How Systemic Racism and Implicit Bias Affects African Americans

I disagree somewhat. Homeownership can often mean not having a major expense of rent or a mortgage which can free up a parent to be a full time stay at home parent rather than requiring two incomes to afford rent or a mortgage. I'm betting there is a larger percentage of stay at.home parents amongst the homeowners population compared to the renter population.

Also neighborhoods that have higher rates of homeownership rather than renters will have higher property values which leads to increased funding for their local grade school district.

 

LOL. We have been through this before.
https://www.bu.edu/econ/files/2013/03/101122_sem777_Robert-Margo-Paper-1.pdf
https://www.encyclopedia.com/educat...0–275,000,dropped by approximately 35 percent.
https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/21810
https://www.aag.com/articles/recommended/homes-stock-market-crash-1930s/

 

LoL

What does this have to do with differences between whites and blacks

 

You might want to read the links. I'm going to go through this again with you. You ask for a source and then don't read the sources. You read enough to have a basic idea and then and find a way to act like it doesn't apply. I'm not doing your homework for you.

 

@pgabriel
Remember
They aren’t as smart as you

 

Do you own a home? Because I'm not sure you understand what that means. I would say the vast majority of home owners have the expense of paying a mortgage. Very few people I know have theirs paid off. Certainly not those who are also at the "stay at home parent" stage of life as opposed to older folks. Even people who have paid off their homes still have ownership expenses like taxes, insurance, utilities, maintenance, repairs, etc.

 

I read three links that were jutst about housing in general

://www.aag.com/articles/recommended/homes-stock-market-crash-1930s/

https://www.encyclopedia.com/education/news-and-education-magazines/housing-1929-1941

 

I'm referring to a segment if the population that got their homes decades ago when real estate was signficantly cheaper and fully own their property and have passed on their homes with inflated values to their offspring. You seriously think those people are at a disadvantage to people who pay rent, which is an empty money pit that has no investment qualities?

 

The very first one talked about housing for African Americans. Use that with the information about housing in general and you can hopefully put it together.

 

.
You put it together it's your argument. Then you talk **** about not reading. Prove to me you read it or stfu

Blacks aren't separated out the totals idiot

 

So we're back to the point where you can't argue and just start insulting people. Got it. Thanks.

I did put it together. I already gave you the conclusion. You asked for the source of how to get to the conclusion. The idea of asking for sources, but then maintaining that the person that provided them should explain them to you, is pretty silly.

 

You are referring to people who got their homes decades ago and have paid off their 15- or 30- year mortgage, and yet are young enough to be parents of small children? Or are you saying those people whose parents paid off their own mortgage and then the parents died and passed on the property? At a time when you are making housing decisions about whether someone can be a stay-at-home mom or dad?

I think you are creating factual scenarios that are very rare in an effort to make some sort of point. Generally, in my experience, home ownership is much more expensive than renting. The benefit is that you build up equity and have full control of the property. I will say that the term "money pit" is something that can be equally applied to home ownership, in terms of all the unexpected expenses I've run into since I purchased.

 

How did you separate out blacks from the total numbers?

This should be interesting

 

@FranchiseBlade

I'll give you credit. The first link is about racial disparity. So your conclusion is whites were not able to buy houses when blacks were in the 30s? Where in the first link do you get that conclusion? That seems very odd for a very racist period

 

I mean this is a abject break from reality. Most white homeonership jumped during the suburban housing boom right after ww2 where mortgages in today's money was around 70-80 grand median compared to the median home being 300 grand today. It was a time when blue collar white families with nothing more than high school education could afford a new home purchase. It was also known as "White flight" when white families ditched their rent lifestyle in the cities and moved to the suburbs in mass. That essentially created the suburban white middle class that we see today and that equity that quadrupled in those decades got to be passed down to their children and their children after giving them a signficant leg up compared to those who didn't get that gift of extremely cheap property that inflated to absurd prices while owning it.

Home ownership is not a money out especially if you owned a home for multiple decades as home values have inflated to absurd extremes which is great for homeowners and absolutely sucks for people who are not and looking to be prospective homeowners.

Your take is extremely rare.

The United States has a large segment of upper middle class idiots who got by just because their parents' parents bought property extremely cheap during that suburban housing boom after ww2 and those properties skyrocketed in value over decades growing equity and allowing these people to have capital to invest in things like small businesses. Hence how the MAGA boating incident of 2020 happened.

 

No. The conclusion was that more whites lost their homes during the depression which lessened the gap. That doesn't mean the Great Depression didn't affect African-Americans, but fewer of them had homes to lose. So with the number of homes owned by whites dropping so greatly, the gap in home ownership would narrow somewhat.

 

If a million of one group have something

And half a million of another group have that item

and both lose ten percent the disparity is the same

We aren't talking home values just number of homes owned

 

Yes, if the losses were the exact same percentage.

 

I think much of this is unique to the US

 

Why would a higher pct of whites lose homes in the racist 30s? Black people owned banks?