No Lds Bankruptcy Link?

[Scott Lloyd]

It seems to me that bankruptcy is closely related to choices made about financial obligations, which goes back to values, including values relating to marriage, family size, family roles, and tithing. Saying these values don’t impact the financial obligations one makes and the ability to meet those obligations is a very strong assertion that I just can’t swallow without some hardcore evidence to back it up.

I isolated this quote, because I want you to document for me your presumption that in general, Mormons these days have substantially larger families than average.

I keep challenging this assumption, and my challenges keep getting lost in the shuffle.

[Pahoran]

The study suggests that both Mormons and non-Mormons are filing their share of the highest bankruptcy rate in the nation; most of the bankruptcies are filed by Mormons. That does not exonerates Mormons or the Mormon influence on the Utah economic, political, and cultural landscape.

The study demonstrates that Utahns file for bankruptcy at about the same rate regardless of whether they are Mormons or not. Therefore being Mormon does not materially influence the likelihood of going bankrupt. Therefore a nasty old prejudice is dead.

Your desperate attempt to resuscitate it by a clever bit of verbal sophistry is not the least bit unexpected, given your demonstrated attitude towards the Church and the Saints.

Regards,

Pahoran

[ruski_canuk]

The federal government owns 67.1% of the real estate in Utah -- this is largely untaxed, unproductive land, forcing the citizenry to make whatever living they can on about 20% of the land (the State owns but 7.2%) -- which is ultimately the source of all wealth.

Thus Utah's potential wealth (especially mineral wealth) is lying unused in a lock box, both by federal regulation (the present house of reps. just made it impossible to get oil out of the Utah/Wyoming/Colorado oil shale) and federal reservation (the last US president's declaration of Utah's environmentally-friendly coal to be non-exploitable), and Utah's citizens suffer as a result. Just how are Utah's citizens to make a living if the sources of economic livelihood are placed forever out of reach? Nevada, similarly situated, turns to gaming. Are we to follow suit?

USU "It's amusing to see the usual suspects so tenaciously clinging to yet another busted myth" 78

"land... -- is ultimately the source of all wealth."

Don't make Adam Smith turnover in his grave.

[Scott Lloyd]

The study demonstrates that Utahns file for bankruptcy at about the same rate regardless of whether they are Mormons or not. Therefore being Mormon does not materially influence the likelihood of going bankrupt. Therefore a nasty old prejudice is dead.

Regards,

Pahoran

Ding dong, the wicked pitch is dead!

[Analytics]

Scott: I haven't made that claim. What I've done is to suggest that Church teachings apart from the obligation to pay tithing (namely, provident living, debt avoidance, etc.) mitigate the financial impact of the sacrifices Mormons are called upon to make.

A: Interestingly enough, that is what Iâ??ve been saying too.

Scott: Possibly. But this does not say Mormonism is to be blamed for a person's bankruptcy. If a Mormon is indulging in excessive consumer debt or buying a more expensive home than he can afford, contrary to the counsel he hears at Church, one cannot fairly attribute his problems to the Church.

A: I donâ??t think Iâ??ve ever attributed the problems to the Church per se. What Iâ??ve blamed it on was â??Utah cultureâ? and the actual choices that people make.

Scott: Correction: Something is causing some Mormons to do as bad as non-Mormons. I just don't buy it that the "something" is necessarily the Mormon faith. The recent study, at the very least, has shed considerable doubt on the ill-considered presumption that Mormonism is driving the bankruptcy rates.

A: That isnâ??t true. It would be fair to say that some Mormons are doing as poorly as some non-Mormons. But thatâ??s a different statement which isnâ??t very meaningful. On the whole, Mormons are doing as poorly as non-Mormons.

Scott: I isolated this quote, because I want you to document for me your presumption that in general, Mormons these days have substantially larger families than average.

A: Seriously?

Pahoran: The study demonstrates that Utahns file for bankruptcy at about the same rate regardless of whether they are Mormons or not. Therefore being Mormon does not materially influence the likelihood of going bankrupt.

A: I actually agree with that statement. But just because I agree with that statement doesnâ??t mean that there isnâ??t something about Utah which actually causes the bankruptcy that the Saints and sinners share, and it doesn't mean that it's exactly the same thing which causes the high bankruptcy rate.

But if you're sure that it has nothing to do with Utah culture, Iâ??d be interested in your thoughts about what is the cause. Why do you think Utah has a bankruptcy rate so much higher than the American average? Is it the water perhaps? Maybe it has something to do with radiation from nuclear testing? It couldn't be the altitude--other high states do better.

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott: Correction: Something is causing some Mormons to do as bad as non-Mormons. I just don't buy it that the "something" is necessarily the Mormon faith. The recent study, at the very least, has shed considerable doubt on the ill-considered presumption that Mormonism is driving the bankruptcy rates.

