WASHINGTON — The Federal Reserve yesterday released its Survey of Consumer Finances, a report that found that the median U.S. family income plunged about 40% over the past three years.
The Fed’s data also confirm that the incomes of affluent Americans have fallen rapidly, reducing income inequalities somewhat.
That news is unlikely to silence the Occupy Wall Street movement and others who allege that disparities in wealth are the result of the exploitative practices of the nation’s top banks and corporations.
Meanwhile, Charles Murray, the libertarian sociologist, offers a different take on the haves and have-nots in his new bestseller Coming Apart: The State of White America 1960-2010. It examines the destructive social patterns associated with the decline of the working class, including lower rates of marriage, civic engagement and religious observance.
[UPDATE Filed June 13: In his address today at the U.S.Conference of Catholic Bishops' meeting in Atlanta, John Garvey, the president of The Catholic University of America, cited Murray's findings.
"Murray reports that among white working class Americans the number of people who profess no religion or attend a worship service no more than once a year has gone up from 38% to 59% (21 points) in the last 40 years. During that same period the number of marriages among working class whites has gone from 84% to 48%.The number of births out of wedlock among the same group rose from 6% to 44%.Murray argues that the civic culture that defined the American way of life has unraveled over this period," stated Garvey during an address entitled, Religious Freedom and the Love of God.]
Murray’s previous groundbreaking works, Losing Ground: American Social Policy 1950-1980 (1984), and The Bell Curve (1994) fueled controversy as they addressed related social themes.
But the troubling realities that surface in his fascinating new book raise questions about whether and how the class divide can be effectively bridged. Murray first sounded the alarm about this development two decades ago.
Today, the top 1% command about a quarter of the national income.
His research highlights significant challenges for the New Evangelization. If the Church aims to preach the Gospel and foster a desire to know God and conform to his loving will, catechists must accommodate the fact that a rising number of adult Americans, including cradle Catholics, have set themselves apart from the mainstream and won’t be easy to reach.
Coming Apart sketches a portrait of two parallel worlds functioning at opposing ends of the spectrum — the top 20% and the lower 30%. The author deals only with social research studying white Americans, in an effort to counter past criticism of some of his research as ignoring the impact of racism on income disparities.
Belmont is the name of his mythical affluent world, a composite of various characteristics that typify the educated elite. The tattered working-class town, on the other hand, is dubbed “Fishtown,” also a composite of qualities likely to be found in such communities across the nation.
Murray offers a wealth of data to counter the heated rhetoric of class warfare and offers a surprisingly positive portrait of Belmont, where the top 20% includes investment bankers — but also college professors, business managers and professionals.
The author doesn’t dispute the venality of some in the educated elite, but he also notes that in 2010 Belmont boasted high rates of marriage, long work hours and engagement with organized religion. About 7% of Belmont’s children are born out of wedlock.
In Fishtown, non-marital births stand at 45%, and unemployment and incarceration rates have risen sharply. Further, the drift away from a marriage culture signals a broader erosion of contact with other civil institutions, from churches to voluntary groups like the Boy Scouts and the PTA.
In the early 1960s, Fishtown and Belmont shared similar values and social patterns. Non-marital births were at about 3% and work hours were roughly equivalent with 98% of men, ages 30-50, employed.
What Happened?
What happened to Fishtown?
Murray is an MIT-trained political scientist; he is not a Catholic or a moral theologian. But the data marshaled for this book suggest that the social turmoil unleashed in the 1960s played a major role in Fishtown’s declining prospects, weakening familial bonds and leaving young adults adrift.
In contrast, Belmont briefly faltered — divorce rates rose for a period after the ’60s, but then declined.
In decades past, Fishtown residents had a strong shot at moving into the middle class. That changed as an increasing proportion of the town turned away from what Murray calls the founding virtues of America: religious faith, industriousness, marriage and community.
Today, Fishtown’s high school graduates are unlikely to finish college or to marry, while the vast majority of Belmont’s children will earn a college degree and marry a college graduate.
Murray notes that the residents of Belmont don’t always acknowledge their relatively conservative social practices. They may espouse socially liberal views and adopt a form of “nonjudgmentalism” regarding the destructive social practices of Fishtown. Yet, statistically, they have low divorce rates and carefully supervise their children, increasing the likelihood that the family’s success will be sustained by the next generation.
It’s hard to reconcile Murray’s portrait of Belmont with the reptilian fat cats that serve as placeholders for America’s elite in political rhetoric and mass entertainment.
No surprise that many sociologists and economists insist that Murray is “blaming the victim” when he says that an implosion of moral values fueled the downward trend in communities like Fishtown. Critics assert that the author ignores the impact of stagnant wages, weak trade unions and inequitable domestic polices.
Other experts identify globalization as the engine of social and economic destruction for the working class, arguing that illegal immigration and cheap labor markets abroad undermined the power of the bottom 20% to negotiate better wages.
Murray also adds another element to the mix: In a world economy that rewards strong cognitive ability, individuals with high IQs are more likely to come out ahead. Today they are also more likely to marry spouses with similar cognitive strengths, thus increasing the gap between the top performers and the bottom rung of society.
