Live data from Hacker News

How Utah Keeps the American Dream Alive

bloomberg.com

161–170 of 249 posts

Re: How Utah Keeps the American Dream Alive

#161

Utah is more like what the US used to be like. Demographically, it's like early 60s America. Whiter, higher social trust, more Christian, neighborly, higher work ethic, higher rates of marriage, more kids, fewer illegitimate kids, no grievance industry etc. Many of these factors are looked down on by people of a certain political outlook. Seen as regressive. And yet they're happier in Utah. The Mormons try harder to…

As an obviously-biased Mormon I'm not sure the conclusion follows. Certainly there are fantastical elements to my religion (as there are to all religions I know of), but we don't do what we do to compensate for that. We do what we do because we believe it.

Perhaps not to compensate, but to validate. You would never feel compelled to act in a certain way because the sky is blue, or because water is wet. But if you have a political or religious belief, however absurd, you feel a compulsion to act.

Re: How Utah Keeps the American Dream Alive

#162

When I was first about to move to Utah, few years ago, lot of people asked me "why?" and told me a lot about a lot of things. Of course, I didn't even know who the Mormons were (I am not from USA originally). Most of what I heard was wrong. I've met Mormons who have asked me where I am from and not only know where that country is but spoke to me in my NATIVE tougue. I was very impressed. The key word in the article i…

Hard to combat weather and geography. The inversions in SLC are pretty powerful effects.

Re: How Utah Keeps the American Dream Alive

#163
I live in a racially homogeneous (Euro-American), neoliberal, resolutely secular, generally well-off small city in Massachusetts. I think it's fair to call the city's culture a post-Calvinist post-Christian monoculture of striving upper middle class white people. Most of our kiddos have two married parents. The majority can expect middle class economic success in their lives.

I volunteer in a drop-in center for kiddos in the public housing project for families, where our Euro upper middle class monoculture isn't visible. People come from other parts of MA to live in our public housing project for all kinds of reasons. Many households contain just one parent. Many are disfunctional. Many kids don't have enough structure in their home lives to get their schoolwork done. Lots of the poverty is multigenerational.

The purpose of our drop-in center is to try to give these kiddos a vision of what it would be like to get out of housing -- to be socially mobile. Statistically, I suppose the phrase "get out of housing" means "move from the bottom quintile to some other stratum." But "get out of housing" is more tangible. And it's very difficult in my city. Why? Because we antipoverty activists get a lot of positive liberal lip-service but not much tangible support from the majority. Most of the kids in town are insanely busy -- music, dance, rock-climbing gym, sports. But, the kids in housing have very little to do; they don't feel like they fit in.

It would be GREAT to have a bishop or two cracking the whip and saying, "Look, suck it up. Welcome these neighbors into your lives, and treat them like neighbors." "You're going to Cambridge to check out Harvard and MIT? Take a friend along." etc.

We have some small victories: a few families a year stabilize, get jobs, and move out. But we have some defeats too. It's all about keeping at it. But to me the metaphorical grass in SLC sounds pretty green from this article.

Re: How Utah Keeps the American Dream Alive

#164

"Utah is a deep red state, but its conservatism is notably compassionate" Or maybe conservatives are not ruthless towards the poor ?

In general, conservatives tend to regard poverty as a self-inflicted state, or at least that remaining in poverty is a failing of the individual by not escaping it, and thus addressing poverty should be left to that individual. Liberals think of poverty more as a systematic social condition that individuals bear little responsibility for, either getting there or remaining there, and thus addressing poverty should be…

> ...conservatives tend to regard poverty as a self-inflicted state...

Conservatives see poverty as being at least partly a social problem. They just don't see bureaucratization as a healthy solution to the problem.

It's common to refer to conservatives who have a more liberal view of poverty as "compassionate", but it's just a word, not a judgement.

> It's common to refer to conservatives who have a more liberal view of poverty as "compassionate", but it's just a word, not a judgement.

Let's flip this around and see how it sounds: "It's common to refer to liberals who have a more conservative view of poverty as 'intelligent liberals'". Point being, "compassionate conservative" comes across judgy, no matter how it was meant. George W. Bush coined that line during the 2000 presidential campaign and was criticized along these lines back then, too.

