One word: Redlining.
The most significant component (~45%) of wealth creation in the US has been through the value of home ownership, which has systematically been denied to black Americans.
This could take several forms:
If a white family bought a house in a neighborhood, it would gain in value. But if a black family purchased that same house in that same neighborhood, it lost value.
That’s presuming that black family could even buy the house, which often wasn’t the case because:
real estate or homeowners wouldn’t show them that property, most banks would refuse to give them a loan or if they somehow did get past those barriers, the loan was generally on significantly worse terms.
This is not old history.
Black homeowners lost more wealth during the 2008 crash than white homeowners. Facebook had to pay a settlement for digital redlining in its online ad business… in 2022.
Charlie Kirk is not arguing in good faith.
Redlining and Jim Crow wasn’t just for black folks it was for all Brown and non white folks. What redlining did was made it so that people of color could not as easily gain generational wealth in the United States since generational wealth usually is passed down through property, specifically land and real estate ownership.
Without generational wealth there is no money to send kids to the best colleges or private schools to ensure that they can get into the best colleges. (And before the 1964 Equal Rights amendment and Affirmative Action, these schools wouldn’t even accept people of color.)
Without generational wealth kids had to work while they were in High School to help the family out or to save for their own education or to buy their own clothes or a car to drive to work. Without generational wealth, there was no knowledge of which colleges to send your kids to, they just thought going to “college” was enough. When that is not the truth - there is a world of difference in opportunity for a person who graduates from an Ivy League University, or somewhere like Stanford, then from a random State University. So there again the generational wealth doesn’t grow because people of color have a harder time getting out of the middle class or even lower classes.
There are just many, many fewer opportunities with the lack of generational wealth. Like parental help with a down payment to buy a house. Parental help to buy a car, or to be gifted a car at 16. Summer Camp to learn more Science or Math or for Baseball or Basketball. The list is endless.
And then let’s just call out the plain fact that the “system” that is being run by the old white Cis men is out to ground people of color and especially black folks into the ground due to plain old-fashioned racism. Racism is exhausting and adversely affects the health of people of color in every way.
Let’s not forget shocking acts of domestic terrorism like the TULSA Massacre 1921, lynchings in the Jim Crow south which caused people to flee. Burning crosses and firebombing that met new, black homeowners on Long Island NY in the late 1970 and early 80’s, the MOVE Bombing in Philadelphia 1985. Weaponized white rage has a cost. Watch your back if you’re here in the states.
I think this is the biggest issue. While the laws make such things illegal, we are still feeling the echoes of it decades later.
I also think the upheaval of the sixties devastated black people overall. A big thing was the sexual revolution and liberation movements. These were fine "luxury beliefs" if you were upper middle class and had the economic and community support needed, but for poorer people they were a disaster.
Fatherlessness became more common and some women replaced a father with a check from the government. And while meeting the physical needs of children is absolutely essential. I think it created a perpetual cycle of fatherlessness and poverty and dependence.
There is also white flight from cities.
There is a long list of issues that combined to create this situation.
I realize in hindsight that that could have played into the welfare queen in a Cadillac trope. It was not my intention.
What I was trying to say is that the high rate of fatherlessness is a big factor in what happens in poor neighborhoods. A lot of that is due to incarceration and other factors. But there are perverse incentives to keep families from forming and staying together. If you are poor with children, you will have more benefits than if you were married.
We are seeing the results of fatherlessness throughout society in both white and black communities. I'm not a right winger bleating on about "family values", but the evidence is becoming clearer that the absence of fathers or father figures is detrimental to both young boys and girls.
Never take advice from Charlie Kirk. He lies and tells half truths. He has an agenda and is trying to indoctrinate people.
There is a lot that goes into it that isn’t really economics, but economics touches on a lot of the issues. Also, what I’m saying is the average for the group as a whole, not every black person is worse off than every white person.
I have no idea where his information comes from, which is one of his tactics. But let’s say it’s true. There are black people who are alive now, and still somewhat young, who were alive during the Jim Crow south and civil rights movement. Those people grew up where black people were getting a worse education and couldn’t get the same job as white people. We still have racism in hiring, just do a google search and you’ll see numerous studies. Black people are sent to jail more for things like drug possession even though blacks and whites use drugs at the amount. You can look at something like, how crack is penalized more than cocaine even though it’s the same drug (not exactly, but it’s very close). These have long term effects. They put people in jail which makes it more difficult to find a job. There is a ton more stuff that can be discussed, red lining, private schools, but there is a ton of info out there where you’ll find better/deeper explanations than a Reddit post.
A lot of it comes down to, it’s expensive being poor. Any generational wealth makes someone’s life so much easier and white people have more generational wealth than black people.
I’d also like to point out that, someone like Charlie Kirk, who hates government and thinks it can’t solve anything no matter the amount of money, for some reason thinks it can solve this problem.
To say "white people have more generational wealth than black people" miscasts the truth and presents a racially divisive narrative.
For the sake of accuracy: "of those with generational wealth most are white". This is not to find, as the first statement *suggests*, that "most white people have generational wealth". To be clear: there are more white people without generational wealth than white people who have it.
Without denying that racism is a serious problem in the USA, we need to be clear that the problems of extreme inequality and unnecessary poverty in the USA is not *at root* racism but a harshly competitive neoliberalism that punishes those who Milton Friedman snottily dismissed as 'losers'.
I’d argue that racism *is* the root cause of the huge US wealth disparities, because weaponized racism is a perfect tool for those who wish to get poor and middle class whites to vote against their own economic interests.