He shows that these differences have resulted in the creation of high-functioning communities that have little or no contact with ordinary Americans and mass entertainment. His book offers cultural tests designed to establish whether the test taker resides in one of the nation’s elite zip codes.
But even if college graduates and professionals with advanced degrees are more likely to gain traction in this economy, Murray and other sociologists also cite reams of data showing that children raised in working class homes with both biological parents are happier and more successful than their peers who grow up in non-traditional households.
In other words, it’s past time for the good residents of Belmont to retire their “nonjudgmentalism” regarding cohabitation and non-marital births.
We Must Reach Out
Murray’s portrait of two starkly different towns could lead Catholics in the United States to develop more effective ways to advance the New Evangelization: While Belmont’s residents might need to move out from their bubble, the fading communities of the working class require a different approach.
If lapsed young Catholics in Fishtown don’t present themselves for Pre-Cana instruction before marriage (or any other milestone that once provided an opportunity to reconnect with a cradle faith), they may never come to the attention of the local parish. The Church has always reached out to people on the margins, and now we have to build on past efforts to draw them back into the heart of the Church.
Murray also calls on his readers — whom he assumes reside in Belmont — to venture beyond their zip codes. Given what the author has told us about zip code-based cultural literacy, you realize that Catholic educators who take their cues from the educated elite will have to adapt when they travel further afield. Murray, for his part, decided to move his family to a small town where they became friends with neighbors from various backgrounds and educational levels.
For some Catholics in the United States, parish life already provides opportunities for the kind of engagement the author proposes. But others may ask themselves whether the demands of work and family life have limited their contact with the world, including those drifting alone.
Coming Apart helps to explain how social inequalities became entrenched, and that can help us tackle the problems that keep Fishtown and Belmont far apart. But the author’s insights can assist the work of the New Evangelization, making our Church a beacon for a divided nation searching for a path out of the storm.
Matthew Warner: Why the world doesn't take Catholicism seriously
Comments
Post a Comment
First, it sounds like the author is an apologist for the amuse disparity of why republicans control the top and bottom of the economic playlist. Easily rationalized and polarized for the working poor and middle class, as the rich could care less as long as you don’t touch their offshor accounts.
Second, the occupy movement isn’t the same as the hippos that led to the mid-upperclass educated, college student that drink lattes and hate Christianity, but don’t think radical is,am is a problem.
Third, the lower middle class is a cornerstone of the culture. Often ignored and exploited, especially the white ones. Not poor enough to be subsidized, not rich enough to write check.
Fourth, these are also the moral people. The poor can be moral, but often resort to other things to sustain a lifestyle..or eat. The rich..let’s be honest…they own the system, control the system and strt thinking they are above it. They will. Ot pass through the eye of the needle.
Finally, and yes, I apologize for the length, the brick that the builders cast aside, the lower middle class working person…..with values and morls…with humility..who built the crèches and churches, who live and love, who fought and died. These are the ones we still ask to pay for dinner, while others eat free. Let’s not overlook that those who work hrd, sweet and toil are truly the meek.
God love you, but don’t be an apologist for those who have gifts and bury their coins awaiting the master.
Today I mentioned to one of my son’s friends the fact that cohabitation was sinful. He didn’t know what cohabitation was. I then said “shacking up.” Still nothing. Finally I said “living together.” Living together—sinful? What? Since when? Why?
It is going to be very difficult for the residents of Belmont to stop being so non-judgemental about cohabitation (at least during the engagement period) when it is a near norm for people.
It is also going to be difficult “to retire . . . ‘nonjudgmentalism’” about non-marital births. Twice I have been invited to baby showers with all the trappings in order to celebrate because someone decided not to abort her child. Abortion is murder, but by celebrating every birth in this manner (let us face it: the baby really isn’t too interested in the party) aren’t we sending the wrong message?
The income has plunged about 40% in the last 3 years, but, what happened to all of those million of jobs that their ‘president’ keeps talking about and let us not forget the high inflation rate, along with food being used for fuel, extremely poor medical coverage and incompetent medical staff (here in Mass. due to Romneycare and coming to your city if Obamacare isn’t stopped) as ‘doctors’ are being forced to learn how to kill instead of cure. MarkM seems to have a problem facing facts, and instead prefers to make them up to suit himself. It is the ‘Democrats’ that are in control and many of them are far richer then their Republican brothers. I bet that he, along with many ‘catholics’ will ‘vote’ for Obama in Nov. and if he wins and we lose, we will see that 40% number climb much higher, along with the inflation rate, a rate that will make Ex-President Carter look very good. +JMJ+
DJ, the baby doesn’t need the party but the mother may need the emotional and financial support to carry out her decision. It doesn’t say approval of the sin but it does say the Church will support your decision to give this child life!
I’d like to know whom the author defines as “affluent Americans.” If affluency is defined as anyone who makes over $30K/yr, this is actually the middle class and not true affluence. If you analyze the net worth of rich Americans like Gates, Trump, Soros, you’ll find they increased. This does NOT make a case for reducing income inequality but an extinguishment of the middle class. In societies where no middle class exists there is great income disparity. You are either very rich or very poor; looks like it is coming here. Income re-distribution by govt fiat always results in abolishment of the middle class and mass poverty.
