Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010 by Charles Murray

Mar 25, 2012 Hadrian rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: politics-and-foreign-policy, society-and-culture, nonfiction, american, economics-finance-business

This was an incredibly frustrating book.

It starts off with a statistical analysis on income disparity and social segregation. The basic topics are well-established in American discourse. However, he ascribes an unusual cause - the rise of liberal technical classes, and the lack of the 'moral character' of the poor. The elites are sorted out due to technical skill and intelligence, so he says, and place themselves in nice little ritzy neighborhoods and thus refuse to enact meaningful social help...more This was an incredibly frustrating book.

It starts off with a statistical analysis on income disparity and social segregation. The basic topics are well-established in American discourse. However, he ascribes an unusual cause - the rise of liberal technical classes, and the lack of the 'moral character' of the poor. The elites are sorted out due to technical skill and intelligence, so he says, and place themselves in nice little ritzy neighborhoods and thus refuse to enact meaningful social help for the proles.

To be fair, it is possible for those with technical education to move away from their rural hometowns and live in nicer areas. That's social mobility, especially possible for those with technological or knowledge-based occupations. His later discussion of community-based thinking is a position that is treasured by both left and right. Communities bring people together. But as he turns to the discussion of the poor, the analogy starts to fall apart.

The leftist policies which the 'liberal elite' espouses at least attempt to address some of the worst effects of income discrepancies. Welfare reform, health care reform, education reform, etc. If he wanted to get into the idea of elites, it would only be fair to bring up Super-PACs and how single plutocrat individuals are able to keep political campaigns afloat far more than the average prole.

It is a myopic view of history, claiming that the social policies of the Great Society in the 1960s were responsible for the moral decay of the American public. Why didn't the New Deal and the subsequent 'Moral Decay' afterwards, of World War 2 and the 1950s? Or is that contradiction too inconvenient for this hypothesis?

And what of western Europe and Scandinavia, with its social democracy? Granted, they have their own share of economic problems, but the larger industrial powers aren't as bad off as we are. Why aren't these heathen nations suffering, with their laziness and atheism?

And why are the lower classes down on their luck? Is it because of outsourced jobs, a judiciary which defines corporations as people and allows the free reign of lobbyists to spread plutocratic interests? A truly indolent legislature? The collapse of the union system? The dismantling of the welfare system, heralded by libertarians and social conservatives, with pseudo-racist rhetoric on mythical welfare queens? A minimum wage which has fallen behind a living wage standard?

Of course not! Instead, the poor are such because they are Lazy and Indolent and Immoral and will Never Amount to Anything Unless They Do As I Say. They will 'pull themselves up by their own bootstraps', but the bootstraps are gone, and only 'I told you so' rhetoric will save them. An idealized Libertarian version of the Founding Fathers is described (to say nothing of the fact that 1) they were not a homogenous political group to begin with, and 2) some advocated a form of proto-social security for the common good), as well as conservative legislation which will claim to be in support of Families, while directly hindering them (women's reproductive rights, gay marriage rights, etc.)

Even worse than The Bell Curve.(less)

15 likes · like · see review

Mar 25, 2012 Lewis Weinstein rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: non-fiction

"I’ll be shocked if there’s another book this year as important as Charles Murray’s 'Coming Apart.'” --David Brooks, The New York Times

"Mr. Murray's sobering portrait is of a nation where millions of people are losing touch with the founding virtues that have long lent American lives purpose, direction and happiness." --W. Bradford Wilcox, The Wall Street Journal

It’s always daunting to disagree with such eminent authorities, but I see “Coming Apart” as little more than right wing political scree...more "I’ll be shocked if there’s another book this year as important as Charles Murray’s 'Coming Apart.'” --David Brooks, The New York Times

"Mr. Murray's sobering portrait is of a nation where millions of people are losing touch with the founding virtues that have long lent American lives purpose, direction and happiness." --W. Bradford Wilcox, The Wall Street Journal

It’s always daunting to disagree with such eminent authorities, but I see “Coming Apart” as little more than right wing political screed dressed up in the trappings of the author’s “alleged” research findings.

It seems to me that Charles Murray decided first on the point of view he wanted to espouse, i.e., that the declining lower middle class is the cause of its own problems due to their failure to maintain what he calls the “founder virtues" (especially industriousness and marriage). Answers clearly in mind, he then selectively dug out data and prepared analyses to support his pre-ordained conclusions.

In my view, Murray didn’t do much of a job with either the data or the analysis, and his conclusions therefore remain little more than an expansion of his original biased speculation.

Murray’s “facts” are concocted according to rules which do not come close to conforming to the kind of rigorous investigative procedure practiced by researchers who really want to learn something. Mostly derived from census data, Murray excludes any categories which would complicate his conclusions (like blacks, mixed-marriages, scholarship students), and groups the rest of America’s humanity into two over-simplified constructs he calls “Belmont” (the elite ones sort of like him) and “Fishtown” (some imaginary lower middle class group that none of the elite know much about). Finally, Murray camouflages this highly selective witches brew with a patina of mostly obvious observations which, while often true, do nothing to buttress his conclusions.

Of course Murray, and the American Enterprise Institute, the conservative think tank of which he is a part, have a serious right wing agenda, and it is within this context that “Coming Apart” must be viewed. It is a political document - nothing more - which should not be accepted as sociological or demographic or any other kind of disciplined analysis. It is intended to blame the poor for their problems, and even more importantly, excuse the wealthy from any responsibility towards the less fortunate among us.

Now, I do not argue that every aspect of what liberal government seeks to do for its poorer citizens is successful. Some of it is horribly conceived and incompetently executed. Some of it is corrupt. Murray points out these failures, and in this he is correct. But there have also been significant successes (voting rights for minorities, equal rights for women, early education programs in disadvantaged neighborhoods, diversified admissions programs at elite colleges), and the goal to enable all Americans to have a fair chance to engage in "the pursuit of happiness" was and is critically important.

Here’s why: If our country does not figure out how to help those who are now spiraling downward become productive members of our economic and political society, they and their children will continue to be a serious drag on America’s ability to succeed in a competitive world. How will we fare as a country where many of our citizens contribute little and an ever-larger percentage of our resources must be devoted to their support? This is one of those instances where compassion and self-interest are perfectly aligned.

