Charles Murray: Why America is Coming Apart Along Class Lines
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 พ.ค. 2024
- Charles Murray, one of America's most influential social policy thinkers, has come out with a widely discussed new book called Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010, which argues that Americans are splitting into two divergent classes, and that this growing divide could end American life as we have known it.
A self-described libertarian, Murray started his career as a liberal Democrat who spent six years in the Peace Corps and voted for Jimmy Carter in the 1976 presidential election. His political transformation came while he was researching his landmark 1984 book, Losing Ground: American Social Policy 1950-1980, which marshaled exhaustive evidence that American welfare programs were harming the very people they were supposed to be lifting out of poverty.
Losing Ground was fiercely denounced by the political left, but soon won mainstream acceptance that the War on Poverty was failing. The simple fact is there wouldn't have been welfare reform in the 1990s without Losing Ground.
The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life, Murray's 1994 collaboration with Harvard psychologist Richard Herrnstein, was more controversial. The book maintained that differences in genes contribute to differences in IQ, which in turn play a significant role in the life outcomes of individuals. Most controversially, Herrnstein and Murray argued that various ethnic groups have distinct differences in inherited intelligence. (Economist James J. Heckman reviewed The Bell Curve for Reason back in 1995: reason.com/archives/1995/03/01...)
Murray has written more than 20 books, including What It Means to Be a Libertarian: A Personal Interpretation, and he's currently the W.H. Brady Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute .
Reason's Ronald Bailey sat down with Murray in March for a wide-ranging discussion of how his earlier work informs Coming Apart, why he remains libertarian in his outlook, and whether younger Americans face an relentlessly negative future.
Approximately 35 minutes.
Written and produced by Jim Epstein.
Visit www.reason.tv for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv's TH-cam Channel to receive notifications when new material goes live.
Not having jobs and no goals makes people miserable and envious.
Never said a more truer word - I was there once and almost there now - but now at least I have more experience and wisdom
Such is the environment of economics and politics today. There are no jobs that will pay a living wage, and those who do--artificially, more likely, thanks to the $15/Hour--will soon be replaced by a machine. And today's culture doesn't value anything and considers someone to be nothing more than the sum of their physical parts. Nothing to transcend with, nothing to look up and reach for, nothing to keep their souls from being so small that the Devil wouldn't buy them.
Best part was at the end. "We talk about it openly, and we don't make it EASY for people to live miserable lives."
@C M indeed
Seven years have gone by since this interview and things are just getting worse.
Murray does not attack anyone , he is simply explaining his views . I do not understand all of the backlash .
American Dad the vast majority of the backlash is from the so-called"liberals" who believe that anything good in society can only come from government and people can in no way successfully maintain control over their own lives and decision making.
His ideas are deadly to liberals.
People are just seething to find racial undertones in everything that's why
He writes about awkward things that people would prefer weren't the case.
American Dad Because he is right. And, the truth must ALWAYS be attacked and destroyed, regardless of the cost.
Wasn't it Ben Franklin who said " Do not keep the poor comfortable in their poverty " ?
Right on
@@philadelphiaglobe reducto ad opprobrium
@Eisen Chao No, there are the things that society decides that it is appropriate to pay for, like roads and highways, the military, etc
@Eisen Chao Like I said, we all pay for highways and courts and the military and air traffic controllers and FEMA because we have decided that they are useful. So the idea of "Free Stuff" is ridiculous. It's a question of what we think is important as a society.
@Tuco The Rat I've never heard anything like that in my life from ben Franklin. And they didnt call it subsidizing in his time.
I could, and will, listen to Charles Murray speaking about his ideas for hours. He is a superb moralist, a profound political thinker, and a real American.
What about his dulcet tones? The guy's speaking voice is amazing!
Dulcet is good -- baritone, I'd say.
You might think this chump would have an intelligent program to transform the decadence of modern society with all of his grandiose verbiage...lol...but you would be mistaken.
He is intellectually bankrupt when it comes to solutions. He operates on a failed epistemology.
His theory of knowledge is not simply as old as Aristotle, but it's just as dead. A logical autopsy reveals that his epistemic position lacks the ability to deduce normative judgments from descriptive ones.
In other words, his philosophy has not the capacity to infer an 'ought' from an 'is.' His position is an irrational failure, and it has failed throughout the ages.
What made America great in its inception was not empiricism (be it the variety of medieval Aquinas or that of agnostic Hume), but Biblical Christianity. It was the first Great Awakening that transformed the sleepy culture of the day into one energized with the institutes of the Christian religion (see John Calvin's magnum opus for detailed analysis).
The people who made this nation, who wrote its Constitution and Bill of Rights, were overwhelmingly the intellectual descendents of the Protestant Reformation. It was the Protestant Work Ethic, not the welfare state, that built this republic.
Those who had sex out of wedlock were rightly called whores and those born out of wedlock were correctly identified as bastards.
The Bible alone was the axiomatic starting point of faith and practice--and that is exactly why it could coherently assert what one should or should not do--for all of its normative judgments are explicitly stated or logically deductible from the Axiom.
In ethics, this view is categorized under "Divine Command Theory," though no other position can be consistently placed along side of it.
Ben Franklin, who was born into a devout Calvinistic family, knew the power of Reformed theology, for he was not only raised a Protestant, but he was also a Great admirer and financial contributor to the preaching of George Whitefield (preacher of the Great Awakening)--despite his peculiar aberrations into the realm of deism.
Society can be fundamentally transformed again, if people begin to diligently read and believe their Bibles, rather than men.
'We don't make it easy for people to live miserable lives.'
Nicely put, Mr. Murray.
Maybe I didn't get the whole context here, but did he insinuate that not being religious is contributing to a "miserable life" ?
OhYeah? Well put.
It is possible to realize the value of family, community and solidarity - and that it trumps any and all cash money - without religion. But religion has always been a guide for stupid people you don't have time to teach philosophy...
alchemist89
Murray is just another conservative corporatist meritocracy spewing piece of shit that spews all the bull shit propaganda of the right-wing and acts as if its thought out and based in something.
yes, you definitely missed that
As someone who has lived the despairing life Murray spells out I would happily get into a time machine to 1960.
Charles Murray is such a genius. Seriously. Everything that he says makes sense.
Don't know why he's catching heat for his books.
