What do you think?
Rate this book
Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950-1980
[Read by Robert Morris]
Beginning in the 1950s, America entered a period of unprecedented social reform. This remarkable book demonstrates how the social programs of the 1960s and '70s had the unintended and perverse effect of slowing and even reversing earlier progress in reducing poverty, crime, ignorance, and discrimination. Using widely understood and accepted data, it conclusively demonstrates that the amalgam of reforms from 1965 to 1970 actually made matters worse. Why? Charles Murray's tough-minded answers to this question will please neither radical liberals nor radical conservatives. He offers no easy solutions, but by forcing us to face fundamental intellectual and moral problems about whom we want to help and how, Losing Ground marks an important first step in rethinking social policy.
Beginning in the 1950s, America entered a period of unprecedented social reform. This remarkable book demonstrates how the social programs of the 1960s and '70s had the unintended and perverse effect of slowing and even reversing earlier progress in reducing poverty, crime, ignorance, and discrimination. Using widely understood and accepted data, it conclusively demonstrates that the amalgam of reforms from 1965 to 1970 actually made matters worse. Why? Charles Murray's tough-minded answers to this question will please neither radical liberals nor radical conservatives. He offers no easy solutions, but by forcing us to face fundamental intellectual and moral problems about whom we want to help and how, Losing Ground marks an important first step in rethinking social policy.
348 pages, Kindle Edition
First published November 30, 1983
96 people are currently reading
3009 people want to read
About the author
Charles Murray
87 books575 followersCharles Alan Murray is an American libertarian conservative political scientist, author, and columnist. His book Losing Ground: American Social Policy 1950–1980 (1984), which discussed the American welfare system, was widely read and discussed, and influenced subsequent government policy. He became well-known for his controversial book The Bell Curve (1994), written with Richard Herrnstein, in which he argues that intelligence is a better predictor than parental socio-economic status or education level of many individual outcomes including income, job performance, pregnancy out of wedlock, and crime, and that social welfare programs and education efforts to improve social outcomes for the disadvantaged are largely wasted.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 88 reviews
November 25, 2012
The thesis of this book is that welfare increases poverty. It cannot reduce poverty.
Prior to the 1960s, the prevailing view of the past 300 years or so was that welfare should be aid in the form of things like housing (think Dickens's Bleak House), not a direct dole out of money to the poor. Welfare was thought to encourage sloth and laziness: by increasing the value of being unemployed vis a vis being employed, the classic market response is to increase supply of the unemployed. It also increased illegitimacy (which is a chief cause of poverty) because as long as the man is not legally responsible for the child, his income does not count against hers for welfare benefits. Furthermore, in experiments across the US between poor populations in the same city, some of whom receive welfare and some of whom don't, the breakup of marriage (another cause of poverty) was about 40% higher among families receiving welfare.
At the crux of the issue is to what degree the system is to blame or the individual. If the system is to blame, then self-sufficiency no longer becomes morally superior to independence. Those who have succeeded and escaped poverty are not to be commended. Placing the blame on the system also removes from the impoverished any idea that they can succeed. The very reward structure of status and money to those who have separated themselves and climbed the social ladder is what fosters the near classless society that has thrived in America unlike any other nation. A classless society is one of the chief goals of liberalism. Their placing the blame on the system is thus self-refuting and undermines their own goal.
Welfare means that it is easier to get along without a job. Because it is easier to get along without a job, it is easier to ignore education. It is easier for a man to have a baby without being responsible for it. It is easier for a woman to have a baby without having a husband. It is easier to get away with crime. Thus it is easier to obtain drugs, and to support a drug habit.
Removing welfare would mean parents would do more in their children's education--they don't want them living off their money. Parents would buckle down and try harder to make their kids not have children unless in a stable family--they don't want to be stuck paying for their grandkids. Young people would find that they are in fact work ready--doing menial jobs and gaining the work ethic that comes with them is suddenly preferable from the alternative. Finally, those low income families who have been doing the right thing would be vindicated and not ridiculed.
If an impartial observer from a foreign land looked at the data of the black lower class from 1950-1980 and given no information about social and public policy changes of that time period, he would think that outright, virulent racial discrimination against the black poor had dramatically increased during the late 1960s and 1970s (the time when the welfare system really took off). Of course, the opposite actually happened. Until the late 60s, the black lower class had been making steady economic gains vis a vis whites. This came to a screeching halt with the welfare reforms of the late 60s.
At the end, Murray breaks form and asks a strikingly personal question. If you were a parent and knew your kids would be orphaned tomorrow, which family would you rather send them to:
1) A very poor family, in which they will sometimes, but not often, lack food and be badly clothed, but the parents have worked hard all their lives, make sure the children study and go to school, and value independence; or
2) A less-poor family, in which the parents have never worked, don't value education, but your children will have enough food and clothes, provided by others.
The first choice is the clear winner; our current system prefers the second.
All in all, a thoroughly-researched work, full of data rather than rhetoric, but still interesting to read.
Prior to the 1960s, the prevailing view of the past 300 years or so was that welfare should be aid in the form of things like housing (think Dickens's Bleak House), not a direct dole out of money to the poor. Welfare was thought to encourage sloth and laziness: by increasing the value of being unemployed vis a vis being employed, the classic market response is to increase supply of the unemployed. It also increased illegitimacy (which is a chief cause of poverty) because as long as the man is not legally responsible for the child, his income does not count against hers for welfare benefits. Furthermore, in experiments across the US between poor populations in the same city, some of whom receive welfare and some of whom don't, the breakup of marriage (another cause of poverty) was about 40% higher among families receiving welfare.
At the crux of the issue is to what degree the system is to blame or the individual. If the system is to blame, then self-sufficiency no longer becomes morally superior to independence. Those who have succeeded and escaped poverty are not to be commended. Placing the blame on the system also removes from the impoverished any idea that they can succeed. The very reward structure of status and money to those who have separated themselves and climbed the social ladder is what fosters the near classless society that has thrived in America unlike any other nation. A classless society is one of the chief goals of liberalism. Their placing the blame on the system is thus self-refuting and undermines their own goal.
Welfare means that it is easier to get along without a job. Because it is easier to get along without a job, it is easier to ignore education. It is easier for a man to have a baby without being responsible for it. It is easier for a woman to have a baby without having a husband. It is easier to get away with crime. Thus it is easier to obtain drugs, and to support a drug habit.
Removing welfare would mean parents would do more in their children's education--they don't want them living off their money. Parents would buckle down and try harder to make their kids not have children unless in a stable family--they don't want to be stuck paying for their grandkids. Young people would find that they are in fact work ready--doing menial jobs and gaining the work ethic that comes with them is suddenly preferable from the alternative. Finally, those low income families who have been doing the right thing would be vindicated and not ridiculed.
If an impartial observer from a foreign land looked at the data of the black lower class from 1950-1980 and given no information about social and public policy changes of that time period, he would think that outright, virulent racial discrimination against the black poor had dramatically increased during the late 1960s and 1970s (the time when the welfare system really took off). Of course, the opposite actually happened. Until the late 60s, the black lower class had been making steady economic gains vis a vis whites. This came to a screeching halt with the welfare reforms of the late 60s.
At the end, Murray breaks form and asks a strikingly personal question. If you were a parent and knew your kids would be orphaned tomorrow, which family would you rather send them to:
1) A very poor family, in which they will sometimes, but not often, lack food and be badly clothed, but the parents have worked hard all their lives, make sure the children study and go to school, and value independence; or
2) A less-poor family, in which the parents have never worked, don't value education, but your children will have enough food and clothes, provided by others.
The first choice is the clear winner; our current system prefers the second.
All in all, a thoroughly-researched work, full of data rather than rhetoric, but still interesting to read.
July 21, 2021
It kind of blows my mind that Charles Murray published this originally in 1983. He made some incredibly astute observations, especially considering he isn't writing this with a decade's retrospect. This is a sharp, genre-shaping look at the legacy of the war on poverty and its impact on those it most tried to help.
