As someone who would probably be defined by Murray as "upper class", I am living in a middle class neighborhood as of recently, and I admit I'm unhappy. I have a hard time connecting with my neighbors or most people in my working class town. We lived in Europe for 6 years, both my husband and I have masters degrees, speak two or more foreign languages, enjoy playing musical instruments, love cuisine, art, history, and architecture. It's lonely not to have others to share interests with. We attend social events and after about five minutes, it becomes apparent we have no more topics to discuss. But to answer Murray's question - "Can't we be happy in a nice house in a middle class town with more diversity and still have nice schools, etc.?" - my answer is no. The parents in our working class town are mostly divorced, dysfunctional, loud, and raise rude children. That makes the schools in our area horrible. Even the private schools are subpar. We are looking to move out when the chance arises.
I don't blame you. My parents might have been termed members of the fallen aristocracy -- people whose parents were of a higher than middle class station. I grew up with patrician tastes and at age 70 nothing changed. One cannot abandon one's social class. But we make do. Aesop wrote about the town mouse and the country mouse. That fable is more a history lesson that a pleasant children's story.
I think Murray makes one error in his assessment of marriage statistics. It is not wholly due to bubble blindness or a moral failing; in fact, quite the opposite. Men raised with certain values, that he espouses, if they are unable to take care of their wife and family due to economic reasons will simply not get married and have a family. The 'protect' instinct is grounded in biology. It transcends culture.
Thanks for the upload. It would be even better if you uploaded your video at a higher audio volume. It's a bit difficult to hear for us half deaf folks like me and I've got the computer speakers at full volume.
He is describing, in my opinion, “old money” vs “new money”. The “nouveau riche” have been know all my life as being showy and gauche. In my town, lots of old money people live in old neighborhoods, drive very old used-to-be-expensive cars, and wear really expensive but very plain clothing. Their lives are about what they DO-what they contribute-and not so much what they HAVE. I feel this may be the real change; lots of new money materialism.
I think his idea these upper class kids in universities are more virtuous and smarter is blown by observing their ridiculously dumb behavior the past two years
@@flaviodrusovalerio2825@maro7125 6 Years on, you have a solid point beyond question. Look at all the Ivy leagues now 2024, it’s one big dumpster fire.
They are not more virtuous and smarter. It's just that lower-class virtuous and smart children are ignored. The public school system does not help them if their parents refuse to send them to a private school.
There has always been a top 15% who isolate themselves from the masses. This stratification is not new. What is new is the stagnation of the middle class since 1975. The tax structure and offshoring of industry has contributed to the collapse of the middle and lower classes for the past 2 generations. Thank reagan etc for this. He started this. Neoliberalism and related policies are not to be ignored.
The time of compulsory military service of the young people of all income levels (even Elvis Presley) may have helped people of various backgrounds gain more experience of each other. It also led to the identification of all levels of society with the interests of the nation as a whole. In Canada there was the idea of from those to whom much is given much is expected. Don
he had me until he said it was possible to support a family on todays wages, it is not. That is a lie. College costs are exceptionally greater than they were in the past decades. You go into debt for something up to 40 years, many are underemployed, there are not enough full time jobs, places of business like Wal Mart fire people who make too much money, they cut hours below 40 in order to not provide benefits, taxes are exceptionally higher and more widespread, and everything is more expensive relatively such as gasoline and even bread that its impossible to provide for a large family.
You are correct. While some people can provide for a family if they are conscientious about their spending, that's not the case for everyone. In the past, a student's summer job would pay for their schooling for the rest of the year. Nowadays it takes a full time job to pay for one year of schooling at a decent, small, private university.
Back then, not everyone went to college. Before the mid-70s, college was not the norm. Take out the insane tuitions these (liberal) institutions are charging, and loans to afford them, and his numbers work.
Things are changing maybe because the American dream of house payments , car payments, school loans only really benefit the big banks and institutions?
In the book, he talks about how fewer marriages there are among Americans. It's become less and less over the years. My thoughts on that............Do you make any wonder when child support screws you to the ground.
I'd love to hear more about this consensus and the backing studies and public change of hearts. Anyone able to link to content he is referring to below... 57:12 The first things that come to mind are sins of omission rather than commission. One of the best kept secrets in terms of what the media is willing to say, politicians too, is that we know statistically, in terms of statistical trends, that out of wedlock births are a real serious problem on many dimensions. But not least in terms of the children’s own outcomes in life. Everything from their emotional development to their likelihood of being unemployed to their likelihood of going to prison you name it and that this is also true after controlling for socioeconomic status and after controlling for race. 57:51 This is a consensus which within academia believe it or not is now shared on the left as wells as the right. There are many excellent scholars of the left who have publicly said they had to change their mind because the data is too compelling.
