Belmont and Fishtown, fictional cities of Charles Murray

“To represent the classes at the two ends of the continuum, I give you two fictional neighborhoods that I hereby label Belmont (after an archetypal upper-middle-class suburb near Boston) and Fishtown (after a neighborhood in Philadelphia that has been white working class since the Revolution). To be assigned to Belmont, the people in my databases must have at least a bachelor’s degree and work as a manager, physician, attorney, engineer, architect, scientist, college professor, or in content-production jobs in the media. To be assigned to Fishtown, they must have no academic degree higher than a high school diploma. If they work, their job must be in a blue-collar, service, or low-level white-collar occupation.

Here’s what happened to the founding virtues in Belmont and Fishtown from 1960 to 2010:

The text covers marriage, industriousness, honesty, and religiosity.

http://www.aei.org/publication/belmont-fishtown/

In 1960 9% of the men in Fishtown were not in the labor force; by 2000 it was 30%.  But the unemployment rate was about the same.  The men just didn’t work.  They might get some cash under the table, or work minimally for awhile to qualify for benefits, but then would quit.

Combine men who don’t work with single women raising children, and things don’t look good for Fishtown. Low church attendance and very low civic involvement. Even the men whose income is above poverty level do not participate in the community to make it better and stronger.

The problem with economic squeeze stories

There was another "economic squeeze" story in USAToday today. I think every reporter must be required to write at least one of these per year. I've been reading newspapers regularly for at least 40 years, and I don't ever remember NOT reading that the "American dream is out of reach," or that "the current generation will not be able to do as well as their parents." Even the USAToday story was unable to make its own statistics match up with its doom and gloom story. 65% of those interviewed expected much better, somewhat better or the same in 2008 compared to 62% expecting better in five years. Huh? But you can't get in print or testify before Congress by claiming everything is fine.

My parents were 40 in 1953; we were 40 in 1979; my kids in 2008. What's different in these three generations is the degree of "stuff," age of marriage and age of retirement. By stuff, I mean things my parents considered unnecessary or luxuries--air conditioning, a second car, a second or third bathroom, vacations, a larger home, hobbies like music or golf, and pass times like eating out. Even TV was considered unnecessary by my parents, well after most families had at least one. And cable came really late. I have six TVs. Even as a bride in 1960 I could see the difference between my in-laws and parents caused by their lifestyle, which for my in-laws included cigarettes and alcohol, an expense my parents didn't have. That was money that could go for something else. On the other hand, we spend about $2000 a year just eating out with friends, something my parents never did, and my in-laws only rarely. And most Americans eat out more than we do.

I married younger and accumulated more stuff than my parents; my children have more stuff and married later than me. Comparing generations is looking at apples and oranges, particularly retirement age. By choice, Dad worked well into his 80s. By choice, I retired at 60. Think if I'd had 25 more years to save, spend or invest. By choice, my parents went to college, unusual for their generation; we went to college, common for my generation; my children didn't, very unusual for their generation.

The biggest problem, as I see it, is use of the term "average family" and "working family" in statistics. How many unmarried women with children were in the workplace 35 years ago? How many today? And yet, a single mom without a college degree with 3 children is a family of four, as is a married man and woman, both college educated, with 2 children. Today we have a marriage gap. Government programs, college professors of women's studies and social work, church staff, political lobbyists and foundation think tanks depend on that gap for their livelihood.

Then let's track those children of the two parent families of the 1980s, not only do they have two college educated parents with an economic advantage, but they have the advantage of a father in the home, and as the women-to-work movement increased, many children even had dad as a primary care-giver, if not a 50% care-giver. (All promoted by the feminists, by the way.) Then as those children become adults, they are more likely to have support for education, assistance for home buying, a network with other families of similar values, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist or a PhD in Social Work to see what happens to home life and income in subsequent generations. Wake up Congress and Poverty Pimps. You are part of the problem as seen in this recent testimony! Notice the fuzzy use of the word "family" not once but seven times.

"As America has grown richer, inequality has increased. In 1979, the average income of the richest 5 percent of families was 11 times that of families in the bottom 20 percent. Today, the richest 5 percent of families enjoys an average income nearly 22 times that of families in the lowest quintile. Together, the top 5 percent of families receives more income than all of the families in the bottom 40 percent combined – 21 percent of total family income compared with 14 percent." Eileen Appelbaum, testimony before the Committee on Education and Labor

Can you define a "living wage?"

