Orlando: Study some history

Submitted by Prometheus 6 on January 1, 2007 - 12:17pm.
on | |

There's a lot more at play than just wanting or not wanting to be around white folks. But there's always been a lot of projection in Black Conservative-speak. 

Because neighborhoods are racially segregated, African Americans' homes do not grow in value as fast as whites' homes do. Shapiro calculates that housing segregation costs African Americans tens of thousands of dollars in home equity. Homebuyers look for amenities commonly found in predominantly white neighborhoods. They pay extra for parks, convenient shopping and attractive views. Parents pay huge premiums for what they perceive to be good schools. Few parents can judge schools objectively. Instead, they use easy-to-observe markers, including the race of the students. These preferences raise the costs that first-time homebuyers face when they attempt to buy houses in those mostly white neighborhoods. Economic theory implies that if whites continue to waste money on irrational prejudices like this, market forces will eventually undo the racial disparity in wealth. But the experience of the last 50 years suggests otherwise. Inequality has grown because each new generation has been willing to pay a higher premium for these amenities. The market doesn't punish discrimination; it rewards it.

Whites fail to see any injustice in these differences. Shapiro's interviews convinced him that whites hide their privilege from themselves and, accordingly, feel no guilt for the hidden costs they impose on African Americans. People who inherited tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars nonetheless told Shapiro that they were self-made and self-reliant. They proudly told him how the assets they inherited grew under their stewardship. White parents use wealth to send their children to private schools or to give their adult children down payments for homes. They do not see how such practices hand today's inequalities on to the next generation.

Shapiro argues convincingly that these private matters spill over into public investment, too. He interviewed one upper-middle-class woman who told him that she was unconcerned with troubles in the local public school because she never intended to send her children there. Shapiro points out that her indifference -- and that of others like her -- is just one more obstacle in the path of people trying to improve local public education.

The Hidden Cost of Being African American
Reviewed by Michael Hout
From The Washington Post's Book World

African Americans often seem cut off from the economic mainstream. They face higher risks of poverty, joblessness and incarceration than their fellow citizens do. Community organizing, civil rights legislation, landmark court decisions and rising education have advanced the cause of racial equality. Overt bigotry has been banished from public places, and polls show that whites harbor fewer prejudices than they used to. But these improvements have not been enough.

How can disadvantage persist so long after most laws, minds and practices have changed? Thomas M. Shapiro argues in this sober and authoritative book that we should look to disparities of wealth for the answer. Whites are wealthier than African Americans, and whites' wealth advantage is much bigger than their advantages in either income or education (the point of Shapiro's earlier study, Black Wealth/White Wealth, co-authored with Melvin Oliver). Whites start out ahead because they inherit more from their parents, and America's racially segregated housing markets boost whites' home equities, while depressing those of African-American families. Shapiro, a professor of sociology at Brandeis, takes readers through the implications of these inequities and concludes that African Americans will not gain significant ground in the wealth divide until inheritance and housing policies change.

Wealth is the sum of the important assets a person or family owns -- home equity, pension funds, savings accounts and investments. Wealth is better than income because it is durable. People use income to meet daily expenses, whereas wealth accumulates. People who have wealth tap it only to deal with emergencies or to take advantage of opportunities -- opportunities that usually build more wealth.

Wealth passes down from generation to generation. The main reason African Americans are currently worse off than whites, according to Shapiro, is that today's African Americans inherited less wealth from their parents than today's whites did. It is not hard to see why: The generation of African Americans now passed away accumulated less wealth because discrimination in their day kept most of them poor and denied them opportunities other Americans enjoyed.

The disparity in wealth not only persists, it mushrooms. Without a cushion of inherited wealth, emergencies hit harder, and people who have no nest egg have to let opportunities pass by. Because of the wealth deficit, African Americans find themselves more vulnerable to shocks and less able to capitalize on breaks than whites with the same income. So the next generation will inherit less, too. The wealth gap will not close anytime soon.

Shapiro blends statistical analysis and case studies of selected families in Boston, St. Louis and Los Angeles, showing the relative importance of wealth and the disparities in inheritance by class and race. He also supplies some individual case studies, which give depth and humanity to the numbers.

