You must log in or register to comment.

Beetin t1_ixrjkag wrote

Thankfully we passed legislation in the 1960's that overnight just resolved all that past racism so that this generation can all participate in wealth accumulation in parity. You know, other than....

Higher 'credit risk' and lower credit scores, ability to secure capital lending to start small businesses, 'Black' names score worse than 'white' names in job applications, historically black segregated areas aren't desegregating much if at all, Zoning regulations in black segregated areas for 'bad house value' things like dumps, highways, industrial and manufacturing, shelters, etc are more likely to be lax, real estate agents still 'steer' black applicants towards lower value worse neighbourhoods, Blacks with equal income/wealth more likely than whites to be denied in person applications, more likely to receive a lower home evaluation during an inspection, homes in black neighbourhoods appreciate much slower, black college graduate start with about 1/7th of the wealth of a similar white college graduate, and less wealth than white dropouts, have on average about 30% more student loan debt, etc etc etc

But you know, thank god we immediately and quickly resolved all the built in racism in American infrastructure and cities almost overnight, and we should probably just all quietly agree not to be racist and the whole thing should finish equalizing around 2025. Or 2030. Maybe 2040. Definitely before 2100. What is that? Black ownership actually decreased this decade while every other race shot up and whites stayed the same? Well, 2200 without a doubt these issues will be a thing of the past.


subzero112001 t1_ixu6sai wrote

Where are you getting the idea that someone thinks that the issue is resolved overnight? I’ve never heard of anyone making such a claim. Yet you keep making a point to bring it up sarcastically.


IdlyCurious t1_ixufw8p wrote

> Where are you getting the idea that someone thinks that the issue is resolved overnight? I’ve never heard of anyone making such a claim. Yet you keep making a point to bring it up sarcastically.

I have, more than once, heard someone say "slavery ended more than hundred years ago" or "that was 30/40 years ago" (in regards to Civil Rights act) and therefore it was completely over and not a cause for today's economic disparity and that black people faced no more difficulty than white people and these were all just excuses.

Consider yourself lucky that you didn't grow up around anyone of that sort.


subzero112001 t1_ixx5wxp wrote

Completely over as in “it’s not a law anymore”. Not completely over as in “racism no longer exists”. Racism will probably always exist given how stupid humans are.

As a non-white, I say the biggest issue holding back another non-white here in the US is our propensity for blaming our issues on others and failing to take responsibility for our own choices and actions.

The racism both of my non-white parents experienced along with their parents before them have basically nothing to do with how successful or unsuccessful I am today.


Klesko t1_ixt9kw3 wrote

Wasn't immediate, took about 160 years and its not a zero for sure. But I cant think any of any other major country where it would be better for a black person to live than the USA.


Moont1de t1_ixtb3bd wrote

How do you define “major country”?


Klesko t1_ixtbege wrote

Any place not considered 3rd world with a population of greater than 50 million.


Moont1de t1_ixtcbu8 wrote

How would you define not 3rd world?


Petrochromis722 t1_ixtqzv1 wrote

I mean, you could always define it the way Mao did when he coined it. NATO = first world, Warsaw Pact = second world, everyone else = third world. There were some non-NATO us aligned actions that got lumped in the first world as well, Japan, South Korea, etc


Moont1de t1_ixu5bye wrote

I’m asking that user specifically, or do you agree with their “major country” definition


KiwasiGames t1_ixuagn2 wrote

Australia, Canada, NZ, UK, Germany...

The US has some pretty high income inequality for the developed world. While rich Americans are generally doing extremely well, its generally a bad place to be poor.


scarabic t1_ixtx2r5 wrote

Housing shouldn’t be “wealth accumulation.” It can only be so if we assume housing becomes more expensive for subsequent generations. Why should a house double in value every ten years? It makes no sense whatsoever.


Sentsuizan t1_ixuaore wrote

Housing appreciates in value because there are more people year to year but the earth doesn't make more land year to year


IdlyCurious t1_ixufwcy wrote

> Housing appreciates in value because there are more people year to year but the earth doesn't make more land year to year

I disagree - building and zoning regulations is the biggie in the United States. People who own houses do not want their houses to go down in value (or even remain the same). They do not want 10-story apartments in their neighborhood. They do not want 2-story apartments in their neighborhood. They do not want smaller lots and smaller houses in their neighborhood. And they are the ones with the ability to control local zoning laws.

Also, of course, they don't also don't want denser housing because they don't want increased traffic. But many people really don't want the neighborhood "going down hill" by having pretty much anyone with significantly less income than themselves living there.

Also, increasing urbanization means there's more demand in small area of space (while the rural areas away from everything have lower demand).


Sentsuizan t1_ixugtru wrote

At the a macro level land is a finite resource no matter what. It's a complex subject and our statements are definitely not mutually exclusive.


lawstudent2 t1_ixv2ezx wrote

Dude America is enormous and empty.

Housing has skyrocketed in price due to people all wanting to live in the same populated areas. If access to land mass solved the issue, there would be no housing crisis.

But it doesn’t, and there is.


scarabic t1_ixv9oyc wrote

I live in California, where housing is insanely expensive. We are not even close to exhausting the available land as a resource for this. It is much more an issue of development dollars, zoning restrictions, and economics. Finite land is not the reason.


IdlyCurious t1_ixusgsi wrote

> At the a macro level land is a finite resource no matter what. It's a complex subject and our statements are definitely not mutually exclusive.

Eventually, yes. Now, no. There's plenty of housing available in places no one wants to live (Detroit a few years ago being a great example) and lots and lots of land available in rural areas (with few jobs), if people wanted to build there. The high prices are in desirable areas, and that's because of more people in those areas, not more people on earth. And more density would absolutely bring down the housing prices there (at least in the short term - the issue would be if lower prices increased demand/caused more people moved there).

