Having taken my stroll down memory lane, let me now address
the substance of the Institute for Policy Studies paper that provoked the
memories. The paper, 30 pages in all, is
called THE ROAD TO ZERO WEALTH: How the Racial Divide is Hollowing Out
America’s Middle Class. The paper is
a statistical analysis of the extraordinary racial inequality in household
wealth, far more extreme than the better known racial inequality in household
income, on which I commented several days ago.
The statistics are astounding. Median household wealth, which is to say the
value of possessions minus debt, is measured in two ways: with or without so-called durable goods such as
furniture and cars. Median household
wealth of white households [measured in 2013 dollars] is $134,000 with durable
goods, $116,000 without. Median
household wealth for black households is $11,000 with durable goods, just
$1,700 without! Nor is education the
great equalizer. The median white household
headed by someone with a high school diploma has $64,200 in wealth. By contrast, the median black household
headed by someone with a college degree
has only $37,600 in wealth [$32,600 for an Hispanic family headed by a college
graduate.]
The authors show that median household wealth for Black and
Hispanic families has been declining for thirty years. Employing straight line projections [which I
consider somewhat questionable], they conclude that a generation in the future,
as America becomes a majority non-white country, median household wealth for
non-whites will approach zero.
This is what is known, in other contexts, as structural racism. Charles Murray and Daniel Patrick
Moynihan to the contrary notwithstanding, the gap between white and non-white
wealth is not traceable to personal failings, to cultural inadequacies, to a
lack of educational credentials, or to drugs in the hood.
What does explain
the astonishing disparities? The authors
of the study say very little about that, a fact that I found
disappointing. However, they do allude
to one of the causal factors, namely the disparity in home ownership, and I
think we can elaborate on that.
For most American households, home ownership is the
principal way of accumulating wealth.
This is a very familiar fact, but it is worth spelling it out a
bit. Typically, a family buys a house by
paying a down payment of as much as 20% of the purchase price, but more often
10% or even less, and then slowly buys the house – “pays off the mortgage” –
over twenty or thirty years. Each
monthly payment consists of two portions:
the interest owing on the remaining principal, and a payment, very small
at first, on the owed principal. The
mortgage is structured so that each monthly payment is the same, but over time, as principal
owing is paid off, less and less of the payment goes for interest, more for
principal, until, at the end of the term of the mortgage, the household owns
the house outright. A home mortgage is,
in effect, a form of forced savings.
Households that rent do not, of course, accumulate any ownership at
all. After thirty years, the home owning
family has a very large nest egg. The renting
family has nothing.
The equity in the house, as the paid off portion of the
mortgage is called, can be used as collateral for a “homeowner’s loan.” The household also can refinance the mortgage, in
effect taking out its accumulated principal and starting over. In hard times, should the homeowner lose his
or her job [or, more often, their jobs], the equity in the home is a
cushion. Technically, of course, when a
homeowner refinances, he or she is going into debt, but the interest rates on
mortgage loans are extremely low, whereas the interest charges on credit card
or other consumer debt are punitively high.
Starting at the end of World War II, the Federal government
adopted a variety of policies designed to encourage home ownership, with great
success. The Federal Housing Authority
[FHA] deliberately and openly discriminated against black households, making it
very much more difficult for a Black man or woman to get a mortgage loan. This policy, which continued for more than a
generation, had extremely long term differential effects on the ability of
white and black households to accumulate wealth. The impact of this discrimination reached
across generations, because white families, by refinancing their mortgages, could
free up capital for their children to make the down payments on home purchases whereas
black families could not [I work out an elaborate example in my book, Autobiography of an Ex-White Man.]
This is just one of a number of structural disadvantages
that help to explain the huge wealth differences between White and non-White
households. Rectifying this
multi-generational structural discrimination cannot be accomplished by
interracial sensitivity training or Truth and Reconciliation Commissions. It requires carefully thought out structural
changes designed not merely to correct the racially encoded disadvantages going
forward but also to carry out redistributions of wealth and income. It goes without saying that the place to
start this redistribution is at the top, not at the bottom.
3 comments:
The sub-prime loan crisis wiped out much of what black home-ownership existed.
Yes. There is no rational conclusion other than that the US has failed to provide an equal opportunity in life for all of its people from the very start of the nation. There is no argument against that point. And history has consequences that we live in today.
A very good book about an aspect of this is Thomas Sugrue's "The Origins of the Urban Crisis", which concentrates on the legal and social mechanisms used throughout the 20th Century in Detroit to keep black families from owning homes. Sugrue's main aim is to dispel the idea that racial segregation in Detroit all began with the 1967 riots, and this raises a good challenge to the "black culture" nonsense of Charles Murray et al. I highly recommend it.
Post a Comment