I'm enjoying this article, but this conclusion to the first section seems like a non sequitur to me: > Those who sit at or near the apex of the social ladder (

I'm enjoying this article, but this conclusion to the first section seems like a non sequitur to me: > Those who sit at or near the apex of the social ladder (who decide what behaviors are prestigious) have decided that family stability is unimportant. Up to this point, the problem statement has all been about choices made by those lacking wealth, but now we seem to have suddenly veered into that being the fault of those "at or near the apex of the social ladder" and in a way I can't relate to. On the contrary, hard work and "hustle" seems more high status than ever! Maybe this is a minor point, but I have been finding this two-step of 1. Identify a problem among the low status / poor / blue collar, 2. Blame it on the elite, disorienting. I first came across it in JD Vance's book where I thought he did a really good job of identifying problems with the culture he was raised in but then ended the book with (in my view) misplaced blame and no real ideas for how to fix any of the problems. And it just seems like I've seen people (JD Vance quintessentially) doubling and tripling down on that pattern ever since. Edit to add (now that I've finished reading the article): I think there is an entire premise here that I really don't buy, that this culture is driven by the affluent and "middle class meaning college degree holders". In my experience this isn't right at all; nobody in the working class cares in the slightest what academics at Harvard or wherever think about family formation and stability. They aren't aware of what academics think, and wouldn't care what they think if they were to become aware of it. It is very roundabout to identify a cultural problem and then blame that problem on the milieu within a different culture that does not exhibit the same problem...