I’ve read Murray’s book and even discounting a lot of matters that might be disputable or opinion, he has a solid basis for his findings, to which Ms. Desmond puts on far too optimistic of a spin.
The American white working class is lost to the Catholic Church, as solidly as the European working class was lost in the 19th century. In a couple of generations it has gone from the backbone of the Catholic Church to the most irreligious segment of society. Further, their lives are a mess, economically, morally, socially.
21st century American Catholicism will take the place socially that the Episcopal Church had for most of American history (as the Episcopal Church itself disappears). There is no possibility that some “New Evangelization” is going to turn this around.
Would it perhaps be better if the Register chose reviewers of professional studies who know what they are talking about? This reviewer clearly does not. There is a big difference between family net worth - which has fallen by 39%, largely as a result of the housing crisis - and family income, which has also fallen, but by “only” 7.4%, largely as a result of the protracted recession. You can do better, Register!
I have not read the work by Murray, but I wonder if it also includes the scourge that drugs induce. 18 months ago I took a job in a small town (4500 population in a rural county). Two intelligent kids in high school - one arrested for possession; the other shooting heroin, and I am not naive enough to think they are the only two, out of a graduating class of less than 75. Any more it appears a “chicken and egg’ discussion between breakup of families and drug use as to which is leading which in the downward spiral.
Charles Murray’s analysis of White society and the direction it’s going is interesting. Having lived in “Fishtown” for my entire life, I can say he is partially correct. We Baby-Boomers were able to rise above our parents status because we had affordable college opportunities and a booming economy. This doesn’t exist for today’s generation. Obama and the Marxist Democrat Party stripped 40% of Working America’s wealth in the last 3 years. There is no evangelizing today from the Catholic Bishops or priests. We have a great moral and fiscal deficit in our country today.
Lets face it, Obama has tried to get Republican help to pass bills to help the Jobs situation, only to be mocked and laughed at by the ignorant Republicans in Congress! The Republicans in Congress get paid for doing nothing for the People! They need to be voted out of office!
Before the Catholic Church can evangelize here, it must first wake up to present day realities! Reality often is not what the Church is teaching!
Contraception, Gay unions, allowing priests to marry if they wish, and making women permanent deacons (or even priests) are accepted ideas by many Catholics. Scolding nuns will get the Church nowhere! They need to try LISTENING, which would be a drastic change on the Church’s part!
@Silverlady: I can appreciate the fact the mother may need the financial and emotional boost of a party, but while you may not see the approval of the sin of non-marital sex (presumably fornication as oppose to adultery), I am not so sure that today’s teens would see it in quite the same way.
Rich, your reality is not our reality. We aren’t changing 2000 years of truth to accommodate the cultural desires of each “current” society. If the church changed dogma every time society decided their wants for each century we would be twisting in the wind rather than grounded in faith.
Eileen, to add to your comment to Rich, in a word we would be Protestant.
What is the answer? Is is NOT RELATIVISM; that is, “you believe what you believe and I believe what I believe!” There is such a thing as “objective truth,” and his Name is Jesus Christ. And in case we’ve forgotten, “Truth is every Word that comes from the mouth of God.” Where do we find these words? They’re found in Sacred Scripture—the Holy Bible.
We are all called to be holy as God is holy—to say what Jesus would say, and do what Jesus would do. He showed us the way! Anything else is building on a bed of sand.
The Belmont and Fishtown divide in American culture, sharply described by Murray, should be keenly looked into. That it transpired over the years from the late 60s to the 2000s is a reflection of the receding moral ascendancy of this great nation. The Protstant ethic for productive work and the capacity of the American to make a fortune within the bounds of decency has collapsed. Catholics have wandered away and lost their sense of guilt and capacity to seek renewal.
The fabric of society has been rent by the counter-culture of the pleasure- seekers who despised sacrifice, community and productivity. The likes of Zacchaeus didn’t recognize the Lord and his followers! Almsgiving and the capacity of church members to contribute have become perfunctory. In both Murray groups can be observed an insensible refusal to strengthen families and a tacit approval of exploitative work for children (Matthew 18:1-6).
Peter, I find your pointing out of the difference between worth and income interesting. Are you suggesting that a 40% drop in wealth is of no consequence? If you are, this is particularly troubling when this same group has been asked to subsidize the losses of those whose wealth only seems to grow. The protected class of this country could care less about the tax base of this country and they speak very easily about why we must cut the benefits of the elderly and poor. Why not? They don’t need them. They got everything they needed out of us peasants. Heck, they have even convinced us to vote against our own self interest. It would be interesting to see what would happen if the top 1% lost 40% of their wealth. I guarantee you that Congress would jump into high gear to stave off disaster….oh wait, they did….we bailed them out.
Reflecting the continued decline of the Catholic faith among working class Americans, my diocese announced the closure of a parish this week with a largely working class congregation. By mid century, our Church should look like the Episcopal Church did in the 19th century—affluent, establishment conservative, and declining membership.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.