A few weeks ago, I saw a video on Facebook
that tried to explain the impact of “systemic racism.” It compares the lives and family histories of
two children, Kevin (white) and Jamal (black.) Kevin lives in well-to-neighborhood
with good schools; Jamal lives in a poor neighborhood with bad schools. That,
the video argues, is because, generations ago, Kevin’s grandparents bought a
house with a cheap mortgage and went to college, whereas Jamal’s grandparents
could not buy a house because of redlining, a practice which denied loans to
residents of certain areas. In addition,
Kevin’s grandparents went into “a handful of top universities,” while Jamal’s grandparents’
college opportunities were limited by segregation. The video also cites “implicit biases” which
will make it harder for Jamal to get a job even if he goes to the same college
and does just as well as Kevin. The
video also remarks, tellingly, that the problem with “systemic racism” is that
no single person is responsible for it, making it very hard to fix. It urges us all to become more aware of our
implicit biases.
I have no doubt that in one way or
another, racism, beginning with slavery, accounts for much of the aggregate difference
in the lives of black and white Americans today. I am writing this post, however, because I am
convinced that that view, while accurate, is too narrow. First, if one asks some different questions
about Kevin, Jamal, and others like them, one finds that racism very clearly is
not the only, or even the biggest, cause of economic distress in the United
States today. Secondly, to argue that it
is makes it much less likely, in my opinion, that the nation will address the
most profound causes of inequality today.
The equation of poverty and racial problems began in the 1960s and it
has lasted, for different reasons, to this day.
Both conservative whites and many liberal whites and blacks, it seems to
me, prefer to see poverty as primarily a problem of black people. As it happens, it isn’t.
Focusing, like the video, on Jamal’s
archetypal family and its neighbors, I decided to find out how many black
families they might represent. Uncle
Google sent me to a
nice table breaking down household income by race—white, black and
Hispanic. Unfortunately it dates from
2014 but I doubt that the picture has changed dramatically since then. Let’s assume that Jamal’s family has an
income of $25,000 or less. That includes
a lot of families well above the poverty line, but I think it defines, at the
very least, a struggling family. There were,
as it happens, about 5.5 million black households in that category. There were also 2.4 million Hispanic
households in that category, making 7.9 million total black and Hispanic. There were 22.3 million white households in
that category—about four times as many as black households, and about three
times as many as black and Hispanic combined.
If we change our threshold from under $25,000 to under $35,000, we get
similar results. 32.2 million white households earn less than $35,000, compared
to 8.1 million black ones and 4.6 million Hispanics.
Now the total numbers of 2014
households, the table shows, were 98.7 million white, 16.4 million black, and
16.2 million Hispanic. That means that
there were six times as many white households as black, but only four times as
many under $25,000 annual income or under $32,000 annual income, confirming
that blacks as a group suffer economic disadvantage. But counting the total
numbers,we find that there far more white people in these categories than
others. (My household table has no
figures for other ethnic groups such as Asians and American Indians.) And we
decide elections by raw total numbers.
The video did not suggest to me
that Jamal’s family was living in poverty, but I checked figures on families
below the poverty line too. A very
thorough table
on poverty included data through 2017.
It shows 39.7 million people in poverty in that year. 17 million of them were non-Hispanic whites,
9.8 million were black, and 10.8 million were Hispanic. Here the black and Hispanic total slightly exceeds
the white one, indicating that the overrepresentation of these groups at the
lowest income levels is much greater than their overrepresentation in the under
$25,000 or under $35,000 per household groups. The same pattern emerges from census tables on
single-parent, female-headed households and the number of them that live in
poverty. The largest racial group of such
families (poor or not), 18.4 million, is also white, but the black total is
15.3 million and the Hispanic total is 12.2 million. The percentages of those families
living in poverty is 33.3% for the black families (5.1 million people), 19.9 for
the white families (3.6 million people), and 34.3% for Hispanics (4.1 million
people.) There are more poor white
people in these families than there are blacks or Hispanics, but fewer than
blacks and Hispanics combined.
What implications do these figures
have?
We commonly see disparities between
black and white wealth and income expressed in percentage terms, comparing the
percentages of the two groups in poverty, or in terms of averages and medians
for income and net worth. All such
measurements show that as a group, black America is much worse off than white America. Often, median measurement are the only ones I
seem to be able to find for important statistics. I know that median black net worth is way
below white, and that the disparity increased as a result of the Great Recession,
but so far, I can’t find the numbers of black and white and Hispanic households
with zero net worth. (About 19 million
households have net worth of $1000 or less, but I can’t find a racial
breakdown.) I also couldn’t find out how
many of the homeowners who were foreclosed during the Great Recession
(variously given out as 7 or 10 million) were white, how many were black, and
how many were Hispanic. And I really would like to know.