Wealth begins at home. A home-equity loan can see a family through a spell of unemployment or leverage an investment. Millions of middle-class Americans use tax-deductible home-equity loans to pay for their children's educations. Others buy rental property.

Because neighborhoods are racially segregated, African Americans' homes do not grow in value as fast as whites' homes do. Shapiro calculates that housing segregation costs African Americans tens of thousands of dollars in home equity. Homebuyers look for amenities commonly found in predominantly white neighborhoods. They pay extra for parks, convenient shopping and attractive views. Parents pay huge premiums for what they perceive to be good schools. Few parents can judge schools objectively. Instead, they use easy-to-observe markers, including the race of the students. These preferences raise the costs that first-time homebuyers face when they attempt to buy houses in those mostly white neighborhoods. Economic theory implies that if whites continue to waste money on irrational prejudices like this, market forces will eventually undo the racial disparity in wealth. But the experience of the last 50 years suggests otherwise. Inequality has grown because each new generation has been willing to pay a higher premium for these amenities. The market doesn't punish discrimination; it rewards it.

Whites fail to see any injustice in these differences. Shapiro's interviews convinced him that whites hide their privilege from themselves and, accordingly, feel no guilt for the hidden costs they impose on African Americans. People who inherited tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars nonetheless told Shapiro that they were self-made and self-reliant. They proudly told him how the assets they inherited grew under their stewardship. White parents use wealth to send their children to private schools or to give their adult children down payments for homes. They do not see how such practices hand today's inequalities on to the next generation.

Shapiro argues convincingly that these private matters spill over into public investment, too. He interviewed one upper-middle-class woman who told him that she was unconcerned with troubles in the local public school because she never intended to send her children there. Shapiro points out that her indifference -- and that of others like her -- is just one more obstacle in the path of people trying to improve local public education.

Families and generations are at the core of Shapiro's analysis. So I was surprised that he did not directly address how marriage and family structure fit into the cycles of accumulation, inheritance and investment. Married couples accumulate more wealth than single parents do, according to other researchers. That suggests to me that African-American family issues must play a role in the wealth gap.

Shapiro does connect the wealth gap to public policy. Today's tax law exacerbates the inequality of wealth in the United States. Coming out of World War II, the federal government encouraged home ownership for all and increased the country's rate of homeownership from 44 percent in 1940 to 62 perent in 1960. (It inched up to 68 percent in 2003.) Since 1982, national tax policy has turned conservative in ways that foster what Shapiro labels "opportunity hoarding." He floats several proposals -- such as overhauling inheritance laws -- that might help the country get back on the track of broadening opportunity. Few of his proposals may be tried in the current political climate, where far more pressure goes toward abolishing inheritance taxes altogether. Yet by giving such a frank and probing appraisal of the long-term damage wrought by unequal wealth, Shapiro continues to press the case for resolving America's most stubborn and profound source of racial division.

 

Copyright 2004, The Washington Post Co. Reprinted with permission.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by GDAWG on January 1, 2007 - 1:10pm.
HUh. Quite familiar with Sharpiro's  excellent work. I think his analysis dovetails into  the excellent  work of Ira Katznelsons's  "When Affirmative Action was White," in which he details the discriminatory nature of newly enacted national government policies, that in effect, prevented or lessened Black vets, in the Post WW2 era, from partaking in the Homeloan program and education benefits then, as opposed to their white counterparts. This thereby, allowed these folks to acquired the tools to both generate and attain wealth compared to their Black counterparts.    He, Katznelson, pointed that this distressing period reflected a tremendous era for wealth accumulation for what Brokaw describes as America's "The Greatest Generation."  For Black vets I guess it was not so great then. Anyway, the fallout from these racist actions added to the economic devastation of America's Black communities, and proved reductive for the existent Black middle class of that that existed then.   These two fellows are the kind of "Paid Thinkers" that truly matters, even though they are not of our "community".  Finally, the writer notes how property  appreciates in communities based on access to commercial entities and schools, etc.   In Harlem, I argue that the upside of gentrifcation has been the flow of business entities into Harlem, the improvement of the local infrastructure and housing stock. These actions has enhanced the wealth owners like ourselves, and reassures us that most of us wont be relocating the burbs or elsewhere anytime soon. I guess this is not what Patterson wants to hear, but this is the reality of the matter.
Submitted by ktal on January 1, 2007 - 4:27pm.
One of the best books I've read on this topic is Michael C. Dawson's BEHIND THE MULE.  It's about a decade old (1995), but makes a powerful case for the economic disadvantages of slavery being incredibly long lasting. I was particularly persuaded by his writing about the average accumulation of capital by white families who have been in the U.S. since before the Civil War and black families.
Submitted by GDAWG on January 1, 2007 - 5:26pm.
I'll try to get a copy.
Submitted by ptcruiser on January 2, 2007 - 7:29am.