Murray’s analysis, which I see as both wrongheaded and poorly argued, does serve one useful purpose. It gets us talking about political issues which we ought to be addressing, although not perhaps in the way Murray and his group would like.

Let’s see, where do you think contraception, universal healthcare, education and broad electoral rights fit into this discussion?
(less)

13 likes · like · see review

Feb 14, 2012 Stuart rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

This isn't a serious book. On the plus side it does document the fact that the lives of the middle class have, on average, changed for the worse. We have become increasingly a society of permanent haves and permanent have nots. I'll give it an extra star for the charts that document this change. But the rest of this book is just plain idiotic eugenics.

The take home message from this book? The rich are rich and stay that way for generations today because they are smarter and the elite colleges th...more This isn't a serious book. On the plus side it does document the fact that the lives of the middle class have, on average, changed for the worse. We have become increasingly a society of permanent haves and permanent have nots. I'll give it an extra star for the charts that document this change. But the rest of this book is just plain idiotic eugenics.

The take home message from this book? The rich are rich and stay that way for generations today because they are smarter and the elite colleges they attend serve as eugenics factories for mating. Supposedly the rich didn't keep to themselves nearly as much way back when. And good jobs didn't require brains like they do now. Apparently, the rich were marrying bartenders and mud wrestlers with reckless abandon before the 1960s came along. Physicists and financial analysts in the 1950s could have the IQs of cucumbers. I don't understand how this book merits anything approaching real discussion. The graphs can be nice, though.

No, Mr. Murray, colleges don't filter for the smart today. They aren't eugenics factories. At undergraduate schools like you went to, legacies, children of the super-wealthy, and decent athletes will, all things being equal, have twice the rate of acceptance as the very smart hoi polloi. Talk to admissions deans after they've had a few drinks. They'll tell you that when all the slots for preferential admits are filled, they have so little room for anyone else that they have to turn away gobs of highly qualified, very smart children of the middle class. Elite colleges prefer the wealthy, smart or not, pretty much like they always have.

Even if you buy this filtering premise, the numbers don't add up. We're talking about 50 colleges and universities producing about 100,000 graduates a year in a population of over 300 million people. It's a tiny percentage of the population, far, far lower than even the residents of all those fancy zip codes of elites Murray talks about. Rule number one in science is to make sure your theories pass simple mass quantity constraints. Murray doesn't even come close.

We have retarded social mobility in this country, it's true. In comparison to most countries in Europe - which have been pre-selecting smart and privileged kids for college for a long time - our poor tend to stay poor and our rich tend to stay rich. Why? Because the system is rigged. It's rigged in college admissions. It's rigged in the job marketplace. Crony capitalism isn't maintained through eugenics. It's maintained through corruption. This book is one big crazy libertarian fantasy.

According to this book, the rich are rich because they are smart, moral and work hard. The poor are poor because they are dumb, immoral and lazy. Supposedly, the 60's and LBJ are the culprits for the laziness and immorality of the poor. All those jobs in my old neighborhood and across the industrial Midwest and East working on assembly lines for over 50 dollars an hour in the 1970s (in today's dollars) that went poof didn't have a thing to do with it. And according to Murray, if the rich would simply reach down to the less fortunate with their precious hands and big brains and show the poor how to lead hard working, moral lives, America might get back on track. Ultimately, Coming Apart is two doses of Horatio Algier mixed with one dose of condescension.

I've lived the American dream. My parents came from dirt. They came to this country, worked hard, and built something for themselves. I went to college and built even more. But what separated me and my parents from other hard working people who didn't make it, who are still struggling today? When I look back, I see one major difference: blind luck. That luck is harder to find today. Go off on your own and chances are, even with hard work and brains, you'll fail. What if you don't go off on your own? Those high paying jobs of my youth - the jobs that convinced many of my friends not to take the time to go to college - are flat out gone. A college degree is no longer a consistent path to those jobs, either.

We have "come apart", it's true. But hard work, intelligence, and morals have little to do with it. As Billie Holiday used to sing, "Them that's got shall have. Them that's not shall lose. So the Bible says and it still is news." She sang those words in the 1930s. They're even truer today. There's far more wisdom in one two minute song, God Bless The Child, than in this entire book.(less)

23 likes · like · see review

Jul 03, 2012 Suphatra rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: non-fiction, social-science

In Coming Apart, scholar, author and political scientist Charles Murray, attempts to address the growing class stratification among white Americans. Its a big topic — I was really intrigued.

The first half of Murray’s book borrows heavily from David Brooks’ “Bobos in Paradise” (a book about upper class elite in America that I reviewed here). There is also a quiz to see how connected you are to most of white working class America; it was quite amusing. I thought he was accurate in some of his perc...more In Coming Apart, scholar, author and political scientist Charles Murray, attempts to address the growing class stratification among white Americans. Its a big topic — I was really intrigued.

The first half of Murray’s book borrows heavily from David Brooks’ “Bobos in Paradise” (a book about upper class elite in America that I reviewed here). There is also a quiz to see how connected you are to most of white working class America; it was quite amusing. I thought he was accurate in some of his perceptions of the upper elite: they tend to be liberal, live in urban enclaves, hold graduate degrees and be connected to a global elite. They are increasingly disconnected to their fellow Americans who may not have degrees, live more remotely, and are paid less. The admittance of this disconnect seemed like a big achievement for the political right. The first way to solve a problem is to admit there is a problem, right?

In the second half, Murray tackles the topic of poor white America, first prefacing with a lengthy section on what he perceives as America’s values (honesty, industriousness, marriage, etc). He lays out a very typical conservative framework for personal responsibility. This is in obvious conflict with the progressive argument for social responsibility, which looks beyond individual responsibility and examines how the decisions of the aggregate affect its parts. Murray doesn’t mention this other viewpoint.

So, when he begins to compare Belmont (imaginary upper class town) to Fishtown (imaginary lower class town), his conservative framing beckons the reader to interpret the many testimonies and accounts of poverty under the conservative perception of personal responsibility. It would be easy for a reader new to this topic to walk away thinking, “Seems like poor people are poor because they are lazy, dishonest, and immoral” which many reviews actually said!

