Raj Chetty and Economic Mobility

 


Raj Chetty is an unsung hero. 

When it comes to the area of social capital, his exhaustive and trailblazing research is unmatched. 

My first article for National Review, Conservatives for Community, written in August of 2022, was inspired by Chetty's study on social capital and economic mobility in Nature. 

To quote myself:
The study, which breaks down social capital into three categories — economic connectedness, social cohesion, and civic engagement — found that children have a much greater chance of being upwardly mobile if they reside in communities with high levels of “economic connectedness.” Economic connectedness (EC) refers to the integration of people from different economic backgrounds. The study concludes that levels of EC vary depending on one’s geographical residence. Impoverished inner-city areas, for example, have remarkably low levels of EC, since most residents occupy the same socioeconomic stratum. Conversely, an area with a healthy combination of high-income and low-income residents increases the odds of economic success for low-income individuals.

While this was eye-opening to me at the time, I had no idea that Chetty had been a prolific researcher in this field for years. 

I recently finished re-reading J.D. Vance's magnum opus, Hillbilly Elegy (a book that is especially pertinent now), and was surprised to find mention of Chetty's work from 2014:

In a paper analyzing the data, Chetty and his coauthors noted two important factors that explained the uneven geographic distribution of opportunity: the prevalence of single moms and income segregation. Growing up around a lot of single moms and dads living in a place where most of your neighbors are poor really narrows the realm of possibilities.  

Chetty - and this was less surprising - was also cited in Robert Putnam's Our Kids, probably my favorite of Putnam's books. 

I actually had the opportunity to see Chetty speak in-person earlier this year when the Royal Society of the Arts awarded him their Benjamin Franklin Medal for his years of paradigm-shattering work. Chetty - with the aid of some instructive PowerPoint slides, chock-full of exciting new data - reinforced his thesis that economic connectedness is, in fact, the key explanatory factor for upward mobility. Other types of social capital, he explained, were less important. 

Vance, by explaining Chetty's thesis about economic mobility in layman's terms, really drives the point home: When everyone around you is impoverished, it is very hard to escape. When individuals of lower socioeconomic status forge connections and relationships with others of higher socioeconomic status, conversely, it is hugely advantageous to the former group. The later brings a lot to the table: professional connections, robust social networks, and a culture of hard work and high expectations. 

The bottom line is that social connection is a powerful tool. Individuals do not exist in a vacuum; we are, inherently, a apart of our environments: our families, friend groups, professional networks, and so on 

Not even the most ideological libertarian actually thinks we can go it alone. 

Coconut Conservatism and Communitarianism

 


Is Kamala Harris channeling her inner-Amatai Etzioni? Let's take a closer look...

Harris is known for being a rather confounding orator. Often times, it does appear as if she is trying her hand at a sort of avant-garde slam poetry. Former President Donald Trump - whose name I don't believe I have written before for this blog - quipped in an interview with Tucker Carlson that Harris "speaks in rhyme." This, I think, is an apt descriptor of her unorthodox rhetorical style. 

But perhaps we ought to give her some credit. Maybe she is actually saying something?

Andrew Day, a staff writer for Robert Wright's Nonzero Newsletter, has pioneered a new term that I think beautifully encapsulates Harris's elusive ideological disposition: Coconut Conservatism. 

Day explained, rather convincingly, that Harris's now-viral remarks about falling from a coconut tree are oddly reminiscent of a Burkean, small-c conservatism, or, put another way, communitarianism. 

Crazy as it sounds, I think there might be something to this...

Day:

She was expressing a pretty conservative insight. It's not like left-wing collectivism; it was more like right-wing communitarianism. She was talking about how we exist in a context and how, if you want to help young people, you have to be aware that they're not just individuals; they're shaped by their families and by their educators, so it's like a whole communal framework. 

Kamala's diatribe about context and place could have easily been said my Amitai Etzioni, Yoram Hazony, or Patrick Deneen, albeit much more eloquently. 

This, however, wouldn't be the first time a Left-winger has tapped into the small-c conservative framework. Last year, I wrote a post about Marianne Williamson's communitarian streak. 