What we do see here is this. Racism has undoubtedly hurt the economic
standing of black people and continues to do so. But (limiting the comparison for a moment to
white and black), for every specific
economic problem from which black people suffer—relatively low household
income, poverty, female-headed households, and probably, recently foreclosed
homes—more individual white people suffer
from it than black ones. And this
applies, remarkably, even to perhaps the most racially charged issue in our
national life, the shooting of civilians by police. Of
the 992 people shot and killed by police officers in 2018—nearly 3 a day—452
were white, 229 were black, and 154 were Hispanic. (107 were listed as
unknown.) That too is a disproportionate
number of black people, but a greater number of white people. So far this year
the proportion of white victims (and the total number of victims) has dropped,
but they remain the largest group. And
while the black incarceration rate is about five times higher than the white
one and nearly three times higher than the Hispanic one, the number of white
and black inmates is nearly equal overall.
Evidence suggests that one reason for the higher incarceration rates of
blacks and Hispanics is that they have tended to receive longer
sentences for the same crimes.
And why is all this important?
There are, it seems to me, two
reasons, one intellectual and one political.
While racism has contributed to black poverty, it cannot be the only
cause of poverty in the United States, because more white than black people
remain poor. I do not believe that the
causes of poverty can be completely different for black people on the one hand
and whites on the other. People are
poor, or have household incomes of $25,000 or less, for many reasons today,
including poor education (which is what both low income blacks and whites
receive), de-industrialization, the erosion of workers’ rights, our inflated
housing market, involvement with the criminal justice system, family breakdown,
and a great deal more. And those things affect large numbers of white, black
and Hispanic residents of the United States.
The political reason is more
important.
The great tragedy of politics in
the United States today is this:
relatively poor white and black people (using the same scale) generally
vote on opposite sides. The 2016 CNN
exit polls did not break down income and race, but they did break down
educational levels (with or without a college degree) and race (broken crudely
into white and non-white.) Among
nonwhites with no college degree, 77% voted Democratic and 22% voted
Republican. Among whites with no college
degree—of whom about twice as many voted—31% voted Democratic, and 66% voted
Republican. That is why Donald Trump is
in the White House.
I don’t have access to a Gallup
Poll database here, but I’m pretty confident that substantial majorities of
both white and black voters without college degrees voted Democratic from 1936
through 1964. In 1968, more than 15% of
the white vote—much, though not all of it, from the lower half of our income
distribution—moved to Nixon or Wallace.
The intervening four years had seen urban riots, the emergence of the
black power movement, the beginnings of a crime wave, and, of course, the
escalation of the Vietnam War. It was
during those years, I think, that liberal Democrats began associating poverty
with race. Since 1964, only one
Democrat, Barack Obama, has won significantly more than 50% of the popular vote
in a presidential election, and no Democrat has won 50% of white votes.
Meanwhile, inequality has steadily
increased, while income in the lower 50% of the population has been nearly
stagnant for
almost half a century. Good paying
working class jobs have disappeared by the millions, and the cost of a college
education has at least tripled over that same half century. An exploding
housing market has made it very difficult for young people to buy a first house
in our richest metropolitan areas. We have, in short, a winner-take-all economy
in which it has become much harder to reach the top. We also have many more single individuals of
all ages who cannot count on any other adults to help them get through
life. What this means is that the
average person in the lower economic half of the population—regardless of
gender or race—will probably be disappointed by their economic status, all the
more so if, like so many, they have substantial student debt. It is no accident, I think, that the United
States made the greatest progress on racial issues in the 1940s, 1950s, and
1960s, decades in which the economy was growing rapidly, inequality was
decreasing, and so many millions of Americans had good reason to be satisfied
with how things were going. Now many
fewer do, and many find it all too easy, I think, to blame racism, sexism,
immigration, or what looks to many like a national obsession with nonwhite
poverty, for their own inability to achieve as much as they would like. While the less well-off blame other racial
groups for their plight, we cannot do anything about steadily increasing corporate
power. And neither party has really much of anything to arrest the trend
towards inequality at the national level for a very long time.
Low income and wealth are diseases
from which minority populations are more likely to suffer—but comparable or
larger numbers of whites suffer from them too.
