Breaking down the Tunnels' favorite conservative myth

[PhDeac]

http://www.vox.com/2015/7/24/9027195/haskins-sawhill-norms-marriage

National Review editor Rich Lowry has a bad and dismissive review of Ta-Nehisi Coates's latest book, Between the World and Me, in which he repeats my least favorite statistic in all of social policy:

Coates objects to the cliché that blacks have to be "twice as good." It’s closer to the truth that they, like all Americans, are in a much better position to succeed if they honor certain basic norms: graduate from high school; get a full-time job; don’t have a child before age 21 and get married before childbearing. Among the people who do these things, according to the research of Ron Haskins and Isabel Sawhill of the Brookings Institution, about 75 percent attain the middle class, broadly defined.

​

The stat comes from a 2009 book by Haskins and Sawhill called Creating an Opportunity Society. Haskins and Sawhill analyzed income data from 2007 and broke down households based on whether the head of household followed three norms:

• They work full-time.
• They graduated high school.
• They waited until they were married and at least 21 to have a child.

They found that only 2 percent of persons in families that followed all three norms were poor, whereas 76 percent of persons in families that followed none were poor, and 73.8 percent of those who followed all three were at least middle-class:

Haskins and Sawhill aren't liars. They didn't make these numbers up. But the numbers don't imply that poverty is a choice, like Lowry asserts. Here are just a few reasons why:

Very, very few people obey none of these norms. Look at that table: Only about 3.4 million people, a little over 1 percent of the population, are in families in the "none" column. As the Center for Economic and Policy Research's Shawn Fremstad notes, there are more poor people who followed all three norms than followed none of them.

• Describing full-time work as a "norm" is slightly bizarre, as plenty of people are out of work despite wanting a job. Sometimes you get laid off, or there are no job openings in your area for someone with your skill set, or your employer won't let you work more than 20 to 30 hours a week. Right now, 8.6 million Americans are looking for a job and can’t find one, an additional 6.8 million have part-time work but say they are trying to find a full-time position, and 6.6 million more have stopped actively looking for a job but say they would like one if the labor market were stronger. This is a particularly crucial point because Haskins and Sawhill identify work as the single most important norm. Shockingly, earning a steady income is a good way to not be in poverty.
• Treating birth timing as a norm is also strange, as it implies that people have more control over when to have children than they often do. Access to birth control and abortion — and the cost of each — varies greatly by income, with poor women losing out. This is why Sawhill is a huge advocate of government programs to expand the use of IUDs and other highly effective, long-lasting forms of birth control.

• This only captures income in one year, 2007. Because most poverty is episodic, and 2007 was when the economy peaked pre-recession, it's very likely that a greater percentage of people in families that followed all three norms have ever been in poverty.
• Lowry doesn’t even cite Haskins and Sawhill correctly, since they arrive at their figures about the importance of behavioral norms by excluding big swaths of the population — households headed by people under 25, the elderly, and people on disability — from their analysis.

The big problem with Lowry's statement is the illusion of control.
As Georgetown economist Harry Holzer told me the last time I debunked this stat, "When people make a statement like that, they act like people have perfect control over things like that." He explains, "In a recession, to say that people have perfect control over employment is absurd. There are so many reasons someone might lose a job beyond their control. I would argue the same thing for high school graduation." And I, for that matter, would argue the same for marriage and childbirth.

 

[TheTwinAndreBen]

TL;DR

Coates is a fucking uneducated hack and a moron of the first and highest order.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

TL;DR

Coates is a fucking uneducated hack and a moron of the first and highest order.

#shitwhiteprivilegesays

 

[PhDeac]

Yeah. The article isn't even about Coates.

 

[knowell]

There was a good link to the Rich Lowry review so there is that.

 

[TownieDeac]

TL;DR

Coates is a fucking uneducated hack and a moron of the first and highest order.

Uneducated? Because he dropped out from the top of his class at Howard?

He's no Cornel West but he's not a hack, the guy can write.

 

[Strickland33]

Uneducated? Because he dropped out from the top of his class at Howard?

He's no Cornel West but he's not a hack, the guy can write.

Cornel West is no Cornel West anymore. The funny thing is that TAB is making a very Cornel West-esque critique of TNC.

ETA: And by Cornel West-esque argument I mean that TAB is just flat out wrong.