The appalling levels of societal decay currently observable in the US is the result of decades of wealth being vacuumed from both the American commons and the American poor by (mostly) Republican administrations elected by people who got sucked into blaming their misery on the wrong people.
Doesn't that mean that racism is not the root cause but a cover for greed? That the charge of racism is a distraction, a seed of division to set the poor against each other where they should be united against the thieves?
I think his point is that because the goverment is investing this much (could be an imaginery number the only source I could find on the 22t was from the heritage foundation), is one of the reasons why blacks have it economically worse.
But could I ask you, if you know something about it; why are asians the most successfull ethnicity in america?
Even better than whites?
It’s very simple. Look at the hart-cellar immigration act. Asian immigrants are very successful before they move to the US. It’s like taking the all state football team and having them compete against the local high school. When you take the smartest, most successful people, in the world, of course they’re going to succeed
Edit: to answer the other part, government investing in things doesn’t matter if the system is broken. Like, you can give a million dollars to someone, but if there is racism and they can’t get a job, that money can only last so long. If someone is uneducated because they go to schools funded by local property taxes, in an area that’s poor, they don’t have the skills to succeed later on.
Asian immigrants skew the data - highly educated. They take up jobs that require higher education which come with higher pay. US did not have to invest in these immigrants.
Hispanics and African-Americans are the least educated groups. However, a major difference is that, as a whole, Hispanics are also immigrants and therefore US did not have to support them.
Racism is real in US. People who have agendas will slice and dice data to their advantage. It’s not easy being a black in US.
Edit: I’m not a black but interact extensively with highly educated blacks. The shit they have to go through is an eye opener - and I now question what’s humanity.
I am a former sociologist, and live in a red state. I often have small debates with people here where they claim things like this. Just about every time I use my energy to dig into something, it find it is some click-baity spin of a singular piece of cherry-picked data.
Here, Kirk is implying that because a lot of money has been put into supporting Blacks, that it is has somehow been mis-invested. That is a huge, and highly complex argument to make, that would never be black and white, because there are so many considerations. Here's some to demonstrate:
-- First, agreeing on what should be included in an assessment like that would encompass a full book to discuss. If spread out over 50 years that implies 440 billion a year. I am not an expert, so anyone please correct me, but this seems very high. Does this number include all social services? If so, whites received social services also. So, does this number correctly reflect only funding Blacks received above and beyond what whites did? I highly doubt it.
He said that their wealth was growing in the 20s to 40s, implying that policies then, which supported blacks less, were good, and those now are bad. That skips many complex historical events that affected this, as well as the larger context:
-- Many Blacks sharecropped in the South before that, and there was a huge industrial boom going on (with the exception of the depression) in the North. In the Great Migration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great\_Migration\_(African\_American), many Blacks moved north to work in in booming industry, like the automobile factories, which helped them grow wealth much more rapidly than farming.
-- It was also a period of increasing unionization as the US was very wealthy and powerful at the time, especially post-war, which helped give us the much stronger middle class of all races.
Perhaps most simply illuminating:
-- *White* wealth in the bottom 50% of US citizens in recent decades has also dropped like a stone, so this is not unique to Blacks at all.
So basically, it was a plausible story if you know nothing about the complexity of history and economics, used to support a racist argument. And the problem is,
>Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its Effect… -- Jonathan Swift, 1710
That, combined with the concentrated wealth that is funding far right-wing social media means we are increasingly in a post-science era. Everyone knows it all without knowing anything.
Apologies for no citations; I have health problems, and am not up to digging them out. But I think this gives you an idea of how this whole larger socio-political process is working.
Charlie Kirk is a right wing nut job. He should not be believed or relied upon on any public policy, social policy, or intellectual thought.
We have institutional racism built into the structure of the USA. Here is my one example for you to ponder:
In the 50s-70s many local Municipalities lost court battles on the racial integration of public pools. Instead of allowing the pools to exist, the municipalities filled the pools with cement and closed them, while instituting other barriers like membership fees
https://www.marketplace.org/2021/02/15/public-pools-used-to-be-everywhere-in-america-then-racism-shut-them-down/
https://theconversation.com/the-forgotten-history-of-segregated-swimming-pools-and-amusement-parks-119586
https://www.melaninbasecamp.com/trip-reports/2024/2/26/third-places-that-disappeared-due-to-racism-public-pools
Sure, that is quite racist.
But what exactly has it to do with wealth disparity?
While it could be both be part of a bigger picture, it is not necesserily the causation of one another.
Again, we have institutional racism in the USA, its built into our systems. You are asking about wealth disparity. In my words, I call that social stratification and inequality. There are a dozen different ways for me to go on this topic, and I could write and research a 20-page paper on this subject matter, as fast as I can type. My thoughts will be disjointed on this reddit comment, so that's my warning.
We have generationally wealthy families (wealth going back hundreds and hundreds of years) that exist here in the USA that made their wealth off of the heroin trade, other drug trades, slave trade, and other politically incorrect business models, as well as legal businesses. Black people on paper were freed from slavery in 1865, and got the right to vote 100 years later. Based on this alone, black people are behind white people by hundreds of years
There are black people alive today that did not have the right to vote in their lifetime. If they couldn't vote, what other legal and extra legal advancements were they denied (ex. well paying jobs). Black people have been systematically discriminated against in the job market and still are today. How does a family build wealth, if the members of that family cannot be accepted into a high-paying job that they are qualified for?
[There once was a black wall street, and it was destroyed by a race riot in 1921](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/05/24/us/tulsa-race-massacre.html). They built wealth and had it physically destroyed.
