Murray erupts

Marta Russell ap888 at
Wed Feb 3 09:24:05 PST 1999

Doug Henwood forwarded: Wall Street Journal - February 2, 1999

> By Charles Murray, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.


> Suppose we turn instead to a less-publicized statistic, but one of the most
> significant in trying to track the course of the underclass, the percentage
> of young males not in the labor force. When large numbers of young men
> neither work nor look for work, most are living off the underground economy
> or are dependent on handouts, perhaps moving into the labor force
> periodically, getting a job, and then quitting or getting fired a few weeks
> later, consigning themselves to a life at the margins of the economy.

> Sudden and unexpected increases in the labor force dropout rates of young
> black males in the mid-1960s heralded the deterioration of the inner city.
> The 1990s have seen a new jump in dropout from the labor force that is just
> as ominous. The increased dropout has occurred selectively, among a
> subgroup that should have virtually 100% labor-force participation: young
> men who are no longer in school.
> The increase in labor force dropout is largest among young black males.
> Among 16- to 24-year-old black males not in school, the proportion who are
> not working or looking for work averaged 17% during the 1980s. It first hit
> 20% in 1992. As of 1997, it stood at 23%. The magnitude of dropout among
> white males the same age not in school is smaller, 9% in 1997. But the
> proportional increase since 1990 is substantial, up 25% overall, and
> concentrated among white teenagers (up 33% since 1990). That these
> increases in labor-force dropout have occurred despite a sustained period
> of high demand for workers at all skill levels is astonishing and troubling.

Yeah ain't it grand how Murray omits the Federal Reserve's (his class) role in making sure that there aren't enough living wage jobs with health care for everyone in our remarkable country.

> Why is the underclass no longer an issue? Because what bothered us wasn't
> that the underclass existed, but that it was in our face. Now it is
> not--for the most part, and for the time being. So we can forget about it.
> "For the time being" is the crucial hedge. What about the long term? Can
> the U.S. retain its political and social culture in the presence of a
> permanent underclass? The answer is certainly yes if an underclass is
> sufficiently small. As long as it is only a fragment, the disorganization
> and violence of its culture do not spill over into the mainstream. The
> answer is certainly no if the underclass is sufficiently large.

This is so revealing, to the core of his BS. It is OK to have an "underclass" if it is no threat to Charles Murray and others in his behind-iron security-gates class. Just keep them out of the neighborhood. The best thing that Michael Moore did in his book, Downsize This was to draw a map from South Central to Beverly Hills, showing the next uprisers how to get there.

> Perhaps most disturbing is the widening expression, often approving, of
> underclass ethics: Take what you want.

Hey isn't this the Protestant upper class mantra, I deserve therefore I take?

Thoroughly sickened by more Murray, Marta Russell

More information about the lbo-talk mailing list