Visualizzazione post con etichetta charles murray coming apart. Mostra tutti i post
Visualizzazione post con etichetta charles murray coming apart. Mostra tutti i post

sabato 23 marzo 2019

IL GRANDE DECLINO

IL GRANDE DECLINO

C’è un forte declino nella partecipazione della forza lavoro maschile meno istruita.

C’è un forte declino nella quota di uomini meno istruiti che si sposano e hanno una famiglia stabile.

C’è un forte aumento nella quota di uomini meno istruiti che in età adulta vivono ancora con i genitori.

Perché?

Per tanti motivi. A me piace questa storiella: “c'era una volta, una donna con un bambino che aveva bisogno di un marito che l’aiutasse… poi incontrò i benefit dell'INPS e sposò lo stato (per non perderli)”.

Devo ammettere che senza moglie ne figli, anch’io prenderei in considerazione l’idea di non lavorare stando da mammà.


P.S. ecco una situazione a cui un reddito universale (vero) potrebbe far fronte.

http://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/the-poverty-trap/

giovedì 1 febbraio 2018

Ritorno ai cinquanta

La verità è che oggi l'élite della società contemporanea occidentale è tremendamente produttiva. In pubblico si mostra bohémien e rilassata, con tutti quei sorrisi e quei maglioncini che mettono a suo agio l'interlocutore, ma in realtà è tornata a praticare valori tradizionalisti da anni cinquanta. Ha tassi di divorzio molto bassi, un'etica del lavoro esigente e codici comportamentali rigorosi per i figli.
Coming Apart - an acclaimed bestseller that explains why white America has become fractured and divided in education and class.In Coming Apart, Charles Murray explores the formation of American classes that are different in kind from…
AMAZON.COM

