Glenn, I'm so grateful for these conversations; informations I get nowhere else. And had I heard them a few years ago from someone else I probably wouldn't habe believed them. Greetings from Germany
The ratio of the medians point is so important. I didn't think about this before Glenn pointed this out, now I can't stop thinking about whenever I hear such statistics.
Well, 1971 was a long time ago, but one thing I recall from the late 1960's through today. They sold American jobs to factories overseas by allowing unfair trade practices where other countries manipulated currency and tariffs to obtain market share in the US, while the government trade policies ALWAYS ended up making it worse. We used to have quote a trade surplus with many places, such a Europe, but they gave that away. Management ALSO sat in its ass and let things slide radically after WWII in many instances, fat dumb and happy, but often VERY negligent. Not much difference between GM and union deals and NYC and the union deals that bankrupted it years ago ( and will in future). As for NAFTA, Canadians ALWAYS finish ahead, as a little shit country (lower population) they can't really afford to exist without living off the US tit. Automobiles are a prime example, but there are others. It would have been nice if we could make Mexico and Central America more economically fit, but that requires more honest government and less crime all around. They are not advanced enough for the special kinds of higher level crap crime that gets a pass that multinational companies engage in. That is its own league. The other major problems, in fact all of them, are rooted in moral turpitude, and the consequent loss of patriotism, integrity and honesty in high places. For instance, if you look at Fortune 500 leaders years ago they were American, frequently likely only a high school education. Meaning you could work your way UP in a business and knew America. Today, NOT. Examples: Oreos made in Mexico imported into the US. Carrier Corporation raped by United Technologies in the late 70's early 80's an American as American can get company producing not here but Asia. Giant empty parking lots. Remington Arms, nice local manufacturer DRIVEN BY POLITICIANS OUT OF NY STATE; lives decimated, town destroyed. Nabisco Brands, raped by the cigarette companies, bought by them for cover against law suits, subsequently passed around from "owner" to "owner" and raped further, ALL for a buck. Buying, selling, breaking up enterprises MERELY for money, efficiencies be damned. In such cases generations of human capital is squandered. Not that you can't or should not sell or break up companies, but not MERELY for money. Fiduciary responsibilities include moral decisions about people not merely money, sure there are limits in choices based on economics and the need to balance things, but human things must enter into to the entire mix, not merely stock ownership. We are rather deep into the age of crony capitalism, that and moral turpitude provides an excuse for socialism and AOC, well that, and indoctrination as "education". It's kind of criminal all over, especially in Academia. Reminds me of a Star Wars quote: "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy." Too long, I am done. The solution is actually Jesus. Really. Sounds crazy, but it is true. No Jesus, no honesty, no common values, no humanity, no long term success, no coherent society.
The FHA Required developers to include racial deed restrictions that prevented black citizens from buying or renting homes in new subdivisions like Levittown. The fact that black homeownership reached 61% by 1980 is a testament to how attitudes changed which in turn changed the law.
I'm actually surprised that Glenn is embracing this analysis of redlining not being a large cause of racial disparity. As a conservative economist who believes in Regan style "trickle down economics" I would have thought he would be very sensitive to David's analysis timing the decline of African American upward mobility to the beginning of the Reagan era and its neoliberal economic policy. Most, if not all, left leaning economist would agree with this analysis and point to the neoliberal economic policies in the US as the cause of this decline.
Trickle down theory is a left wing myth, there is no such thing. Lower taxes increase investment which leads to more jobs. Andrew Mellon slashed the highest tax rate, the federal deficit became a surplus, the amount of taxes collected increased, the percentage of taxes payed by the rich increased, unemployment dropped and pays rose. Reagan's tax cuts included removing tax loopholes and they worked, the economy improved and high inflation ended. Somehow we never hear about the Kennedy tax cuts as trickle down. You are correct, Professor Loury much like Thomas Sowell, is a trained economist of the first order and they, unlike you, know what they are talking about. Try Sowell's 'trickle down theory and tax cuts for the rich', an essay that can be found online or which can be purchased for e-reader for about 2 dollars. I am a moderate who supports neither party and while I do not have TDS I am a Trump critic.
@@Mr.Witness Why? When you have a show with someone supposedly educating people about what they consider misinformation, you don't just listen to the person and say, "Oh, now I understand. Everything I've heard up until now is counter to what you are saying so it's all wrong".That's just confirmation bias.
@@mauricewashington4263 lol idk if your serious or not but my man compare and contrast FOR YOURSELF . The counter argument is literally taken as an axiomatic dogma today . You also presuppose truthseeking is some arbitrary word game, of the facts they stated are true in the way they stated them , there is no “counter argument “ that could ever over turn those facts. Nothing can change the fact black people did not lose out during the alledged time and the opposite happened. You do the detective work no one has an argument obligation to platform there enemy.