Re: How Utah Keeps the American Dream Alive

#165

In other words, the left and the right are both wrong. The left is wrong because it focuses too much on money and entitlements rather than real help. It also uses big government only, which crowds out local solutions, churches, and NGOs. Beyond that, many on the left are actively hostile towards religion. The right is wrong because they scale back government without doing the hard work to build alternative solutions,…

You can think of the Mormon Church as a second government in Utah that levies a 10% gross income tax on nearly everyone in the state and spends a portion on welfare programs.

A church is not a government. Governments have special powers that churches do not.

Because it has those powers, government has an incredible burden to be fair. That doesn't sound so bad, but really limits how effective it can be at many things.

Re: How Utah Keeps the American Dream Alive

#166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cool, thanks! If we were to dramatically over-simplify by assuming a city's economic mobility is a simple sum of independent Gaussian variables, is the following correct? (1) Pearson and Spearman rank correlation are the same. (2) Percentage foreign born is more important than all other variables combined (since they would contribute 39% of the total variance)

> Pearson and Spearman rank correlation are the same I don't know what this means -- like you'd get the same value if you calculated the correlation by Pearson correlation and Spearman rank correlation? Or are you saying there is something called the Pearson rank correlation and asking how it relates to Spearman rank correlation? I have no knowledge of a Pearson rank correlation. I used Spearman rank correlation beca…

> I don't know what this means...

I mean: under the stated assumption that the data is given by a sum of independent Gaussian variables, would the Pearson correlation of the Gaussian data be equal to the Spearman rank correlation of the corresponding ranked data.

One can check from the definition that the answer is "yes".

> Hmmm. I think that it is the r-squared that is the proportion of variance in Y that is accounted for by X.

Yes, you're right, I needed to square this number. So, assuming Gaussian independent variables, 37% of the variance in mobility is explained by percentage foreign born. It would be pretty surprising if there were even an larger effect independent than this, so I'll self-grade my conjecture as "plausible".

Re: How Utah Keeps the American Dream Alive

#167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me just make the correction here that "shunning" is not the same as any discomfort/disagreement/broken relationships. "Shunning" is a real policy advocated by some groups, such as JWs. It's intended to punish the traitor, and the rule is that you are supposed to completely divorce yourself from that person, cutting off all forms of contact. The intent is to cause the person to realize the error of their ways via…

You are absolutely correct. There is no official Mormon policy of shunning. The teachings from the leaders of the church on this matter are very generous and admirable and tend to be along the lines of something like, "reach out in love." I guess what I was referring to is a kind of informal shunning where close friends or family suddenly cut off contact with you when they learn you have left the church. It would be…

I sympathize. I think that, unfortunately, it is a larger-scale psychological problem. Many people are fair-weather friends and we don't realize it until certain types of storms come in. The sad reality is that a lot of people are simply disappointing when stressors are applied.

I'm a practicing Mormon and I want to let you know that I have a lot of respect for your experience here. I think it's better than the experience of many who've left the Church and allow what often begin as justified frustrations to turn into resentment, hostility, and occasionally even spiteful, hateful obsession (all aboard the /r/exmormon train CHOO CHOO).

Perhaps more surprisingly, I also think it's better than the experience of many who stay in the Church, but decline to probe, or refuse to be intellectually honest with themselves.

We should inquire into these issues and IMO, it's better to spend some time being honest and sorting it out, which can include withdrawal from activity if one feels that's necessary to be consistent, than to continue to do things to keep up appearances and push yourself into a much more dangerous internal conflict.

I find that those who have these unresolved problems with the Church that truly trouble them, but have attempted to repress them for the sake of appearances or congeniality instead of addressing them responsibly, eventually break down and become the bitter, obsessive types referenced above. That's terrible for everyone, themselves included.

So while we clearly disagree on some religious matters, I think intellectual and personal consistency and honesty are much more important than blindly or desperately clinging to something you can't feel OK about (and I would add that it's my opinion that the Church doesn't want people to do this, either).

Thanks for your comments, I really do enjoy your perspective. I don't live in Utah anymore but I'd love to get a bite with you at some point if we're ever in the same place at the same time. Feel free to email @ gmail if you're going to be in Central Florida.

Re: How Utah Keeps the American Dream Alive

#168
As a Norwegian who has spent a lot of time in Utah visiting distant relatives and having them visit Norway, I made a lot of thoughts about Utah in relation to the Scandinavian society model.