martedì 4 luglio 2017

Il bamboccione americano SAGGIO



Il bamboccione americano


Industriousness – Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010 by Charles Murray
***
Premessa: studiamo i bamboccioni d’America immaginando il paese come una città divisa in due quartieri: Belmont – dove abitano i ricchi – e Fishtown – dove abitano i poveri.
Tesi: il bamboccione esiste, vive a Fishtown ed è tale perché non si sposa.
***
In which evidence is presented that industriousness has declined among all white males, but mostly among Fishtown males.
Note:EVIDENZA
EUROPEANS HAVE BEEN disdainful of Americans’ enthusiasm for work. “Americans live to work,” they say, “while Europeans work to live.” Many Americans have agreed, me among them, and felt sorry for Europeans. Yes, you can overdo it. There is more to life than work, and a life without ample space for family and friends is incomplete. But this much should not be controversial: Vocation—one’s calling in life—plays a large role in defining the meaning of that life.
Note:UE-USA
Vocation—one’s calling in life—plays a large role in defining the meaning of that life. For some, the nurturing of children is the vocation.
Note:VOCAZIONE
Industriousness is a resource for living a fulfilling human life instead of a life that is merely entertaining.
Note:IL TUNNEL DEL DIVERTIMENTO
What Whites Said About Work
Among prime-age whites, the most popular first choice was always work that “gives a feeling of accomplishment,” getting an average of 58 percent of the votes in each decade. The two least-chosen first choices were always short work hours (averaging 4 percent) and no danger of being fired (6 percent).
Note:PREFERENZE 70-90
In 2006, the GSS resurrected the question, and the results were startling. The 58 percent that had always voted first place to work that “gives a feeling of accomplishment” was down to 43 percent. First-place votes for short working hours more than doubled to 9 percent. “No danger of being fired” doubled to 12 percent, with another 13 percent ranking it in second place.
Note:PREFERENZE 06
This is not the way Tocqueville or Grund described the American attitude toward work. In fact, the responses in 2006 looked downright European.
Note:TOCQUEVILLE SMENTITO
What Whites Did About Work: Men
Until recently, healthy men in the prime of life who did not work were scorned as bums. Even when the man was jobless through no fault of his own, America’s deeply rooted stigma against idleness
Note:LO STIGMA DELLA PIGRIZIA
The Unbelievable Rise in Physical Disability
The percentage of workers who actually are physically or emotionally unable to work for reasons beyond their control has necessarily gone down since 1960. Medical care now cures or alleviates many ailments that would have prevented a person from working in 1960. Technology has produced compensations for physical handicaps
Note:DISABILITÀ ATTESA
Yet the percentage of people qualifying for federal disability benefits because they are unable to work rose from 0.7 percent of the size of the labor force in 1960 to 5.3 percent in 2010.
Note:DISABILITÁ EFFETTIVA
This rising trendline is not produced by changes in the legal definition of physical disability or the pool of people who qualify for benefits. Both have been tweaked but not substantially changed since 1960.
Note:DEFINIZIONE DI DISABILITÁ
Labor Force Participation More evidence for the weakening of the work ethic among males comes from the data on labor force participation—the
Labor Force Participation
When the average labor force participation rate in 1960–64 is compared with the rate from 2004 through 2008 (before the recession began), as shown in Figure 9.2, white male labor-force participation fell across the entire age range.1
Note:CALO PARTECIPAZIONE MASCHILE
Whatever that reason may have been, it affected men with low education much more than men with high education.
Note:COLPA DEI MENO ISTRUITI
Unemployment
Through the 1960s and into the 1970s, Fishtown men did a little better than the average person who was looking for work. That changed in the 1980s. For the most recent two decades, Fishtown men have done worse than the average person looking for work, and the overall trend has been up.
Note:LA DISOCCUPAZIONE COLPISCE FISHTOWN OGGI PIÙ DI IERI
Hours of Work
As a group, prime-age white males continued to work long hours throughout the half century, averaging around forty-five hours per week throughout.7 But a growing minority of them weren’t working a forty-hour week, as shown in Figure 9.5. The increase in less-than-full-time work in Fishtown is notable, doubling from 10 percent in 1960 to 20 percent in 2008. Since the rise continued throughout the hottest boom years of the 1990s, it is difficult to attribute the rise to an ailing economy in which men couldn’t find as many hours of work as they wanted.
Note:UNA CRESCENTE MINORANZA CHE LAVORA SEMPRE MENO
Despite the other indications of decay, the proportion of Fishtown men who worked long hours was still 23 percent in 2008, exactly what it had been in 1960, and 5 percentage points higher than the proportion of men in the bottom quartile who had worked more than forty-eight hours in 1960.
Note:QUI FISHTOWN LIMITA I DANNI
Meanwhile, Belmont left Fishtown in the dust.8 By the end of the 1980s, almost half of Belmont men reported that they worked more than forty-eight hours in the preceding week. The percentage of hardworking Belmont men began to slack off in the 2000s, drifting down to 40 percent by 2008.
Note:È BELMNT CHE DECOLLA: RICCHI E LAVORATORI
“It’s the Labor Market’s Fault”
In one respect, the labor market did indeed get worse for Fishtown men: pay. Recall Figure 2.1 at the beginning of the book, showing stagnant incomes for people below the 50th income percentile. High-paying unionized jobs have become scarce and real wages for all kinds of blue-collar jobs have been stagnant or falling since the 1970s.
Note:PAGA STAGNANTE A FISHTOWN
Insofar as men need to work to survive—an important proviso—falling hourly income does not discourage work.
Note:MA LA PAGA NON SPIEGA LE MENO ORE
So far, I have put the scenario in terms of 2009 wages. What about all the previous years when dropout from the labor force was rising in Fishtown but jobs were plentiful? The last twenty-six years we are examining coincided with one of the longest employment booms in American history,
Note:TREND CONFERMATI ANCHE NEL BOOM 80-00
Economists Mark Aguiar and Erik Hurst gave us another kind of look inside that black box with their analysis of American time-use surveys from 1965 through 2005. “Time-use surveys” ask respondents what they did on the previous day, separated into fifteen-minute increments… Aguiar and Hurst document what they call an increase in “leisure” that primarily affected men with low education…Aguiar and Hurst write, “men who had not completed high school increased their leisure time by eight hours per week, while men who had completed college decreased their leisure time by six hours per week.”
Note:BLACK BOX: CHE FA CHI NON LAVORA E NON STUDIA?
To sum up: There is no evidence that men without jobs in the 2000s before the 2008 recession hit were trying hard to find work but failing. It was undoubtedly true of some, but not true of the average jobless man. The simpler explanation is that white males of the 2000s were less industrious than they had been twenty, thirty, or fifty years ago, and that the decay in industriousness occurred overwhelmingly in Fishtown.
Note:RIASSUNTO: SIAMO PIÙ PIGRI. SPECIE A FISHTOWON
“It’s Because They Didn’t Marry”
Men with high earnings are more likely to get married and less likely to get divorced.15 But there’s another possibility: Married men become more productive after they are married because they are married. Economist Gary Becker predicted this outcome in A Treatise on the Family because of the advantages of role specialization in marriage.16 George Gilder predicted it even earlier, in Sexual Suicide, through a more inflammatory argument: Unmarried males arriving at adulthood are barbarians who are then civilized by women through marriage. The inflammatory part was that Gilder saw disaster looming as women stopped performing this function, a position derided as the worst kind of patriarchal sexism.17 But, put in less vivid language, the argument is neither implausible nor inflammatory: The responsibilities of marriage induce young men to settle down, focus, and get to work.
Note:MATRIMONIO E SUCCESSO… NESSI
The puzzling thing about the marriage premium (if you do not agree with either Becker’s or Gilder’s argument) is that it cannot be a simple case of women choosing to marry men who are already more productive—the marriage premium occurs after the wedding vows have been taken.
Note:MARRIAGE PREMIUM
it something about being married that produces the effect, or is the marriage premium the result of women seeing potential in men that they are going to fulfill, even if they haven’t already done so while they are single?
Note:ORIGINE DEL MP
Put plainly, single prime-age males are much less industrious than married ones. Both the decline in marriage and the increased detachment from the labor force in Fishtown cannot be understood without knowing that the interaction exists.
Note:I PIGRI SINGLE DI FISHTOWN: SI SPOSANO MENO NON CERCANO LAVORO SONO DISOCCUPATI E LAVORANO MENO ORE
The meaning of all this is that the labor force problems that grew in Fishtown from 1960 to 2010 are intimately connected with the increase in the number of unmarried men in Fishtown. The balance of the literature suggests that the causal arrow for the marriage premium goes mostly from marriage to labor force behavior—in other words, George Gilder was probably mostly right.
Note:AL CENTRO IL MATRIMONIO
What Whites Did About Work: Women
Detecting changes in industriousness among American women is impossible unless you assume that a woman working at a paid job is more industrious than a full-time mother, which is not an assumption that I am willing to make.
Note:LE DONNE LAVORANO DI PIÙ? IMPOSSIBILE RISPONDERE
America experienced a social and economic revolution from the early 1970s to the early 1990s. The percentage of white women in the labor force rose from 40 percent in 1960 to 74 percent by 1995.
Note:IN MASSA AL LAVORO
Who Joined the Revolution and When?
The short story is that married women in Belmont and Fishtown behaved similarly, starting out within 6 percentage points of each other in 1960 and ending up within 7 percentage points of each other in 2008. Married women in both neighborhoods roughly doubled their labor force participation.
Note:DONNE DI BELMONT E FISHTOWN
Women Working Full Time
Women with jobs have never worked as many hours as men.22 The demands of child care are a major reason for the lower hours—women with children under age 5 worked an average of thirty-three hours… Even women with no children of any age worked an average of forty hours in the week preceding the CPS interview, compared to the male average of forty-five….
Note:LE DONNE CHE LAVORANO LAVORANO MENO ORE DEGLI UOMINI
For women working more than forty-eight hours, the pattern looked almost exactly the same as the one for men: increases for Belmont, flattening in the 1990s and then dropping slightly in the 2000s, with a nearly flat trendline for Fishtown.
Note:A BELMONT SI LAVORA COMUNQUE DI PIÙ ANCHE TRA LE DONNE
Adding Up the Pieces
the graph adds up the separate divergences among both men and women on labor force participation, unemployment, and hours worked. It portrays a divergence between Belmont and Fishtown nearly as great in aggregate as the change in marriage.
IL MATRIMONIO SPIEGA

lunedì 3 luglio 2017

Matrimonio in crisi (ma solo per poveri e poco istruiti)


Matrimonio in crisi, ma solo per poveri e poco istruiti


Marriage – Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010 by Charles Murray
***
Premessa: studiamo il matrimonio immaginando l’ America bianca come una città divisa in due quartieri: Belmont, dove abitano i ricchi e Fishtown, dove abitano i poveri.
Tesi: la crisi dei valori tradizionali colpisce soprattutto Fishtown e contribuisce a scavare un fossato tra i due quartieri.
***
… here I describe a decline of marriaga in white America that took different courses for Belmont and Fishtown during the 1980s, and an unprecedented increase in white nonmarital births that has been concentrated in Fishtown and scarcely touched Belmont.
Note:SUNTO
Over the last half century, marriage has become the fault line dividing American classes.
Note:MATRIMONIO E CLASSI
What Whites Said About Marriage
“In general, who do you think is happier,” the Gallup interviewer asked, “the girl who is married and has a family to raise, or the unmarried career girl?” Ninety-six percent of the wives said the married girl with a family was happier. Ninety-three percent said that they did not, in retrospect, wish they had pursued a career instead of getting married. More than half the ever-married women thought that the ideal age for a woman to be married was 20 through 23, with 21 being the most commonly named year. Only 18 percent thought a woman should wait until age 25 or older… In 1960, no-fault divorce did not exist and a speedy divorce was possible only in Nevada. In many states, the only legal grounds for divorce were adultery or cruelty. Even so, 56 percent of the respondents said that divorce should be made more difficult, compared to only 9 percent who thought it should be made easier….
Note:SENTIMENT NEL 1962
The traditional conception of marital roles took a big hit from the 1960s through the 1980s. A substantial class difference remained, however. As of the 2000s, almost 40 percent of Fishtown still took a traditional view of the woman’s role, compared to less than 20 percent of Belmont.
Note:1960-1980: ANCORA UNA FORTE DIFFERENZA DI CLASSE
In the 1970s, large majorities in Fishtown thought that premarital sex was wrong, that the wife should help her husband’s career first, and that young children suffer if the mother works. Among the college-educated people of Belmont, support for all these propositions was much lower.
Note:1970: CLASSI BEN DIFFERENZIATE SUI TEMI DEL MATRIMONIO
By the 2000s, support had dropped everywhere, but most of all in Fishtown, so that there was little remaining difference between Belmont and Fishtown on most of them.
Note:GRANDE CONVERGENZA SU DOPO IL 2000. PESA LA STAGNAZIONE DI BELMONT
growing numbers of people in Belmont agreed that divorce law should make divorce more difficult, almost erasing the gap with Fishtown that had existed in the 1970s.
Note:BELMONT CONTRO I DIVORZI
Belmont became more traditional in its attitude toward married people having sex with someone other than their spouses, as shown in Figure 8.2. I put the estimate for the first half of the 1960s at 80 percent overall, for reasons explained in appendix D.
Note:BELMONT SUL TRADIMENTO
Based on collateral evidence such as the Gallup survey of American women, we have to assume that in the early 1960s Belmont was about as strict in its attitudes as Fishtown. Within just a few years, white college-educated men and women became enthusiastic recruits to the sexual revolution. It is one of the most dramatic and rapid examples of divergence of elite norm and mainstream norms.
Note:RIVOLUZIONE SESSUALE RIVOLUZIONE D’ELITE
By the 2000s, Belmont still was not quite as strict on this point as Fishtown, but college-educated professionals had clearly returned to a more traditional attitude than they had held in the 1970s. While class differences remained in attitudes toward marriage, many of these differences were smaller in 2010 than they had been in the 1970s.
Note:RIFLUSSO SOLO PER LE ÉLITES
What Whites Did About Marriage
The Decline of Marriage
Starting around 1970, marriage took a nosedive that lasted for nearly twenty years. Among all whites ages 30–49, only 13 percent were not living with spouses as of 1970. Twenty years later, that proportion had more than doubled, to 27 percent—a change in a core social institution that has few precedents for magnitude and speed.
Note:LA PICCHIATA DEI MATRIMONI 70-90
By the mid-1980s, the decline had stopped in Belmont, and the trendline remained flat thereafter. Marriage in Fishtown kept falling. The net result: The two neighborhoods, which had been only 11 percentage points apart as late as 1978, were separated by 35 percentage points as of 2010, when only 48 percent of prime-age whites in Fishtown were married, compared to 84 percent in 1960. Furthermore, the slope of the decline in Fishtown after the early 1990s had yet to flatten.
Note:GLI SPOSATI (NO SINGLE, NO DIVORZIATI): DAGLI ANNI 80 DIVERGENZA TREND PRO BELMONT
The Rise of the Never-Marrieds
The stereotypes of the 1970s and 1980s, of yuppies and feminists remaining single into their thirties or forties, had some basis in fact—the percentage of never-married whites in Belmont doubled from 1970 to 1984. But after 1984, that percentage barely rose at all, from 9 percent to 11 percent. The big news is the relentless increase in Fishtown of people who had never married. It showed no signs of decreasing through 2010, when more than one out of four Fishtown whites ages 30–49 had not yet married.
Note:SINGLE: ESPLOSI A FISHTOWN
The Rise of Divorce
In the case of divorce, the trends were similar into the early 1980s. The trendline in Belmont flattened in the early 1980s. In Fishtown, the trendline continued steeply upward, with the slope shallowing only a little in the 2000s. As of 2010, one-third of Fishtown whites ages 30–49 had been divorced.
Note:DIVORZI: ESPLOSI A FISHTOWN
Happy and Not So Happy Marriages
Not only did marriage become much rarer in Fishtown over the half century ending in 2010, the quality of marriages that did exist apparently deteriorated.
Note:QUALITÀ MATRIMONIO DETERIORATA A FISHTOWN
Children and Marriage
the family structure that produces the best outcomes for children, on average, are two biological parents who remain married. Divorced parents produce the next-best outcomes. Whether the parents remarry or remain single while the children are growing up makes little difference. Never-married women produce the worst outcomes. All of these statements apply after controlling for the family’s socioeconomic status.
Note:LA FAMIGLIA MODELLO
Children Living with a Single Divorced or Separated Parent
The trends roughly correspond to the trends in divorce shown earlier. The divergence between Belmont and Fishtown is substantial, with 22 percent of Fishtown children living with a lone divorced or separated parent as of 2010, compared to just 3 percent of Belmont children.
Note:FIGLI CHE VIVONO CON UN GENITORE DIVORZIATO. TREND
Nonmarital Births
From the founding until well into the twentieth century, it was unquestioned that children should be born only within marriage and that failure to maintain that state of affairs would produce catastrophic consequences for society.
Note:IL VERO PROBLEMA: NASCERE FUORI DA UN MATRIMONIO
In the twentieth century, illegitimate supplanted bastard as the favored label for children born out of wedlock, helped along by the imprimatur of one of the first great anthropologists, Bronisław Malinowski. In his 1930 book, Sex, Culture, and Myth, Malinowski concluded that the “principle of legitimacy” amounted to a “universal sociological law.” Every culture, he concluded, had a norm that “no child should be brought into the world without a man—and one man at that—assuming the role of sociological father,
Note:DA BASTARDI A ILLEGITTIMI
In America, white nonmarital births have grown phenomenally over the period 1960–2010.
FENOMENO CHE CRESCE
That information reveals an extraordinarily strong relationship between the mother’s education and the likelihood that she gives birth as an unmarried woman. If she has a college education, she almost never does.
Note:ISTRUZIONE E ILLEGITTIMI
Women with high school educations can be assigned to Belmont because they are married to men with college educations and a Belmont occupation. It seems highly unlikely that this population of women has the same probability of having experienced a nonmarital birth as women with high school educations who remain unmarried or who marry a man with a high school education and a Fishtown occupation.
Note:FISHTOWN FA IL PIENO DI ILLEGITTIMI
Maybe It Isn’t as Bad as It Looks
People with lower levels of education marry at younger ages and have babies at younger ages than people who are busy with school through most of their twenties. If we control for these differences, how different would the results in this chapter look?
Note:FORSE NON È UNA ROTTURA DI VALORI MA UN EFFETTO STATISTICO
The old-fashioned dichotomy between married and unmarried is unrealistic in today’s world, the argument goes. People may cohabit rather than formally marry, but the children are still being raised in a two-parent family, with the advantages of a two-parent family.
Note:LA CONVIVENZA RENDE INUTILE IL DISCRIMINE SPOSATI/NON SPOSATI?
The question then becomes: How do the children of cohabiting parents fare? The answer: About the same as the children of the old-fashioned form of single parenthood, women who are unmarried and not cohabiting.
Note:I BIMBI DEI CONVIVENTI
The mothers in cohabiting couples tended to have lower education, to be younger, to have poorer psychological adjustment, less social support, and less money than the married mothers.
Note:LA MAMMA CONVIVENTE
Having two unmarried biological parents was associated with worse outcomes than having two married biological parents, and the outcomes were rarely better than those for children living with a single parent or in a “cohabiting stepparent” family.
Note:CONFRONTI
Cohabitation with children occurs overwhelmingly in Fishtown.
Note:FISHTOWN FA IL PIENO DI CONVIVENZE
It’s Even Worse Than It Looks
belief that families with children are the core around which American communities must be organized—must, because families with children have always been, and still are, the engine that makes American communities work—and from my conclusion that the family in Fishtown is approaching a point of no return.
Note:PESSIMISMO
Fishtown’s higher divorce rate and much higher nonmarital-birth ratio combined to produce wide divergence from Belmont; this divergence continued to widen at the end of these observations.
Note:CIAO CIAO FISHTOWN
The divergence is so large that it puts the women of Belmont and Fishtown into different family cultures. The absolute level in Fishtown is so low that it calls into question the viability of white working-class communities as a place for socializing the next generation.
CULTURE DIFFERENTI. IL DIVARIO INCOLMABILE.