A closer look at Murray’s argument sees the gaping holes — for example, on the topic of industriousness, Murray emphasizes the decline of working males in poor towns. But what about the rise in the globalization of jobs (i.e. the automotive industry upped and moved to China), which are decisions made by the upper white class. What of the “personal responsibility” of those citizens? Murray’s lack of a social responsibility framework — where we look at how the decisions of the ruling class impact the working class and vice versa — is largely absent, and in its place is the implication that the working class just doesn’t want to work.

The arguments set forth by Murray are nothing new. Its the same speech by conservatives, written every day in papers all over the country: to succeed in America, you must 1) get married 2) work a job and 3) believe in God. The weight falls heavily on an individual’s choices. I challenge conservative America to think about American success in this way: to succeed in America, you must 1) use your buying and hiring power to empower more Americans; 2) contribute to funds and services that improve the livelihoods of all Americans; and 3) socialize in a way that integrates you and your family to the full range of American lifestyles.

I think in the end of the day, arguments like Murray’s for America’s continued success are dated and unrealistic. The landscape of American values are changing, and the outmoded solutions that worked in the last half of the last century belong where they are: in the last century.(less)

3 likes · like · see review

Mar 08, 2013 Clif Hostetler rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: current-events

The political rhetoric from the past American presidential campaign could easily give one the impression that the USA is one big happy country made up almost entirely of "middle class" people. (This sounds as credible as Lake Wobegon's "all the children are above average.") The book sees things differently.

Looking at white America Mr. Murray sees a country increasingly polarized into two culturally and geographically isolated demographics. For the new upper class (20% +-) divorce is low, the wor...more The political rhetoric from the past American presidential campaign could easily give one the impression that the USA is one big happy country made up almost entirely of "middle class" people. (This sounds as credible as Lake Wobegon's "all the children are above average.") The book sees things differently.

Looking at white America Mr. Murray sees a country increasingly polarized into two culturally and geographically isolated demographics. For the new upper class (20% +-) divorce is low, the work ethic is strong, religious observance is high, out-of-wedlock births are all but unheard of, and the rate of obesity is low. Meanwhile for the new lower class where the bottom 30 percent live, what Mr. Murray calls America’s four “founding virtues” — marriage, industriousness, community and faith — have all but collapsed. The remaining 50 percent are somewhere between these extremes. The percentages given above are for 2010. In 1960 the upper class was 60%, lower class 5% and the balance 30%. (Based on Figure C.3, page 325) The author shows though numerous graphs that the differences between these classes are trending further apart.

Wherever one happens to be in this spectrum of classes, they are likely to live in neighborhoods of like minded people of a similar social class. The author refers to this as living in a bubble. Which then leads to the observation that the class which is most influential regarding laws and social policy are socially isolated from the less influential classes. Therefore, it is unlikely future governmental policies will be directed toward curbing the trends of increased cultural divide.

It's hard to argue against the author based on the facts. The book, complete with appendices, is full of graphs, supporting data, and explanations regarding sources of information. The author's suggestions for correcting the class trends don't impress me as being particularly helpful. His suggestions can be summarized with his statement that the new upper class should "preach what they practice." Really? That would change things? I don't think so.

The book is focuses on changes during the time period of 1960 to the present. That is basically the time period of my adult life. Thus the changes that the author is talking about have occurred during my own lifetime, and frankly I didn't notice the changes myself. I kept wanting to argue with the author, but he had all the data on his side.

The author had limited the book's focus to the white population. He defends this because he says the problems of poverty and crime are widely associated with black and Latino portions of the population. The author in one chapter near the end of the book demonstrates that adding the minority populations to the data doesn't change the results in any significant manner. In other words, the book is making the case that the developing cultural divides are not caused by increased minority populations. If you study the minority populations you will find the same types of cultural divides.

The author notes one glaring exception to the findings that all racial groups have similar cultural divides. That exception is the rate at which the black population is incarcerated. The crime and arrest rates are about the same for all groups. However, blacks are incarcerated at a higher rate than other ethnic groups. Thus the next book I read is on this very subject, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness by Michelle Alexander. LINK TO MY REVIEW (less)

1 like · like · see review

Feb 08, 2012 Jessica Scott rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

If you want to have a discussion about class in America, you MUST read this book. This book was eye opening in many significant ways and the most troubling part is that if Murray is even half right, the American experiment is coming to an end. He echoes the call of other authors/intellectuals such as Michael Sandel in Justice for a civic awakening so that the stratification of American doesn't continue. But short of a vast swath of the well to do reinvesting in the culture that so enabled them a...more

7 likes · like · see review

Jul 12, 2012 Sean B. rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

So apparently the author of this book took a lot of flak once upon a time because he said things that people didn't like, that conflicted with a lot of stubbornly set and rigidly defined descriptions of "HOW LIFE WORKS".
I don't know, maybe look at things that you disagree with with an open mind, people. After all, facts are facts; they cannot change because you don't like them (but you can change your interpretation of what they mean).
This book has an interesting story to tell, and a lot of stat...more So apparently the author of this book took a lot of flak once upon a time because he said things that people didn't like, that conflicted with a lot of stubbornly set and rigidly defined descriptions of "HOW LIFE WORKS".
I don't know, maybe look at things that you disagree with with an open mind, people. After all, facts are facts; they cannot change because you don't like them (but you can change your interpretation of what they mean).
This book has an interesting story to tell, and a lot of statistics to back it up. I would say that what the author is warning about is probably true, but I haven't been around long enough to notice general societal trends. Perhpas one day, when I'm older, I'll say grumpy things about how life used to be.
The main point of the book is that American civic culture is dying out, especially among the lower class (who represent a vast section of American life). This civic culture is what made America a unique and successful nation, and without it it will fall from the inherent virtue of our national spirit into a ruin of corruption and lost values, a graveyard of idealism. I cannot help but see that this viewpoint is shared by a lot of people - the whole 'good old days' thing that I just mocked in the paragraph above - but then, presented with the information in this book, as well as the information gained from my brief glimpses of national media and much recent experience with people of the lower class in a town that the author would probably lament, I can say, again, that American culture is definitely moving towards a new paradigm, one very far away from the values that were upheld by the people who created this nation. Certainly there is less civic participation, and it also seems that crime is being viewed less and less as something really bad, at least by certain segments of our population (this includes both white collar and blue collar groups, by the way).
And, on the whole, is that a bad thing or a good thing? What 'founding virtues' are good and worth preserving, and what ones shall we rightfully discard? Is the direction our nation is taking a bad thing? I don't presume to know, and I certainly won't go into that with this review. But if anyone reads this, feel free to think about it.(less)