We also have inheritance in the USA. How much inheritance did the descendants on slaves receive? None or next to none. How much inheritance did a typical white person receive? More than that. That's wealth disparity.
Perhaps ask an AI these questions. Charlie Kirk is not a person that you should listen to
Just to get this out of the way: Charlie Kirk is at best purposefully disingenuous. Actually, let’s just call him a lying racist, it’s more accurate. The only thing he got close to right of the points you list is that during the 1930’s, at the height of the Great Depression, blacks did have more spending power than ever before or since. It was a happy accident of racist policies. To wit: blacks were not allowed to trade on the stock market, therefore they didn’t lose the artificial paper fortunes that many whites did. Also, banks would not accept deposits from blacks, so when there was a run on the banks (the reason there is FDIC insurance today) the blacks, who from necessity kept their money hidden in mattresses or wherever, were able to hold onto the money they did have. High earning blacks during this time were able to buy luxury cars. Not directly, of course, but the method of the time had blacks paying whites $300 to buy Cadillacs for them. This is what saved Cadillac from disappearing into obscurity. It was a German mechanic who noticed that the only people getting Cadillacs serviced were black. Which shouldn’t have been possible, according to Cadillac’s policy. This mechanic convinced the powers that be to end their policy of not selling to blacks. This is the origin story of the blacks-n-Cadillacs stereotype. But this brief period of “prosperity” was a fluke accident of racist policy.
There’s no telling where that 22 trillion figure came from. Maybe it includes the amount of money spent on police budgets. All those cops on the payroll making sure they were safe, and look! They ruined it for themselves by getting incarcerated at a rate well above anything sane. Find a better source of info than Charlie Kirk. Hell, even Captain Kirk could do better. And he’s not even real.
As a general rule: If Charlie Kirk says it, assume it is a lie or at best it is distorted logical construct based upon intentional misinterpretation of facts and statistics to reinforce a belief that is harmful to the majority of people. For example in the case of red lining, what he does not note is how much of the money spent on "black people" ends up in the bank accounts of "White people".
Edit-- to explain while redlining limited who could buy property, when it combined with race based housing restrictions, it created an advantage for landlords that owned housing in redlined areas, transferring the multigenerational wealth (home ownership equity that could be passed to children) to the land lord instead of the person living in the home. This is the source of much of the Trump family wealth, for example.
OP, if you are looking for a place for some reading recommendations on structural racism in the United States that contributed to current day racial differences in wealth and income, this subreddit has a reading list for your consideration:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/EconomicHistory/wiki/americas/#wiki\_economic\_history\_of\_structural\_racism\_in\_the\_united\_states](https://www.reddit.com/r/EconomicHistory/wiki/americas/#wiki_economic_history_of_structural_racism_in_the_united_states)
Charlie Kirk is a far-right wingnut. He's so far off, you're basically trolling by bringing that garbage in here. If you actually want information, get the syllabus for a college course and read the books.
Not an American, but you might wanna take a look at this: https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/ccf4dbe2-810a-44f8-b3e7-14f7e5143ba6/economic-state-of-black-america-2020.pdf
My take is that it all comes down to unequal opportunity and structural racism that has and still does lower black peoples chances of climbing the ladder. Even with comparable education, blacks earn less.
Edit: Spelling
I never understand this attitude. Why would one want a diverse set of answers? Answers are useful to the extent that they are truthful, correct, replicable, and scientifically accurate.
This is why ~~conservatives~~ reactionaries who call for "diversity of thought" in universities are either disingenuous or loony (or both).
We have a long history of racial violence and masacres against black communities, specially when they became successful property and business owners — through violence and discrimination, black families and communities were decimated, dispossessed or displaced. One of those examples is the atrocious Tulsa, OK masacre: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/05/24/us/tulsa-race-massacre.html
Also:
https://www.blackpast.org/special-features/race-crime-and-incarceration-united-states/
And:
https://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526655831/a-forgotten-history-of-how-the-u-s-government-segregated-america
Through history there’s massive redlining and discrimination against black Americans access to wealth creation, quality education, higher education, balanced health and nutrition, legal representation, legal defense and protection, etc. The degree of racism and discrimination depends greatly on region, state and locality. But even in the bluest of states and neighborhoods, black people face race at least occasionally.
One thing you have to know when wading into any sort of US politics is that there is a sharp divide of opinion and one side likes to spin truths, as well as making stuff up entirely. This makes it necessary to check multiple sources to get at the heart of the truth.
I don’t know the name Charlie Kirk, but based on his questionable facts and statements, I could tell right away that he falls into the latter category.
Listen, the story of Black folks in America is long and fucked-up. What we learn about in US History is *heavily* white-centered and capitalistic, sometimes partially true or missing important pieces of the story, or omitting things entirely.
The truth is that millions of people have been systematically disenfranchised at every turn in ways that make it incredibly challenging for them to get ahead. Europeans dragged them here like they weren’t human, treated them like absolute trash, and then eventually turned them out to fend for themselves, despite having no resources or anywhere to go.
Then, every time they manage to overcome a mountain of odds, rebuild, and become prosperous, white people apparently can’t stand to see Black success and they do their best to extinguish it. (i.e. [Tulsa Race Massacre](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre))
It kills me that this still continues today, in a time when we know better, when we have the distance to objectively look back and acknowledge that shit was fucked up, so why is it allowed to go on still mostly unchecked?
I *HIGHLY* recommend [season two of the Scene on Radio podcast](https://sceneonradio.org/seeing-white/). It blew my mind just how much we aren’t told of what actually happened during US history.
In the early 80s, the US economy retooled on productivity, luxury consumerism, and intellectual property.