@ITEOTWAWKI61
He burnt a cross during the Civil Rights movement. He admits it.
@Jimmy Crickets Nazism is a terrible ideology. I wouldn't be so quick to rush to the conclusion that Charles Murray is a Nazi, or a eugenicist, or a racist.
He is simply stating his conclusions on a subject that is controversial and induces strong emotions in people, and his views are offensive or insulting to many people. It is important to keep in mind that Charles Murray is not attempting to foment hatred against anyone or assert the superiority of one group or another.
banning the Kardashians would raise the IQ of the US population
I've never seen their TV show.
TV has very little to do with reality. 🤔
Lack of culture is only loosely connected to IQ.
Don't ban them! They mean well!
The Kardashians? Boy did folks had problems 30 years ago...
Valorizing his childhood? No, as he keeps pointing out, it is about OBJECTIVE reality. Children raised by single mothers are Massively more likely to drop out of school, to end up in prison, to work a minimum wage job - or live entirely on social programs, and multiple times as likely to repeat that same hardship onto their own children as a generational single parent.
Comparing it to other claimed factors still proves out.
Black children raised by two parents with a combined income below poverty (varies, but the specific case offered was $12,000 / year gross) are Less likely to be arrested by the age of 20 than White children raised by a Single parent with an income over $20,000 / year.
There are countless studies on these issues. To remain ignorant of the reality is to place an Ideological Position above the well being of the children involved!
Do you have a source?
@AV BulletCatcher Have you done something about it?
@AV BulletCatcher Change location for better opportunity,Train for a better job.Maybe a therapist,if your stuck!
they are common with mass shootters too
@AV BulletCatcher It is much tougher with kids,but how to get out depends on what you are willing to do,and where you live...among other things.Then,of course,there's acceptance!
Theres absolutely no reason for anyone to get married now. The state is the husband of the wife.
.....and there are many states(like here in Maryland) in which being a "husband" or "father" is defined ONLY as a financial obligation, and for ONLY the MAN in question. Men should NEVER, EVER get married.
Remove the state entirely from marriage. Love has been removed from marriage outside of being a marketing slogan.
Marriage is an absolutely important social institution that has done a lot of good for society. But on an individual level the proposition of marriage is getting less and less appealing
@@Andy-em8xt
divorce rates have actually dropped, from a 2018 article in TIME:
Divorce is on the decline and has been since the 1980s in America (when that 50% divorce statistic took hold). Experts now put your chances of uncoupling at about 39% in the U.S. "
@Eisen Chao
SD:
oil money, and lack of welfare sucking minorities....
I remember when "The Bell Curve" was released in 1995 and a bunch of blacks were protesting his book signings - during interviews they all mentioned that none of them had even read the book.
Sounds typical of Al Sharpton's race...
Removing the safety nets while letting corporations do whatever they want would lead to even worse conditions, because even though we spend all that money on welfare, it does no good if the corps are allowed to pack up and build their stuff overseas using cheap labor. Blaming the welfare programs while completely ignoring the legislative and economic conditions that destroyed our standard of living is foolish at best, and most definitely completely disingenuous and deliberate on the part of the free market cultists.
Walmart and other large corporations that underpay their workers so that they don't even earn a subsistence living rely on governmental programs to subsidize their low wages so the workers don't starve or go looking for jobs elsewhere.
Corporations leaving america is good for the average person, because it lowers the cost of goods sufficiently that even the now poorer americans can buy them. I often buy car parts from China for $745, the same parts manufactured here are 3-4K. If we force the production of car parts back to North America I won't be able to afford the parts at all. When manufacturing jobs left, almost everyone just found other ways to make money, and our Nations as a whole "changed specialties" and therefore became richer because we refined what we provide the world, and systems typically get more efficient when they specialize.
THE PROBLEM that murray argues for, is that what america now manufacture is intellectual in nature. Most groundbreaking tech and information platforms are started and run here, and everyone in them is doing extremely well. The wealth has shifted away from the low IQ workers with grunt skills, their characteristics are useless in the modern American market. Which is why if you have an IQ of 130 this is the best era ever to be alive, if you have an IQ of 80 you cannot find much to do that is worth more than $10 per hour. You used to be worth a lot if you could operate a machine, now you're only worth a lot if you can design a machine.
In short the economy is more prosperous than ever but those fruits are becoming increasingly out of reach for the less educated, less creative, less complex, and less motivated people.
@@4biFarm VERY Beautifully put 🎯🎯👏👏👏👏🎉
@@christophergraves6725 🎯🎯🎯💯
A huge amount of people seem to forget why the sixties happen the way IT happen and it was because of the 1920s and the 1930s the CORPORATE GREED at that time was way off the charts.. A LOT of Ppl either don't know or really don't seem to care
If Charles Murray was concerned in 2010 he must be in bits now in 2022
Ten months later and I still think this is one of the most fascinating interviews I've ever seen.
"Coming Apart" is well worth buying. And the quiz on chapter four was quite an eye-opener...
Good, tough questions, on the edge of being personal and combative and Charles's answers are even better than the questions. Great interview!
Great interview! I liked how the interviewer did not beat around the bush in asking the difficult questions.
Yes but he was also a fucking moron who literally could not understand some of the things Murray was saying.
The Atlantean Exactly, and the looks on his face. Not a fan.
This is why I believe that Jordan Peterson's work is so important. His message calls young men and women to a higher purpose. He says "clean your room." You can't fix the world without first fixing yourself. He teaches the biblical stories and presents the meaning they have for us culturally. He calls us back to the strengths of our beliefs.
I'm here due to Covid-19 and George Floyd's murder, protest, and riots. He seems right on many issues.
Libertarians basically are insensitive towards humanity. Fuck you, I got mine. Not that IQ studies are not important because there are obviously difference in races (I can't believe that any one who studies the different races can't see at least small difference) Well the media is doing their best to keep us from seeing these studies and universities won't undertake them anymore. And women and men's could be of more or less equal intelligence but they have differences in abilities. Pacific Rim Asians has great memories! This is not rocket science.
And it's foolish to spend wasteful money on education if it's not making a difference. We should spend money initially but if it is not working, do something else or accept it. Also, IQ is generally comprised of more biology than environment as we see from ID Twins separated at Birth studies. If your identical twin has an IQ of 125 and you are raised apart in very different environments the chances still remain that you have an IQ within a couple of points on one another. That's the power of biology, not that environment, in general, can't be up to 30% person of the IQ equation . Logically, the biological and environmental ratio of importance of any given individual can vary.