It was more even-handed than I expected (though I see from the many one star reviews that people disagree!) and certainly thought provoking. Worth sinking your teeth into.
It was more even-handed than I expected (though I see from the many one star reviews that people disagree!) and certainly thought provoking. Worth sinking your teeth into.
February 13, 2009
An excellent data-based analysis of the massive social programs introduced starting in the mid-sixties, and their effects. Murray convincingly argues that after billions and billions spent on welfare programs, including AFDC, food stamps, unemployment insurance, job training programs, and others, the effect on the target population has been mostly negative. He effectively shows that these programs actually caused harm. This is a harsh reality that people instinctively know but everyone is afraid to deal with. Our government may be in a position where it tried to do good and actually made things worse, but now is so invested in the program that it can't turn back and right the wrong. It's a good read, and I highly recommend it for anyone thinking about how government can make effective policy.
November 20, 2013
When this inveterate racist asks why Black people are out of work, the answer may surprise you! (spoiler alert: the answer will not surprise you). He uses lots of graphs to hide the fact that he obscures the situation by confusing correlation with causation - i.e. - as government means tested welfare programs have expanded the plight of the black male youth has gotten worse therefore the plight of the black male youth is the fault of expanded program. Nothing int he book (written 1984) would surprise anyone who has listened to conservatives speak for the past 2-3 decades, but I guess he was the first person to really promote the idea that welfare created negative incentives and inculcated an expectation of failure. Either way, it's a bunch of bullshit, a mix of obfuscation, dishonesty, and stupidity.
February 28, 2017
Losing Ground is Murray's comprehensive study of the disastrous effect of social welfare in the United States. Essentially, any of the social experiments were performed at the expenses of taxpayers with negative outcomes, what needs to be done is to create a colour blind society focusing on the hardwork of the individual or else it will destroy itself. The book is a little dated but still relevant to the socialization of schools, healthcare and crime.
June 22, 2020
I was shocked by the level of racism in this book. Including the author making a point using the N-word. This book was extremely influential on conservative boomer thought and political policy. No wonder we are where we are now. This book is gross.
March 12, 2013
check a citation - any citation - and it certainly won't support murray's argument or say what he says it does. specious arguments to support bigoted AEI values/ideals. useful only for throwing.
March 13, 2013
I don't think Goodreads will let me paste a five-page long "journal" for class in my review. Suffice to say that the margins in my copy are annotated quite angrily.
January 9, 2023
This book is pretty amazing; written in the early 1980s and accurately predicted many trends which just got worse. Essentially, the war on poverty turned out to actually be a war on the poor themselves.
Ultimately, it comes down to one question:
If you were going to die and your children were going to be orphaned and adopted, which would you prefer:
1) A poor family with food insecurity, threadbare clothing, etc., but with parents who have worked hard their whole lives and who will make sure children study, go to school, and value independence
or
2) A middle-class family where parents don't work, don't value education or other similar values, but where the children will be materially wealthy.
(This book is very focused on economic prosperity and poverty; it uses race as an interesting way to sample for this, but is essentially a book about poverty and not about racial politics.)
I am somewhat curious how Murray would compare American social welfare policies to various foreign (especially European or Asian countries) at different times.
Ultimately, it comes down to one question:
If you were going to die and your children were going to be orphaned and adopted, which would you prefer:
1) A poor family with food insecurity, threadbare clothing, etc., but with parents who have worked hard their whole lives and who will make sure children study, go to school, and value independence
or
2) A middle-class family where parents don't work, don't value education or other similar values, but where the children will be materially wealthy.
(This book is very focused on economic prosperity and poverty; it uses race as an interesting way to sample for this, but is essentially a book about poverty and not about racial politics.)
I am somewhat curious how Murray would compare American social welfare policies to various foreign (especially European or Asian countries) at different times.
Read
April 13, 2022an extremely provocative read. Murray compares the war on poverty to the war on Vietnam in that both were launched and pursued by highly qualified experts obsessed with metrics. As I read this I realized I'd seen this comparison once before, in the work of Ivan Illich. Politically I'd say I'm much closer to Illich, but both of them have keen insight into the counterproductive tendencies of the expert class..
February 24, 2020
This book is perhaps the best argument for reforming American social welfare policy that you will ever read. It may seem strange to suggest that a book on analyzing the effects of the welfare state would be captivating, but this one is just that. No matter what your political or ideological leanings are regarding the welfare state, this is an important and seminal work that you should add to your to-read list.
December 10, 2016
In his ground-breaking (shaking?) work thirty years into the American welfare experiment, Murray opens with two assertions:
1) It was made profitable for the poor to behave in the short-term in ways that were destructive in the long-term.
2) These long-term losses were then covered up--subsidizing irretrievable mistakes.
The author proceeds to trace the statistical evidence of these assertions through a copious use of graphs. He cites three decades of trends in poverty, employment, wages and occupations, education, crime, and the family.
The conclusion: the increase of federal subsidies to the poor paralleled the increase in poverty rates, unemployment, and crime, while also contributing to the breakdown of the family unit and decline in educational performance--all this among populations who received the most “benefit” from the various forms of welfare.
A majority of the middle and upper-class American population is willing to help those who are in legitimate need, especially if this help is given in such a way as to encourage breaking out of the poverty cycle. Most taxpayers don’t grumble at their taxes being used in such a manner. However, here’s the rub. What if the money being invested into the welfare system is counter-productive?
In short, Murray recommends massively scaling back federal funding along with a completely reconsidered approach to the “problem of the poor.” He argues that everyone should have the opportunities to better themselves, rather it be educationally or economically. But no one should be rewarded for refusing to take advantage of the opportunities or for "working" the welfare system.
Murray envisions welfare benefits coming from a combined effort of state and local governments, private businesses and charitable organizations. Keeping efforts at the local level automatically strips away layers of unnecessary federal bureaucracy and cuts down in misallocated funds--all this while simultaneously increasing accountability.
I’ll add that the church has traditionally been central to poverty alleviation. The early Christians made it a priority to take care of one another, and sought ways to help the suffering poor around them. As Paul prepared for taking the Gospel to the Gentiles, he writes of the other apostles, “They only asked us to remember the poor--the very thing I was eager to do” (Gal. 2:10).
It is true, as Jesus said, that the poor will always be with you (Mat. 26:11). It is also true that I, as a Christian, have a responsibility to help the legitimately poor who the Lord brings into my path. Rome can implement feeding programs and build job training centers. But Caesar and his Senate sit aloof, mired in political wrangling, focused on generalities.
People are not statistics. They are real individuals with real needs. I agree with Murray that there must be a better way to help the poor than by pouring billions of dollars into a broken system (and this was in 1984 when the book was first published!). This must be attempted without degrading the recipients. The goal is not only the betterment of economic conditions, but assisting in such a manner that allows each person to retain his or her dignity and self-respect.
1) It was made profitable for the poor to behave in the short-term in ways that were destructive in the long-term.
2) These long-term losses were then covered up--subsidizing irretrievable mistakes.
The author proceeds to trace the statistical evidence of these assertions through a copious use of graphs. He cites three decades of trends in poverty, employment, wages and occupations, education, crime, and the family.
The conclusion: the increase of federal subsidies to the poor paralleled the increase in poverty rates, unemployment, and crime, while also contributing to the breakdown of the family unit and decline in educational performance--all this among populations who received the most “benefit” from the various forms of welfare.
A majority of the middle and upper-class American population is willing to help those who are in legitimate need, especially if this help is given in such a way as to encourage breaking out of the poverty cycle. Most taxpayers don’t grumble at their taxes being used in such a manner. However, here’s the rub. What if the money being invested into the welfare system is counter-productive?