2 likes · like · see review

Sep 14, 2012 Sean Chick rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition

You mean the decline of America has to do with government? That thing that socially speaking has been shrinking since 1980? I also love the part where the wealthy are virtuous and the poor whites are now slobs. Of course like most conservatives he believes in a rigid kind of inequality. It is ultimately what connects Filmer and Burke to Hitler and Gingrich. There are those born to rule and those born to serve. The conservative debate is always over who the rulers really are. Here our masters wil...more

2 likes · like · see review

May 26, 2012 Richard marked it as to-read · review of another edition

Recommended to Richard by: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/31/opinion/brooks-the-great-divorce.html

Shelves: economics, non-fiction, social-political, on-request, unfinished

David Brooks, the New York Times pet almost-a-conservative, claims about this book, “I’ll be shocked if there’s another book this year as important as Charles Murray’s Coming Apart.” Yeah, it looks seminal. See his review at The Great Divorce (I’m a little curious about whether there’s some hidden linkage to the C.S. Lewis book).

At least, at a mere 416 pages, it won’t take nearly as long to read as 2011’s most important book.
❦
Update:

Brooks is an editorialist; so it isn’t surpri...more

1 like · like · see review

May 06, 2013 Dennis rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I loved this analysis of the pulling apart of American culture and the division among classes that really has its roots in the cultural revolution of the 1960s. I was fascinated by all of the statistics and visual graphic evidence of the wide-sweeping changes in religiosity, honesty, industriousness and marriage within the U.S., and explanations for how broadly those American characteristics have declined. More and more Americans segregate themselves by education levels, and small towns and rura...more

1 like · like · see review

Feb 12, 2013 Michel rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Recommended to Michel by: Npr (Terry)

Shelves: pol

The title is misleading: it gives the impression that the author laments the encroachments of minorities over the privileges of the ruling race. He should have called it the State of Middle-Class America (which was white in the 60s).
In those days, one middle-class salary was enough to raise a family, own a house and a car, send your offspring to college, and save some for retirement; the top 1% owned 30% of American assets (compared to 70% today).
Weakening of the unions, preferential fiscal poli...more

1 like · like · see review

Mar 27, 2013 Craig Toerpe rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

For those of you who have been following my reading selections/reviews, there are very few books that I am going to invest the time to read if they do not capture my attention with a strong forward. Murray did just that by his title alone. Unlike his book, "The Bell Curve," which generated much controversy, Murray utilized a different strategy and looked at how America began to shift during the said decades. I read this book during the 1st Q of 2012, looking for answers that may lead to why our...more For those of you who have been following my reading selections/reviews, there are very few books that I am going to invest the time to read if they do not capture my attention with a strong forward. Murray did just that by his title alone. Unlike his book, "The Bell Curve," which generated much controversy, Murray utilized a different strategy and looked at how America began to shift during the said decades. I read this book during the 1st Q of 2012, looking for answers that may lead to why our beloved Country has found itself in the situation that we are in today...in Murray's humble opinion, he believes life really started to change the day after Kennedy was assassinated.

Whether you agree with all that Murray has and continues to represent in his collection of writings & public speakings, the reader of "Coming Apart," has to recognize his research is supported by societal facts. He address how Hollywood and everything it produces has significantly shifted their values, to include those of morality, from the 1960's to today. The choices we all have as free citizens of America is quite impressive. However, all the choices that are present today, were not there in the 1960's. To paraphrase some of Murray's writings, "Our neighbors watched the same 3 TV stations, drank the same beer, went to the same church, and their kids attended the same school. The biggest difference between our neighbors back then was the salary we took home."

Now you fast forward 50+ years, and look at where we are as a society...one can make an argument that America has grown and we are better & stronger society, and yet others would disagree. So one must look at one of the major factors that has changed...our income. The income we receive has a major impact on the choices we make as an individual. Where we will live, the mortgage we can afford, the education we will receive or provide for our children, the amount we can save for a rainy day or for retirement, etc...And this is just one area that Murray discusses.

When I finished the book and reflect upon the stability of our society today, I can assure you, America needs to continue to grow and become a unified America, so in 50 years, a new social scientist can write a book on America Coming Together.

(less)

like · see review

Feb 24, 2013 Sooj rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I wanted to like Charles Murray's Coming Apart, if solely because the topic needs to be addressed and given more exposure as the gap grows between the haves and have-nots. I will also admit to some hesitation in buying the book, torn between my desire to know more about the topic and trepidation over Murray's reputation as the author of the Bell Curve. Ultimately, I bought and read the book because the topic is too important to cavil over whether a writer is on the extreme right or left.

There a...more I wanted to like Charles Murray's Coming Apart, if solely because the topic needs to be addressed and given more exposure as the gap grows between the haves and have-nots. I will also admit to some hesitation in buying the book, torn between my desire to know more about the topic and trepidation over Murray's reputation as the author of the Bell Curve. Ultimately, I bought and read the book because the topic is too important to cavil over whether a writer is on the extreme right or left.

There are some important contributions by Murray -- most specifically the data showing growing trends in America based on income. Given Murray's political bias, the arenas he examines seemed, to me, to be reactionary: religion, marriage, civic contribution, and employment. Of the four, employment is the only obvious category -- or so it appears to me. Yet even while I do not share Murray's political perspective, I was struck by the data he uncovered on pregnancy, single motherhood and marriage. Generally speaking, the higher income bracket tends to marry and have children (or the reverse) while many women in the lower income tend to become single mothers at a young age (I am summarizing in one sentence a much more nuanced set of graphs and data that Murray presents). This points to a problem for a generation in the lower income bracket that will grow up with diminishing opportunities while higher income children will reap all the privileges and advantages of growing up with two parents both, potentially, employed in high power positions. Murray is also convincing at showing that there is pretty much a segregation--my word, not his-- based on income and education.