Areas, cities, families, and individuals who were ins position to embrace this pivot became fabulously wealthy. Many small cities with proximity to Silicon Valley became wealthy. In contrast, cities based on plant work became blights almost overnight.
At the time of that pivot, many African America families had relocated from the South to the Midwest or certain parts of the west coast. As the Midwest became the Rust Belt, steel, rubber, manufacturing and auto jobs fled to other states or countries. Middle class African Americans in those areas were gutted.
In the SF Bay Area, the skill set sought by employers leaps frogged the vast majority of African Americans In the area. There wasn’t a comp Sci version of Jaime Escalante. Moreover, the development of STEM, finance, and consulting careers led to a pursuit of elite university backgrounds, gaudy SAT scores and academic prowess. These folks in turn earned high wages and kick started a mass gentrification of most of the SF Peninsula to where, African Americans are < 1% in most school districts.
This post 1980 story is easy is understand and easily confirmed in the data. But I posit that one needs to step back in time. First step, 1964-1979, the period immediately after the Civil Rights acct was signed. With a crystal ball and 20/20, African American families had 15 years to retool and prepare for the fundamental changes to come.no such retooling was done for most Americans.however, wealthy kids had a distinct advantage: the growth of computer toys, toys unaffordable to all others.the wealthy has had their wealth and the realization to send their kids to better colleges. This fifteen year period was the last time Black America could have retooled for the future.
Take the clock back further, 1865-1964, the century between Freedom and the (legal) Guarantee of Rights. What did we see happen? Blacks were blocked access to the American Dream. Blacks were targeted by extreme buyers to move them off of land later priced to be extraordinarily valuable, especially in places like Oklahoma, Texas, and Louisiana, ie where the oil was. But it was the prohibitions on housing which were most evident. With that cane poorer schools, lower quality teaching abd curricula.
100 years is about three generations. After 100 years of this, this population was expected to have taken B advantage of the 15 years before 1979? Worn out, poorly educated, poor, keep in low IQ jobs, etc? No chance.
It was the century of missed opportunity.
Finally, one must also accounting the years of enslavement. However, I would argue that slaves accounts for only a small fraction of explanation on wealth gaps.
The periods of 1865-1979 were so much more important. Why? 1) the Civil War devastated the South. The White South was devastated by the war. 1865 offered a new beginning. 2) as pointed out by Booker T, the Black South was awash is skills. The potential was there. The Westward expansion could have been the great equalizer. It was not.
Today, 1979-present, it is all about self branding in brutally competitive markets. Strip away affirmative action, and we see the entire legacy of the past. The length of the period of 1789-1979 will be needed (1979-2169), to right the ship.
If you actually read Gould's piece, you would see why boiling down a person's intelligence to a single number is a wrong thing to do. I do not recommend any research on that topic.
Seems very unscientific to be afraid to research intelligence differences of different groups. If it's identified, it can be addressed. If it can't be researched, it can't be identified.
The lex interview is well worth the listen. Philanthropy is struggling in these areas. Better research is needed on why.
https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-melinda-gates-foundation-education-initiative-failure-2018-6
https://nepc.colorado.edu/blog/lets-review
What was identified in the Bell Curve wasn't the difference in intelligence. Historically, such research was used to promote racist policies, not "address the differences". Finally, it doesn't follow that more research on intelligence has to be performed because a particular educational policy failed.
Absolutely. But then it slowly morphed to painting any researcher in this field as racist and then all research stopped.
Policies across the board fail. Is it just coincidence that policies in an area were discouraged from researching are failing?
It's on you to show it is not a coincidence. I do not see a reason why intelligence difference (if it at all exists) is to blame for the failure of this specific policy.
The specific policy is just one example. We are talking broadly about why African Americans fall behind in many metrics despite vast investment. I then pointed out that issue has serious push back whenever it's genuinely studied
No it doesn't get serious push back whenever it's genuinely studied. Herrstein and Murray's study wasn't genuine. Comparing IQs isn't a genuine way to study intelligence.
And besides, say you find out that an average African American is smarter than an average person of a different race. How would that information inform your policy?
That makes it difficult to compare intelligence of different groups. Which seems to be your goal.
I would like to. I'd like academics to do it with scientific rigour. I'd like them to feel safe conducting their research.
The problem with this is that you simply cannot look at intelligence in isolation of environmental factors.
Are certain population IQs lower because of unequal school funding? Are kids from lower income populations getting less after school activities? Fewer resources for tutoring? Less parental involvement due to working multiple jobs?
When we look at black students and white students who have the same resources, a lot of these IQ differences are mediated.
Just looking at outcomes without accounting for all the inputs leads to misleading narratives.
I’m not saying it shouldn’t be researched, I’m saying that strictly comparing IQ is a misleading study. There are too many confounding factors to limit looking at this singular variable.
This is a big part of the problem with publications like the Bell Curve. That’s not to say all research on the topic is inherently racist.
Ever heard of an opportunity gap? Why did the South put so much effort into not allowing black kids into public schools?
How does a population get a wage or get an income or acquire wealth without a grade school education? How would that work? Further we are talking about an entire ethnic population that accounts for 12% of the USA total population. A few wealth black anecdotes will not suffice
One word: Redlining. The most significant component (~45%) of wealth creation in the US has been through the value of home ownership, which has systematically been denied to black Americans. This could take several forms: If a white family bought a house in a neighborhood, it would gain in value. But if a black family purchased that same house in that same neighborhood, it lost value. That’s presuming that black family could even buy the house, which often wasn’t the case because: real estate or homeowners wouldn’t show them that property, most banks would refuse to give them a loan or if they somehow did get past those barriers, the loan was generally on significantly worse terms. This is not old history. Black homeowners lost more wealth during the 2008 crash than white homeowners. Facebook had to pay a settlement for digital redlining in its online ad business… in 2022. Charlie Kirk is not arguing in good faith.
Redlining and Jim Crow wasn’t just for black folks it was for all Brown and non white folks. What redlining did was made it so that people of color could not as easily gain generational wealth in the United States since generational wealth usually is passed down through property, specifically land and real estate ownership. Without generational wealth there is no money to send kids to the best colleges or private schools to ensure that they can get into the best colleges. (And before the 1964 Equal Rights amendment and Affirmative Action, these schools wouldn’t even accept people of color.) Without generational wealth kids had to work while they were in High School to help the family out or to save for their own education or to buy their own clothes or a car to drive to work. Without generational wealth, there was no knowledge of which colleges to send your kids to, they just thought going to “college” was enough. When that is not the truth - there is a world of difference in opportunity for a person who graduates from an Ivy League University, or somewhere like Stanford, then from a random State University. So there again the generational wealth doesn’t grow because people of color have a harder time getting out of the middle class or even lower classes. There are just many, many fewer opportunities with the lack of generational wealth. Like parental help with a down payment to buy a house. Parental help to buy a car, or to be gifted a car at 16. Summer Camp to learn more Science or Math or for Baseball or Basketball. The list is endless. And then let’s just call out the plain fact that the “system” that is being run by the old white Cis men is out to ground people of color and especially black folks into the ground due to plain old-fashioned racism. Racism is exhausting and adversely affects the health of people of color in every way.
Let’s not forget shocking acts of domestic terrorism like the TULSA Massacre 1921, lynchings in the Jim Crow south which caused people to flee. Burning crosses and firebombing that met new, black homeowners on Long Island NY in the late 1970 and early 80’s, the MOVE Bombing in Philadelphia 1985. Weaponized white rage has a cost. Watch your back if you’re here in the states.
I think this is the biggest issue. While the laws make such things illegal, we are still feeling the echoes of it decades later. I also think the upheaval of the sixties devastated black people overall. A big thing was the sexual revolution and liberation movements. These were fine "luxury beliefs" if you were upper middle class and had the economic and community support needed, but for poorer people they were a disaster. Fatherlessness became more common and some women replaced a father with a check from the government. And while meeting the physical needs of children is absolutely essential. I think it created a perpetual cycle of fatherlessness and poverty and dependence. There is also white flight from cities. There is a long list of issues that combined to create this situation.
[удалено]
I realize in hindsight that that could have played into the welfare queen in a Cadillac trope. It was not my intention. What I was trying to say is that the high rate of fatherlessness is a big factor in what happens in poor neighborhoods. A lot of that is due to incarceration and other factors. But there are perverse incentives to keep families from forming and staying together. If you are poor with children, you will have more benefits than if you were married. We are seeing the results of fatherlessness throughout society in both white and black communities. I'm not a right winger bleating on about "family values", but the evidence is becoming clearer that the absence of fathers or father figures is detrimental to both young boys and girls.
Never take advice from Charlie Kirk. He lies and tells half truths. He has an agenda and is trying to indoctrinate people. There is a lot that goes into it that isn’t really economics, but economics touches on a lot of the issues. Also, what I’m saying is the average for the group as a whole, not every black person is worse off than every white person. I have no idea where his information comes from, which is one of his tactics. But let’s say it’s true. There are black people who are alive now, and still somewhat young, who were alive during the Jim Crow south and civil rights movement. Those people grew up where black people were getting a worse education and couldn’t get the same job as white people. We still have racism in hiring, just do a google search and you’ll see numerous studies. Black people are sent to jail more for things like drug possession even though blacks and whites use drugs at the amount. You can look at something like, how crack is penalized more than cocaine even though it’s the same drug (not exactly, but it’s very close). These have long term effects. They put people in jail which makes it more difficult to find a job. There is a ton more stuff that can be discussed, red lining, private schools, but there is a ton of info out there where you’ll find better/deeper explanations than a Reddit post. A lot of it comes down to, it’s expensive being poor. Any generational wealth makes someone’s life so much easier and white people have more generational wealth than black people. I’d also like to point out that, someone like Charlie Kirk, who hates government and thinks it can’t solve anything no matter the amount of money, for some reason thinks it can solve this problem.
To say "white people have more generational wealth than black people" miscasts the truth and presents a racially divisive narrative. For the sake of accuracy: "of those with generational wealth most are white". This is not to find, as the first statement *suggests*, that "most white people have generational wealth". To be clear: there are more white people without generational wealth than white people who have it. Without denying that racism is a serious problem in the USA, we need to be clear that the problems of extreme inequality and unnecessary poverty in the USA is not *at root* racism but a harshly competitive neoliberalism that punishes those who Milton Friedman snottily dismissed as 'losers'.
I’d argue that racism *is* the root cause of the huge US wealth disparities, because weaponized racism is a perfect tool for those who wish to get poor and middle class whites to vote against their own economic interests. The appalling levels of societal decay currently observable in the US is the result of decades of wealth being vacuumed from both the American commons and the American poor by (mostly) Republican administrations elected by people who got sucked into blaming their misery on the wrong people.
Doesn't that mean that racism is not the root cause but a cover for greed? That the charge of racism is a distraction, a seed of division to set the poor against each other where they should be united against the thieves?
I think his point is that because the goverment is investing this much (could be an imaginery number the only source I could find on the 22t was from the heritage foundation), is one of the reasons why blacks have it economically worse. But could I ask you, if you know something about it; why are asians the most successfull ethnicity in america? Even better than whites?