A: That isn’t true.

What isn't true? That the study sheds doubt on the presumption that Mormonism is driving the bankruptcy rates in Utah? Then why are Mormons in the state no more likely to go bankrupt than non-Mormons?

It would be fair to say that some Mormons are doing as poorly as some non-Mormons. But that’s a different statement which isn’t very meaningful. On the whole, Mormons are doing as poorly as non-Mormons.

Heretofore, critics have been saying it's Mormons and Mormonism who are driving up the rates. They've been shown to be wrong.

Scott: I isolated this quote, because I want you to document for me your presumption that in general, Mormons these days have substantially larger families than average.

A: Seriously?

Yes. I would call a family of, say, five or more children substantially larger than average these days. If you have documentation to show that the typical Mormon family today fits that profile, let's see it.

[Matt Andrews]

I have not read most of the responses, but have quickly read through the article.

Page 618 indicates that the figure used for the percentage of Mormons in Utah comes from Matt Canham, writing in the SLTribune using numbers given by the LDS Church. (See footnote 77.) It is not the number of people in Utah who self-identify as Mormon. If this number is too high (or too low) it affects the conclusion of the study. If someone has a link to the Canham article, we could dicuss whether we think this number is too high or too low.

(Or we could discuss it without the facts, which, of course, we all do quite often around here!)

The criticism that a difference in family size between the Mormon/non-Mormon population could affect the conclusion is also valid. I'm not aware of any birth-rate statistics broken down by religious affiliation. (If someone is at BYU, I'm sure Prof. Tim Heaton would know if such a thing existed.)

----------------

Absent compelling evidence to the contrary, I find it hard to believe that Mormons would have a higher bankruptcy rate. My upbringing in the Church led me to be extremely debt-averse, and I would guess that is a universal theme. I would imagine this should help a great deal.

(Aside: Of course, many posters here frequently suggest my experience in the church wasn't typical. In any case, we talked about staying out of debt, and we never talked about polyandry, the preisthood ban, or LGT. We were just way out there on the fringe, I guess.)

The only mechanism I can see that is Mormon related is if, in times of medical crisis, a Mormon household decides to keep paying tithing, and it is just enough that they don't make it. I still find this unlikely, though. (Wouldn't fast offerings be helping out in such a case?)

What I do see is a Utah-specific tendency to keep-up-with-or outdo-the-Joneses. (No, I don't have data on that, just my observation.) From housing, to clothing, to cars, I've not seen that attitude to such a degree in other places I've lived, including the many non-Utah Mormons I've known. (Well, sometimes, but they were usually recent transplants from Utah.) In any case, such an attitude would seem to me to be counter to LDS teachings, not because of them.

[Scott Lloyd]

The criticism that a difference in family size between the Mormon/non-Mormon population could affect the conclusion is also valid. I'm not aware of any birth-rate statistics broken down by religious affiliation. (If someone is at BYU, I'm sure Prof. Tim Heaton would know if such a thing existed.)

As I mentioned in an earlier post on this thread, a footnote in the study cites U.S. census figures showing Utah has a larger average family size, but the difference is not great: 3.57 vs. 3.14.

As I've indicated, I believe the notion that Mormons typically have huge families is an unfounded myth these days. Look around your own ward. How many large families are there?

[Matt Andrews]

As I mentioned in an earlier post on this thread, a footnote in the study cites U.S. census figures showing Utah has a larger average family size, but the difference is not great: 3.57 vs. 3.14.

As I've indicated, I believe the notion that Mormons typically have huge families is an unfounded myth these days. Look around your own ward. How many large families are there?

Well, it's been a while since I attended an LDS ward, but I can't think of a single LDS family I know that doesn't have at least three kids, and most have more. (Well, excluding families just starting out, who usually have 1 kid for every 2 years they've been married.) In contrast, three seems to be the maximum for most of the non-mormons. I wouldn't rely on my anectodotal evidence, of course. It would be cool if someone had statistics on that, but I don't think they exist.

I'd guess that the Utah Mormon family size is greater than 3.57. (I don't have any reason to think the non-mormons are the ones bringing that average up.)

I still think it is hard to peg this on Mormonism. I don't think this article proves the contrary, but I admire their attempt to shed some light on the subject.

[Analytics]

Scott: What isn't true? That the study sheds doubt on the presumption that Mormonism is driving the bankruptcy rates in Utah? Then why are Mormons in the state no more likely to go bankrupt than non-Mormons?

A: I said, â??something is causing Mormons to do as bad as non-Mormons.â? You responded, â??Correction: Something is causing some Mormons to do as bad as non-Mormons.â? My original statement is correct and your â??correctionâ? is not correct. Yours implies that only an inferior subset of Mormons do as poorly as non-Mormons. That isnâ??t true; as a whole, Mormons in Utah do as poorly as non-Mormons in Utah.