So funny he brings up Madmen and Don Draper in the Q&A. That was exactly the picture in my mind when I was thinking about the evolution of the American middle class family during his speech.
Charles wrote a thoughtful book and gave a great discussion, although without a conclusion. American society will not naturally change because of new norms and technological modalities, such as social media, online pornography, and video games. Drug usage likely plays a critical but less certain role in changing the neurophysiological functioning of young Americans. These factors represent an austere form of modernization within the United States; similar processes lead to social change and political stagnation. Furthermore, the class segregation and narcissism inherent within the new upper-class makes change difficult when reform is viewed as a zero-sum game. Gains for the workers represent losses for those benefiting the most from our current policies. However, on the other hand, (and Charles Murray mentioned this) working-class industriousness has exponentially declined for multifactored reasons. It is unclear that the new White underclass can meet the labor needs of a modern economy.
I think the other issue could be the younger generation do not want to work for a business. They want to create there own apps for what ever creative idea they have. The change could be toward a more entrepreneurial work force. Ideas like bitcoin come to mind. The future could be very exciting!
The democracy that govern is a phycology by which the people hopes and asperation are grounded on and if there is serious problems in. Which the democracy is in. Need for review it will bring into question the phycology. And you cannot. Make. Changes on a phycology
as for whether an unmarried young uneducated and unemployable kid has kids and that ADVERSELY effects me personally i would say amongst my WHITE group someone like MADOFF or a dishonest broker or banker could have a more profound financial effect than ALL the poor needy single mothers and their kids
The priorities of the audience are a bit odd, but it's nice to hear some people say outloud that the country fails or succeeds based on its core cultural values. Thank you, Mr. Murray for the work you've done on these issues.
Hmmmm? Lets see; privileged white male, living in America, attended Harvard, lived and living around people that look and sound like him, longing for the 1960's. Oh! Now I get it.
As someone who would probably be defined by Murray as "upper class", I am living in a middle class neighborhood as of recently, and I admit I'm unhappy. I have a hard time connecting with my neighbors or most people in my working class town. We lived in Europe for 6 years, both my husband and I have masters degrees, speak two or more foreign languages, enjoy playing musical instruments, love cuisine, art, history, and architecture. It's lonely not to have others to share interests with. We attend social events and after about five minutes, it becomes apparent we have no more topics to discuss. But to answer Murray's question - "Can't we be happy in a nice house in a middle class town with more diversity and still have nice schools, etc.?" - my answer is no. The parents in our working class town are mostly divorced, dysfunctional, loud, and raise rude children. That makes the schools in our area horrible. Even the private schools are subpar. We are looking to move out when the chance arises.
Politely well said & succinctly summed up.
I don't blame you. My parents might have been termed members of the fallen aristocracy -- people whose parents were of a higher than middle class station. I grew up with patrician tastes and at age 70 nothing changed. One cannot abandon one's social class. But we make do. Aesop wrote about the town mouse and the country mouse. That fable is more a history lesson that a pleasant children's story.
Does anyone know of a video with Murray giving this lecture to a middle-class audience?
I think Murray makes one error in his assessment of marriage statistics. It is not wholly due to bubble blindness or a moral failing; in fact, quite the opposite. Men raised with certain values, that he espouses, if they are unable to take care of their wife and family due to economic reasons will simply not get married and have a family. The 'protect' instinct is grounded in biology. It transcends culture.
interesting take
So MGTOW Is an organic outcropping or societal expression of an epigenetic inadequacy?.
Thanks for the upload.
It would be even better if you uploaded your video at a higher audio volume. It's a bit difficult to hear for us half deaf folks like me and I've got the computer speakers at full volume.
He is describing, in my opinion, “old money” vs “new money”. The “nouveau riche” have been know all my life as being showy and gauche. In my town, lots of old money people live in old neighborhoods, drive very old used-to-be-expensive cars, and wear really expensive but very plain clothing. Their lives are about what they DO-what they contribute-and not so much what they HAVE. I feel this may be the real change; lots of new money materialism.
I think his idea these upper class kids in universities are more virtuous and smarter is blown by observing their ridiculously dumb behavior the past two years
Three years after your comment you proved yourself even "more right".
@@flaviodrusovalerio2825@maro7125
6 Years on, you have a solid point beyond question. Look at all the Ivy leagues now 2024, it’s one big dumpster fire.
They are not more virtuous and smarter. It's just that lower-class virtuous and smart children are ignored. The public school system does not help them if their parents refuse to send them to a private school.
There has always been a top 15% who isolate themselves from the masses. This stratification is not new. What is new is the stagnation of the middle class since 1975. The tax structure and offshoring of industry has contributed to the collapse of the middle and lower classes for the past 2 generations. Thank reagan etc for this. He started this. Neoliberalism and related policies are not to be ignored.