However, where I disagree with Murray are the causes and the possible remedies to the problem. Murray seems to imply it is natural for those with higher income to be together because almost anyone in the higher income has a higher IQ and wants to associate with others of high IQ. To make the situation even worse, he then argues that those who are not born with high IQs will not have a chance to better their IQs as IQs are the essential brain matter one is born with. In other words -- if you are not born to the brainy and wealthy, forget about it. In my mind, the only scientific way to prove that IQ is a neutral indicator of smarts is to raise a set of children and expose them all to the same exact education, without any additional teaching at home, and then test them to see if there are any correlations between income and IQ. Having been educated in many schools, some good and some bad, some demanding and some lax, I cannot help but believe that what is taught at schools matters greatly. Otherwise, if Murray is right and there is no correlation between education and ability, then every single wealthy parent should feel no qualms about putting their child in public schools -- but obviously, that is not the case.

The conclusion with Murray's remedies are equally confounding. He spends a couple of pages slamming European models of mixed social capitalism and says that if this is the path Americans choose, the American project is over. In essence, he contends we have unemployed workers because welfare make employment unattractive to lower classes. Then, he goes on to say the job of the wealthy is not to share the wealth but to rebuke the lower classes for not working, to instill moral discipline into the lower classes. I know this sounds like a parody but, sadly, it is not. This is genuinely what Murray advocates. I would like to see Murray work at a job that pays minimum wage without benefits for five years in a row and return home to unpaid bills and see if he reassesses the situation after that.

What is glaringly missing from Murray's book is a discussion of how wealth has been generated in America in the period he covers -- from 1960s to now. The rise of corporate America, headed by executives whose job is to deliver increasing profits to shareholders rather than to create a sustainable workplace for its employees, is barely mentioned in Murray's book. One disingenuous move on Murray's book is a slight of hand where he mentions Enron in a segment on honesty but then says that within the America definition of honesty -- a purely legal definition of what is permissible --the Enron executives were honest. Of course, he then goes to show the increase in bankruptcy among the lower classes and why this is definitely a sign of dishonesty. There is nary a mention of outsourcing, offshoring, increases in corporate mergers, changes in technology which have made some workers obsolete, and all the many factors that have contributed to the growing gap and need to be examined to remedy the situation.

Murray is a libertarian and I am not. In his definition, the American project of democracy is one where people are unfettered, without a support system by the government. The "American project" is a rhetorical device -- it allows Murray to echo back towards the founding fathers and to project his political ideology onto American history. While I am not sure how I would define the "American project" (certainly not as any one thing), I am wary of a definition that is so simplistic. (less)

like · see review

Feb 05, 2013 Simcha Wood rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Though this reader cannot quite place Charles Murray's Coming Apart into that category of unfortunately rare books that should be read whether or not one ultimately accepts the premises and conclusions laid out in the book, it does fall into the still unusual category of books that are worth reading even if one ultimately finds disagreement with the book's central ideas and arguments.

Part of Murray's central thesis - that American culture is dividing into increasingly segregated spheres, one sph...more Though this reader cannot quite place Charles Murray's Coming Apart into that category of unfortunately rare books that should be read whether or not one ultimately accepts the premises and conclusions laid out in the book, it does fall into the still unusual category of books that are worth reading even if one ultimately finds disagreement with the book's central ideas and arguments.

Part of Murray's central thesis - that American culture is dividing into increasingly segregated spheres, one sphere constituting an elite "creative" class that shapes public policy and contributes and acts as gatekeepers for much of what is defined as American culture, and another sphere constituting a poorly educated, poorly employed, socially and civically unengaged underclass - will not come as news to many. For years now, it has been apparent to many that the new information society is providing numerous benefits to those with the necessary education and intelligence while leaving behind those who do not have the skills or social connections necessary to succeed in the changing economy.

Murray's thesis goes beyond this, however, to argue that these changes have also resulted in an elite class which has not only reaped the benefits of the information society but which has used these benefits to increasingly isolate itself from the rest of America. The end result is that those who shape our laws and public policies, and those who provide us with our arts and entertainment (often presented as reflections of who we all supposedly are), are increasingly oblivious to how much of America lives or to the repurcussions that political, cultural, and life-style decisions made by the elite class have on the rest of America, and particularly on those who are now becoming increasingly segregated in their own underclass.

The subtitle of Murray's book is The State of White America, 1960-2010, and while this at first seems like a somewhat odd and narrow window through which to view American culture, it does help emphasize one of Murray's points which is that, going forward, some of the most troubling lines of schism in American culture are not going to be along the lines of race or ethnicity, but along the lines of class. Even if one suspects that Murray is perhaps a little too facile in disengaging any discussion of race and ethnicity from the discussion of class, one may still find his argument for this growing class schism to be rather compelling.

Murray offers plenty of statistical evidence to back up his assertion that the social virtues of marriage, industriousness, honesty, and religiosity are more widely practiced among the elite class than among the underclass. The end result of this, Murray argues, is an underclass in which children are increasingly raised in single-parent homes, the work ethic is disdained, trust of one's neighbors is diminished or entirely absent, and little or no sense of social and civic engagement remains, all leading to unhappy people in dysfunctional communities.

Unfortunately, Murray does not answer two of the most compelling questions that these arguments raise: How did this divide of American culture and the deterioration of the underclass come about? And, what can be done to alleviate both the growing schism between the "best" and the "rest" and the resulting social collapse of the underclass?

One suspects that Murray's answer to the first question - something which he addresses explicitly in some of his other writings and which he hints at here and there in Coming Apart - is that the modern welfare state is largely to blame. But, while Murray has made some compelling arguments about the unintended detrimental affects of the modern welfare state elsewhere, given the focus of this book, one would like to see evidence that his implied culprit is indeed the perpetrator rather than, just to grab one obvious possible suspect out of the air, the rise of the information society itself and the social changes it has brought about which are necessarily going to be harder on those at the lower end of the economic spectrum who were already vulnerable and perhaps less able to absorb sweeping societal changes.

Still, even if the reader does not accept some or all of the assumptions that underlie this book, she may still find much here to ponder and worry over. Whatever its flaws, this is not a book that one dismisses lightly.(less)

like · see review

Jan 04, 2013 John Harder rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

First an explanation of the title – Coming Apart, The State of White America, 1960-2010. Mr. Murray does not want the distraction of bringing race into the equation when evaluating the state of American society. Murray contends that Americans are becoming split between two distinct societies based upon class, or more precisely, the cognitive elite and, well, the less cognitive. Race is not the problem and there is no significant difference between the races in the bifurcation of society – class...more

1 like · like · see review

Dec 31, 2012 Jason rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Murray's Coming Apart examines a narrow subset, ethnic white Americans ( I suppose Canadians would fit here too), and examined how this particular culture has fractured over the last 50 years.