I won life's lottery by being born into a two parent home where I was wanted. No matter how you were raised you can give your own children that privilege, but you're less likely to make it a priority if you've been told your whole life that it's all about money or skin color. The juggernaut of willful ignorance may not be stoppable at this point.
Charles Murray is brilliant
This is a terrific interview. Ronald Bailey did the reading, asked informed questions and drew out interesting answers. A thought-provoking, adult interview.
Too bad we don't spend all this time & energy stopping CORPORATE welfare.
Well said!
I feel like any hope of solving this issue is going to be derailed because of all the random antisemitism surrounding it. It does a disservice to the cause and makes it easily dismissible as bigotry, instead of people trying to improve their nation. Can't wait for these "Jewish conspiracies" to calm down.
The environment can enable opportunity. IQ will limit capacity. Healthy environments will bring forth stable personality and with some persistence and an average IQ, will probably lead to happy employment in life. Nothing is guaranteed and nothing is 'as of right'.
2012 this was recorded and things have gotten even worse in terms of people with #TDS
trump dick suckers?
I appreciate Murray's adherence to data that aligns to the obvious experience we all have but are afraid or ashamed to admit.
This man has the deepest voice ever, really nice listening to, no homo.
Brilliant. It’s like I tell my wife: The harder we work, the luckier we get.
"non-judgementalism run amok". That is the whole answer in a nutshell. You can't judge anyone for anything ever, in today's society, you will be called a racist, an elitist, etc. We need to be able to judge and not be thrown overboard for it.
Damned good interview!
"The poor should be made uncomfortable in their poverty."
-Benjamin Franklin
I doubt he ever envisioned today's divorce rate and attitude. Divorce needs to be hard and uncomfortable as well. Parent with a day who divorce because "We just don't get along anymore" are child abusers. 'Don't get along?' Tough shit! Figure it out you lazy, petulant pieces of crap. You had kids, so your wants and no longer the driving force of your marriage. Figure it out.
Charles Murray has the accent and demeanor of a Founding Father.
No , he has the accent and demeanor of an iowan. The founding fathers were english settlers and had english accents and the demeanor of settler colonial englishmen of the day..
Why is this not attracting more eyes right NOW of all times, is beyond me!
Two answers : Exporting manufacturing and industry to China and the large influx of illegal aliens which continues to exacerbate the wealth gap!
Agreed.
I believe you might want to look at a different scenario: in the 60's most women were homemakers. Then Feminism dumped them into the labor force, basically doubling the workforce. That labor glut froze wages. But median family of four income rose: then prices went up to meet that "new affluence" except that the marriage partnership rate among the working class is approaching all-time lows. Prices reflect incomes of families that in the real world basically don't exist. There's still a glut of labor. The above circumstances essentially extended poverty.
Automation is a MUCH bigger factor than immigration....but you can racebait and scapegoat robots....
@@charliechaplin7959 No, automation is not the main culprit in Americans' wages stagnating. While there has been some job loss due to automation in manufacturing, overall automation has a lot of jobs. See this article in Wired Magazine on this topic: www.wired.com/2017/08/robots-will-not-take-your-job/
Where are these low paid jobs that only migrants are willing to do?
Man, I love how he gets to the point! The interviewer
Yes, and yet in my estimate, he ( the interviewer) seems to keep missing the point. He doesn't quite get what Murray is saying.
The Bell Curve book raises some key points about the the significance of IQ. Having a high IQ is an asset in many ways.
+Gary Vardon Being a generous person who is capable of interacting positively with others and being understanding of them and capable of listening to them is probably more importante than having a high IQ. A high IQ without virtue is not a great boon. People with lower IQs can and should be helped to be decent people and thus living a happy and fulfilling life.
+faultroy, what a stupid question, i mean GARY makes a stupidly all too obvious point: being smarter is better, DUH!
- tall up to a point, the break off for men is right around 6 foot four as to joint problems, Marfan's syndrome symptomatology, and many measures of heart trouble and just longevity in general being harmed... back problems, etc... lots of correlations... so tall may not AT ALL be a benefit as to health, like little dogs living longer...
thin? almost to the point of looking starved... caloric restriction is BY FAR the most proven age reversal, age lengthening lifestyle change...
- handsome? u should see the study of women, they used a composite of dozens of men, and gave limited info - education/income/job... women are SO subjective and irrational that they would switch the esthetic scores for the same men after janitor was removed and heart surgeon was replaced, etc... "handsome" was more a function of wealth/smarts... men don't have this "problem", we can see stupid trash girls as sexy WHEN THEY ARE!
- so thin is your best one, the other two are more controversial and not so guided by the perceptions people largely have ;)
+faultroy, so u have some commie sentiment to protect the emotional well being of kids as NONE of them should learn they are inferior? just avoid IQ because its some nebulous unknown quantity and not even test for it? well i hope u like SOME standardized tests... we need SOME frame of reference for professions and such, or do u want to extend your weak minded cowardly approach from kids to adults? just when do we make the separation to weed out the failures in dental school, neurology, etc...?
desires from kids include entertainment, fun... hardly much education...
but try to mix it up as best u can!
gut feelings shouldn't dictate comparative norms and outcomes for society, but cold hard facts and competition/meritocracy SHOULD
IQ Tests, test our ability to take IQ Tests !
+stephen, of course its more than that but that is one argument, and i don't see anything wrong with BINET being adamant about how IQ is not fixed but can be increased... MENSA says most of us can add around up to 14 IQ points with study/practice - test taking again and again... and whats wrong with that?
perhaps u can also test INCREASED IQQ, a quotient for the quotient... the outcome over time of repeat test taking... that could show u have greater intelligence due to improving, duh! ;) i mean the ability to add IQ points is its own intelligence... as many are more stuck in a narrow range of outcomes...
Money earned yields dignity. Money given breeds entitlement.
Mr. Murray imparts a healthy dose of wisdom here!
Charles Murray is a very intelligent
Man and I love listening to him
What a wise man! I'm looking forward to learning more from him reading his book. Lovely scholarly energy of both people in video, enjoyed having so many thoughts expressed better than I could.
