Are Blacks catching up?

2000-09-28 Thread Louis Proyect

Against the Current, Sept./Oct. 2000

Race and Class: Racism and the Wealth Gap
by MaIik Miah

POLITICIANS AND GOVERNMENT officials point to the historic low unemployment
level in the Black community as signs of a strong economy and a future
where whites and African Americans will finally have an opportunity for an
equal share of the American dream.

While it is true that long-term unemployment for the African-American
population is in the single digits for the first time, the wealth gap
between white and Black families continues to widen. According to
government statistics Black households’ wealth average one-twelfth that of
white households.

Wealth is not defined by your annual income. It is a reflection of assets
accumulated (such as real estate and stocks) over time.

According to a study by economist Edward Wolff, in 1995 the median white
household’s net worth, minus net equity in owner-occupied housing, was
$61,000, compared with $7,400 in Black households. (Report by Mari Queen in
the May issue of Emerge magazine)

What are the origins of the wealth gap? Why have so few Blacks have
accumulated real estate and stocks? Two words: HISTORICAL RACISM.

What do I mean by historical racism? It is racism woven into society on
every level—the bedrock of a society rooted in slavery and segregation, and
thus institutionalized. Because our ancestors were slaves, and often lost
whatever assets they acquired because of poverty, discriminatory laws or
simple cheating, most Blacks couldn’t accumulate very much wealth.

So our great grandparents, grandparents, and parents could not pass on the
family property and wealth to us. Inherited wealth amounted to our physical
being (labor power) that we could sell to the boss for the best wage
possible. Even that was not possible until the slave system was abolished
with crushing of the slave owners in the Civil War.

Unfortunately, African Americans didn’t get our "forty acres and a mule"
either. (The modest reparations German Jews are getting we never got!) Jim
Crow segregation made us second-class citizens. Own real estate and stock?
Who are you kidding? Survival was our number one concern—as it is for most
Blacks today.

It took a massive civil rights movement in the 1950s and ‘60s to get the
right to vote in the South. Congress made it law with the 1965 Voting
Rights Act. The door was now open for some modest political representation.

Home ownership was still hard to gain because of redlining by the real
estate industry. It took a 1968 congressional act to get the first national
"fair housing" laws adopted. Up until the late 1960s U.S. policies
preserved segregation and helped keep African Americans from home ownership
by refusing to make Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgage financing
available. Between 1946 and 1959, less than two percent of all federal
mortgage insurance assistance was made available to Blacks.

Only after new legislation was written in the 1960s and ‘70s were Blacks
able to take legal action against discrimination in employment, housing and
higher education. In my industry (airlines), few qualified Black pilots and
mechanics were hired until the ‘60s. By the 1970s a civil rights suit filed
by Black employees forced United Airlines—the country’s largest carrier—and
the unions to open up hiring and to promote more Blacks and women. (The
unions were required to modify discriminatory work rules.)

Institutional and historical racism is behind the wealth gap. That’s why
the gap actually widens in economic good times. Because Blacks as a group
start fifty yards behind whites, it’s impossible to catch up without strong
affirmative action.

How did working-class whites sprint so far ahead? It really wasn’t through
individual enterprise or family savings but rather government policy, as
Stephanie Coontz pointed out in her book, The Way We Never Were.

After World War II the GI Bill, available to forty percent of the male
population between the ages of 20-24, permitted a whole generation of
working-class whites to expand their education.

Similarly, the FHA policy of requiring down payments of only five to ten
percent on the purchase price of a house put the federal government in the
business of insuring and regulating private loans for single-home
construction. Veterans eligible for Veterans Administration loans only
needed a dollar down.

Of course African Americans served as soldiers during World War II, but
discrimination meant in practice that most were denied access to these
programs. Federal loan policies also benefited the suburbs at the expense
of the urban areas, trapping poorer families in the inner cities.

Federal loan policies functioned to systematize the pervasive but informal
racism that had previously dominated local housing markets. These policies
also starved public transportation and other vital public services, from
schools to libraries and parks.

So while it is true that more Blacks have better-paying jobs today, own our

Re: Are Blacks catching up?

