USA: Where the Poor Live Dearly(zeit.de)
zeit.de
USA: Where the Poor Live Dearly
http://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/2015-05/poverty-racism-black-neighborhoods-baltimore-ferguson-new-york/komplettansicht
21 comments
They're not outliers. Go to almost any large American city and there is a poor area where most of the black people live, and a better off area where most of the white people live. That's America.
(a) I live just off the corner of Chicago and Austin, on a block with section 8 housing, minority-white, middle-upper-middle class. Any race, income, or crime map of Chicago should clarify what's interesting about those cross-streets. Tell me more about race and class relationships in big American cities?
(b) Your second sentence rebuts an argument I didn't make, and in fact overtly rejected. Nobody who pays any attention to the US would argue that race and class aren't tied together in the US. I certainly didn't.
(c) Ferguson and Park Slope are outliers in exactly the way I spelled out in my post. If you'd like to debate the point, I'm happy to debate it with you, but you're going to have to be more specific. As it stands, your current argument is essentially "Ferguson and Park Slope aren't outliers because the sky is blue and people have ten fingers and ten toes in both locations".
(d) I'd guess we have about 10 minutes to discuss this post before it's (thankfully) flagged off the site.
(b) Your second sentence rebuts an argument I didn't make, and in fact overtly rejected. Nobody who pays any attention to the US would argue that race and class aren't tied together in the US. I certainly didn't.
(c) Ferguson and Park Slope are outliers in exactly the way I spelled out in my post. If you'd like to debate the point, I'm happy to debate it with you, but you're going to have to be more specific. As it stands, your current argument is essentially "Ferguson and Park Slope aren't outliers because the sky is blue and people have ten fingers and ten toes in both locations".
(d) I'd guess we have about 10 minutes to discuss this post before it's (thankfully) flagged off the site.
Interesting article, but seemingly just a very long winded way of saying that the US exists under capitalism.
Without redistribution, definitionally wealth accumulation will be nonlinear.
A rich person can gain money simply by waiting. Generally this additional wealth comes into fruition by the toil of poor people. This is literally what capitalism is.
Example: house prices going up. My asset is worth more because others are willing to compete and work more to buy it. I do nothing, others do things, I win.
Is this wrong/right? Your move.
Without redistribution, definitionally wealth accumulation will be nonlinear.
A rich person can gain money simply by waiting. Generally this additional wealth comes into fruition by the toil of poor people. This is literally what capitalism is.
Example: house prices going up. My asset is worth more because others are willing to compete and work more to buy it. I do nothing, others do things, I win.
Is this wrong/right? Your move.
[deleted]
Why does the additional wealth come into fruition by the toil of poor people? If I have a lot of money and invest it, I don't see how poor people are affected by my investment at all, unless the fact that the money is not being injected back into the economy has some kind of very negative effect on the poor.
It doesn't directly, except to the extent that:
* Returns on investment capital tend mathematically to ensure the rich get richer
* Disparities between wealthy and poor people create resentment and tension
* Resources enable the wealthy to opt out of communities, creating an adverse selection condition that starves those communities
* The role of the finance industry in this story tends to intersect directly with poorer communities in predatory ways (see: subprime housing loans)
* The finance industry is intricately connected to most of the other mechanisms families have for obtaining and reinvesting wealth, so it can be difficult to ethically insulate oneself from it
There are ways in which wealth also creates opportunities and benefits across all classes that to some extent mitigate:
* They're an engine for investment into technology, which has product lifecycles that move so quickly that less wealthy people rapidly get access to new technology
* They create classes of jobs (see: Park Slope nannies, or the tool & die people who work on Gulfstreams for another cartoonish example) that would not otherwise exist.
&c.
(FWIW: net-net, I think we need more redistribution, and that we tilted too sharply away from Reagan-era high taxes at exactly the point at which changes in productivity made that shift most harmful. I'm making what I hope are descriptive, and not positive, points).
* Returns on investment capital tend mathematically to ensure the rich get richer
* Disparities between wealthy and poor people create resentment and tension
* Resources enable the wealthy to opt out of communities, creating an adverse selection condition that starves those communities
* The role of the finance industry in this story tends to intersect directly with poorer communities in predatory ways (see: subprime housing loans)
* The finance industry is intricately connected to most of the other mechanisms families have for obtaining and reinvesting wealth, so it can be difficult to ethically insulate oneself from it
There are ways in which wealth also creates opportunities and benefits across all classes that to some extent mitigate:
* They're an engine for investment into technology, which has product lifecycles that move so quickly that less wealthy people rapidly get access to new technology
* They create classes of jobs (see: Park Slope nannies, or the tool & die people who work on Gulfstreams for another cartoonish example) that would not otherwise exist.
&c.
(FWIW: net-net, I think we need more redistribution, and that we tilted too sharply away from Reagan-era high taxes at exactly the point at which changes in productivity made that shift most harmful. I'm making what I hope are descriptive, and not positive, points).