Any solution to the problem has to treat the disease for everyone. History tells us how to do that: by taxing
the wealthy much more heavily, by promoting rather than destroying the rights
of labor, by building a lot more affordable
housing, by making the government an employer of last resort, and by
raising the minimum wage. Race- and
gender-based political appeals will continue to thrive until we start dividing
up the pie more equally. The state of
our economy is the thing which, more than anything else, has the chance to
bring us together, improve our society, and leave some of the bitter antagonism
of recent years behind. And we need to
do those things.
3 comments:
Racism is the catchword nowadays. In the 1930s crisis it was class. Labor movement fought to bring about change. Middle class America was expanded greatly. The previous crisis of the 1860s was nominally about race. Now we have returned to that issue. Everyone is obsessed with heritage. Class identity is passé. Perhaps because it was thought dealt with. We all became middle class by dint of technology. Car, TV, fridge, internet access is all you need. We are all equal by law since 60s. All barriers were lifted to integration and immigration but it seems to not have functioned so people question the 60s revolution. It seems to have had bad results, ghettoization(white flight and auotomobility with creation of suburbia in 50s) mass incarceration of all races(war on petty drugs crime post 60s), single motherhood (black, white, hispanic due to women's liberation and welfare post 60s). But since Reagan the boomers were convinced that since in law were are equal and they were raised middle class that both problems, class and race being solved, that they could relax, let their guard down and enjoy the results of a successful struggle against injustice, end of history in a sense. Meanwhile Milton Friedman, Barry Goldwater wing of republicans agreed. Freedom could not hurt once everyone was equal. Like East block after the Berlin wall fell. What could go wrong? So all that we fought for in terms of justice in income was sacrificed in name of libertarianism or neoliberalism. Greed is good said Martin Gekko. So like the alcoholic or drug addict who got dry and just decided to party, wakes up in the same gutter he had lived in for years, America must now wake up, fight back evil of exteme capitalism and the divide of ethnic, racial and sexual hatred that comes with it as the vast majority suffer under the tricks of the post Reagan carpetbagging of America by the rich. All are exploited. Divide and conquer. TV and internet, cable TV, fascination with technology and infotainment, physical laziness plus the fight for survival (everyone is middle class, college degree so labor unions are passé). As individuals education is supposed to make us wealthy, replace collective bargaining, manufacturing was ripped out. Class warfare meant sweating blue collar types, grandpa. Not me, I got a degree, a suit. 16 hour days, no overtime pay. Idiots. The more complex society becomes the more only the very rich who control massive data banks on all sectors of society and understand complicated connections between media, education, job market, foreign trade, military can control what is happening by manipulating public opinion, lawmaking, elections to their advantage. Of course destroying your own country's middle class is killing the goose that laid the golden egg. Once the red state blue state and racial war themes ae laid to rest the bloodied antagonists will find to each other and combat the true foe. Clearly this raging against one another will get old. Dayton, Ohio massacre was a left wing antitrumpr and El Paso was a racist nationalist. Fringe elements but actually almost everyone talks, thinks like that egged on by mass media owned by rich conglomerates. One day a synagogue, a black church, another day republican baseball game or rally. Blood gets spilled and people are horrified but not if it is the other side perhaps. Like Arabs gleeful over terror attacks in the West. Meanwhile our racism , frustration is transplanted abroad. Arabs, Chinese, Russians are legal to hate. Love your neighbour ut kill pople 1000s of miles away. But ur poor distraught soldiers come back and commit atrocities or militarization of society becomes emgrained so that constant hatred comes home to roost. Our foreign policy of total control of others is coming here. Justice as excuse to carpet bomb is same argument to ban free speach online or hate and kill your neighbour for alternate opinions. Live and let live is a wise saying but long forgotten.
I agree with you that America is a terrible place to be poor.
But it's an even worse place to be poor and Black.
See the study, "Race Matters: Income Shares, Income Inequality, and Income Mobility for all U.S. Races", 2017, National Bureau of Economic Research.
The NY Times summarized it here, accompanied by some excellent graphics.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/19/upshot/race-class-white-and-black-men.html
The study examined the income mobility (from tax data and census files) of 20,000,000 children born in the US, between 1978 and 1983. Separately by race, gender, and income quintile, it examined peoples income mobility, relative to their parents.
It's fascinating reading, and I highly recommend it.
I appreciate your comment, Megan, and I agree with it--as far as it goes. It seems to be awfully hard to get across what I am trying to say, even though I tried very hard to be clear. It is harder to be poor and black. But in a country that has about five times as many white people as black ones, and twice as many poor white people as black ones, the best way to HELP poor black people just might be to help ALL poor people--because we are a democracy in which all votes count equally. As it is, poor black people vote Democratic while most poor white people vote Republican. And things get worse FOR BOTH OF THEM.
Post a Comment