The article goes on; according to Kotkin, our anomic communities will also be knit back together by high energy and food prices. A good pandemic flu, presumably, is all we need to complete the rebirth of American localities.Hoping that austerity will force us into solving our social problems seems incongruous with what I know of Kotkin and his work, and it's a lousy mistake for anyone to make. A world of fewer jobs and higher prices will mean longer commutes, a frayed social contract, and tired grandparents. If we arrange our families and our living spaces poorly when affluence gives us choices, we are unlikely to suddenly flourish when those decisions are forced upon us. Hard times won't compel Americans into becoming their better selves, and if we are heading into some bleak days, it's best that we all understand that in advance.
It would be nice if Joel Kotkin had offered some evidence that previous spells of economic hardship had knit families into one big huggy bear collective. Though I'm certainly no scholar of the Great Depression, as far as I know the economic hard times often devastated family life. People put off marrying because they could not afford to support their own household, much less children. The children they did have were often left with relatives as they were forced to move in search of work.
Moreover, the sociological evidence is quite clear that poverty is bad for families. Poor people have higher rates of marital breakup, and much higher rates of child abuse. Part of this is selection--people with violent tempers and impulse control problems are more likely than average to become poor. But even people without such temperamental handicaps find it harder to sustain a good family life. Economic hardship is, to state the obvious, very stressful. Stressed people have less patience for difficult children or spouses depressed by their inability to find work.
Given you just fell out of the right womb Megan, apart from your gigantism, where is your expertise in this?
Oh yes - forgot - you don't even have an economics degree.
Carry on.
You need an economics degree to figure out poverty is stressful, and stressed people don't have happy family lives? Also, you're really tall!
Fred, you really have to learn to leave them wanting more; swooping in, doing a little ad hominem, and acting like you need an economics degree to figure out poverty=not so great--- very shabby work. Face it--- you've sold out, your soul isn't in it anymore. You're phoning it in, and in the ultra competitive troll marketplace, that just doesn't cut it anymore. You're the Britney of trolls Fred. The Britney.
Could it be more of a (natural) selection bias?
The families that survived the Great Depression were the ones that were strong, so people reached the incorrect conclusion that the Depression was the cause of strength rather than that their pre-existing strength enabled them to survive?
Toxic,
I apologize. I had forgotten the soft summer nights when you would hide from the lights, and wank mercilessly outside the Giant Goddess's window.
As for phoning it in - why should trolls make more effort than the blogger?
Well, I think there is certainly historical evidence for economic hardship eliciting an ugly nationalist, racist backlash that hurts trade, immigration, and long-term competitiveness.
So we have that to look forward to!
Sounds like the editorial page editor of that commie, librul rag called the NY Times is in love with McMegan.
Well, we do know this:
1. Economic hardship leads to a rise in violent social movements. Labor Unions, Organizaed Crime, Communism, the Klan---these groups thrive on poverty and stress and violence.
2. However, families, I believe, do often come together more in crisises. This is only anecdotal, but compare the "Great Gatsby" with the "Grapes of Wrath"--the first being of the roaring 20's and highlights the utter flightiness and lack of love and the breakdown of families; the second, the Grapes of Wrath, being about a family pulling together in search of a way to support themselves as a group.
3. Mata Hari famously went from beloved high society slut (a la Paris Hilton) to hated morally empty person when England plunged from peace into war. Tough times do change a society's morality. Or we can look at ancient Rome--the early days of poverty were marked by a fixation with being good and just, while the latter days of plenty were marked by murder, incest, rape, anda general disinclination to help anyone but yourself.
by the way Publius---yes, hard economic times create things that hurt trade, immigration, and long-term competitiveness. Because the proof is that we never get out of bad economic times.
Do you even think before you write, or does Karl Marx not allow that?
So, why is it that some folks feel the need to insult Megan in the comments to every single post? I mean, Megan could say "water is wet," and somebody would chime in "and Megan is a water expert now -- ha, she doesn't have an economics degree!"
Honestly, pundits and politicians talk about stuff about which they have no knowledge all the time. Megan's comments on this particular topic might or might not be right, but gosh I see a lot of other folks confidently asserting things that might or might not be true.
If she is factually wrong, point it out. if you disagree with her, say so. But gosh, Megan herself is hardly ever uncivil or mean. So why the need to insult her non-stop? Is it the overflow from Sully's page?
Isn't that "blessed are the poor in spirit"?
Cheerful Iconoclast,
Do you use 'gosh' in real life?
Why did you abandon your blog? was it when you realized it consisted of links to blogs by women you have wanked over?
I have a PhD from one of the top five economics programs in the world. I don't find it a terribly controversial proposition to say that involuntary poverty is a bad thing for families.
It's been a while since I read the Grapes of Wrath -- but didn't half of the Joad family end up running away or dying by the end of the book?
Trolling is an art form Fred, and right now you're just throwing paint against the wall and calling it a masterpiece. The actions of others is no excuse for your own mediocrity. Have some self-respect!
Also, you're obsession with wanking over female bloggers really says a lot more about you than you'd like. The Fred doth protest too much?
I've bashed one out to the great McArdle; how about you?
Given you linked endlessly to her and Althouse, it would be more healthy than an 'intellectual' obsession.
And mediocrity should not be an insult on this blog, surely?
Relative poverty has the effects that Megan describes, because of the stresses involved. Poor families indeed suffer more - during boom periods, when they are unable to compete with their wealthier counterparts in things like, oh, the housing market, or paying for educational expenses.
When an economic downturn flattens disparities, however, the effect is different. Which is why the US is a more violent society than many poorer, but more stable and generally less unequal ones.
Just an FYI: the prolific Fred above isn't the Fred you all know and love.
Who is the one they know and love?
It is me, for I am he.
All others are but mediocrities.
I am this blogs resident Socrates.
I like bees.
MLJ disappears, and Fred appears to take his place. Should we postulate a law of conservation of trolls?
Eternal vigilance, Megan.
I think you will find I predate MLJ.
Trolls can easily coexist; they have a symbiotic relatioship with each other, as opposed to the parasitic relationship with the blog.
You must ride the Green Line, no? Then you see, as I used to, a daily or at least a weekly story to confirm you in your belief.
It's hard to believe, let alone write, something like the article you have cited if you're remote from the sight of real poverty.
The notion that broad poverty brings happiness is merely another fairy tale born out of selective memory. Sure, families may come together more tightly in order to survive, but this is equally counterbalanced by social unrest and violence from those who don't take well to being displaced, or find that criminal activity is a more profitable way to ensure survival.
It's kind of funny that somebody cited The Grapes of Wrath, since about three-quarters of the way through the book, the son-in-law walks away from his third-trimester wife and is never heard from again.
I understand that some people hate Megan. What I don't understand why those same people continue to read this blog and troll in the comments, and even start their own blog to dedicated to attacking Megan. Seems like a lot of effort when deleting the bookmark would have been enough.
This is purely anecdotal, but my sister, a social worker in Michigan who counsels spouse and intimate-abuse victims, has been very busy in the last few months (as layoffs mount around the Detroit area). She used to get calls a few times a week, but multiple daily calls are becoming more and more normal.
It is pleasing to see people choosing more sensible cars and considering spending choices more carefully in a downturn, but I agree that this will impose wrenching personal stresses on many people that will be painful and ugly.
As but a poor darkie, (without economics degree), I humbly offer to help all of you who feel that poverty will bring you together.
I accept cash, check, and Paypal.
I was pointing out that the Grapes of Wrath centers on the family pulling together in an attempt to survive---the death of the matriarch is a big event in the book, and family is most important. The walking away from the pregnant wife is much more poignant.
Contrast that with the novel of the 20s (Gatsby)--which is about the flimsiness of those families, who barely exist (Daisy's treats her child as a mere plaything to be put away than a child, and the effect is striking, if subtle). What is most important here is riches and sexual conquest--which makes Gatsby's love for Daisy all the more heartbreaking, where he realizes that her shallow heart is a product of the times, and, despite his wealth, he cannot buy love.
Do I really need to point out that the idealized 20s woman was a single gal who treated sex casually, while the idealized 30s gal was the homespun, family-oriented woman loyal to her man? We're talking the difference between eras when Clara Bow (with all her rumored sexscapades) was a hit versus the homespun (and some might say homely) Betty Grable in her 30s and 40s glory.
"by the way Publius---yes, hard economic times create things that hurt trade, immigration, and long-term competitiveness. Because the proof is that we never get out of bad economic times."
Yikes, I can see how easy it is to be pulled into the grasp of trolls, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are just a bit arrogant.
To respond to your comment, you appear to be implying that the fact we "get out of bad economic times" negates the possibility that "hard economic times create things that hurt trade, immigration, and long-term competitiveness."
I would like to hear why you believe this to be the case.
Regardless, I've never been called a Marxist before - so thank you for the laugh if nothing else.
Of course poverty is good for the soul; that's why so many people voluntarily give up their wealth to heal their spirits.
actually, Mike, if you get out of your little yuppie mode, you'll realize that your sarcasm is misplaced.
Thousands of people throughout history have given up personal wealth out of the belief that having it creates a barrier to true happiness. Christians, Muslims, and Jews, to just take the Abrahamic examples, have all had great men and women who take vows of poverty. Ditto Buddhists and Hindus. And in our country, the Amish have raised generations on the notion that material possessions amount to naught.