@@Mr.Witness True, facts are facts, and they are not arbitrary, but the conclusion that are drawn as a result can be misleading if we don't have all of the relevant information. For instance, if I said more white people are on welfare than there are blacks on welfare, it would be factual, yet if we drew the conclusion that blacks were doing better financially than whites as a result of having that knowldedge, we would be wrong, because further investigation we would reveal that proportionally blacks need that assistance at a higher rate. lol.
@@Mr.Witness That's like saying why pay for a legal defense if the state is only going to prosecute you with facts. Each party that promotes a narrative is only going to present the FACTS, that support that narrative and omit the ones that don't. By listening to both sides we end up with more of the relevant information needed to form an educated opinion. lol
Where is the fairness in the 50% of all, who have no wealth? Kaiser called it a horrifying fact. Does he put the cause of this solely on the individuals themselves, or is the economic system, in its design, the main cause? This is the fundamental argument that many on the Left, have been making - that the current economic system/practices, taxing practices, and pricing practices, are unfair. Kaiser points out the negative results of this fundamental truth, and they then, ignore it. I can't recall ever hearing Loury say anything critical of the current system. To the contrary, he seems to always be defending, every aspect of it. This is text book gas-lightening, if there is a book on it.
He leaves out one important detail of redlining. The white residents could move outside of those areas when they had the means, but the blacks could not due to lending practices in those neighborhoods outside the redlined area. Why else would it have been a problem?
@@samuelboucher1454 There's so much left out. Like when we compare racial data, we can't just say, "more whites". We understand when we understand percentages and ratios when we are shining a negative light on blacks, such as in the case of being on welfare. The representation of people on assistance in relation to their reprensentation of total population.
@@samuelboucher1454 This was a nothing burger. Glenn being a math major has to know that even from a numbers perspective, much was left out. He in my opinion just another black apologist for black oppression, and I can back up what I'm saying, but it would be too much to write here.
@@samuelboucher1454 Incidentally, I grew up on the 8Mile Rd. In the 70s Glenn mentions. I got race stories from when I was a kid. That weren't particularly reprehensible, but interesting I think. I'm not a big anti-racism guy. I agree with Jared Taylor when he says people are tribal. The problem is the disproportionate distribution of wealth between races that was created due to policy and culture. Racism would not exist in any meaningful way if not for that.
@@mauricewashington4263 I think you're right, if what you mean is, no wealth gap, no problem. At that point, who cares about whatever racist ideas might be going on in this or that person's head. But building up wealth and holding it is a difficult thing.
I haven't watched this video yet, but I hope we don't whitewash this redlining thing to the point where we literally overlook or downplay the discrimination and harms that blacks suffer in this country, because it does have a negative effect on everyone. We all are victims.
Can someone explain the problem with the ratio of the median? I know what medians are...I would assume we could compare median income from WHites and Blacks and the median ratio would be a good measure. What am I missing?
If the median white person has $2000 net worth, and the median black person has $1000 net worth, the ratio is 200%. That ratio by itself might make it seem that the typical white person -- in the bottom half -- is twice as rich as the typical black. When in reality, if you look at that whole bottom half distribution, most people have nothing at all in either race group, so not much difference at all. The median is only one point on the distribution and does not tell you much about the whole distribution.
On my block, in 1971, in a middle class neighborhood, where homes now sell for $800k lived 2 black families, on the side of the street where there were 8 homes. On my side of the street there were 7 homes. Tht's 15 homes in total. Since13% of 15 is 1.95. on our street blacks represented the exact percentage of home owners as their percentage of blacks in the US. That was very typical of a number of streets in our neighborhood.
It's not about the median specifically, although that can have its own problems. The issue is that median wealth for both groups is close to zero, and when you divide one number close to zero by another number close to zero, you can get almost anything. Suppose the median white household has 200k in wealth, while the median black household has 25k. Then the true racial wealth gap at the median, expressed as a ratio, is 8:1. However, in a survey, the median you calculate won't exactly correspond to the true median in the population -- there will be some error in one direction or another. Suppose in we survey household wealth, and in our survey, the median white household reports 215k while the median black household reports 10k, so we're off by +15k for white households and -15k for black households, which is not a huge amount (median wealth across all demographic categories is around 120k). But now the racial wealth gap in our survey is almost 22:1, more than doubled! Conversely, if in our survey, the median white household reports 185k and the median black household reports 40k, then the ratio is about 4.5:1, so a little more than half the true ratio. So that is the issue: realistic variability in survey results, due purely to chance, can seriously skew statistics when you take ratios and the number in the denominator gets close to zero. All this said (1) this issue can be addressed by surveying a large enough group of households that the influence of random error on the median is small, and (2) the large surveys that have been done absolutely suggest that the median white household has substantially more wealth than the median black household (and the ratio in 2019 was about 8:1). See the write-up of results from the Survey of Consumer Finances, for instance: www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/disparities-in-wealth-by-race-and-ethnicity-in-the-2019-survey-of-consumer-finances-20200928.htm
@@narutozzz6166 I skimmed the one of Chicago fed papers that was mentioned, didn’t read it carefully. The point about the median is sort of a separate issue. Glenn makes a big deal out of it, and he’s not wrong, but at the same time, whatever measure you use (median wealth, mean wealth, total wealth) is going to show significant racial gaps. Taking a ratio of noisy estimates is going to produce an even noisier estimate (I tried to explain why in my earlier comment), which might make for a more dramatic headline about wealth disparities, but does anyone really doubt the direction (white wealth > black wealth) of the effect?
