Considering Murray's Conclusion

I was very impressed with Murray's identification of class divergence in America. However I was less persuaded by his proposed solution(s) for this dilemma, and I would like to identify two particular issues that may open up further discussion. 

Central to Murray's argument is the idea that if our lower classes can rediscover traditional American virtues (industriousness, honesty, marriage, religiosity, community, social capital) then they will become more self-sustaining, and we will not have to resort to a "welfare state." Certainly a renaissance in these values would indeed be beneficial for the poor. But through what means does Murray propose to re-instill these values? In his conclusion (pg. 308), Murray addresses this: "there remains a core of civic virtue and involvement [in lower class communities] that could make headway against those problems if the people who are trying to do the right things get the reinforcement they need - not in the form of government assistance, but in validation of the values and standards they continue to uphold." Murray clarifies on the next page who is doing this 'validating': "A great many people, especially in the new upper class, just need to start preaching what they practice"(309). Okay, but what exactly does this mean? What does validation entail, and through what medium is it to be done? Will attorneys, physicians, and executives parade through lower class neighborhoods, patting the backs of local community leaders? I may have overlooked a few points here, but overall I did not come away with a comprehensive understanding of how Murray envisioned the reinstallation of these virtues into the lower class. 

Secondly, and on a similar note, I was puzzled by another aspect of Murray's conclusion. Murray lauds the part of American exceptionalism in which "people must be free to live life as they see fit and to be responsible for the consequences of their actions; that it is not the government's job to protect people from themselves"(309). And yet on the previous page Murray quotes economist Robert Fogel: "...it is necessary to address such postmodern concerns as the struggle for self-realization, the desire to find a deeper meaning in life than the endless accumulation of consumer durables and the pursuit of pleasure..."(308). Well is not this "endless accumulation of consumer durables"(and all the lack of 'genuine satisfaction' that it entails) simply a byproduct of a system in which people are "free to live life as they see fit", namely to create a commodity culture? Likewise Murray laments the "unseemliness" of CEOs and their exorbitant paychecks, but once again are these men and women not simply "living life as they see fit" and adhering to the economic principles of Libertarianism? To ground this talk in reality: Walmart executives see it fit to pay most of their employees anywhere from about $8 to $13 per hour - Walmart's website claims its average hourly wage for associates is $12.81 while an organization of Walmart reformers says the figure is actually around $8.81. Regardless there are a lot of meagerly paid Walmart employees. The consequence? A recent Congressional study found that a single Walmart Supercenter may cost taxpayers anywhere from approximately $900,000 to $1,700,000 in government assistance programs for its employees each year. Also keep in mind that Walmart is just one corporation of many paying its unskilled workers scanty wages. In this sense then, the welfare state that Murray laments becomes unavoidable if the government does not "protect the people [i.e. corporate executives in this case] from themselves."

These were just a few thoughts I had. I'm interested to see how others perceive Murrays' proposed solutions to the inequality problem.