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.
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.
@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.
.....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.
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. "
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!
@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!
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.
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
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.
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...
This is a terrific interview. Ronald Bailey did the reading, asked informed questions and drew out interesting answers. A thought-provoking, adult interview.
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.
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 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.
@@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/
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.
+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
+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...
I enjoy Murray's books and interviews. I also enjoy chomsky, zinn, bertrand russell, ayn rand, and oodles of other smart folks who have contributed to our ongoing cultural conversation. Not to mention the scientists and engineers who have made life better for many people in the advanced societies.
"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.
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..
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.
@@freethebirds3578 Yes. Which is why housing was affordable during the New Deal era when there was far more taxes and regulation lmao. Free market zombies are such idiots. Such willing slaves and simps for their corporate overlords.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
Facebook came online in 2004 and RU-vid 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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..
These days you have to be a college graduate to get the education available to high school graduates before WWII. And that is edging up to needing a Masters degree to get the education that used to be available for high school graduates.
Murray’s ideas are especially appealing to me as a burnt out ghetto high school teacher and then Job Corps and community college GED tutor who decided to go into the trades and stopped voting yes on school levies, which to me is a libertarian idea. My problem with public education is the one size fits all insanity which totally ignores suitability of curriculum from an IQ standpoint. In other words people with bad standardized test scores should be assigned to vocational programs starting as early as the 7th grade or they will clearly end up becoming unemployable.
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.
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 RU-vid 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.
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.
Murray doesn't.seem to understand that class isn't a new phenomena but an old one. The US.has always had class and class divisions. To argue that class is somehow new to the US and there are suddenly classes is utter nonsense.
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.
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.
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!🌺
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.
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.
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.
Surely the loss of reasonably well paid jobs in the manufacturing industry to both technology and outsourcing is one of the main culprits. It's what put people on welfare. But on the flip side, that's why we can all consume more today than at any other time in history.
"Conservative" used to mean you left people be free, hold off on regulating a lot of social policy, limit social programs, hesitate in foreign affairs to effect changes. It is extended to regulating business. Liberals want to legislate/fund programs to gain desired outcomes, improve things. There's a balance to be struck, but many seem hell bent on abandoning. The best way to "improve things" is by education: Early, and CONTINUING! Rigorous empiricism and logic, and a transparent free market.
Rand was radically different because she advocated eliminating much of civic virtue. She thought that empathy was harmful and that dying for a country or family was immoral.
No, I'm claiming the country isn't as bad off as some would have us believe. Why do we need someone like Murray to save us from ourselves? Yes, maybe he'll sale some books and get some acclaim, but I doubt this stomp and shuffle will make much of a difference.
The 50's and 60's America were the result of hardships collectively endured through the great depression of the 30's. Prior to the 30's, America was as dysfunctional as it is today with income inequality matching current levels and families torn apart by alcohol and industrialization.
I agree that the years 1930-45 were a crucible of character formation. The years 1880-1930 were years of massive industrialisation, technological change (cars, telephones, movies). In 1880, medicine was almost completely impotent, and there were almost no flush toilets. In 1930, the germ theory of disease, and the basic principles of public health were well understood, and the urban middle class had toilets. In 1880, there were no skyscrapers; by 1930, they were routine. The Depression ended most high incomes. The income tax of the era 1932-80, made paying huge salaries utterly pointless. That's why inequality was less in that era. Everyday people are much better off now than 100 years ago. Also, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid do a lot to reduce inequality, in ways that are not measured.
No, the divorce rate was much lower for everyone. And ww1 didn't do the people or the economy any good. But they still had the prosperous 20s. While industrialization was creating new jobs , it's the banking system, the federal reserve bank and its interest/debt wall st economy is what went bad. It is responsible for most all of our economic woes. In the 60s, under the guise of civil rights, coinciding with the pill, is when the government started preaching about conflict between the sexes. Casual sex was idealized. Abortion , birth control and antibiotics covered up the big mistake . Seems liberals want people running to the state to be taken care of rather than each other.
The UK welfare state has also lost its way. I have a sister who has never worked but produced five kids. These days her and her husband are like fifty year old obese children
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.
I think many of our drug addicts are not married, have no job, no community, no future and are isolated. Thier contacts are other drug users. A bad situation.
"...a moral world governed by that kind of complexity [Kholberg's theory of moral development] is real hard to deal with if you aren't very smart." Nonsense. First of all, Murray's idea of "smart" is related to the IQ test and IQ does not measure emotional or psychological (moral) intelligence or capability so if there is a basis to make such a statement, Murray hasn't made it. I don't happen to think Murray is very smart as evidenced from the conclusions he draws from data but that doesn't mean he shouldn't have the opportunity for an education or to better minds than his. More importantly, normative behavior does not require a great deal of intelligence. It is by definition the behavior that is practiced by all in the social group. Murray suggests that Kholberg's theory of moral development could not become a social norm because it is too difficult for low IQ people to understand. What level of IQ would be the cut off? Evidence? I don't think the ability to perceive nuance is necessarily innate or measurable by IQ tests, it can be learned through education, through watching others, i.e. conditioning which is where we learn first. Imagine learning a language. Kids do this. It is a very complex thing, less difficult than understanding Kholberg's theory, I would suggest, yet it is done all the time. It just so happens that the kind of societies in our recent past, the kinds that sociologists and anthropologists study, tend to have been very socially segregated. Only the elites were educated and had access to, for example, Darwin's theory of evolution. It isn't that uneducated or "low IQ" people can't understand it but it is probably true that most of them couldn't understand it in a paragraph summary or even in an hour lecture. This is why education for everyone, as a right, not a privilege for those who can afford it, is important. Murray is a quack.
