Very interesting post, but I think the age issue deserves more attention. Mr. Roscoe interprets the last graph as a reflection of current reality rather than history. By this I mean that Mr. Roscoe assumes that the youngest cohort is on a trajectory to become just like their older counterparts. They have equal equity now to whites, but will lose it as they age. My own guess at what is going on is that the oldest cohort is behind whites because they started out handicapped by existing discriminatory policies. But because circumstances have improved - barriers to black progress in America have been slowly disappearing - the younger cohorts are less and less affected.
I'm surprised that I never hear scholars with a research interest in this area incorporate family structure into their analyses of "household income inequality." The unstated premise seems to be that family structures are equal across all races and income quintiles, when the data show precisely the opposite. Even in a hypothetical world where all adults were paid the same, if one race tended to have more intact households than another, this would give rise to substantial "household" income inequality that has nothing to do with discriminatory practices in the workplace.
I am a mortgage loan officer in Alabama ..blacks can afford homes most (9 out of 10) have fabulous jobs and income .. 9/10 don’t pay their bills and have terrible credit.. OR have $100k plus in student loan debt and make $3k a month and have late pays on student loans .. federal debt .. can’t get a FHA loan. I spend 3x’s the time with them getting their credit intact and I really love doing it (no cost) because it’s my passion to get every one in a home. I’m only offering a perspective in my neck of the woods. We need classes on credit for EVERY ONE!!
I’m curious if there are answers to some really basic questions I have on this subject. Firstly, what is defined as a family/household? If a 16 year old has a child (or more) is that now a family/ household, if the father remains present is that a family or household? That 16 year
old (of whatever race by the way) has zero wealth as compared to the couple in their thirties who decide they have the financial stability to create a foundation for a child or children. If a family has a similar income but one has 5 kids and the other has one then the wealth of that next generation is in a sense increased in the hands of the one than the division among five. Are these not decisions people make which will be contributing factors in the options they will have in life and which are also affected by cultural and racial influences? These are questions which seem valid given the comments of (among others) Walter Williams, Shelby Steele and Larry Elder regarding the number of children born outside of marriage or where the father has zero interest, they have pointed out the prevalence of this in poor black communities and if each of these is considered “a household” then it may go some way to explaining part of that 32% vs. 13% negative worth. We have arrived at a point where we have “jokey” expressions such as “baby daddy” which somehow make child abandonment a “cute” thing to do. Where have we come to if (to take a stereotype) polygamy in the mormon community is viewed as strange but a man not taking responsibility for his offspring is viewed as just a funny alley cat? Which of these is actually toxic masculinity/patriarchy and which is someone taking responsibility? I am not Mormon by the way and I do view polygamy as an odd institution but I try to remain consistent by also viewing irresponsible fatherhood and child abandonment
as a far worse lifestyle choice. Having a child or children is a choice, fortunately we live in a society where no end of options are available to avoid pregnancy or to curtail one. From what I understand (again see the names above) 2/3 of black Americans are in the middle class and the wealth of the group as a whole would be the ninth largest economy in the world. If this is correct then we have a far greater problem of lack of distribution of wealth in that community than we have in the country as a whole.
Thank you for the article about wealth gaps. There are myriads of reasons why there is such a gap. I know for my family it has always been debt and the lack of savings. I am 62 years old and I'm just now learning about investments. I didn't grow up with any financial knowledge, only poverty brought on by my dad's alcoholism. Much of what I have learned in the past several years has been through hardship. My husband is disabled and retired, on a fixed income. I am retired from teaching, but not receiving my tiny pension yet. I rolled it over into an IRA so it will grow. I work part time. We are scraping by on what we make. This has been going on for many years. Our children are grown and doing well on their own, for which we are glad. But I don't have much hope for accumulated wealth for our family. Our son has two baby girls and I am unhappy that have nothing to pass on to them so they can get a good start in life. My start was debt and very little has changed over the years. I owe over 100,000 in school debt, the only debt we have. I am also a writer, trying to make a dent in this newsletter business. I have no illusions of wealth, not at this late stage of my life.
