darkswordsman17 said:
No joke, you know that's how gentrification works, right? While that might be "amusing" to you, its pretty fucked up.
Plus, I hope you're not using that as an argument against systemic racism, because that explicitly supports it, as even after normalizing for other factors it still accounts for nearly a 25% difference.
They are suggesting that white people are overpaying. People who do buy within the minority neighborhood get a discount.
I was brief, but I did mention I didn’t agree with it because it had few or just one relevant variable on the people living there. Case in point, the critics they tried to address said they were omitting important SES factors.
His original model not only looked comically flawed from the lack of SES factors but also because of what it implied with blacks at -23% and Hispanics/Latinos at -15%. Since they are somewhere in-between in violence, IQ gap, median income, etc., and have more European ancestry, that would imply racial animus is similar or even more than against the black population, which sounds dumb.
Statement on when they included some additional factors:
“When we include median household income and college education, the Black devaluation estimate is -23% but the Latino or Hispanic estimate falls to -3%. In other words, socio-economic status appears to be playing a much larger role in determining home prices in Latino or Hispanic neighborhoods than in Black neighborhoods. This suggests a potentially large role for anti-Black racial discrimination.”
At least better, but a glaring issue to me for why the black-white gap didn’t change is that college attainment (more black graduates than Latinos despite higher median income) is not identical for obvious reasons. Another issue is that there is a concept called regression towards the mean, so even if black parents appear better, their kids are likely to fall back towards the mean in outcomes, which I doubt 4th-8th grade scores necessarily capture that.
I don't know about you, but when speaking about houses, 25% is quite a lot.
For the top quartile of earners, that’s not a lot by a long shot. I’m sitting here laughing. Real estate is easily eclipsed by pensions/investing.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-senate-dems-vote-en-masse-to-cut-veterans-pensions/
Here's what the new law will do. We make no changes for those currently at or above age 62. This reform affects only younger military retirees. Right now, any person who has served 20 years can retire —regardless of age. That means a serviceman who enlists at 18 becomes eligible for retirement at 38. The late 30s and early 40s are prime working years, and most of these younger retirees go on to second careers.
All this reform does is make a small adjustment for those younger retirees. If they retire before age 62, the annual increase in their retired pay will be 1% less than the inflation rate. In other words, their benefits will grow every year — just at a slower rate. And when the retiree hits 62, DOD will recalculate the retired pay so that it will be where it would have been if he or she had received the full inflation adjustment every year since he or she retired.
Here's an example: If a serviceman enlisted at 18 and retired at 38, under this policy his lifetime benefit would be about $1.7 million instead of $1.8 million. For a service member who retired at the average military retirement age of 44, the difference would be smaller, about $30,000 over his or her lifetime. This is a far more modest reform than other bipartisan proposals, some of which would have fully eliminated the adjustments for inflation for working-age retirees.
Would you for instance be ok with your house losing $50k-125k (for $200-500k house)? And keep in mind, the black home owner is gonna be on the hook for that extra amount, whilst they basically can't recoup the cost should that happen to them, they're essentially stuck.
You can’t think of any examples where this happens with liberal policies?
It’s interesting to me btw how the comparisons are always only to other homeowners, yet the implication of these grievances is that renting long-term makes you lose out; Ironically, the government does have a solution for that with Section 8/public housing, but that’s not universal for people in similar circumstances.
The issue is two fold. Black family buys house in neighborhood and likely has to pay more for it (via higher interest rates, BS fees, larger down payment required, etc) due to systemic discrimination in banking/loan industry, then after buying house it gets appraised substantially less, meaning the black home owner is now overpaying for a devalued asset.
The issue is that black people can’t maintain high SES, which is certainly a consequence of the black-white IQ gap that begins before any of the racists get to them. Plenty of black people started in objectively better households, yet still do worse than the rural white people.