It's very much an area of population and available housing in localized areas, not global landmass v global population at this point.


Sentsuizan t1_ixut0nw wrote

Even if you qualify it to say only the desirable land for housing, that land is still a finite resource.


lawstudent2 t1_ixv3bt9 wrote

Zoning makes it finite. Not landmass. NYC and SF could build enormous amounts of high density housing. But they aren’t, because of zoning laws.

So you are just not right.


Larein t1_ixuhmvx wrote

It accumulates wealth if its in place more people want to live in than there is space. If the housing is in middle of nowhere its not going increase in value. You will be lucky if it keeps up with inflation.


scarabic t1_ixvaad3 wrote

There’s a second requirement. People have to want to live there, AND not enough housing is being built there for all of them. I think the second part is what’s not working where I live. People are just against high density housing. Sometimes you’ll hear this resistance in terms like “let’s keep our neighborhoods walkable” or “neighborhoods with green spaces are good for our community’s mental health.” But this translates to: hell no don’t build that 10 story apartment building here.


AutoModerator t1_ixr9eam wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


redditaccount71987 t1_ixuq4sk wrote

People didn't realize on another thread the other day somehow.


snellickers t1_ixsy5mt wrote

Pre-2022ish, Reddit almost as a whole refused to acknowledge structural racism against Black people. Just absolutely refused to believe it existed, exists and will continue to exist.

It’s at least a step forward that the site mostly seems to realize it’s very real now.


jtaustin64 t1_ixsypa1 wrote

You and I must have been looking at separate Reddits then.


Moont1de t1_ixtb8nj wrote

You’ve been for just three years on Reddit


Furt_III t1_ixtfuz0 wrote

Account age isn't a good indication of how long a person has been on this website.


subzero112001 t1_ixu6xfm wrote

Structural racism? Do you mean like black people needing lower scores to get into colleges compared to white people?

Pretty sure Reddit has recognized such things for some time now.


FwibbFwibb t1_iy8nvz5 wrote

> Structural racism? Do you mean like black people needing lower scores to get into colleges compared to white people?

Your comment history is very sad. It's just this thing over and over trying to rile people up.


subzero112001 t1_iycce0t wrote

Your response(or failure to actually respond to the main point) indicates you understand that what I'm saying is true, but you'd rather waste time using ad hominem attacks instead of putting forth any actually effort for a rational reply. Just because that route is easy for you to do so and walk away while feeling good about yourself. How unfortunate.


GreatAndPowerfulNixy t1_ixt4g0d wrote

Uh, no.

What people object to is redefining the term "racism" to encompass institutional racism.


Moont1de t1_ixtckf7 wrote

I agree, we shouldn’t redefine words. The meaning of racism has always been the same: systematic oppression on the basis of race


merlinsbeers t1_ixth2z3 wrote

It means believing that a certain race is inferior, and politically it means keeping people off that race from having any power or getting any benefit from government. Using the government to oppress them has always been systemic racism.


Moont1de t1_ixu5h5a wrote

“Keeping that people from having any power” is literally “using the government to opress them”


RudeHero t1_ixtlyck wrote

> The meaning of racism has always been the same: systematic oppression on the basis of race

first of all- in my opinion, it's fine that language changes over time

i do think that in the past, and for many today, people unambiguously marked a difference between individual and systemic/institutional racism

> Institutional racism, also known as systemic racism, is a form of racism that is embedded in the laws and regulations of a society or an organization. It manifests as discrimination in areas such as criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, education, and political representation.[1]

> The term institutional racism was first coined in 1967 by Stokely Carmichael and Charles V. Hamilton in Black Power: The Politics of Liberation.[2] Carmichael and Hamilton wrote in 1967 that while individual racism is often identifiable because of its overt nature, institutional racism is less perceptible because of its "less overt, far more subtle" nature. Institutional racism "originates in the operation of established and respected forces in the society, and thus receives far less public condemnation than [individual racism]".[3]

The fact that Carmichael and Hamilton explicitly drew a difference between individual and institutional racism implies that not all racism is systemic, and not all racism is individual. it implies that there can exist one without the other

logically, this is... A and B are both letters in the english alphabet, but not all english letters are B, even though A and B are very, very often seen in the same words

i'm fine with people designing or changing the overall term to imply or exclude one or the other, but to say it's always been static and unchanging is incorrect


Moont1de t1_ixu5kqi wrote

“These two guys said it so so it do be”


brilliantdoofus85 t1_ixud1an wrote

Are you suggesting Stokely Carmichael was confused about what people at the time usually meant by "racism", such that he unnecessarily invented the concept of "institutional racism" when that was what "racism" already meant?


Moont1de t1_ixujxa5 wrote

He contrasts individual racism to institutional racism. At no point does he make a case for racism being different than institutional racism


Moont1de t1_ixraxgc wrote

Paid? That still happens! It's the whole point of HOAs!


[deleted] t1_ixs2e7i wrote



merlinsbeers t1_ixthwfq wrote

>Do HOAs determine who can buy a house?

In some states they're still called "covenant controlled communities" which is a euphemism for everyone having sales contracts that they agreed to when buying that obligate then never to sell to nonwhites. Developers put them in place to keep prices up when selling lots and new homes.

Those restrictions are unenforceable now, but the language is still there on some people's deeds. And the neighborhoods haven't changed much and sometimes aren't exactly friendly to diversity.


Moont1de t1_ixs6yq5 wrote

The issue is lack of isonomical enforcement