I've gone back and forth whether to actually write about my views of this subject or not. Frankly, I get tired of people not bothering to give me the time of day. I mean.. That's EXPECTED. Yet tiring even still. I run up against the wall of "unless You've spent YEARS developing a reputation as an intellectual, Your views aren't worth shite."
I don't know what M. Roscoe's reputation is, other than he's well-respected here. That's good enough for me, but doesn't necessarily impact my views on this article.
Having thought about it some more, IF (italics) I write anything, it'll most LIKELY be the first, last, and only article I write on the "Inciteful Experiences" Substack. And, either Way, writing subtracts so much TIME from reading and learning.
The essence of the article will be to call most everybody the stupidest fools in existence, but then I include myself in that number so don't intend it as an insult. I've already selected quotes from "'Silver Rights': Finding Future Success through the Group Economy" by John Sibley Butler. I take it as gospel. It's in the book "Race and Justice in America: The Civil Rights Movement, Black Lives Matter, and the Way Forward" which I finished a few days ago.
All that to say... I enjoy a few Substacks and will continue to do so. But writing?
The historic timeline is what interests me in the first graph. Black homeownership seems to flatline from around '84 to '04. What caused that plateau and subsequent drop?
The start of it corresponds to, roughly, the end of the first generation of Affirmative Action, while the second is about when we start seeing the effects of massive globalization. Now, I don't want to overprescribe the effects of these two events, as teasing things like this out is quite difficult, but unless events are accounted for, analysis tends to be weak. So, what other historical factors can be seen in these charts? What can be eliminated and what points to real problems that need to be addressed?
Great that you printed this. Like the conversation with Lara Bazelon, it feels like these discussion are revealing the problems in greater detail, and in context - in other words, dealing with them realistically. Curious how Kaiser and you would respond to this?
You cherry-pick numbers of race disparity well. Black families have been here for 400 years, and new Hispanic families have only been here for one or two generations. Many Hispanics work construction, restaurants, and open their businesses. They work hard, and I am sure they will reach the American dream. I am a white whose parents came to the US in 1950, and I feel like a foreigner.
Your statistics are misleading. Talk about the earnings and holding so the top 10%. The top 1% owns 42.3T, 90-99% owns 50.53 T, 50-90% 37.25 T, Bottom 50% 3.03T. Total is 134.08 T. (2) The major inequality is in corporate equities and mutual funds.
The Top 1% own 27T in corp. Equities and mutual funds and 7T in private business. The top 10% own 14.6T in corp. equities and mutual funds and 4T in private businesses. (3) The median income of the top 10% is about 200K/yr( 4)
If you look at the results long and hard, you will see Corporate Equities and mutual funds, and businesses create the most wealth disparity. The top 10% holds about 70% of the wealth and 90% of corporate equities and mutual funds, and about 90% of the businesses. The top 1% owns about 50% of the corporate equities and mutual funds and 70% private businesses.
Yes, about 98% of the top 10% of the money earners are white (5). But by attacking whites and not class, you are playing into the hands of corporatists or the rich whites. You are attacking about 90% of white people. The Elites have been dividing the people for ages so they could maintain power. Take off those race goggles and look at numbers that show the disparity of class, don’t be a fool of the elites.
I think we can agree that assessing wealth gaps is complicated, with many confounding variables to be sorted out. I would guess that David Kaiser would agree.
I don't recall if Glenn and his guest discussed this point, and I didn't see if in a quick read of Clifton's analysis, but isn't age a critical factor in wealth accumulation? The median age of whites is 44, while the median age of blacks is 27. That makes any comparison not adjusted for age into an apples-to-oranges comparison, doesn't it? If I missed something, I apologize. Coincidentally, just this morning I watched a 2016 Sandy Darity talk at Brown on this very topic and he didn't once mention the role of age, which I assume was a deliberate omission.
Clifton's analyses are always insightful, considered, and well-written. I might suggest a regular column or status as TGS's first "official" correspondent, but even short of that, his contributions are a real plus and I hope he keeps sending them in given that they obviously take thought, time, and effort to put together.