As I see it, Charles Murray nails what ails us.
You cannot debate with people who think that objective reality is subjective.
I was raised by the state, my parents both worked, I was a 'latchkey kid' and my 'family' values were formed by the state's lessons to me. One day my wife said to me, 'if only you had money'. Divorced me and married the state. My child was raised by the state. That's how it happens.
A great man, decent, honest, and courageous.
While we implement this man's welfare proposals, lets also do away with corporate welfare in the form of sky high rents, slave wages and the interest on the national debt.
The secret problem of life here is housing. From apartments to condos, coops and private houses, the costs are today over 50% of most people's monthly income. The real estate industry has everyone by the balls.
That is a truly BIZARRE statement...The first two are entirely a function of the free market....and the last subject is a functioning ramification of having spent money that was not actually possessed.
Housing costs have multiple factors. Regulation and taxes probably add more to the cost of housing than "greedy" owners and the real estate industry.
I'm against corporate welfare but literally NONE of the things you mentioned are actually corporate welfare. Try again.
The buying power cost of housing of all types has multiplied by several times compared to the buying power of wages. The subprime bad bet that led to a multitude of foreclosures still has tons of foreclosed properties OFF the market. Likely to help prop up the real estate market. Fewer and fewer people can afford the prices they want to balance their books. In fact, there's a huge growing number of properties that haven't had any payment on their loan sent in for years, but they didn't even foreclose on. I guess that would be admitting their gambit was a losing one and the rug could be pulled from their entire operation.
Meanwhile, as people become more and more desperate to avoid homelessness, they've lost any will to resist exploitation and are willing to work for pennies on the dollar. Corporate profits are increasing as wages stagnate.
Seems like a nice little loop.
"don't make it easy for people to live miserable lives" .... that will stick with me forever wow
Our maybe your cup isn't that deep to begin with? 🤔
Family, community, vocation, and faith - words to live by.
You gotta love this guy
What most critics won't acknowledge: "The significance of group differences is trivial, as long as you treat people as individuals, which, of course, is the key."
Complete contradiction to the powerful voices telling us how to live: the Collectivist, Tribalist, SJWs.
For any college or institution of higher learning to ban Charles Murray from the ability to speak or debate his position(s) is outrageous. More than that, it is a direct affront to the freedom of speech in our country. America is indeed coming apart, for more than just a few good reasons..
At 14:47, Murray points out that if you're of middling to lower intelligence that the criminal code provides an incentive against destructive behaviour. Only very late in life am I finally figuring out that a moral structure, formerly provided by the church, is a far more economic way of getting the same behaviour improvements. Having been a "libertarian" in my youth, I think their discarding of religion is a mistake: not a lot of people are able to take on the world "raw", with all its complexities, unforeseen, and indirect consequences, and navigate through it well. Judeo Christian religion has done a pretty good job, prior to its destruction, of helping those folks out to lead productive and non-destructive lives.
It's been my experience that the non-judgmentalism he criticizes came out of family situations where children were abused. They associated that abuse with the cultural norms of the 50s and 60s, throwing in the racism and sexism that existed then, and threw out the baby with the bath water, saying the whole thing was invalid. Harkening back to that time does not win converts. Bailey's point is I think valid that successful values need to take into account new realities in social norms.
👏👏👏👍🎯 Was my same point of thinking too To me I've basically sums this up around close to the end that he was basically saying that everything that happened in the 60s that it a BIG mistake and that's the reason why he was saying in the beginning that once you take toothpaste out of the tube you can NOT put it back in the tube..
IDK.. it's one thing to live a pretty good or good enough life BUT.. Still what to do with those who are without and scorned by Society ???
I remember when the bell curve came out and all the controversy around Murray. I'm glad I took the time to listen to him speak, rather than just believe what I have heard about the implications of his work. He seems to be a very thoughtful and nuanced individual. Even if you don't agree with him, he certainly does not seem to be who he has been characterized to be
Read the book, you won't regret it.
Mr Murray no longer talks about how poorly we treat the really smart kids. GET YOUR KIDS OUT OF THE EVIL, DUMB, STUPID PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
DOC MURRAY GOT THIS 100% hes a very smart! and brilliant!! man.
What about corporate welfare? We spend so much time arguing over welfare and aid for the poor, but never even touch the issue of corporate giveaways.
Corporate welfare is mostly a myth. The biggest handouts go to farm subsidies. Beyond that it's mostly various kinds of tax breaks. Not defending those, but tax breaks != welfare.
@@erc9468 this ^
"Corporate welfare" is a highly confusing and misleading term. what I'd really like to see is companies actually pay their fair share of taxes instead of there being dozens of loopholes for their high paid lawyers and tax experts to exploit.
@@BManStan1991
Yes, of course. But the "corporate welfare" meme is mostly a canard. There are tax breaks, and then there are subsidies for things like corn, electric cars, and solar panels. But there are by and large no handouts of cash to companies the way there are to inviduals.
@@erc9468 Don't be silly. A tax break and a cash handout is the SAME to a corporation's accounting office. They are NOT different.
It is hard to tell the truth in America now !!!!
A learning lesson: Don't fight for people, especially if they are not ready emotional for it. The person wanting to fight for someone may not have the same insight, otherwise if they did have the same insight they would already may feel the need to fight instinctively for themselves.
Great discussion by a very intelligent and well-spoken guy and a great interviewer. Thanks for the talk.
Yeah, because there was a social consensus which supersedes a legal consensus. Having out of wedlock children is probably a bad idea, but you can't incentivize responsible behavior if there is no social framework that agrees to such behavior. It's why these social planning ideas always fail. People are going to move in, what they perceive to be, their own interest no matter what we "tell" them to do.
If you remember- "The Bell Curve" came out the week Marion Barry was re-elected.
So what's your point?
Sounds like you're ready to serve up a racialized comment? 🤔
I don't know how this popped up in my recommended but what a fantastic interviewer, challenging without being confrontational, very few leading questions, and really good follow-up questions that showed he was paying attention.
This is why I have begun following the Libertarians. I completely agree. Policies have not been successful yet US keeps doing the same things.
So if the politician is afraid of alienating the single mom, we can forget about it.
andrew domenitz : You summed it up in a nutshell. Society as we have experienced it is f***ed, brought about by promiscuous women.