2000-09-28 Thread Doug Henwood

Louis Proyect quoted:

Race and Class: Racism and the Wealth Gap
by MaIik Miah

An excerpt from my forthcoming book, A New Economy? (apologies for 
any rough spots - this is unproofed and unedited):

Unfortunately, the major published report on the SCF (Kennickell at 
al 2000) divides the population is only into "white non-Hispanic" 
and "nonwhite or Hispanic" (and there's no gendered reporting at 
all). But there too, the wealth figures are stunningly more lopsided 
than income figures. The average "white" household had an income 62% 
higher than the "nonwhite or Hispanic" household in 1998 -- but had 
a net worth (including residence) nearly six times as high. Neither 
set of figures has changed much since the early 1990s, either; some 
truths appear to be timeless.

Wolff (2000) provides a lot more racial detail. For example, black 
incomes were 54% of white incomes in 1998 -- but black net worth 
(including residential) was 12%, and nonresidential net worth, just 
3% of white. For Hispanics, incomes were 62% of white; net worth, 
4%, and nonresidential net worth was 0%. Just under 15% of white 
households had zero or negative net worth, compraed with 27% of 
black, and 36% of Hispanic. Even at similar levels of income, black 
households were significantly less wealthy than white ones; black 
households in the $25,000-49,999 income bracket had net worths equal 
to 46% of white averages; those in the $75,000+ category, 29% of 
white. Similarly with stock ownership; 54% of white households had 
some, but just 30% of black. And average black stockholdings were 
just 20% of white. The democratization of ownership has a bit of a 
ways to go yet.

Wealth is an important part of the economics of race in America: it 
"sediments" privilege and deprivation (Oliver and Shapiro 1995, p. 
5). Though blacks in general have much lower incomes than whites, 
there's a vast racial wealth gap between households with otherwise 
similar demographic characteristics (like education and income). The 
reasons aren't hard to fathom: the first African-Americans weren't 
merely forbidden to accumulate property, they *were* property - but 
even after Emancipation, discriminatory laws and practices prevented 
black from accumulating wealth and passing it onto their children. 
So even middle class blacks don't have the advantage of spare change 
in the bank to take advantage of a business opportunity or to 
survive a bout of sickness or unemployment. This has long been 
compounded by continued discrimination in mortgage and housing 
markets -- which persists statistically even after income and other 
demographic factors are accounted for -- denying many black 
Americans access to that major component of middle-class wealth, the 
owner-occupied house.





Catching Up

2000-07-09 Thread Max Sawicky

Hello girls.

I'm back from vacation and sorting thru about a thousand
messages.  As best I am able to determine, DeLong has
gone in for juggling.  Henwood has been exposed as a
liberal, though an undependable one.  Kelley has been dating
Herbert Aptheker.  Jones reports that capitalism is on
its last legs and revolution is imminent -- for sure some
time in the next sixty years.  Devine is still correcting
Paul Krugman, and Carrol is still correcting everyone
else.  Perelman is doing research on fertilizer, obviously
with the benefit of a limitless supply (take that, MJ!).
Mackendrick is locked in a ferocious argument of
some kind w/Yoshie.

U.S. Imperialism is plotting against Canada to steal
its precious fluids.  Chelsea is no longer a virgin.
The premier of South Africa says you don't get AIDS
from AIDS.  Mexico is being turned into a theme park,
tho nathan says it will have free park benches, North
Korea is being turned into a shopping mall, and Japan
is not a utopia, though it's better than the other utopias.
I think that about covers everything.

Somehow my posts are winding up on Marxism-
Feminism, two streams of thought with which my
connections are tenuous, to say the least.  And I've
been subscribed to a list on the subject of Tapioca,
which is fine since it's my second favorite, after
butterscotch.

Oh and Mine's posts crash my mail program when
I open them.  Sorry, Mine, we can't keep meeting
like this.  Every time we say goodbye, I cry a little.

mbs







Re: Catching Up

2000-07-09 Thread Stephen E Philion

Chelsea's no longer a virgin?

Steve

Stephen Philion
Lecturer/PhD Candidate
Department of Sociology
2424 Maile Way
Social Sciences Bldg. # 247
Honolulu, HI 96822





Re: Re: Catching Up

2000-07-09 Thread Jim Devine

For my part, I'm worried about Socks and Buddy.

At 03:32 PM 07/09/2000 -1000, you wrote:
Chelsea's no longer a virgin?

Steve

Stephen Philion
Lecturer/PhD Candidate
Department of Sociology
2424 Maile Way
Social Sciences Bldg. # 247
Honolulu, HI 96822

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine