Loudness and class

This morning, as I left my apartment, I paused at the sound of raised voices downstairs. Three of my neighbors were yelling at each other. I couldn’t understand what they were saying, but they certainly seemed angry. I was afraid that they would get violent and the police would be called (as has happened before) and I didn’t want to get in the middle of things, so I lingered for a few seconds before going downstairs.

...Then, getting bored, I figured it would probably be okay and went downstairs anyway. As I got closer, I could hear what they were saying. The phrase “home fries and cheese eggs” was used. I realized that, far from arguing with each other, they were actually just making friendly small talk about breakfast foods and the weather and such. I had completely misinterpreted the feeling tone of their conversation–because the tone of voice they considered appropriate for friendly small talk was so loud that I would never use it unless in a state of extreme anger or fear.

Now, I am an unusually quiet person. It’s difficult for me to raise my voice even when I have a good reason to do so. So this is an introversion/extroversion thing, but I also think there’s a class difference here. In general, upper-class people perceive clearer differences between the private and public spheres; they can afford to buy a great deal of privacy. Lower-class people have less spacious and comfortable homes and are less able to afford third places such as bars, restaurants or coffee shops; their private conversations are forced out into the public sphere. Hence the hanging out on the street corner/front porch/sidewalk behavior that upper-class people find hard to understand. Hence also, I would hypothesize, louder voices, even when close proximity makes loudness unnecessary.
                                   
This must lead to lesser understanding between classes (or races). If I can misunderstand people of a different class without even hearing a word, what do I fail to understand in a real conversation? And they must be misunderstanding me too–for instance, I’ve known several people who assume that a confident person will naturally be loud, so a quiet person must be sad or intimidated. Every word an upper-class person says may come out as slightly less aggressive than intended.

Questioning the conservative explanation for poverty

Bryan Caplan, the iconoclastic George Mason economist and author of Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids, is planning a book on poverty. Working title: Poverty: Who to Blame. I’m excited, but judging from his blog, he has some big blind spots when talking about poverty.

The basic truth conservatives start with, when talking about poverty, is that people who finish high school, do not commit crimes, do not have children before marriage, and find and hold a full-time minimum-wage job are very unlikely to be poor. This is true. Charles Karelis makes this point in his book, The Persistence of Poverty:

One 2003 simulation estimates that if all nonelderly and nondisabled heads of families with children worked full-time at their present wages, or at the wages they could earn based on their education and other factors, the fraction of the US population living below the poverty line would fall from 13 percent to 7.5 percent.

 

Caplan’s advice for poor women in particular is to refrain from childbearing until they find an eligible (stably employed, marriage-minded, nonabusive) man to marry. It sounds very simple. So what's the problem?

Here are some complicating questions I would expect the book to address:

1) Is it true that having children out of marriage hurts women’s economic prospects? Evidence from Kathryn Edin for one suggests that women who start out in the same economic place end up in the same place whether they become single teenage mothers or not.

2) Is it true, as he asserts, that poor people drink more and use more drugs? Actually, no. The consensus seems to be that alcohol use and income are positively correlated; richer people are more likely to drink and to drink more. Use of illegal drugs is correlated with poverty, but if Caplan thinks that substance use is one of the causes of poverty, he needs to explain why drugs and alcohol are so different here. They both cost money, carry health risks, and increase the risk of getting in trouble with the law. If the poor have lower impulse control, why are they better at controlling the impulse to drink?

3) What if there aren’t enough eligible men?

For women like me, it’s a no-brainer to wait a decade or more after puberty before having children. We know that there will be eligible men out there for us. If anything, the supply of men increases and improves over time: a 25-year-old college graduate has access to a greater variety and higher quality of men than a 15-year-old high school student.

Is this true for poor women living in poor neighborhoods? Isn’t it possible that the opposite is true for them: that the number of 18-year-old men who are marriage-minded, childless, without a criminal record and out of jail  is actually greater than the number of 25- to 30-year-olds who meet those requirements?

This is something of a speculative tangent, though. But it is true that there is a very high ratio of marriage-age women to marriage-age men in poor neighborhoods. Factor in the very high unemployment rates for young black men with no college degree, and the number of eligible men goes down further. 

Caplan rightly thinks preaching abstinence is unrealistic for most, and suggests contraception instead. But suggesting that women delay childbearing until they find an eligible man, even when this might take decades and might mean giving up the possibility of motherhood altogether, is almost as unrealistic.

4) What about the dangers of marriage? Caplan says that marriage is a good economic decision: two people living together spend less than two living apart. But it's not just about the money: what about the risk that the seemingly eligible man might lose his job, become abusive, or steal the woman’s money? Not to speak of the loss of independence.

5) What if finding full-time employment is impossible? Many minimum-wage employers deliberately avoid hiring full-time staff, because after that 40-hour-a-week threshold, they will be forced to provide more benefits. Anyone can get a job at McDonald’s, but getting 40 hours a week is a lot harder.

The largest liberal objection, of course, is that it shouldn’t matter who we blame for poverty. No one denies that the poor exist and are generally worse off than the rich. That, to me, means that they are entitled to a few of my superfluous dollars (which I probably would have spent on liquor anyway.)

Translation and class

“Translators tend to write in a normalized language and are more attentive to what is broadly understood to be the correct or standard form. Translation tends toward the center, to whatever linguistic regularities are conceptualized as belonging to the standard language, irrespective of what native speakers typically say.

No consecutive interpreter would think of adopting lower-class diction to reproduce for the benefit of a visiting foreign dignitary the kind of language spoken to him by a factory hand or collective farm worker. In written prose, too, translators shy away from giving the uncouth truly uncouth forms of language in the target text...Translation always takes the register of naturally written prose up a notch or two.
There is a seemingly inevitable bias against representing forms of language recognized in the source culture as regional, uncouth, ill-educated or taboo by socially matching forms in the target tongue---presumably because doing so risks identifying the translator as a member of just such a marginal or subordinated class. The social dimension of style doesn’t flow easily from tongue to tongue.”

One reason why translations are often less exciting and interesting than original texts. Let's all just learn all the languages instead.

This NYT Motherlode article is all about class (though it doesn't admit it).