Scott: Heretofore, critics have been saying it's Mormons and Mormonism who are driving up the rates. They've been shown to be wrong.

A: The study indicates that Mormons and non-Mormons file at about the same rate. That doesnâ??t prove that â??Mormonismâ? isnâ??t related.

Scott: Yes. I would call a family of, say, five or more children substantially larger than average these days. If you have documentation to show that the typical Mormon family today fits that profile, let's see it.

A: Good grief. I never said nor implied that the typical Mormon family has five or more children. All I said was that it seems to me that bankruptcy is closely related to choices made about financial obligations, which goes back to values, including values relating to marriage, family size, family roles, and tithing. For example, if family A chooses to get married and begin having their three children while they are still in college, and family B chooses to wait until their early thirties to having their two kids, A is going to have a harder time than B.

Does Utah have larger families? Quoting the Salt Lake Tribune,

Jeff Thredgold, president of Salt Lake City-based Thredgold Economic Associations and a consultant to Zions Bank, said large families invariably will put Utah among the top 15 states in bankruptcy filings.

"When you have 50 percent more children per adult in a household there is going to be increased financial pressure. But the fact that there are more children per household [in Utah than nationally] is probably more of a cultural issue than a religious one," he said, contending other faiths in the state also have larger families, recognizing Utah is a good place to raise children.

What Thredgold is saying is precisely in line with what I said and what you took issue with. Since you took issue with what I said, I'm sure you also take issue with what Thredgold said. I'd like to know why.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, it's been a while since I attended an LDS ward, ...

A good long while, perhaps. As I look at my ward directory, I note that with four children, we and two or three other families are more the exception than the norm.

I'd guess that the Utah Mormon family size is greater than 3.57. (I don't have any reason to think the non-mormons are the ones bringing that average up.)

This is an unwarranted assumption. And if you go by Analytics' notion that the Church culturally affects everything in the state, you would have to assume the average would be about the same across the board.

I still think it is hard to peg this on Mormonism. I don't think this article proves the contrary, but I admire their attempt to shed some light on the subject.

It is the only hard evidence to date. All that has been offered to the contrary is idle supposition. That is why, when I see or hear talk of "exonerating" the "Mormon church" on the matter of bankruptcy in Utah, I respond that the Church needs no exoneration.

[Scott Lloyd]

Does Utah have larger families? Quoting the Salt Lake Tribune,

What Thredgold is saying is precisely in line with what I said and what you took issue with. Since you took issue with what I said, I'm sure you also take issue with what Thredgold said. I'd like to know why.

Without anything else other than the Tribune quote to go on, I have to assume that Thredgold, like you, is merely parroting a common assumption.

I never said it wasn't the conventional wisdom. I'm challenging its accuracy in this day and age. You haven't addressed the 2000 census figure cited in the Johnson-Wright study, which I pointed out.

[Analytics]

Scott: I never said it wasn't the conventional wisdom. I'm challenging its accuracy in this day and age. You haven't addressed the 2000 census figure cited in the Johnson-Wright study, which I pointed out.

A: The census data prove that Utah families are the largest in the nation. Furthermore, you need to keep in mind that this figure is the size of actual families as they now are. So, a 22-year old newlywed family would count as a family of two, even if the family was planning on becoming a family of six before they turned 30. So for states with more families that are still growing (like Utah), the â??family sizeâ? statistic is biased downward as an estimate for the number of kids the family will ultimately have.

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott: I never said it wasn't the conventional wisdom. I'm challenging its accuracy in this day and age. You haven't addressed the 2000 census figure cited in the Johnson-Wright study, which I pointed out.

A: The census data prove that Utah families are the largest in the nation. Furthermore, you need to keep in mind that this figure is the size of actual families as they now are. So, a 22-year old newlywed family would count as a family of two, even if the family was planning on becoming a family of six before they turned 30. So for states with more families that are still growing (like Utah), the â??family sizeâ? statistic is biased downward as an estimate for the number of kids the family will ultimately have.

Nevertheless, when I think of large families, I don't picture less than four children. Yet that is the average in Utah, and is not a lot different than the average in the nation, which is between three and four children.

I think the stereotype of the large Mormon family is considerably larger than four; say, six or more. But the reality is, that is fairly uncommon these days, even among Mormons and even in Utah. If it were otherwise, the census data would surely reflect it.

[Analytics]

One more point. The difference between 3.57 and 3.14 members per family is significant. Utah has about 700,000 families, so the difference between 3.57 people per family and 3.14 people per family is about 300,000 extra kids. The strain associated with feeding, clothing, educating, and providing healthcare to 300,000 people is significant.

Talk to an administrator of the Jordan School District about your taxes if you believe otherwise.