Here is West's first post in critique of TNC.

In Defense of James Baldwin – Why Toni Morrison (a literary genius) is Wrong about Ta-Nehisi Coates. Baldwin was a great writer of profound courage who spoke truth to power. Coates is a clever wordsmith with journalistic talent who avoids any critique of the Black president in power. Baldwin’s painful self-examination led to collective action and a focus on social movements. He reveled in the examples of Medgar, Martin, Malcolm, Fannie Lou Hamer and Angela Davis. Coates’s fear-driven self-absorption leads to individual escape and flight to safety – he is cowardly silent on the marvelous new militancy in Ferguson, Baltimore, New York, Oakland, Cleveland and other places. Coates can grow and mature, but without an analysis of capitalist wealth inequality, gender domination, homophobic degradation, Imperial occupation (all concrete forms of plunder) and collective fightback (not just personal struggle) Coates will remain a mere darling of White and Black Neo-liberals, paralyzed by their Obama worship and hence a distraction from the necessary courage and vision we need in our catastrophic times. How I wish the prophetic work of serious intellectuals like Robin DG Kelley, Imani Perry, Gerald Horne, Eddie Glaude commanded the attention the corporate media gives Coates. But in our age of superficial spectacle, even the great Morrison is seduced by the linguistic glitz and political silences of Coates as we all hunger for the literary genius and political engagement of Baldwin. As in jazz, we must teach our youth that immature imitation is suicide and premature elevation is death. Brother Coates continue to lift your gifted voice to your precious son and all of us, just beware of the white noise and become connected to the people’s movements!

Here is his second:

My response to Brother Ta-Nehisi's new book should not be misunderstood. I simply tried to honestly evaluate the book at the level of Truth, Goodness and Beauty. Since I believe there will never be another Baldwin -- just as there will never be another Coltrane, Morrison, Du Bois, Simone [as in Nina], Robeson or Rakim -- the coronation of Coates as our Baldwin is wrong. His immense talents and gifts lie elsewhere and lead to different priorities. He indeed tells crucial truths about the vicious legacy of white supremacy as plunder on a visceral level, yet he fails to focus on our collective fightback, social movements or political hope. Even his fine essays downplay people's insurgency and resistance. The full truth of white supremacy must include our historic struggles against it. His critical comments in his essays about the respectability politics or paternalistic speeches of the black president in power (absent in his book) do not constitute a critique of the presidency -- pro-Wall Street policy as capitalist wealth inequality, drone policy as U.S. war crimes, massive surveillance as violation of rights, or defense of ugly Israeli occupation as immoral domination. For example, none of the black or white neo-liberals who coronate Coates say that 500 Palestinian babies killed by U.S. supported Israeli forces in 50 days or U.S. drones killing over 200 babies are crimes against humanity. Yet they cry crocodile tears when black folk are murdered by U.S. police. Unlike Baldwin, Coates gives them this hypocritical way out -- with no cost to pay, risk to take, or threat to their privilege because of his political silence on these issues. I love Coates' obsession with Baldwin's beautiful prose, and Coates does have beautiful moments too. Baldwin's beauty is profoundly soulful, wise and eager to inspire others. Coates' beauty is deliberately nerdy, smart and draws attention to itself. Hence, Coates' obsession with beauty weakens the Baldwin-like truths of resistance to be told or the Baldwin-like goodness tied to social hope. Like a Blues man or Jazz woman, Baldwin offers his whole blood-drenched and tear-soaked soul in words and sounds to an incomplete world, whereas Coates offers his well-crafted words with a sad spectatorial self to a doomed world. In this Age of Ferguson, we indeed need different voices, yet the most needful voices should be Baldwin-like all the way down and all the way LIVE!

 

[TuffaloDeac10]

Is there even a critique? I though TAB was just being a KA

 

[jhmd2000]

It seems that our choices are clear enough: if you're convinced that there is no opportunity in America and you wish to look to others to provide for your basic needs, you have the option and many exercise it. If you don't think there is profit in making the four choices outlined in this statistic, don't make them. I'm sure there will always be some level of a safety net to catch you when you predictably fall.

Query: who benefits most when a person makes these choices as "conservatives" (read: statistics) encourage them to do?