It was brought about by allowing them to vote. Let them do what they want, freedom is freedom. But only logic should be allowed to vote, not feelings.
Crossman, men are part of the problem, too. Men can be far more promiscuous than women, and are far more happy to be freed of the obligations of taking care of a family.
The government workers are replacing the private sector middle class. When the middle class is gone, then who will support the government class?
It sounds just like in my small country with big government.
I got to this video from a Common Core video. The goal is to have a 2 class system: the Ruling class and the Working class--no Middle class at all. In the US, the working class cannot be allowed to take jobs that allow them to increase their wealth, because they might demand entry into the Ruling class. Manufacturing has already been sent away. The Working class should be called the Servant class, because the only jobs left for them is the service industry.
Thank you for the clear questions and answers. Great interview! Thank you for the upload and sharing information, that some in this now political correct system may find upsetting!🌺
The problem with that is the people that shouldn't be procreating would rather spend their money on Coke and cigarettes than birth control.
To me it's seems like the roles have swift the women are working and the male are stay at home fathers if the women doesn't decide to jump around. I've seen a bunch of women with kids but most of the kids have different fathers.
great interview. really interesting points.
It's not him they are actually angry at. It's the data. They hate him for bringing up the data
Too much social inequality is bad because it could jeopardize the rights of people and create a system similar to medieval serfdom where only a few people own land and the comfortable class is controlled by brutal guilds.
Interesting argument. The employment participation has been steadily declining for years. It's now at a point where we're getting huge polarization in US society. The narrative of employment growth with technological advances seems to breaking down. The advances in automation currently implemented and on the horizon indicate that the employment participation rate will continue to decline.
in 1996 we took people OFF the welfare rolls and "saved" millions in the federal budget AND THEN in 2008 we added back on the welfare rolls AIG GM Bank of America CITIBANK et al in the billion dollar corporate bail-outs - so basically we took the less educated and resourced OUT and gave it to the intellectuals who had fallen on hard times (YET turned out to be corrupt greedy and playing the system - the modern day "welfare queen" became people like CEOs and Hedge Fund managers)
@@fdfdfd20
Yeah, thanks Obama.
His last few words at the end are powerful. I wish that more Boomers could understand this.
Do you even know what a boomer is? He is one and his views are clearly stuck in the past.
Surprised millennials would support him.
I'm guessing because you can't understand what he is saying.
Murray was fantastic as usual. Good probing questions by the interviewer. Well done.
Facebook came online in 2004 and TH-cam 2005. They've only been around 13,14 years. Up until that time people had ONLY what Leftists taught in the classroom, printed in the newspapers, or reported in MSM for information. Conservative speech was limited to talk-radio and Fox News (a latecomer also). Social Media provides an effective forum for Conservative views, and it's popularity among young adults is a potential cultural game changer. I see a big shift already, not just in America but around the globe.
I believe genes can affect IQ. You can have several children growing up in the same household with the same parents and all can have significantly varied IQ's
Apparently, you don't know what average means. When one calculates an average, you sum all the values and divide by the number of values in the set. This does not mean all the values are the same. Mark Phelps is correct.
antoniac1234 Here is the average tested results of breeders. Notice any patterns?
IQ - Nation
59 Equatorial Guinea
59 Sao Tome/Principe
63 Ethiopia
63 Guinea
63 Guinea-Bissau
64 Gambia
64 Liberia
64 Senegal
64 Sierra Leone
65 Congo (Zaire)
66 Burkina Faso
66 Gabon
66 Zimbabwe
67 Niger
67 Nigeria
68 Central African Rep
68 Djibouti
68 Eritrea
68 Mali
68 Somalia
69 Angola
69 Benin
69 Togo
70 Burundi
70 Cameroon
70 Rwanda
71 Côte d'Ivore
71 Ghana
71 Malawi
72 Botswana
72 Chad
72 Haiti
72 Jamaica
72 Kenya
72 Lesotho
72 Mosambique
72 Namibia
72 South Africa
72 Sudan
72 Swaziland
72 Tanzania
73 Congo (Brazilian)
73 Mauritania
73 Uganda
75 Antigua
75 Dominica
75 Grenada
75 St. Kitts & Nevis
75 St. Lucia
75 St.Vincent/Grenadines
77 Zambia
78 Bahamas
78 Barbados
78 Bhutan
78 Cape Verde
78 Nepal
78 Qatar
79 Comoros
79 Guatemala
79 Madagascar
80 Ecuador
80 Trinidad Tobago
81 Bangladesh
81 India
81 Maldives
81 Mauritius
81 Pakistan
81 Seychelles
81 Sri Lanka
83 Afghanistan
83 Bahrain
83 Belize
83 Egypt
83 Kuwait
83 Oman
83 Saudi Arabia
83 United Arab Emirates
83 Yemen
84 Algeria
84 Dominican Republic
84 El Salvador
84 Fiji
84 Guyana
84 Honduras
84 Iran
84 Kiribati
84 Libya
84 Marshall Islands
84 Micronesia
84 Nicaragua
84 Panama
84 Papua New Guinea
84 Puerto Rico
84 Solomon Islands
84 Tunisia
84 Vanuatu
85 Bolivia
85 Cuba
85 Morocco
85 Paraguay
86 Burma Myanmar
86 Lebanon
86 Philippines
87 Azerbaijan
87 Brazil
87 Iraq
87 Jordan
87 Kyrgyzstan
87 Mexico
87 Samoa Western
87 Syria
87 Tajikistan
87 Tonga
87 Turkmenistan
87 Uzbekistan
88 Colombia
88 Venezuela
89 Cambodia
89 Indonesia
89 Laos
89 Suriname
90 Albania
90 Croatia
90 Peru
90 Turkey
91 Costa Rica
91 Thailand
92 Brunei
92 Cyprus
92 Greece
92 Malaysia
93 Armenia
93 Bulgaria
93 Chile
93 Georgia
93 Ireland
93 Kazakhstan
93 Macedonia
93 Yugoslavia
94 Israel
94 Romania
95 Malta
95 Moldova
95 Portugal
95 Slovenia
96 Argentina
96 Belarus
96 Russia
96 Slovakia
96 Ukraine
96 Uruguay
96 Vietnam
97 Canada
97 Czech Republic
97 Estonia
97 Finland
97 Latvia
97 Lithuania
98 Australia
98 Denmark
98 France
98 Iceland
98 Mongolia
98 Norway
98 United States
99 Hungary
99 Poland
99 Spain
100 Belgium
100 China
100 New Zealand
100 Singapore
100 United Kingdom
101 Luxembourg
101 Sweden
101 Switzerland
102 Austria
102 Germany
102 Italy
102 Netherlands
104 Taiwan
105 Japan
105 Korea, North
106 Korea, South
107 Hong Kong
Sumeria in 15,000BC was more advanced than Negroid Africa today and chronically low average Negroid IQ is the reason.
