David brooks at it again. trying to spin a narrative about duke and butler into something about how hardworking rich people are. clumsy--yes. stupid--you bet. let's go to the tape...
David Brooks: Here’s the trickiest case of all. Before 1995, mothers spent on average 12 hours a week with their children. By 2007, that number had leapt to 21.2 for college-educated moms and 15.9 hours for those with less education. Paternal time leapt from 4.5 hours to 9.6 hours, among the college-educated and from 3.7 to 6.8 among the less educated.
I was fascinated by how parental time correlates to education. Is it possible that college-educated parents are spending more time passing down their advantages than other parents? Could it be that the rich replicate themselves by dint of hard work and parental attention, on top of all the other less worthy advantages?
No. no. no. not uncomfortable questions. obvious questions. paid work is not the only kind of work. if you have a better job, you can afford to live closer to food/shops/transit, you can afford a shorter commute (by car not 3 buses), you can afford to own a dishwasher or in unit laundry, you can afford to pay someone to clean your house/mow your lawn/fix your sink, you can afford to buy prepared food. you can afford not to participate in an unrecorded barter economy of favors. that extra time is freed up by more money. it is embarrassing to suggest otherwise. the uncomfortable question is not whether the rich are more darwinianly fit than the poor (hello eugenics!) but whether the structural disadvantages of the poor are being adequately addressed, you moron.