>"Does that make Wax a white supremacist for saying that culture matters for poverty-related outcomes, that not all cultures are equally good for escaping poverty, and that the 1950s American “bourgeois cultural script” was particularly good for that purpose?"

This is the core premise of the article, the conclusion, of course, being 'no'. Unfortunately, it does not accurately deal with the fairly clear subtext being delivered by Ms. Wax.

> "In an interview with The Daily Pennsylvanian about the op-ed, Wax was quoted as saying that “Everyone wants to go to countries ruled by white Europeans,” because, in the phrasing of the DP article’s author, “Anglo-Protestant cultural norms are superior.” … [they then affirm Wax’s right to express her opinions, then say:] We categorically reject Wax’s claims."

This, in particular, is striking. Why is 'being ruled by white Europeans' the draw to migrants over, say, the relative wealth of the west in the aggregate? France and Germany certainly offer troves of opportunity, but is Greece really more of a destination for economic migrants than, say, Singapore? Would India's quasi-british culture provide a counter-example when compared with China's?

The lack of any of these comparative examinations leads us immediately to question the argument provided. Ms. Wax doesn't even make case compelling to show that it was the 1950s script itself, rather than other causes before she jumps into discussing the superiority of the white european ruling establishment. Could it be that America's economic rivals had just been bombed to ash which led to an influx of capital to the country during an era where unions had clout? Nah, its just the fact that it was ruled by white europeans (/s).

Give me a break.