The time of compulsory military service of the young people of all income levels (even Elvis Presley) may have helped people of various backgrounds
gain more experience of each other. It also led to the identification of all levels of society with the interests of the nation as a whole.
In Canada there was the idea of from those to whom much is given much is expected.
Don
noblesse oblige as Murray has often said. The same was expected in the US in the past.
he had me until he said it was possible to support a family on todays wages, it is not. That is a lie. College costs are exceptionally greater than they were in the past decades. You go into debt for something up to 40 years, many are underemployed, there are not enough full time jobs, places of business like Wal Mart fire people who make too much money, they cut hours below 40 in order to not provide benefits, taxes are exceptionally higher and more widespread, and everything is more expensive relatively such as gasoline and even bread that its impossible to provide for a large family.
You are correct. While some people can provide for a family if they are conscientious about their spending, that's not the case for everyone. In the past, a student's summer job would pay for their schooling for the rest of the year. Nowadays it takes a full time job to pay for one year of schooling at a decent, small, private university.
Back then, not everyone went to college. Before the mid-70s, college was not the norm. Take out the insane tuitions these (liberal) institutions are charging, and loans to afford them, and his numbers work.
Things are changing maybe because the American dream of house payments , car payments, school loans only really benefit the big banks and institutions?
In the book, he talks about how fewer marriages there are among Americans. It's become less and less over the years. My thoughts on that............Do you make any wonder when child support screws you to the ground.
I'd love to hear more about this consensus and the backing studies and public change of hearts. Anyone able to link to content he is referring to below...
57:12 The first things that come to mind are sins of omission rather than commission. One of the best kept secrets in terms of what the media is willing to say, politicians too, is that we know statistically, in terms of statistical trends, that out of wedlock births are a real serious problem on many dimensions. But not least in terms of the children’s own outcomes in life. Everything from their emotional development to their likelihood of being unemployed to their likelihood of going to prison you name it and that this is also true after controlling for socioeconomic status and after controlling for race.
57:51 This is a consensus which within academia believe it or not is now shared on the left as wells as the right. There are many excellent scholars of the left who have publicly said they had to change their mind because the data is too compelling.
So funny he brings up Madmen and Don Draper in the Q&A. That was exactly the picture in my mind when I was thinking about the evolution of the American middle class family during his speech.
Charles wrote a thoughtful book and gave a great discussion, although without a conclusion. American society will not naturally change because of new norms and technological modalities, such as social media, online pornography, and video games. Drug usage likely plays a critical but less certain role in changing the neurophysiological functioning of young Americans. These factors represent an austere form of modernization within the United States; similar processes lead to social change and political stagnation. Furthermore, the class segregation and narcissism inherent within the new upper-class makes change difficult when reform is viewed as a zero-sum game. Gains for the workers represent losses for those benefiting the most from our current policies. However, on the other hand, (and Charles Murray mentioned this) working-class industriousness has exponentially declined for multifactored reasons. It is unclear that the new White underclass can meet the labor needs of a modern economy.
I think the other issue could be the younger generation do not want to work for a business. They want to create there own apps for what ever creative idea they have. The change could be toward a more entrepreneurial work force. Ideas like bitcoin come to mind. The future could be very exciting!
Charles Murray is a brave transwoman.
LOL
The democracy that govern is a phycology by which the people hopes and asperation are grounded on and if there is serious problems in. Which the democracy is in. Need for review it will bring into question the phycology. And you cannot. Make. Changes on a phycology
as for whether an unmarried young uneducated and unemployable kid has kids and that ADVERSELY effects me personally i would say amongst my WHITE group someone like MADOFF or a dishonest broker or banker could have a more profound financial effect than ALL the poor needy single mothers and their kids
I wonder if he looked at the need for human labor. There is a lot of talk about how there is less demand for it.
The priorities of the audience are a bit odd, but it's nice to hear some people say outloud that the country fails or succeeds based on its core cultural values.
Thank you, Mr. Murray for the work you've done on these issues.
Hmmmm? Lets see; privileged white male, living in America, attended Harvard, lived and living around people that look and sound like him, longing for the 1960's. Oh! Now I get it.
B. Orned Go on..!
@@leo_mas_922 did you know castro is the portugese word for someone who had their balls cut off (castrated)? deal with it
Abortion? Anybody?
Charles Murray makes some good arguments in his books but he does espouse white supremacist talking points.
White Elitism?
And you are making cheap shots without refuting any of his statistics.
@bluebee5266 not a cheap shot. The idea of eugenics is a white supremacist talking point.
Browns are going to take over soon😂😂😂
That means third-world living conditions.
That means complete anarchy and civilization and logic dies.
Whites are dying out anyway