Very interesting post, but I think the age issue deserves more attention. Mr. Roscoe interprets the last graph as a reflection of current reality rather than history. By this I mean that Mr. Roscoe assumes that the youngest cohort is on a trajectory to become just like their older counterparts. They have equal equity now to whites, but will lose it as they age. My own guess at what is going on is that the oldest cohort is behind whites because they started out handicapped by existing discriminatory policies. But because circumstances have improved - barriers to black progress in America have been slowly disappearing - the younger cohorts are less and less affected.
I'm surprised that I never hear scholars with a research interest in this area incorporate family structure into their analyses of "household income inequality." The unstated premise seems to be that family structures are equal across all races and income quintiles, when the data show precisely the opposite. Even in a hypothetical world where all adults were paid the same, if one race tended to have more intact households than another, this would give rise to substantial "household" income inequality that has nothing to do with discriminatory practices in the workplace.
I am a mortgage loan officer in Alabama ..blacks can afford homes most (9 out of 10) have fabulous jobs and income .. 9/10 don’t pay their bills and have terrible credit.. OR have $100k plus in student loan debt and make $3k a month and have late pays on student loans .. federal debt .. can’t get a FHA loan. I spend 3x’s the time with them getting their credit intact and I really love doing it (no cost) because it’s my passion to get every one in a home. I’m only offering a perspective in my neck of the woods. We need classes on credit for EVERY ONE!!
I’m curious if there are answers to some really basic questions I have on this subject. Firstly, what is defined as a family/household? If a 16 year old has a child (or more) is that now a family/ household, if the father remains present is that a family or household? That 16 year
old (of whatever race by the way) has zero wealth as compared to the couple in their thirties who decide they have the financial stability to create a foundation for a child or children. If a family has a similar income but one has 5 kids and the other has one then the wealth of that next generation is in a sense increased in the hands of the one than the division among five. Are these not decisions people make which will be contributing factors in the options they will have in life and which are also affected by cultural and racial influences? These are questions which seem valid given the comments of (among others) Walter Williams, Shelby Steele and Larry Elder regarding the number of children born outside of marriage or where the father has zero interest, they have pointed out the prevalence of this in poor black communities and if each of these is considered “a household” then it may go some way to explaining part of that 32% vs. 13% negative worth. We have arrived at a point where we have “jokey” expressions such as “baby daddy” which somehow make child abandonment a “cute” thing to do. Where have we come to if (to take a stereotype) polygamy in the mormon community is viewed as strange but a man not taking responsibility for his offspring is viewed as just a funny alley cat? Which of these is actually toxic masculinity/patriarchy and which is someone taking responsibility? I am not Mormon by the way and I do view polygamy as an odd institution but I try to remain consistent by also viewing irresponsible fatherhood and child abandonment
as a far worse lifestyle choice. Having a child or children is a choice, fortunately we live in a society where no end of options are available to avoid pregnancy or to curtail one. From what I understand (again see the names above) 2/3 of black Americans are in the middle class and the wealth of the group as a whole would be the ninth largest economy in the world. If this is correct then we have a far greater problem of lack of distribution of wealth in that community than we have in the country as a whole.
Thank you for the article about wealth gaps. There are myriads of reasons why there is such a gap. I know for my family it has always been debt and the lack of savings. I am 62 years old and I'm just now learning about investments. I didn't grow up with any financial knowledge, only poverty brought on by my dad's alcoholism. Much of what I have learned in the past several years has been through hardship. My husband is disabled and retired, on a fixed income. I am retired from teaching, but not receiving my tiny pension yet. I rolled it over into an IRA so it will grow. I work part time. We are scraping by on what we make. This has been going on for many years. Our children are grown and doing well on their own, for which we are glad. But I don't have much hope for accumulated wealth for our family. Our son has two baby girls and I am unhappy that have nothing to pass on to them so they can get a good start in life. My start was debt and very little has changed over the years. I owe over 100,000 in school debt, the only debt we have. I am also a writer, trying to make a dent in this newsletter business. I have no illusions of wealth, not at this late stage of my life.
I've gone back and forth whether to actually write about my views of this subject or not. Frankly, I get tired of people not bothering to give me the time of day. I mean.. That's EXPECTED. Yet tiring even still. I run up against the wall of "unless You've spent YEARS developing a reputation as an intellectual, Your views aren't worth shite."
I don't know what M. Roscoe's reputation is, other than he's well-respected here. That's good enough for me, but doesn't necessarily impact my views on this article.