In short, Murray recommends massively scaling back federal funding along with a completely reconsidered approach to the “problem of the poor.” He argues that everyone should have the opportunities to better themselves, rather it be educationally or economically. But no one should be rewarded for refusing to take advantage of the opportunities or for "working" the welfare system.
Billions for equal opportunity, not one cent for equal outcome…[the] common theme is to make it possible to get as far as one can go on one’s merit, hardly a new ideal in American thought.
[I propose that] the options are always open. Opportunity is [made available and] endless. There is no punishment for failure, only a total absence of rewards. Society--or an idealized society--should be preoccupied with making sure that achievement is rewarded.
Murray envisions welfare benefits coming from a combined effort of state and local governments, private businesses and charitable organizations. Keeping efforts at the local level automatically strips away layers of unnecessary federal bureaucracy and cuts down in misallocated funds--all this while simultaneously increasing accountability.
I’ll add that the church has traditionally been central to poverty alleviation. The early Christians made it a priority to take care of one another, and sought ways to help the suffering poor around them. As Paul prepared for taking the Gospel to the Gentiles, he writes of the other apostles, “They only asked us to remember the poor--the very thing I was eager to do” (Gal. 2:10).
It is true, as Jesus said, that the poor will always be with you (Mat. 26:11). It is also true that I, as a Christian, have a responsibility to help the legitimately poor who the Lord brings into my path. Rome can implement feeding programs and build job training centers. But Caesar and his Senate sit aloof, mired in political wrangling, focused on generalities.
People are not statistics. They are real individuals with real needs. I agree with Murray that there must be a better way to help the poor than by pouring billions of dollars into a broken system (and this was in 1984 when the book was first published!). This must be attempted without degrading the recipients. The goal is not only the betterment of economic conditions, but assisting in such a manner that allows each person to retain his or her dignity and self-respect.
December 8, 2013
Interesting Quote:
"If an impartial observer from another country were shown data on the black lower class from 1950 to 1980 but given no information about contemporaneous changes in society or public policy, that observer would infer that racial discrimination against the black poor increased drastically during the late 1960s and 1970s. No explanation except a surge in outright, virulent discrimination would as easily explain to a 'blind' observer why things went so wrong.
"Such an explanation is for practical purposes correct. Beginning in the last half of the 1960s, the black poor were subjected to new forms of racism with effects that outweighed the waning of the old forms of racism. Before the 1960s, we had a black underclass that was held down because blacks were systematically treated differently from whites, by whites. Now, we have a black underclass that is held down for the same generic reason--because blacks are systematically treated differently from whites, by whites...
"[F]rom a policy standpoint, it became clear only shortly after the War on Poverty began that henceforth the black lower class was to be the object of a new condescension that would become intertwined with every aspect of social policy. Race is central to the problem of reforming social policy, not because it is intrinsically so but because the debate about what to do has been perverted by the underlying consciousness among whites that 'they' --the people to be helped by social policy--are predominantly black, and blacks are owed a debt.
"The result was that the intelligentsia and the policymakers, coincident with the revolution in social policy, began treating the black poor in ways that they would never consider treating people they respected. Is the black crime rate skyrocketing? Look at the black criminal's many grievances against society. Are black illegitimate birth rates five times higher those of whites? We must remember that blacks have a much broader view of the family than we do--aunts and grandmothers fill in. Did black labor force participation among the young plummet? We can hardly blame someone for having too much pride to work at a job sweeping floors. Are black high-school graduates illiterate? The educational system is insensitive. Are their test scores a hundred points lower than others? The tests are biased. Do black youngsters lose jobs to white youngsters because their mannerisms and language make them incomprehensible to their prospective employers? The culture of the ghetto has its own validity.
"That the condescension should be so deep and pervasive is monumentally ironic, for the injunction to respect the poor (after all, they are not to blame) was hammered home in the tracts of OEO and radical intellectuals. But condescension is the correct descriptor. Whites began to tolerate and make excuses for behavior among blacks that whites would disdain in themselves or their children...
"My proposal for dealing with the racial issue in social welfare is to repeal every bit of legislation and reverse every court decision that in any way requires, recommends, or awards differential treatment according to race, and thereby put us back onto the track that we left in 1965. We may argue about the appropriate limits of government intervention in trying to enforce the ideal, but at least it should be possible to identify the ideal: Race is nor a morally admissible reason for treating one person differently from another. Period."
-Charles Murray, Losing Ground, 1984
"If an impartial observer from another country were shown data on the black lower class from 1950 to 1980 but given no information about contemporaneous changes in society or public policy, that observer would infer that racial discrimination against the black poor increased drastically during the late 1960s and 1970s. No explanation except a surge in outright, virulent discrimination would as easily explain to a 'blind' observer why things went so wrong.
"Such an explanation is for practical purposes correct. Beginning in the last half of the 1960s, the black poor were subjected to new forms of racism with effects that outweighed the waning of the old forms of racism. Before the 1960s, we had a black underclass that was held down because blacks were systematically treated differently from whites, by whites. Now, we have a black underclass that is held down for the same generic reason--because blacks are systematically treated differently from whites, by whites...
"[F]rom a policy standpoint, it became clear only shortly after the War on Poverty began that henceforth the black lower class was to be the object of a new condescension that would become intertwined with every aspect of social policy. Race is central to the problem of reforming social policy, not because it is intrinsically so but because the debate about what to do has been perverted by the underlying consciousness among whites that 'they' --the people to be helped by social policy--are predominantly black, and blacks are owed a debt.
"The result was that the intelligentsia and the policymakers, coincident with the revolution in social policy, began treating the black poor in ways that they would never consider treating people they respected. Is the black crime rate skyrocketing? Look at the black criminal's many grievances against society. Are black illegitimate birth rates five times higher those of whites? We must remember that blacks have a much broader view of the family than we do--aunts and grandmothers fill in. Did black labor force participation among the young plummet? We can hardly blame someone for having too much pride to work at a job sweeping floors. Are black high-school graduates illiterate? The educational system is insensitive. Are their test scores a hundred points lower than others? The tests are biased. Do black youngsters lose jobs to white youngsters because their mannerisms and language make them incomprehensible to their prospective employers? The culture of the ghetto has its own validity.
"That the condescension should be so deep and pervasive is monumentally ironic, for the injunction to respect the poor (after all, they are not to blame) was hammered home in the tracts of OEO and radical intellectuals. But condescension is the correct descriptor. Whites began to tolerate and make excuses for behavior among blacks that whites would disdain in themselves or their children...
"My proposal for dealing with the racial issue in social welfare is to repeal every bit of legislation and reverse every court decision that in any way requires, recommends, or awards differential treatment according to race, and thereby put us back onto the track that we left in 1965. We may argue about the appropriate limits of government intervention in trying to enforce the ideal, but at least it should be possible to identify the ideal: Race is nor a morally admissible reason for treating one person differently from another. Period."
-Charles Murray, Losing Ground, 1984
November 28, 2014
I am a retired 30 year veteran police officer and started my police career at about the time "Losing Ground" was published. Through my police career I watched the deterioration of the poor, particularly Blacks. I always suspected that the government programs of the Lyndon Johnson administration had something to do with it but never had a way to confirm it until I found a copy of "Losing Ground." It is not a political book although politicians should be ashamed of themselves for what they did and continue to do to the poor by chaining them to poverty with well-meaning government programs.
Charles Murray studies the effect of government policy on the poor from 1950 to 1980, illustrating each point with a graph or list of figures, explaining the relevance of each. It is not a math book and the charts illustrated do not detract from but are essential to the author's argument.
From 1950 to the Johnson administrations, the poor were making progress every year, particularly Blacks. Blacks, on the own, had were struggling and working their way out of poverty. The one graph which shocked me the most was the "Black Teen Labor Participation Rate" graph in which Black teens actually had a higher rate that White teens up to 1964. Up to that year, Blacks were making great strides in moving into the middle class. Then, suddenly, it all stopped and all the success Blacks had made disappeared. The rates in unemployment, labor participation, income, and all the other indicators of success plunged and continue to do so to this day. Black culture has been destroyed and well meaning Whites are responsible.