Outside of religion, let's not forget Thoreau and Plato and other philosophers who have argued about posessions owning you, etc. And there have been many television shows (such as the old timey Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous) where the viewing of wealth causes envy, yes, but also causes revulsion and the realization that wealth causes enormous trashiness.
And, of course, the countless and quiet lawyers, stock brokers, and other high stress professionals who chuck it all daily to become low or modestly-paid workers in order to reach fulfillment at the expense of being in the top 5% of wage earners.
Sure, the society directs folks towards more and more accumulation, but that doesn't mean people in large numbers don't realize the folly of worshipping the false idol of the dollar.
Do any "poverty is good for you" theorists suggest that the best thing the government could do is drop the minimum wage to $3/hour and cut welfare so as to benefit the less well off? Or would this be unfair to the highly paid, who are already suffering enough compared to the lucky poor?
Here in Afghanistan, we've had issues with people sending their kids into minefields to find scrap metal to sell, so they don't starve. Or people practically running under a bulldozer clearing mines to pick up lengths of steel wire. Also entering marked minefields to get wooden stakes to burn for fuel, or even the explosive from the mines themselves. You know you're in trouble when you're burning TNT to cook.
People who take a "vow of poverty" aren't the same as "poor people"--they usually have a support network to make sure that they have food and don't freeze to death at night.
CatCube, let me explain this slowly---
Mike=being sarcastic=states that if poverty were good for you, people would give up their wealth voluntarily, meaning that this didn't happen.
Me=proved him oh so wrong.
you=vow of poverty isn't the same as being poor.
me=1) Non Sequitor. I wasn't arguing that. Mike was being a jackhole.
2) um, I'm glad you can theorize about the thousands who have done this. many religious ones go from town to town existing on the offerings of strangers. Many others (Thoreau, Amish) eke out an existence as farmers or hunters/fisherman. Staing baldfacedly that they're merely surviving off of others is to toally misunderstand Thoreau/others ideas.
Many of these people believe in the "consider the lillies" argument and make do with what comes along, with no desire to move up in wealth.
Other poor desire to get out of poverty.
Being poor between the two groups is THE SAME. it is only the goal that makes the experience different. The vow of poverty people would rather stay their. The poor want to get out. So what might be perfectly pleasant to a vow of poverty person is hell for a poor person. So the poor guy in Afghanistan wants out of poverty; vow of poverty guy wouldnt mind the situation so much.
Better get your facts straight before you open your mouth there, chumly.
Better get your facts
2) um, I'm glad you can theorize about the thousands who have done this. many religious ones go from town to town existing on the offerings of strangers. Many others (Thoreau, Amish) eke out an existence as farmers or hunters/fisherman. Staing baldfacedly that they're merely surviving off of others is to toally misunderstand Thoreau/others ideas.
Many of these people believe in the "consider the lillies" argument and make do with what comes along, with no desire to move up in wealth.
Other poor desire to get out of poverty.
Being poor between the two groups is THE SAME. it is only the goal that makes the experience different. The vow of poverty people would rather stay their. The poor want to get out. So what might be perfectly pleasant to a vow of poverty person is hell for a poor person. So the poor guy in Afghanistan wants out of poverty; vow of poverty guy wouldnt mind the situation so much.
I dashed my post off, so obviously I wasn't clear enough in my basic point, which is that there's nothing inherently ennobling about poverty, and the desperation borne of crushing poverty leads to choices with no moral nobility whatsoever.
Further, I doubt that the situation of any poor person in Afghanistan (measuring by the Afghan definition of poverty) would be "perfectly pleasant" for anybody--a good number of these people are starving to DEATH. This is not a matter of adjusting your mindset. And since there are a lot of people in the same boat, there's not much in the way of "fishing" and "farming" to be done, since a lot of the natural resources to do either have been stripped bare.
I'm not making a normative judgement about taking a vow of poverty--I've no problem with it if someone wants to do that. I do ask that you recognize that for people to "go from town to town existing on the offerings of strangers" requires that the towns have a surplus to make those offerings from. This is the "support network" I was referring to. Also, in a modern society, if whatever method that a person who has taken a vow of poverty plans on fails to provide (e.g., due to weather if they're farming) they probably have people who can give them a hand, even if it's just in finding a job. Someone who is in forced poverty likely doesn't have that, or they probably wouldn't be poor. That will tend to breed desperation.
To get back to Megan's point, forcing a whole bunch of people into poverty will probably result in a bunker mentality and "tribalism" (for lack of a better word) and not an improvement in civil society.