# The Great Divorce \[Charles Murray’s book “Coming Apart”\] **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 31, 2012, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-divorce-charles-murray-s-book-coming-apart/611338 "2012-01-31T20:51:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-divorce-charles-murray-s-book-coming-apart/611338/41 "2012-02-07T22:10:57Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > This shows not that the Republicans are wrong but that they were right. At one time (the 1950’s and 1960’s) the cultural elite was trying to free people from the shackles of traditional values. They argued that marriage was a gilded cage imposed by the patriachy. That marriage was just a paper and whatever got in the way of love and pleasure were to be rejected. That there needed to be a revolution in sexual mores and sexual roles. It was felt that people needed to be free of old fashioned sexual morals which only caused people to be prudish and ashamed. Schools were labeled conformity factories and young people had to be told how special they were and to follow their dreams. This attitude succeeded in reshaping our culture. > Thus people started divorcing because they weren’t in love anymore and did not want to settle. Except that you’ve got it backwards. When divorce laws were liberalized, the divorce rate shot up briefly, and then stabilized. Middle and especially upper-middle class marriages end in divorce much less often than marriages between people at the lower end of the economic scale. Indeed, as recent articles have demonstrated, as the decline in work traditionally done by males with no college has accelerated, an increase in unwed motherhood has followed. Marriage and church do not bring prosperity; prosperous people are more liekly to marry and go to church. > [@sh1bu1](#): > > I watched Undercover Boss the other night. The CEO was unimpressed with one truck driver who felt a disconnect with the company. The CEO had him work in the home office for a few weeks. Wow, what a great opportunity. But no, this guy was pissed off: “You can’t take someone who has driven a truck and keep him cooped up in a office. Once you have tasted freedom you can’t go back”. Slightly paraphrased, but if anything it was even stronger. There is a guy who will never make it out of the bottom. He has contempt for white collar workers, those who have gone to college, etc. Maybe there’s more to this than you’ve shared, but the only one I see who has contempt for someone else is you. It seems like a perfectly reasonable preference to not want to be working in an office. Especially since office work has health effect [similar to smoking cigarettes](http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/06/08/healthwatch-sitting-vs-smoking/) ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-divorce-charles-murray-s-book-coming-apart/611338/42 "2012-02-07T22:57:16Z")
> [@saoirse](#): > > Except that you’ve got it backwards. When divorce laws were liberalized, the divorce rate shot up briefly, and then stabilized. Do you have a cite that the increase in the divorce rate was only brief? It may have stabilized, but at a higher level, > [@](#): > > Middle and especially upper-middle class marriages end in divorce much less often than marriages between people at the lower end of the economic scale. Indeed, as recent articles have demonstrated, as the decline in work traditionally done by males with no college has accelerated, an increase in unwed motherhood has followed. Marriage and church do not bring prosperity; prosperous people are more liekly to marry and go to church. That is a mix of cause and effect. Divorce is associated with poverty and a drop in living standards, especially for women and children. And [unwed motherhood correlates with poverty](http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2010/10/04/unwed-moms-far-more-likely-to-face-poverty.html), especially for unwed teen mothers. So you don’t have it quite right. Prosperous people are less likely to divorce, and people who go to church (at least in the US) are less likely to divorce. ([Cite](http://www.edivorcepapers.com/divorce-statistics/christian-divorce-statistics.html).) > [@](#): > > Especially since office work has health effect [similar to smoking cigarettes](http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/06/08/healthwatch-sitting-vs-smoking/) Do you have a cite that truck drivers live longer, on average, than office workers? Because [that does not seem to be borne out](http://www.thetruckersreport.com/truckingindustryforum/driver-health/39125-truckers-have-lower-life-expectancy-study.html) by what I have been able to find. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-divorce-charles-murray-s-book-coming-apart/611338/43 "2012-02-09T02:57:30Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > That is a mix of cause and effect. Divorce is associated with poverty and a drop in living standards, especially for women and children. And [unwed motherhood correlates with poverty](http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2010/10/04/unwed-moms-far-more-likely-to-face-poverty.html), especially for unwed teen mothers. > > So you don’t have it quite right. Prosperous people are less likely to divorce, and people who go to church (at least in the US) are less likely to divorce. ([Cite](http://www.edivorcepapers.com/divorce-statistics/christian-divorce-statistics.html).) Your cite doesn’t prove your point. Or at least, it doesn’t show that people who go to church are less likely to divorce, rather than that people who are likely to divorce are less likely to go to church. Similarly, I don’t think you’ve established that I don’t have it right. The correlation between poverty and unwed motherhood is just as likely to be causitive in one direction as the other. A man incapable of supporting a family is less marriageable, unless he can find some other way to justify his existence in a household. The rise in unwed motherhood among white women suggested that this is the causitive relationship, since it \*followed \*the decline in employment prospects for 30 to 50 % of adult males. > [@](#): > > Do you have a cite that truck drivers live longer, on average, than office workers? I admit I don’t. It was a throwaway line, and it really didn’t belong. It has no bearing on my main point, which was that different people are suited to different things, and hating the life of a cubicle dweller is not a sign of low moral character. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-divorce-charles-murray-s-book-coming-apart/611338/44 "2012-02-09T03:23:28Z")
> [@sh1bu1](#): > > I disagree that it is Democrats who have contempt for the poor, white southerners. I don’t have the data offhand to really prove it, but here’s my theory. They may not have contempt for them, but you can’t blame White Southerners for feeling this way towards Democrats. Democrats tend to support policies which benefit minorities at a detriment to Whites, while Republicans oppose said policies. States which tend to vote Democrat also have low minority populations, whereas states which vote Republican have high minority populations. Therefore, Whites in Democratic-leaning states are less likely to be negatively affected by those policies as when compared to Whites in Republican-leaning states. When Whites in Republican-leaning states complain, those in Democratic-leaning states label them as racists or whatever. Ergo, those Whites in Republican-leaning states grow to resent the Democratic party for turning the proverbial blind eye to them in favor of minorities, and writing them off as “racists”. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-divorce-charles-murray-s-book-coming-apart/611338/45 "2012-02-09T03:32:07Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > States which tend to vote Democrat also have low minority populations, whereas states which vote Republican have high minority populations. Wyoming: 96.19% White Hawaii: 24.7% White ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-divorce-charles-murray-s-book-coming-apart/611338/46 "2012-02-09T03:51:39Z")
_Tend to_. Anyway, [I checked](http://www.statjump.com/lists/white-population-dp1c52bs.html). There’s a list and a map. Unsurprisingly, the South has the lowest percentage of Whites while the northeast has the most. Those states along the Mexican border also have low-percentages of Whites. So I would say that my theory has at least a bit of credence, though I don’t claim it’s absolutely correct. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-divorce-charles-murray-s-book-coming-apart/611338/47 "2012-02-09T04:32:20Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > They may not have contempt for them, but you can’t blame White Southerners for feeling this way towards Democrats. Democrats tend to support policies which benefit minorities at a detriment to Whites . . . No, they do not, and never have. (Affirmative action does not meet your description and I can think of nothing else that even comes near.) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-divorce-charles-murray-s-book-coming-apart/611338/48 "2012-02-09T04:41:14Z")
Not that it means anything, **OMg** , but why do you capitalize “white”? ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-divorce-charles-murray-s-book-coming-apart/611338/49 "2012-02-09T04:43:15Z")
The fact that a David Brooks article on something Charles Murray wrote is being debated in earnest is pretty funny to me. [David Frum](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/06/charles-murray-book-review.html) has been reviewing the book and highlighting the critical factor that Murray ignores: falling wages. As Frum puts it: > [@](#): > > To understand what Murray does in Coming Apart, imagine this analogy: > > A social scientist visits a Gulf Coast town. He notices that the houses near the water have all been smashed and shattered. The former occupants now live in tents and FEMA trailers. The social scientist writes a report: > > _The evidence strongly shows that living in houses is better for children and families than living in tents and trailers. The people on the waterfront are irresponsibly subjecting their children to unacceptable conditions._ > > When he publishes his report, somebody points out: “You know, there was a hurricane here last week.” The