Murray, in "Losing Ground," explains how all this came about and how the more money the government spent on poverty, the worse poverty got (a direct inverse relationship). He lists the programs that caused the collapse but, in my opinion, he lest one out. During the Johnson administration, slums (a euphemism for Black neighborhoods) were torn down and the displaced Blacks were moved in to low-income crime ridden concentration camps called "projects" which were later torn down. This time the banks were forced by the government to offer low-income people (mostly Blacks) no down payment, no security loans they could still no afford which led to the real estate collapse a few years ago. However, this is not crucial to the book and Murray more than adequately proves his case.
"Losing Ground" is an excellent book, one of the most startling books I've read, and should be used as a textbook in schools.
Charles Murray studies the effect of government policy on the poor from 1950 to 1980, illustrating each point with a graph or list of figures, explaining the relevance of each. It is not a math book and the charts illustrated do not detract from but are essential to the author's argument.
From 1950 to the Johnson administrations, the poor were making progress every year, particularly Blacks. Blacks, on the own, had were struggling and working their way out of poverty. The one graph which shocked me the most was the "Black Teen Labor Participation Rate" graph in which Black teens actually had a higher rate that White teens up to 1964. Up to that year, Blacks were making great strides in moving into the middle class. Then, suddenly, it all stopped and all the success Blacks had made disappeared. The rates in unemployment, labor participation, income, and all the other indicators of success plunged and continue to do so to this day. Black culture has been destroyed and well meaning Whites are responsible.
Murray, in "Losing Ground," explains how all this came about and how the more money the government spent on poverty, the worse poverty got (a direct inverse relationship). He lists the programs that caused the collapse but, in my opinion, he lest one out. During the Johnson administration, slums (a euphemism for Black neighborhoods) were torn down and the displaced Blacks were moved in to low-income crime ridden concentration camps called "projects" which were later torn down. This time the banks were forced by the government to offer low-income people (mostly Blacks) no down payment, no security loans they could still no afford which led to the real estate collapse a few years ago. However, this is not crucial to the book and Murray more than adequately proves his case.
"Losing Ground" is an excellent book, one of the most startling books I've read, and should be used as a textbook in schools.
November 26, 2017
Generally an intriguing and useful book of information on the poor. I appreciated his attention to detail, but it got little dry in places. This was also hard to read as an audio book, and I really had to pay attention in quiet places to get through it. The second half was much easier for me to follow, as he uses stories as hypotheses and illustrates ideas with analogies. There are some good quotes and points to be pulled out.
I like his examples of incentives and disincentives for poor families on welfare, and juveniles in crime. I also like how he shows how the stigma of welfare has changed over time, and how social statuses amongst the poor have been homogenized (people receive a form of welfare regardless of marriage status or employment status), and how often the poor are now lumped all together into one category as victims. Institutions are blamed, instead of individual responsibility.
I want to read Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010 at some point. But now I'm realizing that I should probably buy a hardcopy and go through it intentionally and carefully. One day.
I like his examples of incentives and disincentives for poor families on welfare, and juveniles in crime. I also like how he shows how the stigma of welfare has changed over time, and how social statuses amongst the poor have been homogenized (people receive a form of welfare regardless of marriage status or employment status), and how often the poor are now lumped all together into one category as victims. Institutions are blamed, instead of individual responsibility.
I want to read Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010 at some point. But now I'm realizing that I should probably buy a hardcopy and go through it intentionally and carefully. One day.
April 8, 2013
The book doesn't lend itself to the audio book format, which was how I tried to "read" it. It's more of a text book than a good read, and you really need to focus on the information to absorb it, and unfortunately, my mind continued to drift while listening.
August 13, 2025
The notorious Charles Murray penned this charged policy analysis in the mid-80s (1984), where it quickly began to reshape right-of-center arguments about national social policy.
Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950–1980 set out to answer a blunt question: did the modern welfare state, launched in the 1960s with the Great Society programs, unintentionally make the problems it targeted (poverty, joblessness, and family instability) worse?
Murray's answer is an unambiguous yes. He argues that the United States was on a path of steady improvement after WWII then the Great Society era interrupted that trajectory by changing incentives in ways that reduced work effort, increased dependency, and undermined family formation and stability.
Murray’s leverage empirical data to support his central claim. He uses descriptive trends, cross-sectional comparisons (e.g., states or cities with more generous benefits having higher nonmarital birth rates or larger caseloads), and case narratives from the welfare office and the street level. His evidence is purposefully accessible and institutional. Beyond the empirical data though, his assessment of these data depends heavily on two working assumptions: 1) A historical counterfactual, “What if we had done nothing?” 2) Economic incentives are a potent influence on individual behavior.
The core of the book is a narrative about well-meaning incentives turning perverse. By expanding cash and in-kind benefits (especially Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Medicaid, housing assistance, and food stamps), tightening eligibility rules that effectively penalized marriage, and weakening work requirements, American governance created a “substitution effect” away from employment and toward welfare receipt for a nontrivial share of recipients. Murray leans on microeconomic logic and published administrative practices (benefit schedules, implicit tax rates on earnings, eligibility cliffs) to argue that rational actors responded predictably: some people worked less, some remained single to preserve eligibility, and some cycled onto long-term assistance.
After establishing this idea about incentives, Murray pulls in the evidence, which itself depends on showing that social progress on poverty was occurring prior to 60s welfarism. Using trends from roughly 1950–1964, he notes rapid declines in poverty, rising Black male employment, and improving educational attainment before the federal “War on Poverty.” He boldly posits that, absent the new welfare program, these favorable trends would have continued. This is the yardstick against which the post-1964 period is judged (whether this is a fair assumption is obviously controversial).
There are three macro social indicators that he highlights as worsening after the policy shift: 1) AFDC caseloads grew, and male labor-force participation, especially among less-skilled men, fell during the 1970s. 2) Nonmarital births and single-parent households rose sharply from the late 1960s onward. 3) Rising crime rate alongside the breakdown of work and family norms.
After making his empirical case, Murray turns to policy prescription. He argues that the abolition of aid would be undesirable. Instead, he believes aid should focus on the incapacitated and those experiencing short-term crises. This would require a reduction in open-ended, means-tested entitlements for the able-bodied; and a restoration of work and personal responsibility to the center of social policy. Murray eventually got at least part of his wish when President Clinton signed PRWORA in 1996.
Ostensibly, the method used by Murray in Losing Ground is non-econometric by today’s standards. Murray prioritized a framework that made (post hoc) predictions based on the structure of institutional incentives and then he simply presents the “before–after” historical patterning, highlighting how it fits the expectations of his framework. This is further buttressed by rhetorical use of the historical counterfactual. Although I can't speak to the methodological rigor and the available data of the time from other social scientists and I don't intimately know the best contemporary econometric analysis on this question, I can understand methodological criticism of the work. It may have been the best that could be done at the time though.
I tried to take a quick look at more contemporary research work to see if Murray's has held up. In short, the record is mixed, but other researchers have to begrudgingly admit Murray has a point about the trade-off he highlights.
First, it does look like work disincentives are a real phenomenon, especially when implicit tax rates are high. Labor-economics research confirms that very high phase-out rates in means-tested programs can depress labor supply on the margin (see https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.202...). Studies of AFDC in the pre-reform era, and later program reforms (notably the 1990s expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit coupled with lower effective tax rates on earnings), show that redesigning incentives can increase single mothers’ labor-force participation (See Looney A 2005). The 1996 welfare reform (TANF) and EITC expansions were, in part, practical acknowledgments of the problem Murray spotlighted. The 1996 bill is perhaps the biggest tacit endorsement of Murray's argument, though political outcomes aren't themselves arbiters of truth.
Second, Murray was also correct to believe that costs to marriage formation can be found and that program design can matter a lot, but the effects he alleges are likely overstated some. Others have agreed that the interaction of AFDC, housing, and Medicaid created situations in which formalizing a partnership reduced net resources. Later policy discourse has consistently returned to “benefit cliffs” and marriage penalties as design flaws to be mitigated. Proponents of welfare policy, even when friendly to reform, tend not to look at this penalty as a fatal criticism though. Futhermore, nonmarital births rose across the OECD even where cash welfare was modest, which suggests that deeper factors are to blame (the sexual revolution is in the same timeline of course). A comprehensive look at the evidence tying benefit levels to family formation is mixed. Murray’s marriage-penalty critique remains relevant, but it likely explains a fraction rather than the bulk of family change.
So the general takeaway is the Murray's critique have merit, but Murray attributes too much influence to social policy. This critique isn't to me a great defense of the Great Society though. It still highlights the hubris of attempts at ill-considered benevolence from afar.
It's of course important to recognized that a lot was going on during this time in America. The 1970s hosted deindustrialization, stagflation, oil shocks, and regional job loss in manufacturing. These macroeconomic forces likely depressed wages and employment for low-skilled men irrespective of welfare rules. Many studies find that a large share of the decline in male employment and earnings, especially for Black men in Northern cities, is owed to labor-market restructuring, not program incentives. I think Murray would acknowledge this critique and may have already.
I've also mentioned Murray's counterfactual framing a couple times because many are going to regard it as fragile and overly ideological (conservative). Extending 1950–64 trend lines assumes a stable economic and demographic regime. That’s obviously contestable. The post-1968 flattening of the official poverty rate partly may reflect macro shocks and measurement choices; it also omits the anti-poverty impact of in-kind benefits (Medicaid, food assistance, housing) themselves. When broader “supplemental” measures are used, post-1960s policy can be made to look better than Murray portrays it. Many economists today like to sing the benefits of earner income child tax credit and such. It the preferred welfare policy of wonks.
So altogether, I think it is still okay to think Murray was prescient in elevating incentive design, implicit tax rates, and program interactions even if you think the only reason he made this argument is that he's some arch-conservative. These concerns are now mainstream in policy analysis. The actual details of his argument in this book are less persuasive when they treat the Great Society as the primary engine of social breakdown, given the weight of macroeconomic, demographic, and cultural change documented by others. Murray himself later became interested in other causes of social decay. Losing Ground is best read as a bracing “design critique” of the first-generation welfare state rather than a definitive causal history of post-1960s America.
Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950–1980 set out to answer a blunt question: did the modern welfare state, launched in the 1960s with the Great Society programs, unintentionally make the problems it targeted (poverty, joblessness, and family instability) worse?
Murray's answer is an unambiguous yes. He argues that the United States was on a path of steady improvement after WWII then the Great Society era interrupted that trajectory by changing incentives in ways that reduced work effort, increased dependency, and undermined family formation and stability.
Murray’s leverage empirical data to support his central claim. He uses descriptive trends, cross-sectional comparisons (e.g., states or cities with more generous benefits having higher nonmarital birth rates or larger caseloads), and case narratives from the welfare office and the street level. His evidence is purposefully accessible and institutional. Beyond the empirical data though, his assessment of these data depends heavily on two working assumptions: 1) A historical counterfactual, “What if we had done nothing?” 2) Economic incentives are a potent influence on individual behavior.
The core of the book is a narrative about well-meaning incentives turning perverse. By expanding cash and in-kind benefits (especially Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Medicaid, housing assistance, and food stamps), tightening eligibility rules that effectively penalized marriage, and weakening work requirements, American governance created a “substitution effect” away from employment and toward welfare receipt for a nontrivial share of recipients. Murray leans on microeconomic logic and published administrative practices (benefit schedules, implicit tax rates on earnings, eligibility cliffs) to argue that rational actors responded predictably: some people worked less, some remained single to preserve eligibility, and some cycled onto long-term assistance.
After establishing this idea about incentives, Murray pulls in the evidence, which itself depends on showing that social progress on poverty was occurring prior to 60s welfarism. Using trends from roughly 1950–1964, he notes rapid declines in poverty, rising Black male employment, and improving educational attainment before the federal “War on Poverty.” He boldly posits that, absent the new welfare program, these favorable trends would have continued. This is the yardstick against which the post-1964 period is judged (whether this is a fair assumption is obviously controversial).
There are three macro social indicators that he highlights as worsening after the policy shift: 1) AFDC caseloads grew, and male labor-force participation, especially among less-skilled men, fell during the 1970s. 2) Nonmarital births and single-parent households rose sharply from the late 1960s onward. 3) Rising crime rate alongside the breakdown of work and family norms.
After making his empirical case, Murray turns to policy prescription. He argues that the abolition of aid would be undesirable. Instead, he believes aid should focus on the incapacitated and those experiencing short-term crises. This would require a reduction in open-ended, means-tested entitlements for the able-bodied; and a restoration of work and personal responsibility to the center of social policy. Murray eventually got at least part of his wish when President Clinton signed PRWORA in 1996.
Ostensibly, the method used by Murray in Losing Ground is non-econometric by today’s standards. Murray prioritized a framework that made (post hoc) predictions based on the structure of institutional incentives and then he simply presents the “before–after” historical patterning, highlighting how it fits the expectations of his framework. This is further buttressed by rhetorical use of the historical counterfactual. Although I can't speak to the methodological rigor and the available data of the time from other social scientists and I don't intimately know the best contemporary econometric analysis on this question, I can understand methodological criticism of the work. It may have been the best that could be done at the time though.
I tried to take a quick look at more contemporary research work to see if Murray's has held up. In short, the record is mixed, but other researchers have to begrudgingly admit Murray has a point about the trade-off he highlights.
First, it does look like work disincentives are a real phenomenon, especially when implicit tax rates are high. Labor-economics research confirms that very high phase-out rates in means-tested programs can depress labor supply on the margin (see https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.202...). Studies of AFDC in the pre-reform era, and later program reforms (notably the 1990s expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit coupled with lower effective tax rates on earnings), show that redesigning incentives can increase single mothers’ labor-force participation (See Looney A 2005). The 1996 welfare reform (TANF) and EITC expansions were, in part, practical acknowledgments of the problem Murray spotlighted. The 1996 bill is perhaps the biggest tacit endorsement of Murray's argument, though political outcomes aren't themselves arbiters of truth.
Second, Murray was also correct to believe that costs to marriage formation can be found and that program design can matter a lot, but the effects he alleges are likely overstated some. Others have agreed that the interaction of AFDC, housing, and Medicaid created situations in which formalizing a partnership reduced net resources. Later policy discourse has consistently returned to “benefit cliffs” and marriage penalties as design flaws to be mitigated. Proponents of welfare policy, even when friendly to reform, tend not to look at this penalty as a fatal criticism though. Futhermore, nonmarital births rose across the OECD even where cash welfare was modest, which suggests that deeper factors are to blame (the sexual revolution is in the same timeline of course). A comprehensive look at the evidence tying benefit levels to family formation is mixed. Murray’s marriage-penalty critique remains relevant, but it likely explains a fraction rather than the bulk of family change.
So the general takeaway is the Murray's critique have merit, but Murray attributes too much influence to social policy. This critique isn't to me a great defense of the Great Society though. It still highlights the hubris of attempts at ill-considered benevolence from afar.
It's of course important to recognized that a lot was going on during this time in America. The 1970s hosted deindustrialization, stagflation, oil shocks, and regional job loss in manufacturing. These macroeconomic forces likely depressed wages and employment for low-skilled men irrespective of welfare rules. Many studies find that a large share of the decline in male employment and earnings, especially for Black men in Northern cities, is owed to labor-market restructuring, not program incentives. I think Murray would acknowledge this critique and may have already.