Or, how about an "American working family?" These terms are pandering policy pablum. It's like trying to figure out the word, "uninsured." It's nailing Jello to the wall.

Let's begin with two classic cases--both single moms with 2 children. Melanie had a significant other she met in college, but they never married, and he's wandered off the reservation looking for more significance. Her first pregnancy stopped her education, and besides, she liked staying home with cute babies. She doesn't know where the SO is, so there's no child support. She's working at Wendy's for $7.00 an hour--$14,800/year. She's not unhappy; she likes the work--has flexible hours, regular customers she knows by face and order, and can walk to work, although she has a "beater" car. She's a whiz at e-Bay and picks up a little cash by hitting the garage sales on her day off. She's worked at a dry-cleaners but the fumes bothered her, and at Tim Horton's, but the scheduling didn't suit, and has waitressed at family restaurants like Applebee's and Bag of Nails earning more, but she likes the management here. She occasionally dates the men she meets on the other side of the counter.

Then there's Tanika. She's divorced and her husband has decided to find himself in the entertainment world, but borrows more money than he sends. He drinks or smokes what is left after he's paid under the table at various clubs when his group performs. Each time she talks to him, he's just about to land the big break. Tanika's no dummy. She's always been told that education is the key to a better life. With help from her parents and various scholarships, and some state aid, she has finally completed the Kent State program in Library Science. Although she's relieved to have landed a job in the public library of a nice suburb of Columbus for $16.40 an hour in a tight job market, she does have to work some evenings and occasional week-ends, and has no flexibility to trade hours. Also, she's got some whopping school debts to repay, and she's maxed out several credit cards. Her dad keeps her car repaired and running. Her mom invites her and the kids over for dinner often, and babysits when Tanika works evenings and week-ends. The library is so busy, she knows none of the people who pass through. Social life is zilch, nada, nyet and she's too pooped to even take the kids to the pool. Her day off is a school day, so she volunteers at the Lutheran Food Pantry.

As you might have surmised, Melanie is better off than Tanika, plus she could have the satisfaction of knowing she is keeping a small army of government workers busy!

She is eligible for a piece of the Earned Income Tax Credit ($40+ billion), which is a cash supplement to wages of the "working poor," and at her income that's an additional $4,536 a year.

At various times she has received help from Temporary Assistance to Needy Families because of the dead-beat dad thing until her eligibility ran out. Between jobs, she stayed on unemployment benefits as long as she could--one time almost 3 years. Although she much prefers working, she never felt a sitter did as good a job with the kids as she could do herself.

She receives a housing voucher ($16 billion), which is much more pleasant than having to live in "the projects," and although there are others in her complex--actually many--no one seems to notice. In fact, she and Tanika's family don't live far from each other and the kids play together at the pool.

In addition to food stamps, which add about $100 a week to her grocery budget* ($35 billion through USDA), her children are eligible for the National Student Lunch Program, the Breakfast Program, the after school snack program, and the summer lunch program--plus she gets her own meals at Wendy's. In fact, they're all packing on a few extra pounds--no one is going hungry, that's for sure. The NSL and SBP (from the Ohio Department of Education via the USDA) also provide these services to runaways, homeless and migrant children, but Melanie is a pretty stable gal with good values, she's "always paid her own way," so there's not much danger of that. If she runs out towards the end of the month because the cable bill was due, she can get 3 days of food at the Lutheran Food Pantry.

Melanie would have to pay a pretty high co-pay for company health benefits, so she keeps passing on that during sign up periods, but she's eligible for SCHIP (as is Tanika who is making under $40,000 but has never applied**), and it provides some coverage like dental, prescription and special lab work she couldn't get through an employers' health program.

A few months ago Melanie's boyfriend got religion and called her, wanting to do right by her and the children and make it all legal--white dress, church, flowers, etc. But she turned him down. Even if he got a job at another Wendy's their combined income would throw off her eligibility, and financially, her kids would much much worse off. She's happy where she is--who needs to marry?

Melanie and Tanika are fictitious; the programs are not.

*In Ohio a family of three would be eligible for about $100 a week in food stamps, the gross eligibility being $21,600 of family income.

**An October 2007 study found that 68.7 percent of newly uninsured children were in families whose incomes were 200 percent of the federal poverty level or higher.