So the interesting thing is that Glenn says Blacks haven't been excluded from the engine of prosperity yet agrees redlining towards Blacks did happen and that Blacks are behind yet improving in the income factor. Do they realize housing is only one factor and they admitted a group(Blacks) is behind another in terms of income let's people know that group is behind for a reason?
Thomas Sugrue tweeted a response to John McWhorter's NYT piece about Redlining which is likely why Glenn brought the topic to the attention of David. Sugrue's argument was that although white people represented a very large percentage of the population in these redlined areas, white folks could and in fact did move out of these areas. Even disadvantaged whites like Poles and Italians had opportunities to move to better neighborhoods. Black folks did not have the same opportunity to move out from these neighborhoods. Sugrue says this was because realtors were more likely to turn away black folks looking for housing and they were less likely to turn away white people. He also says that whites had access to FHA loans while most blacks were excluded from such loans. I would love for Glenn and John to have someone like Sugrue on the show. It would be a fruitful and enlightening discussion for us all. I loved the discussion Glenn had with Cornel West; we need more of that.
Then why did homeownership, and might i add just about every positive boom for balcks happen in that exact dame period. The irony is that you are literally talking about the black renaissance that was ended by the legislation of the 1960s black poverty dropped by HALF from 1940-1960. Actual justice warrior did a great redling vid
I’d be interested to know the difference in appreciation of homes and inner cities for blacks on their homes and the appreciation of white owned homes in the suburbs along with what factors contribute to appreciation
Bit of an apples and oranges comparison. It would make more sense to compare appreciation rates of inner city homes by demographic, instead of comparing the inner city to the suburbs. One could also look purely at rates of change in rural areas by demographic, as that tends to be an often overlooked area in stats.
@@pepps779 you'd have to know what I'm comparing. I'm comparing the potential differences in wealth generated by property appreciation between those who live in the suburbs and those who live in inner cities
Everything is small potatoes compared to the devastation of the destruction of the black nucular family which is a byproduct (that any decent economist could have predicted) of social welfare programs.
@Down with Corporate Amerika I'm not sure if you are aware, but to get maximum benefits the father cannot be living in the home. So when you incentivize the non nuclear families, you get more non-nuclear families. Also, if you look at the data you will see there was a high percentage of intact black households, with both mom and dad married and living under one roof before the explosion of the welfare programs. It was something like 78٪, higher than white families are today.
No, it is a product of whyte male initiative. Not sure that yoo have noticed but America has always promoted racial division and is terrified of blaq potential. But yoo reckon that everything wood be all right if not for social welfare!! 😁
I really don’t see the relevance in whether or not the bottom 50% are equally situated at least not when it comes to racism, because when it comes to racism we’re only interested in who can impact our lives. If racial oppression has led to the condition in which white people are in a disproportionate position to impact our lives, that in itself is justification for reparations.
The data point is not racist. That's the relevance. Then, you wandered into systemic racism because you say so. All Americans "are in a disproportionate position to impact" their own lives. For now, that is.
So the bottom 50% of white people have only themselves to blame for their situation. For the same bottom 50% of blacks, it's the white people who are in a "disproportionate position" to impact their lives who are to blame for their situation. Yeah, that totally makes sense. Since you suggest reparations to poor blacks, we should probably hand out reparations to poor Irish, Chinese and Italian Americans who were also directly impacted by discrimination and oppressed in America. I think you should go read that Samuel Kronen article they're talking about.
@MotoIncognito People suffered greatly as a result of race. The fact that it's dumb doesn't stop it from happening. What's really dumb is the first part of your post. The question would be was their government sanctioned, or facilitated oppression against the Italian half of your ancestry. If so, then the government should be addressed, not the non Italian half of your ancestry.
@MotoIncognito A sovereign nation doesn't die with politicians nor citizens. Consider for instance a Treasury Note that matures in 30 years. When the loan is taken out, many of the tax payers whose tax dollars will be used to repay the debt won't be born for 14 years, and those who are around, will be long dead by the time the bond matures. The debt of a nation in a capitalist society falls on it's citizens.