Being younger than 50, reading his statistical observations about life in America in 1960 are rather startling, if for no other reason than showing how things that seem normal now - the family break ups, the lack of mixing of people of different classes, the wide disparity in wealth and opportunity, were re...more

1 like · like · see review

Dec 14, 2012 Misha Shenderey rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

http://thisbloghasnegativemass.blogsp...

"Rating:

1. Somali shillings
2. Uzbekistani som
3.Turkish lira
4. Mexican peso
5. US dollar, baby.

....Coincidentally, I had been searching for the intellectual basis for the conservative reaction to the handling of the Great Recession by making acquaintance with Arthur Brooks' "The Battle" and Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged". Those books left me disenchanted and in mourning for the hours that I spent laboring through the bleak, uninformative pages; hours that I cou...more

like · see review

Nov 26, 2012 Bob Costello rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Here is my take away from this great book:

Murray make the case that the success of the American experiment was build on four virtues:
1. Industriousness
2. Honesty
3. Marriage
4. Religiosity

James Madison observed “To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people is a chimerical idea.”
George Washington, “Virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government.”

If a society is to remain free, its foundation must be build on the virtue of...more

like · see review

Nov 14, 2012 David rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Mostly readable, stats-laden account of recent social trends associated with dramatic increase in income inequality. He's particularly concerned about loss of consensus on what he takes to be the core American (as per the Founders) values of honesty, marriage, industriousness, and religion. Documents extensively increases in class segregation, with "bobos" (aka the creative class, the cognitive elite etc.) isolating themselves in gated communities, what he calls "superZips" (e.g., the 20815 zip...more

like · see review

Oct 24, 2012 Steven rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: class, politics, sociology

Can't fully endorse this book because it comes from the wrong end of the political spectrum, but a couple of thoughts I had on this interesting book were as follows:

Book starts by detailing the social setting of the United States in November 1963 –

In 63, 98% of civilian men in 30s-40s in the labor force, half attended church, 1% had no religious preference.Now, an increasing spatial, economic, educational, cultural, and political isolation of the higher class.Wealthy in 63 not too wealthy and di...more

like · see review

Sep 22, 2012 Dane rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

This is an incredibly well written book that advances a number of claims in sociology, among them:

1) Racial comparisons are losing their validity as benchmarks of social progress (i.e. comparing black poverty rates to white poverty rates)
2) American cultural norms have changed significantly since 1960, particularly in regards to four areas: attitudes towards marriage, work, honesty, and community engagement.
3) Upper class Americans are becoming physically and culturally isolated from mainstre...more

2 likes · like · see review

Aug 30, 2012 Jim rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: economics, non-fiction, politics, sociology

If the message Charles Murray's book can be summed up quickly and simply (it can't), the words that come to mind are: culture matters.

Murray, as well-known and successful (and controversial) as sociologists get, has produced an examination of the class stratification of American society over the past 50 years that amounts to a culmination of his previous publications into a broad-based commentary on American society. The empirical work done here is impressive and overwhelming, and in addition t...more If the message Charles Murray's book can be summed up quickly and simply (it can't), the words that come to mind are: culture matters.

Murray, as well-known and successful (and controversial) as sociologists get, has produced an examination of the class stratification of American society over the past 50 years that amounts to a culmination of his previous publications into a broad-based commentary on American society. The empirical work done here is impressive and overwhelming, and in addition to a significant number of charts, tables and graphs in the main text, he gives both methodologies and sources for the raw data that will allow the statistically-inclined among us to check his work. But the narrative is the important aspect here, because Murray is trying to do more than simply present data, he is using that information to inform and explain the thesis that American society has changed in fundamental, cultural ways over the past 50 years that put American exceptionalism at risk of being eclipsed. He focuses primarily on the white population so as to demonstrate that the trends examined here are not artifacts of past racism or current immigration, but of a cultural shift that has affected all Americans. He broadens the analysis to include the whole population at the end of the book, and demonstrates that the trends, while perhaps slightly tempered or accelerated in some instances, generally hold for the population at large.

There are several points that Murray makes as he shows the trends in different classes. He begins by showing how the returns to higher education have grown exponentially over the past five decades, as colleges became highly efficient at filtering, sorting and grouping the best and brightest. While this has had profoundly beneficial effects (e.g., the massive gains in productivity from innovative technologies and discoveries over that period), it has also facilitated the self-selection of these people into a somewhat-segregated gene pool and geographic footprint, resulting in children who are brighter than average, but also grow up in a bubble that leaves them isolated from the rest of the population, not understanding their lives or cultural drivers. This group tends to skew politically liberal, especially on social issues, but ironically upholds the more conservative, or traditional, culture of two parent families, honesty and adherence to the law, industriousness and religiosity (manifestations of what Murray calls the "founding virtues," inasmuch as they were the four virtues of the general citizenry that all of the founders agreed were essential to the American project of self-government).

The juxtaposition of the new lower class with this upper class is made through a metaphorical device, in which Murray assigns two broad groups of people (white people aged 30-49 which completed at least a four-year degree, and white people of that age bracket who either graduated high school or did not get that far) to the fictional communities of Belmont (named for an upscale suburb of Boston where my sister is a history teacher!) and Fishtown (named for a white working class neighborhood of Philadelphia). This provides a shorthand for discussing and comparing these broad groups throughout the book, especially in graphs, by examining time-series data from various sources (though the General Social Survey, or GSS, features prominently) to track the views and practices of these groups since the early 1960's. What he demonstrates was that these groups shated, to a large degree, many of the same cultural assumptions about the "founding virtues" in the 1960's, and both groups considered (and still do, actually) themselves to be middle class- meaning they all intermingled to some degree, and considered themselves equals. However, Murray shows, in great detail, the divergence between the two groups in the adherence to the founding virtues (tracking, for example, church attendance, hours worked per week, arrest rates, and children born out of wedlock, among many other things)over that period of time. What he is demonstrating is that the previously-shared culture of these two groups, which cut across geographic and income boundaries, now shows a significant divergence in attitudes toward unwed motherhood, petty crimes, work and religion that is pushing the two classes apart. While his Belmont and Fishtown groups are broader in scope than the true "elite class" of Belmonters and true "downtrodden" class of Fishtowners, the trends seem to be pushing each broader strata toward the extreme end of the distribution, leaving little to be shared in the middle. Note that Belmont includes those whose occupations many not be near the top end of the scale, but merely those who have four-year college degrees, and therefore have a similar cultural experience. It is culture, not income, that makes the difference here.