social scientist shrugs off the criticism with the reply, “I’m writing about housing, not weather.” If you’re going to ignore the effect of falling wages on the willingness or ability of the white working class to live up to the traditional American middle class values of 60 years ago, then you’ll be constrained in your ability to explain what caused the change. Think of the debate surrounding the decline in violent crime in America beginning in the 1990s. A whole host of factors have been pointed to to try and explain it - the economy, access to abortion, tougher criminal laws - but they’re merely factors. It’s impossible to point to any one factor and say with confidence that it was the compelling reason for the change. And if your politics led you to completely discount one factor out of hand, then you wouldn’t be telling the whole story. Murray’s solution is to pull some cockamamie theory out of his ass pinning the blame on moral collapse and the 1960s, like an erudite Starving Artist. But if one of the rock-solid conservative planks is that the Job Creators need to earn a wage premium in order to encourage and inspire them, then why wouldn’t that be a factor for the working class? Again, Frum: > [@](#): > > You are a white man aged 30 without a college degree. Your grandfather returned from World War II, got a cheap mortgage courtesy of the GI bill, married his sweetheart and went to work in a factory job that paid him something like $50,000 in today’s money plus health benefits and pension. Your father started at that same factory in 1972. He was laid off in 1981, and has never had anything like as good a job ever since. He’s working now at a big-box store, making $40,000 a year, and waiting for his Medicare to kick in. > > Now look at you. Yes, unemployment is high right now. But if you keep pounding the pavements, you’ll eventually find a job that pays $28,000 a year. That’s not poverty! Yet you seem to waste a lot of time playing video games, watching porn, and sleeping in. You aren’t married, and you don’t go to church. I blame Frances Fox Piven. Leave out the effect of stagnant wages and declining employment, and all you have is a plausible-sounding story (depending on your political persuasion). ---
**Author:** ![chacoguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/50afbb/32.png) [@chacoguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chacoguy)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-divorce-charles-murray-s-book-coming-apart/611338/50 "2012-02-09T04:45:58Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > States which tend to vote Democrat also have low minority populations, whereas states which vote Republican have high minority populations. Um, so you’ve never been to the middle of the United States? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-divorce-charles-murray-s-book-coming-apart/611338/51 "2012-02-09T04:59:27Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > If you’re going to ignore the effect of falling wages on the willingness or ability of the white working class to live up to the traditional American middle class values of 60 years ago, then you’ll be constrained in your ability to explain what caused the change. [http://visualecon.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/familyincomebyearners.gif](http://visualecon.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/familyincomebyearners.gif) Look at that graph. Do you see wages falling from 60 years ago to today? (the numbers come from US Census according to the [graph source page](http://visualizingeconomics.com/2006/10/29/income-by-number-of-earners/). ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-divorce-charles-murray-s-book-coming-apart/611338/52 "2012-02-09T05:05:02Z")
Yes, I see a definite leveling off in wage growth beginning somewhere in the 1970s. And that chart ends at 2004. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-divorce-charles-murray-s-book-coming-apart/611338/53 "2012-02-09T05:17:23Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > Yes, I see a definite leveling off in wage growth beginning somewhere in the 1970s. > > And that chart ends at 2004. 1. Frum is complaining about falling wages compared to 60 years ago. Do you think the graph supports that statement? 2. Here is the census info on median household income: [http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/2010/H08\_2010.xls](http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/2010/H08_2010.xls) 2004 - $51,174 2011 - $49,445 This is adjusted for inflation. So - look at the graph and go down about 3% from the last number. Does that change the general trend for the 60 years? ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-divorce-charles-murray-s-book-coming-apart/611338/55 "2012-02-09T06:04:30Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > No, they do not, and never have. (Affirmative action does not meet your description and I can think of nothing else that even comes near.) To be honest, I _was_ thinking of affirmative action specifically (I’m sure there are other examples). > [@elucidator](#): > > Not that it means anything, **OMg** , but why do you capitalize “white”? Force of habit. It’s the same way I capitalize “Black”, “Asian” or “Hispanic”. When I remember, anyway. > [@chacoguy](#): > > Um, so you’ve never been to the middle of the United States? I’ve been to Texas. Is that close enough? Otherwise, that’s why I said “tend to”. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-divorce-charles-murray-s-book-coming-apart/611338/56 "2012-02-09T06:11:04Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Force of habit. It’s the same way I capitalize “Black”, “Asian” or “Hispanic”. When I remember, anyway. “Asian” or “Hispanic” should be capitalized, but “black” should not be, nor “negro.” “African-American” should be, of course. (Racial designations are not proper nouns unless they incorporate proper nouns.) ---