"Homebuyers look for amenities commonly found in predominantly white neighborhoods. They pay extra for parks, convenient shopping and attractive views. Parents pay huge premiums for what they perceive to be good schools. Few parents can judge schools objectively. Instead, they use easy-to-observe markers, including the race of the students. These preferences raise the costs that first-time homebuyers face when they attempt to buy houses in those mostly white neighborhoods."

We should not lose sight, too, of the consequences visited on black Americans and the neighborhoods where they comprised a majority of the residents by the conscious expropriation and transfer of the value of their tax dollars, fees etc. that were used primarily for the benefit of majority white communities. Look at the tremendous transfer of tax dollars that were used to subsidize and pay for infrastructure development of America's suburbs. Although taxes etc.  collected from blacks were used to finance these developmemnts, blacks were denied for decades any opportunities to live in these communities and enjoy the benefits these areas received from all levels of government. 

The persistent failure of black conservatives to speak to this and other related issues keeps me firmly fixed in the camp of those who believe that they are either not serious or do not really have black people's interests at heart despite their claims to the contrary. None of this can be dismissed as "water under the bridge" because for too many black Americans this unimpeded flow of resources has current real world effects.  

Submitted by Temple3 on January 3, 2007 - 7:16pm.

I have NEVER met anyone who has done the math on being Black in America who also hated on Black folk. The numbers are simply overwhelming. Paid haters and pontificators simply cannot have this level of an empirical discussion. Whether you're doing the math in Amos Wilson's Blueprint for Blackpower or Herbert Hill's Black Labor and the American Legal System or Manning Marable's How Capitalism Underdeveloped Black America or some other text, you will be hard pressed to trace American wealth and conclude that the majority of the ills afflicting Black folk are self-inflicted wounds. Similarly, you would be unlikely to conclude that the resolution of these ills will be occasioned by anything other than a good, hard look in the mirror by Black folk here and in the diaspora and on the continent. Other conclusions require leaps of faith and indefensible protestations about the redemption of others and fates tied together where connections truly do not exist. It's a wrap - and it's been a wrap for decades.

Perhaps what is most problematic (aside from Patterson's use of sociology as a primary method of inquiry - yeech!) is that the same investigation into patterns of wealth in the Caribbean would reveal a pattern too embarassing for him to contemplate, let alone explore and reveal.  Island wealth in the areas of heavy machinery, transportation, energy, defense, communications, engineering, etc. is not Black wealth.  There are a number of folks with jobs who perform as "Minister" of such and such, but these managers must have watched the entrepreneurial spirit board a plane out of Kingston and Port-au-Prince and Port-of-Spain and elsewhere, because they have not seized the wealth apparatus from their English, Spanish, French and Portuguese masters.

The failure to address such a clear disparity is shameful at best. 

Submitted by GDAWG on January 4, 2007 - 1:53pm.

Temple3 just a read book review on the cia's cultural program in the 60s and it usurped/sponsored writers, musicians and the like, Blacks included soa s to fullfil the anticommuntist agenda so prevalent then. I suspect similar programs are underway in academia here and overseas, that allows for the depictions of Blacks as the sole agent for their socio-economic afflictions by simply ignoring the historical record for the true causes of such pathologies and disadvantageness.

 They be gettin paid!