/watch?v=lESEb2-V1Sg
There are outliers to the above, for sureI had a Philippino GF and a Nigerian (Ibo) wife. The Nigerian was WAY more intelligent than than the Philippino. Of course, the Nigerian had a Law Degree from the Sorbonne in Paris, and the Philippino only had a Associates Degree. The Philippino was raised in the US from age 8. The Nigerian grew up in the Cameroons, lived in Paris for 10 yrs, then moved to the US.
Yet how could you dissect culture and race there?
dosent work like that, brain is like a muscle more you use it more intelligent you are, plus if ppl in n europe were more intelligent they would not be called barbarians by romans
Professional associations are controlling more and more middle class jobs, making it tougher and tougher for a low-income adult to ever obtain them. The licensing procedure for many of these professions is now out of control and largely unnecessary. For instance, a lot of non-accounting majors were taking, and passing, the exams to become CPA's.The accounting majors were angry with this trend and demanded that only those who've taken x amount of acc courses get CPA, even if others pass the test.
Teachers have the same problem. Never mind that I have 2 degrees and taught for 20 years. I passed the test you require! Except I passed it 25 years ago and the scores were discarded, so I have to pay to take the test again.
Wow! You are the man Mr. Murray. Enjoyed this thought provoking video. Thank you!
Awesome. Thanks for uploading.
This guy sounds pretty smart. Maybe he can explain how the banks robbed the people of trillions of dollars and nobody went to jail, ya think?
Because the political class and the major banks were (and are) in firm alliance with each other, for all sorts of reasons.
I vote for peer to peer decentralized money not under the control of any bank or government. The cryptographers will win this battle and governments will be subservient to the people once again.
Most of it regained within a few years. No sense crying over spilled milk.
The banks gave me a million, thanks!
Its easy to say""'the banks robbed people.." but no-one ever seems to be able to explain what they did. Scary thought: Maybe you are just recycling left wing propaganda!
Hope they do something about "TH-cam"....ITS SO OUTTA OF CONTROL WITH CENSORSHIP AND PUSHING GARBAGE VIDEOS IN YOUR INTERESTS AND KEEPING YOU IN CHECK!
Who is they? You dumb boomer!
I agree 100%!!! The slander of "racism" may be abused... but the absence of PRIDE in one's own virtue, has been lost. It's called consequences!
I like this man despite his being a Liberal.Charles Murray is a very nice and intelligent man.
15:40 "High IQ people love complexity" Lol so true, that's why programming languages are so much harder than they need to be. Invited by high IQ people. I'm a low-iq engineer. I just had to get where I am due to persistence. Def have encountered a lot of, over-engineered stuff in the programming world.
actually, it's breaking down along racial lines.
Not just racial, but along the whole garbage bag of identity politics manufactured by the neo marxist media. They are purposely recreating and perpetrating all categories of social prejudice.
@C M No, I can't agree with that statement at all. The very definition of the word is "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience"... "dislike, hostility, or unjust behavior deriving from unfounded opinions". Hence the horrid Ku Klux Klan.
@@joaniehiggs6575 neo Marxism? Oy vey Excuse me while I shut it down
This is one of the few authors willing to address class other than Wolf and Chomsky. I like Wolf but not crazy about Chomsky who is part of the elite.
Wow. This Murray fellow is like the voice of common sense.
Too many different cultures and immigrants at one time that is the problem. Way too many and way too fast. .
brdpitt .......invasion is a symptom, not a cause. The Globalist Bankers use immigration to dilute and destroy Western Culture which they must in order to impose their New World Order on is all. Until we can honestly address the real source of our troubles we will never prevail over them.
@@oldschool7207 Time to water the tree of liberty?
@2:27.
Jefferson favored embargoes and Madison favored high tariffs so how are they libertarian?
Murray is a titan of a man.
Culture is a really important factor, culture doesn't need to be changed by force however we have seen a shift in embracing destructive habits. For example, drinking and drugs is celebrated in both movies and music, feminism in 2021 paints men as toxic, universities push for leftist ideas like encoring the welfare state, all tradition is demonized, capitalism and the free market is lied about and betrayed as evil in both music and movies. There is a lot more I could mention but I think Murray's points and the ones I added in this comment are sufficient.
In some ways, Murray doesn't understand what is going on, and why America is falling apart.
So Murray says 40% of births in America in 2012 are out of wedlock births. And there is now no cultural stigma to having children out of wedlock. I agree, except I have read that by 2015 the rate of out of wedlock births are now slightly over 50%. and such births are now the cultural norm....a minor quibble with Murray.
In her book, "Men on Strike" by Dr. Helen Smith, she says that 70% of American men under the age of 35 have never been married, and often don't want to be. Marriage is in significant decline, but mostly for the bottom 70% of Americans. For the top 30% of college educated Americans, marriage is still the overwhelming cultural norm. For the economic bottom 70% of Americans, marriage is in severe decline. I agree with Murray on this, so far.
But he is wrong in his analysis of what or who to blame.
Marriage is all about children, and commitment. As a culture we have torn apart the relationship between having a family, and marriage. Murray is too easy on feminism. It destroyed the social prestige of working men, in the lower and middle classes. Their wives don't need them. 70% of all divorces are initiated by women, because they know they will win the house, the children, and alimony. Power within marriage is now almost solely in the hands of women, because they always win in divorce. And feminism has done well to make sure that 70% of university students are women, so women are winning in education, and for women under 35 in America, women now earn more than men. In this world, women don't need American men, and most can't compete in higher education. Women tend to be hypergamous, and are always looking for a higher status mate. Women at the top will stay married, because as Murray says, people at university tend to marry each other, in their social and economic group. And high status women at university marry high status males at university, and get what they want: high status, and money. But lower status females can now support themselves, and thanks to feminist laws, if a marriage breaks up, they win. They get the house, alimony and the kids. And often they earn their own money, so who needs a lower 70% male? Most women don't, so they dump him. Feminism went hand in hand with sexual liberation. Feminism brought with it the destruction of the family, and marriage as an institution. Feminism works well for women, and especially well for upper class women, who can now go to school, and get a great high status job, and out-compete lower class men for social prestige.