Having thought about it some more, IF (italics) I write anything, it'll most LIKELY be the first, last, and only article I write on the "Inciteful Experiences" Substack. And, either Way, writing subtracts so much TIME from reading and learning.
The essence of the article will be to call most everybody the stupidest fools in existence, but then I include myself in that number so don't intend it as an insult. I've already selected quotes from "'Silver Rights': Finding Future Success through the Group Economy" by John Sibley Butler. I take it as gospel. It's in the book "Race and Justice in America: The Civil Rights Movement, Black Lives Matter, and the Way Forward" which I finished a few days ago.
All that to say... I enjoy a few Substacks and will continue to do so. But writing?
The historic timeline is what interests me in the first graph. Black homeownership seems to flatline from around '84 to '04. What caused that plateau and subsequent drop?
The start of it corresponds to, roughly, the end of the first generation of Affirmative Action, while the second is about when we start seeing the effects of massive globalization. Now, I don't want to overprescribe the effects of these two events, as teasing things like this out is quite difficult, but unless events are accounted for, analysis tends to be weak. So, what other historical factors can be seen in these charts? What can be eliminated and what points to real problems that need to be addressed?
Why, I wonder, does The Narrative CONSISTENTLY leave out the results of Asians? Hm.
Great that you printed this. Like the conversation with Lara Bazelon, it feels like these discussion are revealing the problems in greater detail, and in context - in other words, dealing with them realistically. Curious how Kaiser and you would respond to this?
You cherry-pick numbers of race disparity well. Black families have been here for 400 years, and new Hispanic families have only been here for one or two generations. Many Hispanics work construction, restaurants, and open their businesses. They work hard, and I am sure they will reach the American dream. I am a white whose parents came to the US in 1950, and I feel like a foreigner.
Your statistics are misleading. Talk about the earnings and holding so the top 10%. The top 1% owns 42.3T, 90-99% owns 50.53 T, 50-90% 37.25 T, Bottom 50% 3.03T. Total is 134.08 T. (2) The major inequality is in corporate equities and mutual funds.
The Top 1% own 27T in corp. Equities and mutual funds and 7T in private business. The top 10% own 14.6T in corp. equities and mutual funds and 4T in private businesses. (3) The median income of the top 10% is about 200K/yr( 4)
If you look at the results long and hard, you will see Corporate Equities and mutual funds, and businesses create the most wealth disparity. The top 10% holds about 70% of the wealth and 90% of corporate equities and mutual funds, and about 90% of the businesses. The top 1% owns about 50% of the corporate equities and mutual funds and 70% private businesses.
Yes, about 98% of the top 10% of the money earners are white (5). But by attacking whites and not class, you are playing into the hands of corporatists or the rich whites. You are attacking about 90% of white people. The Elites have been dividing the people for ages so they could maintain power. Take off those race goggles and look at numbers that show the disparity of class, don’t be a fool of the elites.
(1) https://readingterminalmarket.org/1st-black-owned-bakery-in-rtm/
(2) https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/chart/
(3) https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/compare/chart/
(4) https://www.gobankingrates.com/money/economy/how-much-you-need-to-be-in-top-10-percent-by-state/
(5) https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/chart/
I think we can agree that assessing wealth gaps is complicated, with many confounding variables to be sorted out. I would guess that David Kaiser would agree.
Dr. Loury, Can you please share Roscoe's letter with Dr. Kaiser? Could you publish Kaiser's response?
I don't recall if Glenn and his guest discussed this point, and I didn't see if in a quick read of Clifton's analysis, but isn't age a critical factor in wealth accumulation? The median age of whites is 44, while the median age of blacks is 27. That makes any comparison not adjusted for age into an apples-to-oranges comparison, doesn't it? If I missed something, I apologize. Coincidentally, just this morning I watched a 2016 Sandy Darity talk at Brown on this very topic and he didn't once mention the role of age, which I assume was a deliberate omission.
Clifton's analyses are always insightful, considered, and well-written. I might suggest a regular column or status as TGS's first "official" correspondent, but even short of that, his contributions are a real plus and I hope he keeps sending them in given that they obviously take thought, time, and effort to put together.