**Author:** ![user\_hostile](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/user_hostile/32/474_2.png) [@user\_hostile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/user_hostile)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-divorce-charles-murray-s-book-coming-apart/611338/57 "2012-02-09T07:28:10Z")
> [@Flooring1220](#): > > Thanks for sharing! It’s interesting because I am always advising people to treat social discussion like a good dinner party—have fun and be yourself but always be respective of others and listen as much or more than you talk. 🙂 > > [Coral Springs Flooring](http://www.CoralSpringsFlooring.net) > [Deerfield Beach Flooring](http://www.DeerFieldBeachFlooring.net) > [Delray Beach Flooring](http://www.DelrayBeachFlooring.net) > [Lake Worth Flooring](http://www.LakeWorthFlooring.net) Reported. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-divorce-charles-murray-s-book-coming-apart/611338/58 "2012-02-09T12:13:34Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > “Asian” or “Hispanic” should be capitalized, but “black” should not be, nor “negro.” “African-American” should be, of course. Actually, Negro, like Caucasian, was generally capitalized when it was in general use in newspapers. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-divorce-charles-murray-s-book-coming-apart/611338/59 "2012-02-09T17:06:15Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > 1. Frum is complaining about falling wages compared to 60 years ago. Do you think the graph supports that statement? > 2. Here is the census info on median household income: [http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/2010/H08\_2010.xls](http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/2010/H08_2010.xls) > > 2004 - $51,174 > 2011 - $49,445 > > This is adjusted for inflation. So - look at the graph and go down about 3% from the last number. Does that change the general trend for the 60 years? Median household income won’t tell us the whole story. You need to break the income down by percentile to see whether the lower percentiles have seen gains, something like [this graph](http://economistsview.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451b33869e20168e5ef5a8c970c-800wi) or [this](http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/figure5.png). But even those graphs don’t tell us enough, because we also need to know the change in percentage of the workforce that is at each percentile and the effect of education. If Grandpa had no more than a HS diploma and still ended up in the 70th percentile, and Dad had no more than a HS diploma and was in the 50th percentile, where is Son likely to end up if he has no more than a HS diploma? Bobo’s argument is that the top 20% live in their liberal enclaves in the coastal urban areas, completely apart from the bottom 30%, and that the lack of interaction has made the bottom 30% coarse and unruly. His solution is a national service program where the children of the top 20% will, presumably, scold their lessers into behaving like responsible, middle class Americans. But the “lower tribe” doesn’t need scolding, what they need is better opportunity and investment. Murray himself was the son of a manager at Maytag, and he grew up in Newton, Iowa among the children of Maytag’s assembly line workers, working class people with solid jobs. Yet he seems wholly uninterested in drawing any correlation between their solid employment and their values; he’d rather keep fighting the Culture War. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-divorce-charles-murray-s-book-coming-apart/611338/60 "2012-02-09T18:47:04Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Wyoming: 96.19% White > Hawaii: 24.7% White Now, how about the other 48? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-divorce-charles-murray-s-book-coming-apart/611338/61 "2012-02-09T18:49:32Z")
All they gotta do is trot out the old tried and true. When the middle class is fearful and nervous, tell them that their problems would be solved if only the gummint was giving away all their money to the lazy poor folks. Works every time. Maybe not _this_ time, from my lips to the Ears… They haven’t used it much yet, but they will. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-divorce-charles-murray-s-book-coming-apart/611338.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-divorce-charles-murray-s-book-coming-apart/611338.md?page=4)