I've also mentioned Murray's counterfactual framing a couple times because many are going to regard it as fragile and overly ideological (conservative). Extending 1950–64 trend lines assumes a stable economic and demographic regime. That’s obviously contestable. The post-1968 flattening of the official poverty rate partly may reflect macro shocks and measurement choices; it also omits the anti-poverty impact of in-kind benefits (Medicaid, food assistance, housing) themselves. When broader “supplemental” measures are used, post-1960s policy can be made to look better than Murray portrays it. Many economists today like to sing the benefits of earner income child tax credit and such. It the preferred welfare policy of wonks.
So altogether, I think it is still okay to think Murray was prescient in elevating incentive design, implicit tax rates, and program interactions even if you think the only reason he made this argument is that he's some arch-conservative. These concerns are now mainstream in policy analysis. The actual details of his argument in this book are less persuasive when they treat the Great Society as the primary engine of social breakdown, given the weight of macroeconomic, demographic, and cultural change documented by others. Murray himself later became interested in other causes of social decay. Losing Ground is best read as a bracing “design critique” of the first-generation welfare state rather than a definitive causal history of post-1960s America.
May 15, 2018
Murry utilizes terrible research methodology, and fails to examine compounding factors that cause poverty & associated use of welfare (ex. racism leads to less trust in healthcare facilities and therefore more single mothers in the black community, the high imprisonment rate of black men compounds with this as well). More importantly he completely ignores the economy in his analysis. For example, he states recipients of welfares don't take jobs because they make more money on welfare, without analysing how his solution, to strip all social welfare programs, would leave impoverished individuals with very poor paying jobs and overall more impoverished and decrease upward mobility, or at least wellbeing (other than possible self-esteem associated with having a job). On top of this he assumes, or at least only presents an imaginary scenario of Harold and Phyllis, that welfare recipients do not take responsibility for getting off welfare. With no backing other than more people were on welfare, because it expanded, he argues that the community status gained from workinghard has been lost. He needs to support this. I acknowledge that welfare can incentivize disenfranchisement [law of unlimited resources], but getting rid of welfare in general will not discontinue poverty and the struggles of impoverished individuals and families.
Also, he discusses "black culture" as a white man without talking to black people...
Also, he discusses "black culture" as a white man without talking to black people...
April 23, 2019
Murray brings up a handful of good points and questions we should be asking. They are tough questions to ask today because of the political climate but a healthy discussion needs to be had. A thought-provoking experiment he mentions is if you were given $100 million to create a program to incentivize people to stop smoking what policy would you make. He suggests that no matter how you create your program, in the end, it will cause more total cigarettes to be smoked. Giving people $10k to stop smoking would potentially cause people to start, a threshold of 5 years before you quit smoking to receive the reward would make people keep smoking until they hit that mark before they quit which will make it harder to quit. If you had to be smoking at least a pack a day in order to receive the reward people that smoke 18 cigarettes will start smoking 2 more so they will qualify, etc. etc.
So often policies sound good yes they hurt the people they are intended to help because we wall want to get the best benefit we can from the government.
So often policies sound good yes they hurt the people they are intended to help because we wall want to get the best benefit we can from the government.
June 16, 2017
The book begins to drag a quarter in, which tables and figures and statistics, but Murray rousing to a smashing conclusion at the end. Strangely, the text isn't racist, or even against helping the disenfranchised. Murray comes across as a sympathetic and introspective defender of better the life of the poor. Perhaps these labels flung against him are the result of his conclusion. He directly accuses the progressive social policies of institutionalizing the same racism they claimed to fight against. A racism that is couched in terms like betterment, and assistance instead of raw racism. A racism that is impossible to fight against because, in an Orwellian twist, it has coopted the terms of righteousness for the sake of its own survival.
February 15, 2009
My friend Gene Anderson lent me this book and said I would like it. I thought "What could be more boring than a book on social policy"? I picked it up one night waiting for my old dot matrix printer to print out a letter and ended up reading till two in the morning. I couldn't put it down. It's the kind of book that you can open up to any page and immediately become engrossed. Charles Murray became one of my favorite authors and this book, though dated, is still in my top five.
February 17, 2010
An interesting data based counter argument to the standard rhetoric in my department where everyone shares the belief that all great things come from government intervention. I think Murray make a few causal claims that may be merely correlations. However, i like people who buck conventional wisdom, especially in the academy where there is a tendency toward group think. Data is old--would be interesting to see an update that includes post TANF data.
January 16, 2019
A stats-driven look at the genesis and years between 1950 and 1980 of American social policies.
This book presented a lot of good information, but I found reading very monotonous, boring, and dry.
To quote another review:
"The book doesn't lend itself to the audio book format, which was how I tried to "read" it. It's more of a text book than a good read, and you really need to focus on the information to absorb it, and unfortunately, my mind continued to drift while listening. "
This book presented a lot of good information, but I found reading very monotonous, boring, and dry.
To quote another review:
"The book doesn't lend itself to the audio book format, which was how I tried to "read" it. It's more of a text book than a good read, and you really need to focus on the information to absorb it, and unfortunately, my mind continued to drift while listening. "
January 23, 2020
6/10
Social welfare does not decrease the relative number of the poor.
Are the poor becoming less poor overtime? The answer to this is a resounding no. Murray looks primarily at Labor Force Participation as an indicator for economic success. He then delves into an exhaustive cross-sectional analysis of the difference in test scores between races, as he sees poverty as racially motivated. One of the weaknesses of this book is Murray’s reliance on test scores, which have recently been proven to be racially biased from their conception (see the RadioLab episode ‘G: The Miseducation of Larry P’ for more info on this). However, this is not the only avenue Murray explores, as he also follows funding, and notes the marked difference in funding to majority minority schools, and areas of funding to low income, minority race populations. His fears of the growing crime rate are also rather silly in retrospect, as the trend he outlined clearly did not continue.
Social welfare spending went up by 20x in the period from 1950-1980, and relative wealth for the bottom of society didn't budge. A rising tide does not raise all boats when it comes to the economy. Every measure of the economy is improving in the decades from 60s through the 80s, and yet poor minority groups saw little to no improvement during this period. Murray's argument essentially comes down to this: Social welfare policies are typically more a salve to the conscious of the rich, rather than an actual help for the poor. As ridiculous as this may seem, I suppose I would want to stop and ask what Murray has been asking throughout—"Are the poor better off now than they were 30 years ago?” I find, as Murray did, that the answer is a resounding no. That being the case, the entire battery of welfare programs must be re-examined under the filter of reduction of poverty, and, if it fails to meet this standard, needs to be either updated or is outdated to the point of irrelevance, leaving the funds to be reallocated to somewhere more useful. As Murray and I would both admit however, there will likely always be a number of impoverished people, regardless of the standard used to measure. That being the case, we must decide what responsibility that we have to these people, regardless of the reasons for their poverty. Unlike Murray, I would most likely fall on the *gasp* more liberal side of this discussion, with the caveat that I would include a hopefully rigorous selection process, and yet still err on the side of too much, rather than to little aid. Also, unlike Murray apparently, I’m glad that this mammoth task is not solely resting on my shoulders.
His (admittedly short) section on Negative income tax (or NIT) was by far the most interesting in this book. Murray notes that for individuals receiving this subsidy, working hours went down 8% among married men, 18% for married women, and almost 40% for unmarried young men. This is a gut punch for proponents of UBI, though these statistics are debated (article below).
https://www.theatlantic.com/internati...
Social welfare does not decrease the relative number of the poor.
Are the poor becoming less poor overtime? The answer to this is a resounding no. Murray looks primarily at Labor Force Participation as an indicator for economic success. He then delves into an exhaustive cross-sectional analysis of the difference in test scores between races, as he sees poverty as racially motivated. One of the weaknesses of this book is Murray’s reliance on test scores, which have recently been proven to be racially biased from their conception (see the RadioLab episode ‘G: The Miseducation of Larry P’ for more info on this). However, this is not the only avenue Murray explores, as he also follows funding, and notes the marked difference in funding to majority minority schools, and areas of funding to low income, minority race populations. His fears of the growing crime rate are also rather silly in retrospect, as the trend he outlined clearly did not continue.