This article is a nice addition to my own experiences. I admit I felt at first somewhat envious and impressed by the community sense, they have in Utah. Family and neighbors seem quite close. People are very smiling and positive. As a diehard atheist, meeting mormons made me really have to contemplate the role of religion. It seemed to make many mormons happy and create a tight knight society. And despite being anti-religion and atheist I actually wanted to live there for some years just for the experience. I loved my time there despite it being so much at odds with values in many respect.

Mormons deserve a lot of praise for what they have accomplished. Yet after staying longer I think it became clear to me that there was a dark side to what looked like paradise at first glance.

Too me it is a bit funny to see Americans praise the Utah model, when it is a far more extreme case of homogeneity than any Scandinavian country typically dismissed as a viable model for America for just that reason. To me people in Utah live a complete bubble world, with little idea of what the real world is like or what other people think about stuff. They seemed very confused when speaking to a non-mormon or non-religious person like myself about particular subjects. And if you didn't fit the narrow path designated by the mormon church, you were pretty much screwed.

I honestly think the Scandinavian model scales a lot better when it comes to tackling societies problems than the Utah model. It allows for a lot more individualism and ethnic mix. It doesn't rely on the majority being strongly religious and doing huge amounts of volunteer work. In a way Utah is really just doing the same as Scandinavian welfare states are doing. Citizens are contributing a lot of resources towards helping the less fortunate. The difference is that in Utah it happens through volunteering through the church, and a strong social pressure to do so. In Scandinavia it happens through high taxes. I realize that in the US the Utah approach is more palatable as it is strictly speaking not required to contribute, while you can't skip taxes in Scandinavia. However in practice there is a a strong social pressure that means it isn't really an option not to.

It is interesting though that creating social mobility and reducing poverty follows very similar receipts in Utah and Scandinavia. E.g. avoiding that welfare becomes a way of life has a pretty strong tradition in Scandinavia as well. The Norwegian labour party's old slogan was "Do your duty and demand your right!" The welfare system has always been generous but also quite a lot more pushy on getting people back into work than what has been the case in many other countries. But the ability for the system to work has also rested on a lot of trust between people as in Utah. I believe in Norway 68% say you can trust your fellow man, while in the US in general would around 30%, while in e.g. Brazil it would be 2%. That is one of my strongest believes about society. One of the most important things for society to succeed is trust.

Re: How Utah Keeps the American Dream Alive

#169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an obviously-biased Mormon I'm not sure the conclusion follows. Certainly there are fantastical elements to my religion (as there are to all religions I know of), but we don't do what we do to compensate for that. We do what we do because we believe it.

Perhaps not to compensate, but to validate. You would never feel compelled to act in a certain way because the sky is blue, or because water is wet. But if you have a political or religious belief, however absurd, you feel a compulsion to act.

I don't see why that's a more logical conclusion than "I believe God wants me to do x therefore I do x"

Re: How Utah Keeps the American Dream Alive

#170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...there is a doctrine of a "priesthood of all believers", i.e., as long as you continue to claim to be Christian you're A-OK. That's not what that means to a non-Mormon Christian. In fact, as far as behavior goes, it calls for the opposite. Reading 1 Peter chapter 2, it's clear that it says that Christians are all responsible for priestly duties, in the way they behave, the way they speak, and the way they care fo…

I don't want to derail this into a big theological discussion, but yes, certainly there are mainstream Christians who take their beliefs seriously and seek to practice them. It was not my intention to mean that there aren't. I was specifically referring to the Calvinist belief that Christ's grace alone provides salvation to the pre-destined, whom are "unconditionally elected", i.e., chosen for a fixed salvation regar…

I'll agree about the changes in affiliation being generally unimportant in practice and culture. Though that's not very theologically sound, either. We can leave that to the side other than to say that reconciliation, forgiveness, and unity are clearly commanded in the Bible.

I was more concerned about the more popular misconception about protestant Christianity: that it mostly involves claiming a label then going to heaven. This does a lot of harm because a lot of "Christians" are more or less untrained, unaccountable, and frankly bad people. And they are the examples often brought up when discussing hard feelings and distaste for Christianity.

I'd also wouldn't blame predestination for the lack of stress on membership and the consequential toothlessness of shunning. It more has to do with the removal of actual priests (i.e., with collars and robes) from any sort of essential role. You don't have to make any particular clergyman or bishop happy to have a birth blessed, a holy funeral, an honorable wedding, or salvation itself.

Post reply on HN