large portion of the country would rabidly support invading them and smashing and looting the place.
Including many republicans and "conservatives".
Posted by: Entropy, Racism Delenda Est at January 26, 2012 09:42 AM (mf67L)
I'm not sure where I fit in, but what I do know and I don't think has been taken into account is the fact that most of the "living the correct way" people fled first to the Far Northeast (of Phila) and then to suburban Bucks and Montgomery Counties and South Jersey. It was the desire to escape from a degenerating culture that led them out of Philadelphia, because when you live in row homes the manner in which your neighbor behaves actually does have an enormous effect on your life.
Posted by: Alec Leamas at January 26, 2012 09:46 AM (mg08E)
Posted by: tsj017 at January 26, 2012 09:46 AM (4YUWF)
Posted by: Cowboy at January 26, 2012 09:49 AM (dk36f)
Posted by: DFCtomm at January 26, 2012 09:52 AM (iaQhp)
If anyone needs me, I'll be over in the DOOM! thread cheering myself up.
Posted by: Jaws at January 26, 2012 09:55 AM (4I3Uo)
Posted by: President Chet Roosevelt at January 26, 2012 10:24 AM (J/Xy9)
“He knows more than any of us, we have to remember that” said another.
When you have to make a concious effort to REMEMBER that someone is smarter than you, then its probably time to start re-thinking your position on the matter.
Posted by: reason at January 26, 2012 10:36 AM (5npD/)
These numbers don't match The Narrative, which may be why the media was so utterly befuddled when reporting on the Tea Party. First thing out of the gate, they tried to report them as being Very Religious and, of course, Quite Poor and Uneducated.
Then they realized the Tea Party was actually wealthier than the mean, and began reporting on them being arch-plutocrats. Oddly, at this point, they dropped the "Very Religious" meme, I guess because It Did Not Compute that someone could be pretty wealthy and pretty religious.
According to Robert Reich, Tea Party members are really crypto-southern REDNECKS!!11!!! (and even those seemingly nice Midwesterners who support the Tea Party have evil REDNECK BLOOD beating through their very dark hearts (seriously, he wrote this at Salon or HuffPo or someplace --- too lazy for the link, Google it...)
Anyway, Andrew Gelman in his book Red State Blue State Rich State Poor State talks about this whole Latte Liberal/Trailer Park Conservative cliche. It was all nonsense from the start. The boring truth is, the more money you make, statistically, the more likely you are to vote Republican. That "poor states" supported Bush in 200[04] was because the wealthy of those states were way more likely to vote Republican than the wealthy in the Blue states. The poor, including poor whites, supported the Democrats.
Posted by: E at January 26, 2012 11:11 AM (Lwfnm)
BTW I lived in Belmont for 20 years. It is expensive to live there. By definition the people who live there have to have not only decent paying jobs but also a work ethic to stay employed.
Posted by: dri at January 26, 2012 11:15 AM (VseJU)
Posted by: Z Ryan at January 26, 2012 11:34 AM (U9NWP)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at January 26, 2012 11:48 AM (r4wIV)
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at January 26, 2012 12:25 PM (zhe90)
Posted by: Shiggz Newt Warp 9.9 at January 26, 2012 01:37 PM (RfvTE)
- Government transfer payments providing a disincentive to marriage (AFDC), non-victimhood (Social Security disability for not-really-disabled people).
- Looking the other way regarding illegal immigration, producing reduced wages at the low end of the job spectrum.
- Contempt for "McJobs" overlooking how valuable such jobs are for learning good work habits, or even to a career path that leads to you run or own some shops
- Contempt for low-end blue collar jobs, such as janitor or clerk, leading to reduced social standing and life satisfaction for those filling those essential niches.
- Union policies that make adversaries of the employer and the employee
- Minimum wage laws that prevent people who produce less than that from being hirable, so they can't make the transition from leech to productive citizen.
And many more.
Posted by: Splunge at January 26, 2012 03:36 PM (2IW5Q)
What did I see? I saw capable and industrious individuals making the most of their potential and becoming richer and more powerful. I also saw incapable and indolent individuals falling further and further behind. Those in the middle tend to stay put, neither rising nor falling. Both capable and incapable individuals tend to associate with others like themselves. This then becomes the pool of potential mates from which husbands and wives, or in the case of underclass a "babydaddy," are chosen. This results in the positive or negative traits from these diverging groups being more heavily concentrated as the groups diverge. Rinse and repeat over enough generations and you've got something almost on the level of speciation taking place.
This would not be a bad thing if it weren't for the fact that the underclasses tend to outbreed elitists such as myself by a wide margin. If it were not for the vastness of the ordinary folks in the middle, we'd be headed for an idiocracy in no time.
Winners win.
Losers lose.
The mediocre muddle through.
The genius of America is that this process takes place here with greater efficiency than anywhere else in the history of the world.
Posted by: Lee Reynolds at January 26, 2012 10:46 PM (rJMw2)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2862 seconds, 348 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
/s
Posted by: Have Blue at January 26, 2012 08:03 AM (IKTC8)