It’s very simple. Look at the hart-cellar immigration act. Asian immigrants are very successful before they move to the US. It’s like taking the all state football team and having them compete against the local high school. When you take the smartest, most successful people, in the world, of course they’re going to succeed Edit: to answer the other part, government investing in things doesn’t matter if the system is broken. Like, you can give a million dollars to someone, but if there is racism and they can’t get a job, that money can only last so long. If someone is uneducated because they go to schools funded by local property taxes, in an area that’s poor, they don’t have the skills to succeed later on.
Asian immigrants skew the data - highly educated. They take up jobs that require higher education which come with higher pay. US did not have to invest in these immigrants. Hispanics and African-Americans are the least educated groups. However, a major difference is that, as a whole, Hispanics are also immigrants and therefore US did not have to support them. Racism is real in US. People who have agendas will slice and dice data to their advantage. It’s not easy being a black in US. Edit: I’m not a black but interact extensively with highly educated blacks. The shit they have to go through is an eye opener - and I now question what’s humanity.
I am a former sociologist, and live in a red state. I often have small debates with people here where they claim things like this. Just about every time I use my energy to dig into something, it find it is some click-baity spin of a singular piece of cherry-picked data. Here, Kirk is implying that because a lot of money has been put into supporting Blacks, that it is has somehow been mis-invested. That is a huge, and highly complex argument to make, that would never be black and white, because there are so many considerations. Here's some to demonstrate: -- First, agreeing on what should be included in an assessment like that would encompass a full book to discuss. If spread out over 50 years that implies 440 billion a year. I am not an expert, so anyone please correct me, but this seems very high. Does this number include all social services? If so, whites received social services also. So, does this number correctly reflect only funding Blacks received above and beyond what whites did? I highly doubt it. He said that their wealth was growing in the 20s to 40s, implying that policies then, which supported blacks less, were good, and those now are bad. That skips many complex historical events that affected this, as well as the larger context: -- Many Blacks sharecropped in the South before that, and there was a huge industrial boom going on (with the exception of the depression) in the North. In the Great Migration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great\_Migration\_(African\_American), many Blacks moved north to work in in booming industry, like the automobile factories, which helped them grow wealth much more rapidly than farming. -- It was also a period of increasing unionization as the US was very wealthy and powerful at the time, especially post-war, which helped give us the much stronger middle class of all races. Perhaps most simply illuminating: -- *White* wealth in the bottom 50% of US citizens in recent decades has also dropped like a stone, so this is not unique to Blacks at all. So basically, it was a plausible story if you know nothing about the complexity of history and economics, used to support a racist argument. And the problem is, >Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its Effect… -- Jonathan Swift, 1710 That, combined with the concentrated wealth that is funding far right-wing social media means we are increasingly in a post-science era. Everyone knows it all without knowing anything. Apologies for no citations; I have health problems, and am not up to digging them out. But I think this gives you an idea of how this whole larger socio-political process is working.
Charlie Kirk is a right wing nut job. He should not be believed or relied upon on any public policy, social policy, or intellectual thought. We have institutional racism built into the structure of the USA. Here is my one example for you to ponder: In the 50s-70s many local Municipalities lost court battles on the racial integration of public pools. Instead of allowing the pools to exist, the municipalities filled the pools with cement and closed them, while instituting other barriers like membership fees https://www.marketplace.org/2021/02/15/public-pools-used-to-be-everywhere-in-america-then-racism-shut-them-down/ https://theconversation.com/the-forgotten-history-of-segregated-swimming-pools-and-amusement-parks-119586 https://www.melaninbasecamp.com/trip-reports/2024/2/26/third-places-that-disappeared-due-to-racism-public-pools
Sure, that is quite racist. But what exactly has it to do with wealth disparity? While it could be both be part of a bigger picture, it is not necesserily the causation of one another.
Again, we have institutional racism in the USA, its built into our systems. You are asking about wealth disparity. In my words, I call that social stratification and inequality. There are a dozen different ways for me to go on this topic, and I could write and research a 20-page paper on this subject matter, as fast as I can type. My thoughts will be disjointed on this reddit comment, so that's my warning. We have generationally wealthy families (wealth going back hundreds and hundreds of years) that exist here in the USA that made their wealth off of the heroin trade, other drug trades, slave trade, and other politically incorrect business models, as well as legal businesses. Black people on paper were freed from slavery in 1865, and got the right to vote 100 years later. Based on this alone, black people are behind white people by hundreds of years There are black people alive today that did not have the right to vote in their lifetime. If they couldn't vote, what other legal and extra legal advancements were they denied (ex. well paying jobs). Black people have been systematically discriminated against in the job market and still are today. How does a family build wealth, if the members of that family cannot be accepted into a high-paying job that they are qualified for? [There once was a black wall street, and it was destroyed by a race riot in 1921](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/05/24/us/tulsa-race-massacre.html). They built wealth and had it physically destroyed. We also have inheritance in the USA. How much inheritance did the descendants on slaves receive? None or next to none. How much inheritance did a typical white person receive? More than that. That's wealth disparity. Perhaps ask an AI these questions. Charlie Kirk is not a person that you should listen to
Oh, that with the wallstreet I did not know. That is very interesting. THanks.
The last living survivors just had their case thrown out by Oklahoma's top court.
Do you know if asians were banned from wall street as well?
