First, let me mention Sandy Darity's combined numbers -- for which you are not accountable, obviously. He had combined numbers for three years. I'm doing the following ratios in my head, but I think they are close.
2005 12 times greater
2009 20 times greater
2011 16 times greater
The combined number in the link you provided is about 8 times. Different years, yes, but I don't think anyone is saying the gap has been cut in half in the past ten years. But you are not responsible for his numbers, I know.
Rather than gather the numbers properly and make a proper case, I'm just going to make a few observations and share a couple of thoughts.
If we use your link's 8 times, then the 35-54 drops to 4-1/2. Over 55 goes from 8 to 6. Those are significant changes for just one adjustment. Now, I know, I just skipped right over the Under 35 because it goes from 8 to 40. (Warning: I'm still doing this in my head.) Cherry-picking two ranges and ignoring the other is bad, so I'm just going to abandon my contention for the time being.
However, I think that $600 vs $25,400 comparison is what Dr. Loury was getting at when he discussed how using the median isn't such a good idea when the number ($600) is so close to zero. Maybe he can discuss this in the future. (I'd like to see the numbers for the 25th percentile. Would they both be zero?) It would also be helpful if we had smaller age ranges. If there is a median age difference of 17 years, there must be many ways that affects the compilation of the comparisons, and the distribution of the people in the ranges would have an effect, too.
I would also like to see other adjustments before I join Team Systemic Racism. Years in workforce must be critically important in wealth accumulation. I just don't think defaulting to "racism" as the explanation to every disparity is helpful. (And I'm absolutely NOT saying that in regards to you. In fact, I think your numbers in the past have generally supported quite the opposite.)
I don't think I've said it specifically yet myself, so I will now: Your contributions here have been great. I think all subscribers look forward to you weighing in on the various topics and commenting on your analysis. I'm sorry I don't have a heftier response for you in this case, but I hope I have explained, in general, why I approach the headline explanation (i.e., systemic racism) for wealth disparity with such skepticism.
I'm not an expert and I'm definitely not the right guy if you want to go way into the weeds. Moreover, I don't know enough about Professor Darity's numbers to try to explain the variations in the racial wealth gap that you mentioned. That said, my guess is that at least a portion of the variations in the black-white wealth ratio is a function of stock market volatility. The total value of corporate equities and mutual fund shares, an asset class that represents a greater share of white wealth than black wealth, was $9.48 trillion as of Q1 2005 according to the Federal Reserve. It was 7.05 trillion in Q1 of 2009 and $13.03 trillion in Q1 of 2011. It was`$40.37 trillion at the end of Q2 of this year. The total value of real estate, an asset class that represents a bigger share of black wealth than white wealth, by contrast hasn't been nearly as volatile. It was $21.76 trillion in Q1 of 2005, bottomed out at $17.99 trillion in Q2 of 2012 and was at $34.88 trillion as of Q2 of this year. Pension liabilities, which represent over 40% of black wealth compared to about 20% of white wealth have been even more stable. Their total value was $13.69 trillion in Q1 2005 compared to $30.95 trillion as of Q2 of this year.
Use this link if you want to do a deep dive into the numbers I listed above:
I can't back into Professor Darity's numbers, but I hope the numbers from the Fed suggest the possibility of significant variations in the black-white wealth ratios over time. Scholars at Brookings have done some work in this area. Their analysis of the black-white wealth gap and why it changes over time is more rigorous than my back of the envelope calculations and theories. Use this link if you want to see an analysis that was published at the end of 2020:
First, let me mention Sandy Darity's combined numbers -- for which you are not accountable, obviously. He had combined numbers for three years. I'm doing the following ratios in my head, but I think they are close.
2005 12 times greater
2009 20 times greater
2011 16 times greater
The combined number in the link you provided is about 8 times. Different years, yes, but I don't think anyone is saying the gap has been cut in half in the past ten years. But you are not responsible for his numbers, I know.
Rather than gather the numbers properly and make a proper case, I'm just going to make a few observations and share a couple of thoughts.
If we use your link's 8 times, then the 35-54 drops to 4-1/2. Over 55 goes from 8 to 6. Those are significant changes for just one adjustment. Now, I know, I just skipped right over the Under 35 because it goes from 8 to 40. (Warning: I'm still doing this in my head.) Cherry-picking two ranges and ignoring the other is bad, so I'm just going to abandon my contention for the time being.
However, I think that $600 vs $25,400 comparison is what Dr. Loury was getting at when he discussed how using the median isn't such a good idea when the number ($600) is so close to zero. Maybe he can discuss this in the future. (I'd like to see the numbers for the 25th percentile. Would they both be zero?) It would also be helpful if we had smaller age ranges. If there is a median age difference of 17 years, there must be many ways that affects the compilation of the comparisons, and the distribution of the people in the ranges would have an effect, too.
I would also like to see other adjustments before I join Team Systemic Racism. Years in workforce must be critically important in wealth accumulation. I just don't think defaulting to "racism" as the explanation to every disparity is helpful. (And I'm absolutely NOT saying that in regards to you. In fact, I think your numbers in the past have generally supported quite the opposite.)
I don't think I've said it specifically yet myself, so I will now: Your contributions here have been great. I think all subscribers look forward to you weighing in on the various topics and commenting on your analysis. I'm sorry I don't have a heftier response for you in this case, but I hope I have explained, in general, why I approach the headline explanation (i.e., systemic racism) for wealth disparity with such skepticism.
Thanks for the feedback!
I'm not an expert and I'm definitely not the right guy if you want to go way into the weeds. Moreover, I don't know enough about Professor Darity's numbers to try to explain the variations in the racial wealth gap that you mentioned. That said, my guess is that at least a portion of the variations in the black-white wealth ratio is a function of stock market volatility. The total value of corporate equities and mutual fund shares, an asset class that represents a greater share of white wealth than black wealth, was $9.48 trillion as of Q1 2005 according to the Federal Reserve. It was 7.05 trillion in Q1 of 2009 and $13.03 trillion in Q1 of 2011. It was`$40.37 trillion at the end of Q2 of this year. The total value of real estate, an asset class that represents a bigger share of black wealth than white wealth, by contrast hasn't been nearly as volatile. It was $21.76 trillion in Q1 of 2005, bottomed out at $17.99 trillion in Q2 of 2012 and was at $34.88 trillion as of Q2 of this year. Pension liabilities, which represent over 40% of black wealth compared to about 20% of white wealth have been even more stable. Their total value was $13.69 trillion in Q1 2005 compared to $30.95 trillion as of Q2 of this year.
Use this link if you want to do a deep dive into the numbers I listed above:
https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/chart/#quarter:127;series:Corporate%20equities%20and%20mutual%20fund%20shares;demographic:networth;population:1,3,5,7;units:levels
I can't back into Professor Darity's numbers, but I hope the numbers from the Fed suggest the possibility of significant variations in the black-white wealth ratios over time. Scholars at Brookings have done some work in this area. Their analysis of the black-white wealth gap and why it changes over time is more rigorous than my back of the envelope calculations and theories. Use this link if you want to see an analysis that was published at the end of 2020:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/12/08/the-black-white-wealth-gap-left-black-households-more-vulnerable/