Intellect is derived from IQ which is inextricably bound to an advanced culture that is capable of maintaining high standards of civilization, full stop. Japan, average IQ 105++, went from bamboo sandal wearing carp farmers to industrialized hyper power in a generation and a half. They just needed to be shown by the British. All of Africa, not so much............... Nasty, tearful ideologues like you won't be happy till the whole Western world is a fucking Favela.
People should not intervene in other people's lives as long as other people do not intervene in theirs. Just like if you are religious and I am not, does not make either one right over the other. Charity should be encouraged and good examples should be available but not forced on other.
I'm sorry, but little about Murray's talk--or his entire body of work, even--has done a thing to shake my conviction that for the word "social" in the phrase "social science" one should instead substitute the word "fake." Left, right, or libertarian, analysis of this kind do not pass the test of a real science but simply traffic in fuzzy thought best seen as ideological or, if you prefer, religious. It's teleological thinking scrubbed of a god figure as an ultimate source of a Platonic realm of pure ideas.
Just because statistics are so easily manipulated doesn't mean there isn't truth in the data. Humans may not be competent enough to reliably ascertain it, but we can get better. We can observe and collect valid evidence. That fault lies in our ability to reliably diagnose patterns. But just because so many practitioners have poor judgement, doesn't mean it's an unworthy project. There are those who are astute and circumspect enough to draw valid conclusions and make appropriately limited claims.
The topic of law vs culture is an interesting one. Has anyone noticed how low the upper class standards for treatment of employees has become? They don't put pressure on each other to be honorable business men and women, it's anything goes, you get to party if you have the money. It's really strange. For example, if a rich man has a ballroom dance party, and elites are invited, a wealthy guest who uses slave labor over seas and minimum wage labor here ISN'T considered riff-raff for some reason. Low cultural standards among the upper class.
There is intense competition as you move up the social ladder but the conflicts are legal disputes, hence our litigious society. The main arena of competition is between investors and management executives, like CEO's and CFO's. Investors want CEO's to produce on a shoestring budget, even in large corporations, CEO's have big ideas and require large amounts of capital, so investors are all over executives to ensure their investments. Because the CEO is the pivot point of corporations, their salary has dramatically increased which puts even more pressure on the social problems and decision-making within corporations. Today, we have a CEO as President and look at the gossip and soap opera!
Mr. Murray's "libertarianism" is simply a rigid, moralistic, and conservative reaction to behavior he doesn't like. He is very selective in his openness to the way people conduct their lives, and is knee-jerk conservative with respect to sexuality and marriage and race. He gives libertarianism (already a dubious and morally derelict stance) an even worse name through a filtering system that I see as a kind of lying.
I wonder what he is doing or reflecting especially when he touts the libertarian line which seems to me to be a deregulated, unregulated situation. He is saying that the emergence of the state as a from of government distinct from the medieval monarchies, most of which ended in WWI tended to regulate people and corporations. The idea was that government policy could determine economic and social outcomes. But, he doesn't like to return to the 60's when law-and-order political campaigns became de riguer. So, what he seems to be saying is that the state should serve cultural and economic goals that the state does not itself determine. Thus, he objects to government policies.
He is trying to help people without resorting to authoritarian force. Compulsion is inherent in all leftist proposals. If Murray's ideas are enacted, everyone will be free to ignore them and do their own thing with like-minded people. That is exactly how I like moralizing busybodies: with no power to compel us to do anything. When state power enacts law compelling my actions, on the other hand, we are coerced to act against our own wishes and values.
Seneca The evidence is overwhelming that children do better with married parents. That’s not even debatable anymore. Are you really suggesting freely available sex. Didn’t massively disincentivize marriage for men. That’s denying biological reality. Women’s happiness continues to drop every decade.
It all boils down to the fact that if one group of people continue to get "help" from another group without the receiving group having accountability to change so that "help" will not be needed indefinitely, you're always going to have a poverty-riddled society.
Yes, I watched it, which was why I was commenting on things he said. I'd like to see his studies, because Americans who are more religious tend to not be happier, going by the divorce rates, teen pregnancy, etc.
Ho, ho, ho! I *was* a Welfare case-worker in the '70s, and I can tell you exactly what's wrong with Welfare. First, revive the old WPA and CCC, only with a helluva lot less bureaucracy, paperwork, and waste. Second, don't penalize a woman with children if she's got a man in the house; give him Welfare too, unless he's got a job. If he doesn't, put him on the revived WPA, so he gets a job with guaranteed pay. This encourages the woman to keep him around. In fact, give "workfare" -- WPA jobs -- to everyone who applies for Welfare and isn't physically constrained (including having to care for infants) from working.
So, how many people are getting welfare besides the disabled and mothers? What would the healthy be eligible for in some states - food stamps and Medicaid? Can you easily support yourself on that. The welfare laws about men in the household have changed a while ago. WPA projects existed when unemployment was common. Now, they would stigmatize people, unless that is your purpose
While I largely agree with Charles Murray, it is pure fiction that women are better off being the workforce in large numbers. Elizabeth Warren, of all people, has shown that the family is not much better off financially in most cases by women working full-time jobs. A recent Gallup survey found that 54% of women who work would prefer to be at home with their children under 18. Sociologists Brad Wilcox and Stephen Nock at UVA found that wives are the happiest when they offer a support role to their husbands who earn at least 2/3 of the family income as well as if the man is a good companion to her. Women's happiness level since 1973 when they entered the workforce in large numbers, mostly due to trying to keep up with inflation then, has cratered. Women were a lot happier, as were most people, prior to 1973. www.nber.org/papers/w14969