Do you recall this exchange between Williamson and Fox News personality Sean Hannity? Skip to 6:00...


Williamson very aptly explained that "we don't feel deeply at home on a spiritual level on this planet because this world is not based on love the way it should be." This, too, is communitarian. 

Libertarian-oriented conservatives, who often come across as cold and overly individualistic, can learn a thing or two from Harris and Williamson.

Coconut Conservatism is the future...


Why America Needs The Ten Commandments to Return to the Public Sphere



To any casual observer of contemporary American politics, it is clear that the United States is at a serious cultural crossroads. In the figurative sense, America today is like a ship without a sail or a vessel without a destination. Historically founded upon Enlightenment-Era principles rooted in Judeo-Christian values, the country prospered socially and fiscally primarily due to the virtuous characteristics of many communities comprised of families and individuals who sacrificed and contributed for the greater good. While changes have been gradually occurring in American society over the last six or more decades, the realities of social decline within the nation are today arguably at their most glaring point in history. This deterioration is, at root, most visible at the "micro" level- in family units and individual households, communities and states. Make no mistake: these various "micro" spheres of social composition are not small in relevance or weight- in fact, they guide the "macro" trend, or the larger diagnosis of the cultural health of the nation. In my recently published book, American Restoration, the vital importance of the American community is discussed among other things when examining the cultural deterioration that has occurred in the country over the last several decades. Ultimately, the health of communities consistently erodes in any society when the social, fiscal, and moral integrity of the families that comprise them declines as well.

One glaring statistic that cannot be ignored is the near-death of the American nuclear family. The "nuclear family" unit was the dominant traditional familial social structure that existed in the United States from its conception through the near-present and in much of the western world throughout history. In this structure, two parents (typically a husband and wife) live in a single residence with one or more children. According to statistics published by Pew Research in a 2023 report, in 1970 67% of American adults aged 25 to 49 lived with a spouse and at least one child. By 2021, that number had declined to only 37%. Yes, at present, the majority of Americans no longer live in a Nuclear Familial Structure. Marriage rates have also declined precipitously, and less and less young people are getting married- these realities are outlined in a recent report published by the National Center for Family and Marriage Research. 

One might ask: Why does this matter? Is it really that "big of a deal" if most American children grow up in single parent households? Many young Americans today put an increasingly small level of importance on traditional family structures. According to a report conducted by the Institute for Family Studies in 2022, only 30% of Americans who are college educated and liberal in political affiliation believed that children were better off if they had two married parents. In stark contrast, 91% of conservative-leaning individuals with a college education believed children were better off in this regard. These realities demonstrate the growing cultural divide in the United States, and the increasingly prevalent reality that vast cultural differences are exacerbating in the country. America can no longer boast that its collective body of people- the citizenry- subscribe in strong majority to a uniform set of shared moral and social values. This great fragmentation within national society all starts at the family level. 

The truth of the matter is, objectively speaking, most children that grow up in a two-parent household are more likely to enjoy stability which in turn benefits them greatly when taking into consideration academic and behavioral growth and achievement over time. A child who not only has the nurturing hand of a mother to guide and encourage them but also the stern, masculine influence of a father who will lead with "tough love" and honest criticism is objectively at an advantage to the individual who may only be raised by a single parent. Single-parents often lack the time or resources that two-parent households can dedicate to a child due to the subjective realities of the situation they are in. While these statements are generalized and made in a broad sense (the writer does not mean to imply that single-parents are incapable of providing a stable and secure upbringing for children), they do hold truth. Research strongly suggests that two-parent households are strongly linked to the well-being of children in fiscal, social, and emotional regards. In the aforementioned publication released by the Institute for Family Studies, a study was referenced that showed that social misbehavior in an educational setting was twice as common amongst children living with separated or divorced parents compared to those living with married parents. This study also reported that 40% of Millennials (individuals born between 1981 and 1996) who grew up in a two-parent household achieved academic success and graduated college by their mid-20's in comparison to only 17% that came from broken households. 77% of Millennials who grew up in two-parent households reached "middle class" or higher in terms of socioeconomic status by their mid-30's, while  only 57% of those who grew up without two-parents in the home reported the same. 