Social welfare spending went up by 20x in the period from 1950-1980, and relative wealth for the bottom of society didn't budge. A rising tide does not raise all boats when it comes to the economy. Every measure of the economy is improving in the decades from 60s through the 80s, and yet poor minority groups saw little to no improvement during this period. Murray's argument essentially comes down to this: Social welfare policies are typically more a salve to the conscious of the rich, rather than an actual help for the poor. As ridiculous as this may seem, I suppose I would want to stop and ask what Murray has been asking throughout—"Are the poor better off now than they were 30 years ago?” I find, as Murray did, that the answer is a resounding no. That being the case, the entire battery of welfare programs must be re-examined under the filter of reduction of poverty, and, if it fails to meet this standard, needs to be either updated or is outdated to the point of irrelevance, leaving the funds to be reallocated to somewhere more useful. As Murray and I would both admit however, there will likely always be a number of impoverished people, regardless of the standard used to measure. That being the case, we must decide what responsibility that we have to these people, regardless of the reasons for their poverty. Unlike Murray, I would most likely fall on the *gasp* more liberal side of this discussion, with the caveat that I would include a hopefully rigorous selection process, and yet still err on the side of too much, rather than to little aid. Also, unlike Murray apparently, I’m glad that this mammoth task is not solely resting on my shoulders.
His (admittedly short) section on Negative income tax (or NIT) was by far the most interesting in this book. Murray notes that for individuals receiving this subsidy, working hours went down 8% among married men, 18% for married women, and almost 40% for unmarried young men. This is a gut punch for proponents of UBI, though these statistics are debated (article below).
https://www.theatlantic.com/internati...
August 18, 2023
Chapter 1: A Generous Revolution
Chapter 2: Being Poor, Being Black: 1950-1980
Chapter 3: Interpreting the Data
Chapter 4: Rethinking Social Policy
Review
The book feels too basic and singular in focus. It's good research and some great philosophy and arguments, but this banal social science way of focusing on specific periods is lazy logic. His main argument is that USA in a specific period went from focusing on having working families and a cultural focus on sustaining your own family to a huge dependency on welfare. He describes how especially Black families suffered because of this as now getting a job was not the key focus anymore. You could get by without a job and often it was wiser to avoid low-skilled jobs as you could get paid for not doing anything. And while Black fathers used to think having a job was essential for their self-worth it's now just something nerds do. Similarly to how only White nerds should do well in school.
As always with such arguments I'm not really sold on any such logic about anything in the culture or specific period changing any great behavior pattern overall. It just seems impossible. I feel like if the book was written today it could have been less stringent and focused on the slow change from the 60's till now instead of only focusing on that one period. I think this progressive cultural change has been ongoing and steady. It has not slowed down. Unemployment rates among Black people are still sky high and no matter the president or new laws nothing is changing. If the change was cultural and rapid then it should be influenced by cultural changes in both directions which I don't see. And Murray tackling this question would have been curious.
Similarly Murray, as always, seems overly focused on USA alone. This is a narrow way of thinking about the world is something I see in other American philosophers like Thomas Sowell. On one hand I always enjoy their books and I guess there is no other way to be a scientific author than to make up these weird political viewpoints about how the world works. Of course their ideas are not really found in textbooks or any research. It's loose philosophy. And Murray tends to always avoid the point. He is a very shy debater. He never says stuff outright. It creates for a relaxed text, but on the other hand I was confused 90% of the time. I just assume all of this is what he was trying to say, but I'm not sure because he never said it.
I do think this book will become a classic at some point. It tackles ideas and concepts that are just now slowly being uncovered. It will take another 20-30 years before his ideas will be explored again to a proper level. Nearly all texts I read about the expansion of the nanny-state are pro it and claim it saved the Western world. Very few people are looking into how many of these welfare laws are hurting groups. But we do need a more scientific way to go about it in the future.
Chapter 2: Being Poor, Being Black: 1950-1980
Chapter 3: Interpreting the Data
Chapter 4: Rethinking Social Policy
Review
The book feels too basic and singular in focus. It's good research and some great philosophy and arguments, but this banal social science way of focusing on specific periods is lazy logic. His main argument is that USA in a specific period went from focusing on having working families and a cultural focus on sustaining your own family to a huge dependency on welfare. He describes how especially Black families suffered because of this as now getting a job was not the key focus anymore. You could get by without a job and often it was wiser to avoid low-skilled jobs as you could get paid for not doing anything. And while Black fathers used to think having a job was essential for their self-worth it's now just something nerds do. Similarly to how only White nerds should do well in school.
As always with such arguments I'm not really sold on any such logic about anything in the culture or specific period changing any great behavior pattern overall. It just seems impossible. I feel like if the book was written today it could have been less stringent and focused on the slow change from the 60's till now instead of only focusing on that one period. I think this progressive cultural change has been ongoing and steady. It has not slowed down. Unemployment rates among Black people are still sky high and no matter the president or new laws nothing is changing. If the change was cultural and rapid then it should be influenced by cultural changes in both directions which I don't see. And Murray tackling this question would have been curious.
Similarly Murray, as always, seems overly focused on USA alone. This is a narrow way of thinking about the world is something I see in other American philosophers like Thomas Sowell. On one hand I always enjoy their books and I guess there is no other way to be a scientific author than to make up these weird political viewpoints about how the world works. Of course their ideas are not really found in textbooks or any research. It's loose philosophy. And Murray tends to always avoid the point. He is a very shy debater. He never says stuff outright. It creates for a relaxed text, but on the other hand I was confused 90% of the time. I just assume all of this is what he was trying to say, but I'm not sure because he never said it.
I do think this book will become a classic at some point. It tackles ideas and concepts that are just now slowly being uncovered. It will take another 20-30 years before his ideas will be explored again to a proper level. Nearly all texts I read about the expansion of the nanny-state are pro it and claim it saved the Western world. Very few people are looking into how many of these welfare laws are hurting groups. But we do need a more scientific way to go about it in the future.
July 12, 2024
A CHALLENGING AND CONTROVERSIAL INTERPRETATION
Charles Alan Murray (born 1943) is an American libertarian political scientist, author, columnist, and pundit currently working as a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He is also the infamous co-author (with the late Richard Herrnstein) of 'The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life,' whose racial/ethnic generalizations (which I found offensive, by the way) created a storm of controversy.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1984 book, "Losing Ground grew out of sixteen years of watching people who run social programs... Over the years, however, I was struck by two things. First, the people who were doing the helping did not succeed nearly as often as they deserved to. Why, when their help was so obviously needed and competently provided, was it so often futile? In the instances when the help succeeded, what were the conditions that permitted success?... I set out to pursue these lines in inquiry more systematically."
He observes that although the number and size of benefit checks increased in the '60s and '70s, "perversely, poverty chose those years to halt a decline that had been underway for two decades." (Pg. 58) After 1959, African-American progress against poverty coincided with the civil rights movement, yet "Progress stopped coincidentally with the implementation of the Great Society's social welfare programs... Huge increases in expenditures coincided with an end to progress." (Pg. 63)
He suggests that young poor males "moved in and out of the labor force at precisely that point in their lives when it was most important that they acquire skills, work habits, and a work record. By behaving so differently from previous generations, many also forfeited their futures as economically dependent adults." (Pg. 82) Murray then makes one of his most important points: about "the increasing prevalence of a certain type of family---a young mother with children and no husband present. Such families have historically shown high rates of poverty..." (Pg. 133)
He summarizes, "social policy after the mid-1960s demanded an extraordinary range of transfers from the most capable poor to the least capable, from the most law-abiding to the least law-abiding, and from the most responsible to the least responsible. In return, we gave little to these most deserving persons except easier access to welfare for themselves..." (Pg. 201)
He argues that we should "repeal every bit of legislation and reverse every court decision that in any way requires, recommends, or awards differential treatment according to race... Race is not a morally admissible reason for treating one person differently from another. Period." (Pg. 223) [Of course, readers of The Bell Curve may suspect other motives than the purely "libertarian" ones for his opinion.]
