David Frum’s critique of Charles Murray’s Coming Apart begins with an analogy:

To understand what Murray does in Coming Apart, imagine this analogy:

A social scientist visits a Gulf Coast town. He notices that the
houses near the water have all been smashed and shattered. The former
occupants now live in tents and FEMA trailers. The social scientist
writes a report:

The
evidence strongly shows that living in houses is better for children
and families than living in tents and trailers. The people on the
waterfront are irresponsibly subjecting their children to unacceptable
conditions.

When
he publishes his report, somebody points out: “You know, there was a
hurricane here last week.” The social scientist shrugs off the criticism
with the reply, “I’m writing about housing, not weather.”

For Frum, the “hurricane” is stagnant or falling wages for half or more of the population:

Across the developed world, we see the wages of the bottom half (and in
some cases more than half) have stagnated, even as gains have accrued to
the top 20%, bigger gains to the top 5%, and the biggest gains to the
top 1%.

But Frum’s story makes little sense.  Divorce, out-of-wedlock births, and low labor force participation are expensive.  If you’re worried about being poor, you’ll studiously avoid them.  So how could economic distress be their “root cause”?  To rewrite Frum’s hurricane analogy:

A social scientist visits a Gulf Coast town. He notices that the
houses near the water have all been smashed and shattered. The former
occupants now live in tents and FEMA trailers. They’re also malnourished because they keep leaving their food on the beach, where the evening tide quickly carries it out to sea.  The social scientist
writes a report:

The
evidence strongly shows that the hurricane is causing severe malnutrition.  Back when these people had houses they kept their food inside.  The government is turning its back on the indirect effects of natural disaster.

When
he publishes his report, somebody points out: “You know, those hungry people could keep their food in their tents at night.” The social scientist shrugs off the criticism
with the reply, “I’m writing about malnutrition, not food storage.”

My point: The hurricane should have made people more careful with their food.  Yes, they experienced a natural disaster.  But instead of prudently adjusting their behavior, they’re being bizarrely short-sighted and irresponsible.  And it makes you wonder: If this is how they act after a hurricane, would their behavior would have been even worse if the hurricane had never hit?

Update: David Frum replies, and Tyler weighs in.