At 10:30 Murray admits that if feminism came in, without the other policy mistakes of the 1960s, then women could support the child on their own. But he can't see the implications of this. Income distribution is so skewed towards the top 30%ers in America, that women who can support a child on her own often has little reason to keep a lower-end man around. He brings little to the table, and she doesn't need him. It's different for upper 30% women. Their man brings lots to the table, so she has plenty of reason to keep him around. That's why marriage is so common and stable, in the upper 30% of society.
Murray comes a half step towards the truth when he comments that when women work, "he is no longer the man" and is only partially needed. But he doesn't see the full implications of what this means. And it means different things for low end men, and high end men, and that's where his confusion comes from.
Feminism is to blame for the destruction of family and marriage. Feminism works for high end women, but destroyed the social prestige of lower class men, and destroyed the social status rewards for lower class men, because feminism worked hand in hand with changes in sexual attitudes that meant that men were no longer socially rewarded, for sticking around and supporting the wives, if those men were poor. They were no longer "good guys" for sticking around. Welfare would make the difference in income, or the woman could support herself. Lower class men were devalued. They now have no reason to stick around, with a woman they get pregnant, and women have little reason, to keep them around. If they stay in a marriage, lower class 70% men have effectively become slaves to their wives, if they stay married. All their money goes to their wife. They have no social prestige or approval, just for staying married. And women don't really need them. So why bother? They are just dumb Al Bundy's. And since women now don't need to be married to have a child....thanks to feminism, that social taboo is gone.... and welfare could help out if needed, this led to the infantilization of men. Feminists brought in more welfare for single moms, and lax marriage laws that favored women, and destroyed the need for men to be married, and the need for women to keep their men around, if the men didn't earn enough money. There is now a whole community online called migtow....men going their own way.....who are tired of the raw deal that bottom 70%ers get, and they are leaving marriage. If you go to TH-cam and do a search, you get 100,000 hits for "migtow"....and millions of comments. Karen Straughan's video "Men not marrying. How deep does the problem go?" is particularly informative.
Murray and the interviewer don't blame feminism, and actually like feminism because they are upper 30% guys that have not been screwed over in a relationship....these men have not been screwed over, because women need them, because of their fat paycheck. They are out of touch with the bottom 70% of men, and what marriage is like for them. They have no clue. Marriage benefits the hell out of upper 30% men, because they are high earners, and the wife often brings her own high earning potential, and women are grateful to be with them, because they are high status males, and together they have a rich and prestigious life. As Murray puts it, "partnership in marriage is a good idea"....what that really means is, my wife earns a lot of money, and so do I, so partnership works for me, and feminism works for me.....That's fine for high earners, BUT: For the bottom 70% of males, feminism has been an unmitigated disaster. These guys have no clue.
Murray comes perilously close to understanding the truth, when he says about feminism, at 1125: "It inevitably took, for low income men, a major prop away, for their self-esteem, and their dignity"....well, nah-duh! But he misses the point that that was not the worst part of it. The worst part of it was it took away the need women had, for men. Murray doesn't understand the materialistic and hypergamous nature of women. And so in this new feminist world, men are dumped by women, in divorce, or people don't bother getting married at all, if men don't earn enough money. Feminism effectively destroyed marriage, for lower income men. The reason this is not commonly known and accepted is that upper income men benefit from feminism, so they are blind to it's negative effects on most of the male population. And upper income males set the intellectual understanding of marriage and feminism, for the rest of the population....however, most young men are no longer getting married, as Dr. Smith points out, so despite the blindness of our elites, the blindness of guys like Murray, lower class 70%ers, are catching on, and not bothering to get married. Our elites like Murray have no clue, and are blinded to reality, by their own social benefits and income, and their wives incomes. They just don't see it, and can't put 2 and 2 together. This blindness reminds me of something Upton Sinclair once said: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it"
Murray talks about feminism and imagines a world where feminism comes in, but sexual norms stay the same.....in which case men would have incentive to get married, so they could have regular access to sex. What a naive understanding. Feminism at it's core, is about sexual freedom and choice for women. Feminism cannot be separated from sexual freedom. So when feminism comes in, so does sexual freedom. You can't have one, without the other. Both are interdependent, and about the same thing.....so Murray's contention that we could have had feminism, while keeping sexual norms the same, is absurd nonsense. He doesn't understand feminism at all. And of course, because women like money, they stay with guys like Murray because he is a high earner. So even if his class of people believe in sexual freedom, they don't practice it, because money keeps them together.
Murray spouts sentimental views about the very deep intimacy of a lifetime marriage....."a depth of human connection that is difficult to describe to an outsider"....what b.s.....his wife is staying with him because he is loaded. If he was broke, his wife would have left him, decades ago. The truth is, when money flies out the window, love walks out the door......every bottom 70%er male knows that. Marriage if finished as an institution, for lower class 70% people....thanks, feminism.
*****
Here's the problem I have with that: Black men are not very well educated. They can't find jobs, many can't compete in a modern economy. So black women won't marry them. Why should black women get married to black men? If the women are on welfare, getting married would end their welfare, right?
So if you end welfare, how is that helpful? Black women would have to marry black men, in order to have enough money to survive. Trouble is, many black men can't compete in a modern economy.....they have no money.
So if a black woman gets married, gets pregnant, has a kid or two, she can't work much, she has children to look after, and her husband doesn't have a job? How is that going to work out, as a functional social situation?
If you want to end welfare to black women, I'm all for it, PROVIDED you can solve the black male unemployment problem first. And provided you can solve it to the point where black men can actually compete, have a family, buy a house, put food on the table for their kids. I believe in working for a living, and human dignity compels it.
Mitt Romney once said something incredibly offensive, but in time I tended to agree with him. Remember his remarks about the 47%?.....about how basically half of Americans are takers, who don't contribute to the economy?