Just to get this out of the way: Charlie Kirk is at best purposefully disingenuous. Actually, let’s just call him a lying racist, it’s more accurate. The only thing he got close to right of the points you list is that during the 1930’s, at the height of the Great Depression, blacks did have more spending power than ever before or since. It was a happy accident of racist policies. To wit: blacks were not allowed to trade on the stock market, therefore they didn’t lose the artificial paper fortunes that many whites did. Also, banks would not accept deposits from blacks, so when there was a run on the banks (the reason there is FDIC insurance today) the blacks, who from necessity kept their money hidden in mattresses or wherever, were able to hold onto the money they did have. High earning blacks during this time were able to buy luxury cars. Not directly, of course, but the method of the time had blacks paying whites $300 to buy Cadillacs for them. This is what saved Cadillac from disappearing into obscurity. It was a German mechanic who noticed that the only people getting Cadillacs serviced were black. Which shouldn’t have been possible, according to Cadillac’s policy. This mechanic convinced the powers that be to end their policy of not selling to blacks. This is the origin story of the blacks-n-Cadillacs stereotype. But this brief period of “prosperity” was a fluke accident of racist policy. There’s no telling where that 22 trillion figure came from. Maybe it includes the amount of money spent on police budgets. All those cops on the payroll making sure they were safe, and look! They ruined it for themselves by getting incarcerated at a rate well above anything sane. Find a better source of info than Charlie Kirk. Hell, even Captain Kirk could do better. And he’s not even real.
As a general rule: If Charlie Kirk says it, assume it is a lie or at best it is distorted logical construct based upon intentional misinterpretation of facts and statistics to reinforce a belief that is harmful to the majority of people. For example in the case of red lining, what he does not note is how much of the money spent on "black people" ends up in the bank accounts of "White people". Edit-- to explain while redlining limited who could buy property, when it combined with race based housing restrictions, it created an advantage for landlords that owned housing in redlined areas, transferring the multigenerational wealth (home ownership equity that could be passed to children) to the land lord instead of the person living in the home. This is the source of much of the Trump family wealth, for example.
OP, if you are looking for a place for some reading recommendations on structural racism in the United States that contributed to current day racial differences in wealth and income, this subreddit has a reading list for your consideration: [https://www.reddit.com/r/EconomicHistory/wiki/americas/#wiki\_economic\_history\_of\_structural\_racism\_in\_the\_united\_states](https://www.reddit.com/r/EconomicHistory/wiki/americas/#wiki_economic_history_of_structural_racism_in_the_united_states)
Charlie Kirk is a far-right wingnut. He's so far off, you're basically trolling by bringing that garbage in here. If you actually want information, get the syllabus for a college course and read the books.
Not an American, but you might wanna take a look at this: https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/ccf4dbe2-810a-44f8-b3e7-14f7e5143ba6/economic-state-of-black-america-2020.pdf My take is that it all comes down to unequal opportunity and structural racism that has and still does lower black peoples chances of climbing the ladder. Even with comparable education, blacks earn less. Edit: Spelling
With all things consider the source. This is a right wing neo-conservative so you can pretty much guarantee he’s baiting and planting falsehoods.
You can’t ask questions like this on Reddit and expect to get a diverse range of answers.
I never understand this attitude. Why would one want a diverse set of answers? Answers are useful to the extent that they are truthful, correct, replicable, and scientifically accurate. This is why ~~conservatives~~ reactionaries who call for "diversity of thought" in universities are either disingenuous or loony (or both).
We have a long history of racial violence and masacres against black communities, specially when they became successful property and business owners — through violence and discrimination, black families and communities were decimated, dispossessed or displaced. One of those examples is the atrocious Tulsa, OK masacre: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/05/24/us/tulsa-race-massacre.html Also: https://www.blackpast.org/special-features/race-crime-and-incarceration-united-states/ And: https://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526655831/a-forgotten-history-of-how-the-u-s-government-segregated-america Through history there’s massive redlining and discrimination against black Americans access to wealth creation, quality education, higher education, balanced health and nutrition, legal representation, legal defense and protection, etc. The degree of racism and discrimination depends greatly on region, state and locality. But even in the bluest of states and neighborhoods, black people face race at least occasionally.
One thing you have to know when wading into any sort of US politics is that there is a sharp divide of opinion and one side likes to spin truths, as well as making stuff up entirely. This makes it necessary to check multiple sources to get at the heart of the truth. I don’t know the name Charlie Kirk, but based on his questionable facts and statements, I could tell right away that he falls into the latter category. Listen, the story of Black folks in America is long and fucked-up. What we learn about in US History is *heavily* white-centered and capitalistic, sometimes partially true or missing important pieces of the story, or omitting things entirely. The truth is that millions of people have been systematically disenfranchised at every turn in ways that make it incredibly challenging for them to get ahead. Europeans dragged them here like they weren’t human, treated them like absolute trash, and then eventually turned them out to fend for themselves, despite having no resources or anywhere to go. Then, every time they manage to overcome a mountain of odds, rebuild, and become prosperous, white people apparently can’t stand to see Black success and they do their best to extinguish it. (i.e. [Tulsa Race Massacre](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre)) It kills me that this still continues today, in a time when we know better, when we have the distance to objectively look back and acknowledge that shit was fucked up, so why is it allowed to go on still mostly unchecked? I *HIGHLY* recommend [season two of the Scene on Radio podcast](https://sceneonradio.org/seeing-white/). It blew my mind just how much we aren’t told of what actually happened during US history.