If the United States is going to return to a place of socio-cultural stability and relative prosperity in average communities across the nation, it must begin with the revival of the individual family unit. Families were and still are the driving forces behind the vibrancy of neighborhoods and communities, and individuals that comprise these communities contribute to societal stability and generate meaningful change. Historically, the traditional American family operated within a Biblical structure. The Judeo-Christian values that formed the bedrock of American culture at the political and social levels even when the Republic existed in its most nascent form in the 1780s (and even prior) were the ethical guiding forces for the American family unit and every citizen. At root, the choice to subscribe to these values was an individual choice; that person could choose to follow the moral principles outlined in the Christian and Jewish faiths, or they could not. While many people did indeed live non-virtuous lives, in previous years however, communities across America boldly adhered to these objective moral principles in the public sphere. People had a strong incentive to abide by these principles- if they did not, consequences often followed. By setting objective moral standards for what was deemed right, and what was wrong, American communities had a clear, concise ethos for all to follow. For example, in years past, it was quite taboo in many American communities for people to act in unruly ways in public. The excessive and open use of profanity was highly frowned upon, individuals (especially women) were expected to dress modestly and to lead faithful, non-promiscuous livelihoods. The consequences for such behaviors that went against these expectations (while not always legal in nature) were often social. A persons reputation mattered greatly in close-knit communities like small towns or tight city neighborhoods, and once that reputation was tarnished in a serious and legitimate way, the repercussions were often irreparable. Today, there is no longer a "built-in" deterrent for questionable or improper personal conduct in many communities across America because there is no longer an objective standard of morality that exists in the nation in a large sense. In truth, America has increasingly become a society based around "moral-relativism" and subjective notions of morality. Moral relativism can be defined as the idea that there are no objective or absolute moral principles. History has shown that this never ends favorably- in societies that have moved away from the objective adherence of Judeo-Christian values and the objective sense of public morality that these values provide, horrific atrocities have often been committed (Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia under Stalin, Mao's China, etc). 

Make no mistake- the writer is not calling for a unification of church or state, or for a "forced" conversion of Americans to Judaism or Christianity. What must be said, however, is that America is a nation founded on Judeo-Christian values, and throughout national history these values provided the figurative pillars of social, political, and cultural support that allowed the nation to thrive. In the simplest of terms, these values can be outlined through the Ten Commandments which are found in the Hebrew Bible (the Torah) and the Old Testament in the Christian Bible. Appearing in distinct Books (Exodus and Deuteronomy), these commandments were (according to Christian and Jewish tradition) given to Moses by God at Mount Sinai after he delivered the Israelites from slavery in Egypt and established a new covenant (or social agreement) with God. These commandments were then, and are still today, rules to abide by in order to lead a virtuous and moral life. For thousands of years, nations across the western world have socially operated in at least a general adherence to these commandments as they set  objective standards for what is right, and what is wrong. These commandments along with the seven deadly sins (pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath, and sloth), defined in 375 A.D. by the Christian Monk Evagrius Ponticus created a uniform and universal notion about righteous and unrighteous living for societies to follow. This created a "cement-like" foundation, and individual adherence was paramount; for if one did not follow these commandments and routinely engaged in ethically questionable activities, they were not only hurting the community and their families, but God himself. 

America is at a crossroads. A country without an objective moral compass cannot remain a country at all. And a people without a shared culture, stable families, or a sense of common decency and etiquette, possesses no possibility of maintaining social cohesiveness or healthy communities. Now, more than ever, America needs the Ten Commandments. By returning to the basics and the foundation of western society, only then can the country begin to face the many social, fiscal, political, and over-arching cultural problems it so desperately needs to address. 

Conversation Is the Only Way Forward

  By Frank Filocomo There is nothing more dangerous than an ideological echo chamber.  In Reclaiming Conversation , Sherry Turkle urges read...