So why is this a problem? Well, Murray takes a couple of cracks a this. He documents actual interviews with residents of the actual Fishtown in Philly, getting their direct experiences and feelings about the changes they've witnessed in their neighborhood over the decades. While Fishtown was always working-class from an income standpoint, it was once a fairly safe, close-knit, friendly community where neighbors knew each other and the level of civic engagement was high. Getting married, then having kids and working to support those kids was the expectation for everyone, and working a "menial" job to support the family was worthy of respect. These days, the level of social trust has plummeted, neighbors do not engage each other readily, crime and vandalism have skyrocketed, and able-bodied young men, often absentee fathers to kids they support neither financially nor emotionally, hang around on the corner without even attempting to find work (note: Murray's analysis ends in 2007, so as not to include the effects of the financial crash and recession that occurred in 2008 and beyond). The result here is that kids grow up, often without fathers around, and know no other way of life...so they accept the cultural norms they inherit. With the Belmont crowd living farther and farther afield, they have no other example of how to live. And the older residents of Fishtown, who remember the days of a tight-knit community that took care of its own and was healthy, if not wealthy, can only shake their heads at the deterioration of the neighborhood they love.

Meanwhile, Belmont is unable (or unwilling) to rhetorically uphold the standards they live by, though what he terms an "ecumenical niceness." Because they are unwilling to suggest that there is an inherent superiority to the cultural practices from which they unwittingly reap so much benefit, preferring to avoid being judgmental, they cede ground to a coarsening of the culture, furthering the divide. Murray points out that the formation of an insulated and out-of-touch aristocratic class has been the downfall of many nations, though he does not suggest this is imminent (he points out that Rome reached its military apex under the emperors, but was culturally on the wane from the time the Republic fell into Caesar's hands; this process lasted centuries). But the American project has been exceptional, and a significant reason for that has been a culture of civic engagement, industriousness, and religious adherence that no longer binds higher-income and lower-income folks into a monolithic "middle class" of shared virtue.

In the end, Murray suggests that the way out of this cultural slide is a civic Great Awakening, echoing the religious versions of this phenomenon that have occurred at several stages in American history, but more focused on the championing of the civic virtues that made America what it is today, and a willingness of those who live those virtues to "preach what they practice." Since, as Murray acknowledges, it is this group that is reading his book, and this group who is more likely to become aware of the problem, it is the Belmont crowd that must actively re-engage and avoid the short-term answer of shuttering up in gated communities (literally, in many cases), isolated from the average Joe, and both demonstrate and defend the founding virtues (at varying levels; if you don't sincerely believe in God, for example, he is not suggesting you fake it for the sake of civic harmony- honesty is one of the four virtues, after all). While it certainly is hard to imagine a massive cultural shift, we can, at least, conduct our own lives in a way that ensures we don't become too ensconced in our private bubbles, surrounded by like minds with like attitudes, but unwilling to interact and defend the culture we unconsciously cherish. The case Murray makes for the problem is extremely persuasive, if exceptionally data-heavy, and worrisome to those who care about the future of all Americans, of all races and ethnicities, to whom we would like to pass down the benefit of the culture we were so lucky to inherit. Charles Murray is optimistic that the civic awakening will take place, and I certainly hope he's right. (less)

like · see review

Aug 04, 2012 Elizabeth rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: 23 million lazy people who are out of work

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here.

1 like · like · see review

Jul 19, 2012 Su rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I always find Charles Murray worth reading. He is thought-provoking and willing to tackle questions that many people are not comfortable asking (his book on education, Real Education, was partly about the question: What if progressives are wrong in their assumption that all children can achieve according to a particular academic model, given the right environment? I think that's a very worthwhile question to ask, even if I didn't share all of his conclusions about it). In this book, he is lookin...more I always find Charles Murray worth reading. He is thought-provoking and willing to tackle questions that many people are not comfortable asking (his book on education, Real Education, was partly about the question: What if progressives are wrong in their assumption that all children can achieve according to a particular academic model, given the right environment? I think that's a very worthwhile question to ask, even if I didn't share all of his conclusions about it). In this book, he is looking at the increasing cultural divide between whites of different social classes (he looks at whites to avoid conflating race and class, which makes some sense--though I found the subtitle of this book either tone-deaf or deliberately provocative given the controversy over the Bell Curve).

Here, too, I don't share all of either his underlying premises or his conclusions. For instance, he looks to what he sees as four foundational American qualities that he believes used to be more-or-less universal: religiosity, industriousness, marriage, and honesty. You can see the problem here--he talks about marriage without discussing same-sex couples at all (though he is right on the bandwagon when it comes to thinking a child needs a stable father in its life). And even if you look at religiosity as a stand-in for community engagement, as he does to some extent, that's a problematic notion as well in a nation with freedom of religion.

But I like that he is challenging privileged folks to recognize that the world they live in is a constrained one, that they don't know much about life outside an increasingly isolated social milieu (you can also see this discussed in The Big Sort). This is true to my experience as a person who is almost but not quite a member of the elite as he defines it (if I achieve my goal of becoming a speech pathologist, and add that income to our family, we will fit the definition of elite he establishes for his discussion. In every other way but income, our family meets it pretty well already). It is challenging even for people who are aware of their social position and interested in having a fuller view of American lives to achieve that, and one of Murray's goals is to help people see outside their bubble. In that, I am in complete agreement with him.