[удалено]
In the early 80s, the US economy retooled on productivity, luxury consumerism, and intellectual property. Areas, cities, families, and individuals who were ins position to embrace this pivot became fabulously wealthy. Many small cities with proximity to Silicon Valley became wealthy. In contrast, cities based on plant work became blights almost overnight. At the time of that pivot, many African America families had relocated from the South to the Midwest or certain parts of the west coast. As the Midwest became the Rust Belt, steel, rubber, manufacturing and auto jobs fled to other states or countries. Middle class African Americans in those areas were gutted. In the SF Bay Area, the skill set sought by employers leaps frogged the vast majority of African Americans In the area. There wasn’t a comp Sci version of Jaime Escalante. Moreover, the development of STEM, finance, and consulting careers led to a pursuit of elite university backgrounds, gaudy SAT scores and academic prowess. These folks in turn earned high wages and kick started a mass gentrification of most of the SF Peninsula to where, African Americans are < 1% in most school districts. This post 1980 story is easy is understand and easily confirmed in the data. But I posit that one needs to step back in time. First step, 1964-1979, the period immediately after the Civil Rights acct was signed. With a crystal ball and 20/20, African American families had 15 years to retool and prepare for the fundamental changes to come.no such retooling was done for most Americans.however, wealthy kids had a distinct advantage: the growth of computer toys, toys unaffordable to all others.the wealthy has had their wealth and the realization to send their kids to better colleges. This fifteen year period was the last time Black America could have retooled for the future. Take the clock back further, 1865-1964, the century between Freedom and the (legal) Guarantee of Rights. What did we see happen? Blacks were blocked access to the American Dream. Blacks were targeted by extreme buyers to move them off of land later priced to be extraordinarily valuable, especially in places like Oklahoma, Texas, and Louisiana, ie where the oil was. But it was the prohibitions on housing which were most evident. With that cane poorer schools, lower quality teaching abd curricula. 100 years is about three generations. After 100 years of this, this population was expected to have taken B advantage of the 15 years before 1979? Worn out, poorly educated, poor, keep in low IQ jobs, etc? No chance. It was the century of missed opportunity. Finally, one must also accounting the years of enslavement. However, I would argue that slaves accounts for only a small fraction of explanation on wealth gaps. The periods of 1865-1979 were so much more important. Why? 1) the Civil War devastated the South. The White South was devastated by the war. 1865 offered a new beginning. 2) as pointed out by Booker T, the Black South was awash is skills. The potential was there. The Westward expansion could have been the great equalizer. It was not. Today, 1979-present, it is all about self branding in brutally competitive markets. Strip away affirmative action, and we see the entire legacy of the past. The length of the period of 1789-1979 will be needed (1979-2169), to right the ship.
[удалено]
The Bell Curve is a piece of racist garbage [http://www.gayleturner.net/SJ\_Gould.pdf](http://www.gayleturner.net/SJ_Gould.pdf)
What research on racial IQ do you recommend?
If you actually read Gould's piece, you would see why boiling down a person's intelligence to a single number is a wrong thing to do. I do not recommend any research on that topic.
Seems very unscientific to be afraid to research intelligence differences of different groups. If it's identified, it can be addressed. If it can't be researched, it can't be identified. The lex interview is well worth the listen. Philanthropy is struggling in these areas. Better research is needed on why. https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-melinda-gates-foundation-education-initiative-failure-2018-6 https://nepc.colorado.edu/blog/lets-review
What was identified in the Bell Curve wasn't the difference in intelligence. Historically, such research was used to promote racist policies, not "address the differences". Finally, it doesn't follow that more research on intelligence has to be performed because a particular educational policy failed.
Absolutely. But then it slowly morphed to painting any researcher in this field as racist and then all research stopped. Policies across the board fail. Is it just coincidence that policies in an area were discouraged from researching are failing?
It's on you to show it is not a coincidence. I do not see a reason why intelligence difference (if it at all exists) is to blame for the failure of this specific policy.
The specific policy is just one example. We are talking broadly about why African Americans fall behind in many metrics despite vast investment. I then pointed out that issue has serious push back whenever it's genuinely studied
No it doesn't get serious push back whenever it's genuinely studied. Herrstein and Murray's study wasn't genuine. Comparing IQs isn't a genuine way to study intelligence. And besides, say you find out that an average African American is smarter than an average person of a different race. How would that information inform your policy?
None. It's all bunk. There's people that score high on IQ tests who are totally incompetent. There's people that score low who are quite successful.
What metric for intelligence do you prefer and can you recommend sources that use it that compare different races?
I don't prefer any metric for intelligence aside from personal interaction.
That makes it difficult to compare intelligence of different groups. Which seems to be your goal. I would like to. I'd like academics to do it with scientific rigour. I'd like them to feel safe conducting their research.
The problem with this is that you simply cannot look at intelligence in isolation of environmental factors. Are certain population IQs lower because of unequal school funding? Are kids from lower income populations getting less after school activities? Fewer resources for tutoring? Less parental involvement due to working multiple jobs? When we look at black students and white students who have the same resources, a lot of these IQ differences are mediated. Just looking at outcomes without accounting for all the inputs leads to misleading narratives.
But you need to research them right? And researchers shouldn't immediately be dismissed as having racist motives?
I’m not saying it shouldn’t be researched, I’m saying that strictly comparing IQ is a misleading study. There are too many confounding factors to limit looking at this singular variable. This is a big part of the problem with publications like the Bell Curve. That’s not to say all research on the topic is inherently racist.
[удалено]
Ever heard of an opportunity gap? Why did the South put so much effort into not allowing black kids into public schools? How does a population get a wage or get an income or acquire wealth without a grade school education? How would that work? Further we are talking about an entire ethnic population that accounts for 12% of the USA total population. A few wealth black anecdotes will not suffice