Murray's book is a very important and thought-provoking one... whether one agrees with him, or not.
Charles Alan Murray (born 1943) is an American libertarian political scientist, author, columnist, and pundit currently working as a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He is also the infamous co-author (with the late Richard Herrnstein) of 'The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life,' whose racial/ethnic generalizations (which I found offensive, by the way) created a storm of controversy.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1984 book, "Losing Ground grew out of sixteen years of watching people who run social programs... Over the years, however, I was struck by two things. First, the people who were doing the helping did not succeed nearly as often as they deserved to. Why, when their help was so obviously needed and competently provided, was it so often futile? In the instances when the help succeeded, what were the conditions that permitted success?... I set out to pursue these lines in inquiry more systematically."
He observes that although the number and size of benefit checks increased in the '60s and '70s, "perversely, poverty chose those years to halt a decline that had been underway for two decades." (Pg. 58) After 1959, African-American progress against poverty coincided with the civil rights movement, yet "Progress stopped coincidentally with the implementation of the Great Society's social welfare programs... Huge increases in expenditures coincided with an end to progress." (Pg. 63)
He suggests that young poor males "moved in and out of the labor force at precisely that point in their lives when it was most important that they acquire skills, work habits, and a work record. By behaving so differently from previous generations, many also forfeited their futures as economically dependent adults." (Pg. 82) Murray then makes one of his most important points: about "the increasing prevalence of a certain type of family---a young mother with children and no husband present. Such families have historically shown high rates of poverty..." (Pg. 133)
He summarizes, "social policy after the mid-1960s demanded an extraordinary range of transfers from the most capable poor to the least capable, from the most law-abiding to the least law-abiding, and from the most responsible to the least responsible. In return, we gave little to these most deserving persons except easier access to welfare for themselves..." (Pg. 201)
He argues that we should "repeal every bit of legislation and reverse every court decision that in any way requires, recommends, or awards differential treatment according to race... Race is not a morally admissible reason for treating one person differently from another. Period." (Pg. 223) [Of course, readers of The Bell Curve may suspect other motives than the purely "libertarian" ones for his opinion.]
Murray's book is a very important and thought-provoking one... whether one agrees with him, or not.
August 1, 2022
Learned a lot. Would love to read an updated version or one that attempted to bring the story to the present. Would also love to read some criticism. I had probably absorbed this book second hand quite thoroughly before I even read it, having read and listened to so much content from grumpy economists. The basic story here is a very good economic story: welfare programs generated bad incentives. Second story is that elite culture of blaming all problems on systems probably really did break down cultural values of thrift/hardwork etc. I’d love to see this claim thoughtfully challenged, but it’s so fraught and hard to get empirical traction, that it’s probably quite hard to get at the truth.
Some interesting points he made: 1. The magazine reading public in 1950 did not really think about a chronic social underclass, but 15 years later that was taken for granted. (I’d like to hear challenges to that claim). 2. LBJ’s singular legislative skill was a critical contingent fact in why social policy changed so much in the 1960s. 3. At the beginning of 1968 most political gloom was directed at the domestic situations, riots and so on; Tet and violent suppression of war protest was in the future.
One of the thing that I sound most surprising and discouraging was that the book seemed pretty careful to address concerns of people who would dislike it. But I still hear offhanded references to it like it’s a partisan screed. Just discouraging when it feels like all the care an author puts in maybe can’t help a polarized work much. Maybe it does help with a core moderate audience though.
Some interesting points he made: 1. The magazine reading public in 1950 did not really think about a chronic social underclass, but 15 years later that was taken for granted. (I’d like to hear challenges to that claim). 2. LBJ’s singular legislative skill was a critical contingent fact in why social policy changed so much in the 1960s. 3. At the beginning of 1968 most political gloom was directed at the domestic situations, riots and so on; Tet and violent suppression of war protest was in the future.
One of the thing that I sound most surprising and discouraging was that the book seemed pretty careful to address concerns of people who would dislike it. But I still hear offhanded references to it like it’s a partisan screed. Just discouraging when it feels like all the care an author puts in maybe can’t help a polarized work much. Maybe it does help with a core moderate audience though.
January 22, 2019
Government social policy between the 1950s to the 80s provided public assistance to the poor in the form of subsidized housing, child care, and welfare income. According to the author, the "Great Society" generosity deterred the poor from every wanting to shovel out from poverty and led them to the perpétuate generational cycles of jobless males, unwed mothers and female dominated households who lived off of tax dollars that paid for their food stamps, welfare checks and médicare. Murry demanded policy reform to public assistance that required the poor to démonstrate moral responsibility to work in return for economic assistance. His argument was less moral as it was economic to persuade the Reagan Administration to tighten requirements for welfare eligibility for the poor. The cost of welfare continues to rise while the poverty culture in American cities persists and increases among minorities and non-minorities who are shut out of the middle class not because they do not work, but more so because there are not job opportunities to improve their skills and increase their eligibility for existing jobs. This book provided me with an opportunity to reflect on how welfare réform h since the 80s has reacted strongly to stop the generosity of welfare programs and services of the Great Society without supporting job training in employable areas, job stimulus through corporate involvement, and universal health and child care for all.
June 2, 2025
This intensive survey of the history of welfare legislation and poverty trends in the United States between 1950 and 1980 is ultimately depressing. Author Charles Murray draws extensively from sociological research of that period. The key finding is that the legislation comprising Lyndon Johnson's Great Society initiative cost billions of dollars and left the situation worse, rather than better. He explains how the programs resulted in a growing dependence on welfare in poverty stricken urban areas. He demonstrates how rational self-interest resulted in long term capture of more people into the welfare cycle.
His book was originally published in 1984, then republished in 2015 with a new introduction and his assessment of the ultimate outcome in the late 20th Century. He writes, "Within a few years after Losing Ground was published, I had been persuaded that nonmarital births must be at the center of all calculations about how our growing lower class will evolve."
Despite the evolutionary trends he reports, he declares, "I haven't given up hope." He notes "how the elite wisdom changed with extraordinary speed during the period from 1964 to 1967. " Thus, "There is no reason why it cannot do so again" to set America on a new course.
His book was originally published in 1984, then republished in 2015 with a new introduction and his assessment of the ultimate outcome in the late 20th Century. He writes, "Within a few years after Losing Ground was published, I had been persuaded that nonmarital births must be at the center of all calculations about how our growing lower class will evolve."
Despite the evolutionary trends he reports, he declares, "I haven't given up hope." He notes "how the elite wisdom changed with extraordinary speed during the period from 1964 to 1967. " Thus, "There is no reason why it cannot do so again" to set America on a new course.
December 29, 2021
It certainly reads like a statistical report, probably because it is essentially one long report based on statistics. Never fear—Murray improves his narrative writing by the time he gets to Coming Apart. This book is essentially the precursor to Coming Apart, and it points out the devastating destruction of the family and of individual growth and integrity with the advance of the welfare state. He demonstrates through both actual statistics and the use of hypothetical people to demonstrate how a rational person could take best advantage of the requirements for receiving welfare. The end result is a massive decrease in married families and a greater dependence on steady welfare support rather than using the government as a temporary crutch until one can get back to work. It covers so much and I’m doing the book absolutely no justice by writing this vague and confusing review late at night, but I strongly recommend reading this book as a companion piece to anything Thomas Sowell has written on the state of welfare in America. Both authors rely heavily on data to form their conclusions and the result is grim indeed.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 88 reviews