I believe that's true.
I believe that's true, and won't change. I believe as technology has progressed, the world of work has gotten more and more complex....and cerebral, and sit-down. This has tended to favor certain groups, and disadvantage others. For instance women as a whole, are doing better in the new economy, than men. And people who are more intelligent do far better than people who are less intelligent...especially the small segment of the population that are super-intelligent....the Bill Gates, the Elon Musks, the Michael Bloombergs. And I believe that Mitt was right, and that effectively half the American public is pretty much useless when it comes to competing in a modern economy.....they can't compete. And I believe there's not much you can do about a lot of things.
Take IQ for instance. It's pretty much fixed, early in life. As is well known, the black population has a lower IQ overall, than the white IQ, overall. And there doesn't seem to be a lot we can do to change that. In the new economy, whites with lower IQs, and blacks with lower IQs tend to do worse than others, with high IQs......the Obamas do fine, white trailer trash, not so much...... I think that the ability to compete economically is a function of innate intelligence, to some degree. And as it happens, the proportion of the black population with low IQs is larger than the portion of the white population with low IQs, but both populations have them....that's where you get high welfare rates, in the black community.....they can't compete... And I believe that this has a very large implication for economic policy.
No doubt many people reading this would say, "Wow, what a racist asshole".....well I'm not. I define racism as animosity to a racial group, and I have none. As a matter of fact I get along unusually well with black people. I just think facts are facts, however uncomfortable they are. We can't deal effectively with social problems unless we in this country start to "get real" about race.
So getting back to black men in the modern economy, for a variety of reasons, including racism and IQ and the increasing complexity of modern life, and probably the innate inability of black men to sit at routine boring sit-down jobs, the net effect of all this is that a large chunk of the black male population can no longer compete for jobs.
Ending welfare for minorities without providing jobs for their men is a recipe for social disaster.
Ending welfare? Again, I'm all for it, just so long as we as a society can look after our own, build bridges between communities, and look after our own......and" our own" includes a lot of people. "Our own" includes black Americans and Mexican Americans, and we all need to work together for a better common future.
faultroy
thx, that was food for thought.
I agree, marriage is great for the upper class. Women in the upper classes are educated, and often bring in good income, doubling family income. And women in the upper class realize there is no where to go, they have made it to the top, so marriage works for them. Marriage does not work for most people, and a lot of that has to do with income disparity. Women are all hypergamous, and as educated as me, so they can make money on their own, so for most of the female population.....other than the upper classes.....there is little incentive for women to marry, and men have few financial resources to woo and offer these self-sufficient women.
So for the upper classes, and for high income gays, marriage is fine, and workable. For 80% of Americans, it's an outdated institution, and the current economic system is entirely unsuited to enabling and making marriage possible. In that sense, I am more than right, that marriage is obsolete, for most people.
I am right, even though I may not put it as accurately as you would like.
Yes marriage serves an incredibly useful social function as you pointed out, so it is a very bad thing it has effectively ended for 80% of the population.
Murray has no clue how bad feminism and income disparity has been for America. He suffers from the bias that comes from his life working out just fine....financially and emotionally.... which blinds him to the pain and destruction, all around him.
I like Murray a lot....he is right on many things.... but he has no clue on this.
Thanks for your feedback! Food for thought!
ps I use stats in a very general way.....they are accurate, only in a wide sense.
+Tim Bucks An excellent analysis
Rex Holes
thx, man!
+Tim Bucks OMG! Are you guys trying to set he Guinness record for the longest TL;DR posts in history?
*Nearly an entire standard deviation lower than the white average*
*"marginal"*
European jews and north asians have a whole deviation above the whites
So many people nowadays obtain no satisfaction from the four areas he elucidated (family, community, vocation, and faith). It seems very tough out there for most people.
“You don’t have to appeal to exotic cultural explanations for why people do things...”
Indeed.
He claims that he's a Libertarian, then passes judgment against those who choose singleness, not to go to church, not to join the local lodge. 🤔
He clearly spent time in the beginning explaining he's a lowercase libertarian. You should watch the video.
being unmarried, not going to church etc have cultural effects. Explaining that isn't judgement. It's fact.
My advice to this interviewer:
Don't try to argue with Charles Murray.
You just look foolish.
You obviously have never seen Murry try to defend his work against other academics who have actually read it and not someone else's summary of it.
Irrespective of personal opinion, this is an excellent interview.
Good work, Reason. More like this.
Words on marriage... amazing! So profound...
I'm in this new lower class. My parents both had jobs and was raised middle class essentially. Once they got a divorce I dropped out of high school. After years of hard work and sacrifice I am now a business owner struggling to get by but still getting by. I can honestly say that it is cruel punishment to have an above average IQ and live among these people down here. It is so painful to feel as though the brain dead liberal armies will take my business, car, dignity, and everything else away and then follow on with lawsuit after lawsuit just for speaking of true research statistics. Conversations on complex issues are violently discouraged and if you do not have a quick black or white opinion on issues that end with "...I don't even want to talk about it", then you are cast as an outsider who they I'm sure want to burn at the steak, figuratively (for now). I realize that there has always been peasants but due to black culture dominating the media and the jewish leadership I feel as though it is much worse then it needs to be. We need more clearly defined ladders to get out of this shit hole down here. I know what to do to ensure my kids are raised MUCH better but for myself it is much harder then it should be considering the talent pool is highly underutilized.
have ambition and drive for yourself and your kids. They will then succeed in life. Be a tiger parent
+okay
u mean that asian cultural thingy? www.amazon.com/Battle-Hymn-Tiger-Mother-Chua/dp/0143120581
What's the point of going on about a high IQ when you're still living hand to mouth? You blame everyone and even your parents but nothing of yourself. You dropped out of highschool, blacks and jews didn't force you to.
Yup.
This is r/iamverysmart gold
Two classes? so all we have to do is knock off the fat cats, then everything will be ok. no more 10k x base income CEOs everyone can have a fair slice of company profits. Sounds good to me.
nope u will kill the talent that knows how to get things done
So, you want to get rid of the inventors who got rich from their ideas. Where will the ideas come from? Who will improve what we have?
I wish this interview was redone today (six years later)
I visited my grandparent's dairy farm in SW Virginia in 1956, and it was like stepping back into 1900.