As far as his conclusions go, one magazine review I read said that Murray seems to have been so burned by the reaction to the Bell Curve that he is unwilling to make strong claims. For my part, I was both amused and kind of impressed by this, on page 234, as the book is turning from a description of the problem to his specific proposals:

"A social democrat may see in parts 1 and 2 a compelling case for the redistribution of wealth. A social conservative may see a compelling case for governmental policies that support marriage, religion, and traditional values. I am a libertarian, and see a compelling case for returning to the founders' conception of limited government."

He goes on to say that, there being relatively few libertarians, he doesn't expect many people to agree with him. And he points out, rightly I think, that people's conclusions are inevitably shaped by their pre-existing politics and premises.

Where I agree with him most strongly is when he talks about the cultural disconnect that leads "elites" to have at best a blindness about mainstream America and at worst a kind of contempt. Especially when you consider the self-interestedness with which elites (and now we're talking about the truly elite elite, the decision-makers) make decisions that affect everyone. I love this quote, for instance, from page 101:

"It is not a problem if truck drivers cannot empathize with the priorities of Yale professors. It is a problem if Yale professors, or producers of network news programs, or CEOs of great corporations, or presidential advisors cannot empathize with the priorities of truck drivers."

That's the crux, right there. He would like to see poorer people embrace again the ideals of marriage etc that he sees as knitting the social fabric. He thinks elites have held to these values, and backs that up with statistics on marriage, divorce, hours worked, and so on.Many have argued that he overlooks cultural factors like the decline in jobs for the working class as he holds poor communities responsible for their own decline, and they may be right. As tends to be the case when I read Murray, I love the questions he asks and the careful analysis he tends to bring to them, even as I diverge from him on many specific points and some of his most important conclusions. He is a writer who helps me think deeply about issues.(less)

like · see review

Jul 07, 2012 Sally rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: non-fiction

This book is about the division in our country between the upper and lower class and their core behaviors and values. It deserves five stars, but I found the beginning chapters' statistics and charts hard to comprehend. I'm not a very smart bear, so I need succinct statements rather than "Specifically, the average centile for people living in the zip codes bordering the SuperZips was at least 90 for 48 percent of them and 80 to 89 for another 30 percent." He goes on like that for quite a while;...more This book is about the division in our country between the upper and lower class and their core behaviors and values. It deserves five stars, but I found the beginning chapters' statistics and charts hard to comprehend. I'm not a very smart bear, so I need succinct statements rather than "Specifically, the average centile for people living in the zip codes bordering the SuperZips was at least 90 for 48 percent of them and 80 to 89 for another 30 percent." He goes on like that for quite a while; meanwhile, I'm looking for those all-important Topic Sentences in each paragraph! :)

However, when he got to Part II, "Why It Matters", I got really interested in and excited about what he was saying. "America's creative minority has degenerated into a dominant minority, and we are witnessing the universal next step, the proletarianization of the dominant minority." His example: tattoos are now chic, something that I keep shaking my head about. He talks about the problem of government taking over so much of people's lives and essentially managing their lives for them: "Taking the trouble out of life strips people of major ways in which human beings look back on their lives and say, 'I made a difference.'" And this sad statement: "The simpler explanation is that white males of the 2000s were less industrious than they had been twenty, thirty, or fifty years ago..." Murray isn't picking on the lower class; he's also pointing a finger at the out-of-touch upper class who isolates itself with its own kind and proposes 'help' that really is no help at all. People have abdicated responsibility and hard work in favor of an easier life, and who can blame them? It is so seductive to have someone take care of you. But in the end it sucks away your pride and integrity, and the negative effects aren't limited to you, but spread to the community you live in and to the country you live in. We all need to take a good hard look at where we are--it is way past 'where we're headed'--and hope this isn't the end for our country. (less)

2 likes · like · see review

Jun 18, 2012 Andrea rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: current-events

This book describes in detail the state of American families at the turn of the current century. There is a big divide between rich and poor and their families are worlds apart. As a basis for the discussion and the statistics, he describes the four characteristics of the founding colonists that made America great which are thrift, religiosity, marriage and industry and how those characteristics are losing ground in American culture. He warns that the disintegration of America will affect both r...more

2 likes · like · see review

Jun 17, 2012 Eva rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

The first half of this book was amazing. The second half was meh--lots of abstract commentary and theorizing that didn't appeal to me. Some kindle notes:

food, a few Italian restaurants serving spaghetti and pizza, and a few restaurants with a French name, which probably meant that they had French onion soup on the menu. But if you were looking for a nice little Szechuan dish or linguine with pesto or sautéed fois gras, forget it. A Thai curry? The first Thai restaurant in the entire nation woul...more

1 like · like · see review

May 28, 2012 Missmath144 rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: everyone

Recommended to Missmath144 by: Fred

Shelves: audio, educational, economics, my-favorites, social-economics, non-fiction

This is an in-depth, statistical look at how America has changed over the past half century. Murray limits his study to White America so that race won't play a part in the changes he sees. (Near the end of the book, he shows what the statistics would be for the overall population -- not much different.)

In short, the new upper class is more isolated than ever before, having virtually no idea how a typical American lives. We have, however, seen little behavioral change in regards to honesty, indus...more

1 like · like · see review

May 14, 2012 Chris rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Since the Bell Curve, Murray has gotten worse at making smoothed regression lines interesting. The middle third of the book, constituting the crux of his analysis of trends in the upper and lower class' divorce rates, employment, honesty, social trust, etc., was boring. He's much better at respectably making fun of yuppies and coming up with multiple choice tests about how culturally isolated we are (the first chunk of the book).

Arnold Toynbee's theory, cited in the conclusion, sounds pretty goo...more

like · see review

May 14, 2012 Bryan rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

The data here is the story. Mr. Murray presents abundant statistical evidence that the "new upper class" is growing more and more isolated from the rest of the country, and the "new lower class" is abandoning "traditional American values" of family, hard work, faith and honesty in greater and greater numbers. He admits at the outset that he offers few practical suggestions for how to fix the growing gap between rich and poor, but that didn't prevent me from feeling dissatisfied at the end of the...more

like · see review

title link	preview: Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010
avg rating	preview: Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010 Goodreads rating: 3.61 (1018 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13531417-coming-apart?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]/assets/nocover/111x148.png[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13531417-coming-apart?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010 by Charles Murray[/url]

Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (9)

Genres

Readers also enjoyed similar books

Books by Charles Murray

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About Coming Apart: The...

Quotes from Coming Apart: The Stat...