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

No one is wholly responsible for themselves, and only the ignorant proud claim to be. People such as yourselves only acknowledge suckling teats when they're your own teats. You and all of your accomplishments are the work of others, as indignantly as you might argue otherwise. Denying the existence of privilege is a denial of social interconnectedness.

 

[DG3]

No one is wholly responsible for themselves, and only the ignorant proud claim to be. People such as yourselves only acknowledge suckling teats when they're your own teats. You and all of your accomplishments are the work of others, as indignantly as you might argue otherwise. Denying the existence of privilege is a denial of social interconnectedness.

So no one here has accomplished anything on their own? I think many would admit to being given better opportunities by their families than some, but to claim that no one has done anything and that all we've done is because someone else worked and gave it to us is ignorant.

You do realize there's a middle ground between dirt poor and the Vanderbilt family? For instance, my family put a high value on education. But they didn't do the work for me. They didn't pay for my schooling. Dad doesn't pay my mortgage or he didn't magically appear when it was time to write a check for my car. Pops didn't write me a check to start my business. Not every white American who has had success latched onto the family tit until 25 and drop into the corner office. I fully recognize and am thankful that I had a loving family who valued my future and education. Not all have that.

 

[PhDeac]

You two basically agree that no one gets by solely on their own merits without any help.

 

[DG3]

You two basically agree that no one gets by solely on their own merits without any help.

No, they don't. But I think he's under some illusion that everyone doesn't do jack shit and is handed absolutely everything. Just because you are white and weren't born on a dirt floor to a destitute mother, doesn't mean you walked around with your hand out and sucked the family tit to get everything you have. That's an extraordinarily lazy viewpoint.

 

[PhDeac]

That's not what he actually said though. He said we all owe somebody and these others are also responsible for us getting where we are. Thus the idea that a person did it on their own with no help is BS.

 

[jhmd2000]

So no one here has accomplished anything on their own? I think many would admit to being given better opportunities by their families than some, but to claim that no one has done anything and that all we've done is because someone else worked and gave it to us is ignorant.

You do realize there's a middle ground between dirt poor and the Vanderbilt family? For instance, my family put a high value on education. But they didn't do the work for me. They didn't pay for my schooling. Dad doesn't pay my mortgage or he didn't magically appear when it was time to write a check for my car. Pops didn't write me a check to start my business. Not every white American who has had success latched onto the family tit until 25 and drop into the corner office. I fully recognize and am thankful that I had a loving family who valued my future and education. Not all have that.

You're new here, aren't you?

Of course these guys believe in hard work, personal responsibility and making good choices (witness their own lives and the way they are raising their own children). The difference is that they don't believe everyone else is up to it, but they're afraid to admit that, so we get this "it's a conservative myth!" canard instead (again, note carefully their steadfast fidelity to that "mythology" when it comes to their own lives). Try the veal.

Again I ask, who stands to benefit most when these statistics are taught to all of our children (instead of shouted down as "myths" foisted upon them by the hated privileged)? Whose lives will improve first, fastest and most dramatically?

What if we had some kind of Summit, where I brokered all of the climate deniers to come to the table and you guys got the personal responsibility deniers to come to the same table, and we just traded confessions that the other guy is right on that issue?

 

[PhDeac]

I'm not new here so I know jhmd didn't read the article.

 

[jhmd2000]

I'm not new here so I know jhmd didn't read the article.

I've also been around long enough to know that you'll stay up until 2 in the morning looking for something, anything to #debunk! immutable, empirical evidence that doesn't fit your narrative.

Let me know when you encourage your own kids to ignore the advice behind the four stats. Sincerity test failure on your part.

In the mean time, third request: who would benefit most if the lessons behind these statistics were emphasized to young people across the board? I'm not going to get an answer, I know, so I wish you a happy #debunking.

 

[ONW]

"I've been on food stamps and welfare. Anybody help me out? No. No. They gave me hope, and they gave me encouragement, and they gave me a vision. That came from my education.

Craig T. Nelson

 

[PhDeac]

Just read the article, jhmd.

The research is taken from one year of data that leaves out several groups. It has been misinterpreted by conservatives. Several components of those factors are outside of individual control. Noting their own research, one author is an outspoken advocate of government sponsored birth control.

No one is saying any of those things are bad. They're just not automatic, not solely individual, and YMMV depending on how you do them.

But you do you and keep attacking strawmen.

 

[Liquid Karma]