[Scott Lloyd]

One more point. The difference between 3.57 and 3.14 members per family is significant. Utah has about 700,000 families, so the difference between 3.57 people per family and 3.14 people per family is about 300,000 extra kids. The strain associated with feeding, clothing, educating, and providing healthcare to 300,000 people is significant.

Talk to an administrator of the Jordan School District about your taxes if you believe otherwise.

Strain to whom? You talk as though every child born in Utah becomes a ward of the state. We are talking family size affecting an individual's propensity to go bankrupt. In an individual family, the difference is not that great. And 3.14 and 3.57 are both significantly below 4 children, and far below the six to 10 children we typically associate with "large" families.

Talk to an administrator of the Jordan School District about your taxes if you believe otherwise.

How did you know I live in Jordan district? This is eerie!

[Analytics]

Nevertheless, when I think of large families, I don't picture less than four children. Yet that is the average in Utah, and is not a lot different than the average in the nation, which is between three and four children.

I think the stereotype of the large Mormon family is considerably larger than four; say, six or more. But the reality is, that is fairly uncommon these days, even among Mormons and even in Utah. If it were otherwise, the census data would surely reflect it.

What can I do to convince you that I don't hold the sterotype view?

In American in general, a large family is considered three kids or more. Thinking of everybody I know with youngish kids, the non-Mormons aim for between 0 and 3 kids, and the Mormons aim for between 3 and 5.

Maybe my anecdotal perception is way off on that. But be that as it may, the actual census data shows that there is a huge difference between family sizes in Utah and elsewhere in America.

[Scott Lloyd]

What can I do to convince you that I don't hold the sterotype view?

In American in general, a large family is considered three kids or more. Thinking of everybody I know with youngish kids, the non-Mormons aim for between 0 and 3 kids, and the Mormons aim for between 3 and 5.

Maybe my anecdotal perception is way off on that. But be that as it may, the actual census data shows that there is a huge difference between family sizes in Utah and elsewhere in America.

So are you saying that less than four children is enough to kick a typical family into bankruptcy? Because that's what we have here in Utah on average.

Or do you share Matt Andrews' unrealistic notion that Mormons are the only ones in Utah who have more than four kids? If so, then Mormons in Utah are doing pretty well, since they don't go bankrupt any more often than anybody else.

And by your reckoning, if Americans in general consider a large family to be three kids or more, then a "large" family is the norm in America, since census data show the average to be 3.15. Wouldn't an average-size family be more apt to be considered medium rather than large? If something is comparatively large, it is usually out of the ordinary.

[Analytics]

So are you saying that less than four children is enough to kick a typical family into bankruptcy? Because that's what we have here in Utah on average.

Sigh. No, that is not what I'm saying.

One thing to keep in mind is how the Census bureau defines family. A family is a group of people living together who are related by birth, marriage, or adoption.

So, my sister, her husband, and her four kids count as a family of five, because one of her kids is off on a mission.

Anyway, what I am saying is that it takes a lot of money to raise a kid. For some people, buying diapers for that extra kid is money that would have otherwise gone to savings or go towards paying off the credit card. I am saying that staying home to take care of an extra kid is time that could have been spent working to pay off the student loan. A lot of people are on tight budgets, and the difference between 2 kids and 3 kids can put you in a position where you have less money to save. The strain gets higher if the families are younger. This can lead to credit card debt that will be a chain around the families neck for years.

Iâ??m not suggesting that having an extra kid or two in and of itself puts people into bankruptcy. I am suggesting that with an extra kid or two, it is harder to save, harder to put a second worker into the workforce if needed, and harder to save 10% of your income into a rainy day fund. Iâ??m also suggesting that with an extra kid or two, it is more likely that the family will get a huge medical bill.

Or do you share Matt Andrews' unrealistic notion that Mormons are the only ones in Utah who have more than four kids?

Did you notice that you have a tendency to ascribe positions to others that they donâ??t hold? It seems you really, really want to fight a strawman on this.

Matt didnâ??t say Mormons are the only ones in Utah who have more than four kids; he said that according to his admittedly anecdotal observations, most non-Mormons donâ??t have more than three kids. He also said donâ??t rely upon his anecdotal evidence, and said it would be cool if some statistics on this existed.

[Scott Lloyd]

duplicate post. sorry.

[Scott Lloyd]

Analytics: Matt didnâ??t say Mormons are the only ones in Utah who have more than four kids; he said that according to his admittedly anecdotal observations, most non-Mormons donâ??t have more than three kids. He also said donâ??t rely upon his anecdotal evidence, and said it would be cool if some statistics on this existed.

Scott: I'm guilty of exaggerating for effect. Which is what the critics up to now have done when they have blamed Utah's high bankruptcy rate on Mormons and Mormonism. But they expected to be taken literally. I didn't.

And my point still stands: If Mormon families in Utah are burdened by huge numbers of kids, they must be doing comparatively well, since their rate of bankruptcy is no higher than others in the state.