Disparities between wealthy and poor people create resentment and tension
Do they really? One thing I find interesting is that a lot of people who are certainly rich are not really resented. For example, soccer players earn quite a lot (my compatriot Ronaldo earns about $80M/year) and I don't really see much resentment, while a lawyer might earn $300k/y and have people hate him/her.
While there are certainly those who simply resent the rich, I'm not sure the average person doesn't have a more nuanced view.
Do they really? One thing I find interesting is that a lot of people who are certainly rich are not really resented. For example, soccer players earn quite a lot (my compatriot Ronaldo earns about $80M/year) and I don't really see much resentment, while a lawyer might earn $300k/y and have people hate him/her.
While there are certainly those who simply resent the rich, I'm not sure the average person doesn't have a more nuanced view.
I can't speak to the part about wealth coming from the toiling of poor people, but I can say that I find the immense advantages derived from capital over labor to be unfair.
Basically, I can sit at my desk, and in one action, move some numbers from a cash account into an equity security. In doing so, in one day, I can increase my wealth by an amount that it would take a full-time minimum-wage worker a little over 2 weeks to earn. It's one data point, but it definitely challenges the notion of what's fair.
To extend this further, with technology, the inequities of capital over labor will only increase with time because of how technology scales and amplifies an individual laborer's output. The people who will be left behind will be people working in industries that cannot or will not scale.
Is the solution then to make sure that everyone is capable of joining the information/automation economy through education? Do we decide that a universal basic income is the best approach to take? I honestly don't know.
Basically, I can sit at my desk, and in one action, move some numbers from a cash account into an equity security. In doing so, in one day, I can increase my wealth by an amount that it would take a full-time minimum-wage worker a little over 2 weeks to earn. It's one data point, but it definitely challenges the notion of what's fair.
To extend this further, with technology, the inequities of capital over labor will only increase with time because of how technology scales and amplifies an individual laborer's output. The people who will be left behind will be people working in industries that cannot or will not scale.
Is the solution then to make sure that everyone is capable of joining the information/automation economy through education? Do we decide that a universal basic income is the best approach to take? I honestly don't know.
[deleted]
I recently went to Germany for the first time and I had the opposite reaction of this jounalist, I couldn't believe how little income equality there was. There were no homeless people, no slums, no bad neighborhoods, no crime. I was in Stutgart, it's one of the safest cities, but still. There is nothing like it in America. They have some unusual things... widespread legal prostitution, and of course there was the holocaust.. and there were not many minorities there. But, there is still nothing like it in the US. So I'm not surprised that he is stunned by how things are in America.
"As always, on the day Obama gave his speech in the Bronx, there were ten black service personnel in black "Just Salad" t-shirts. This time, however, I was surprised to see a white woman in a striped shirt standing among them. Her presence surprised me until I heard what she shouted at the people who were chopping the salad: "Chop, chop, chop, our goal is 45 seconds per customer!" As she spoke, she clapped a rhythm, as if commanding the crew of a Roman galley to row faster."
Indeed, situations in which a majority ethnicity are ordering around a minority happen a lot of the time but bringing it up as an anecdote to end the article makes me wonder if there is a deeper meaning to it. Why was this anecdote chosen out of other conclusions? Does it mean to imply that racism is the reason why people are poor? Or is it making a commentary on how ingrained the social injustices are to our institutions?
Given the context of the rest of the essay, it would seem, to me, it's just a simplistic way of wrapping up a not incredibly enlightening bit of writing.
Indeed, situations in which a majority ethnicity are ordering around a minority happen a lot of the time but bringing it up as an anecdote to end the article makes me wonder if there is a deeper meaning to it. Why was this anecdote chosen out of other conclusions? Does it mean to imply that racism is the reason why people are poor? Or is it making a commentary on how ingrained the social injustices are to our institutions?
Given the context of the rest of the essay, it would seem, to me, it's just a simplistic way of wrapping up a not incredibly enlightening bit of writing.
But it serves to show Amerika in a bad light, which pays the bills. The rest is just detail.
I got to half the article where it said "(...) ACE Cash Express, a store where many people cash their paychecks for a fee. Banks, which would do that for free, require minimum account balances that many people simply can’t afford", and I thought, really? The US doesn't have any kind of accounts for the poor?
And so I searched for "bank account without minimum balance" and sure enough, I found a Baltimore bank that offers free checking accounts with no minimum balances just three miles from the location they were talking about.
I frankly can't tell if these journalists assume I'm stupid or are just incompetent, but the credibility of the whole article has been killed for me.
(This is not to say I think the premise -that the system is unfairly harder on the poor and on certain minorities- is wrong)
And so I searched for "bank account without minimum balance" and sure enough, I found a Baltimore bank that offers free checking accounts with no minimum balances just three miles from the location they were talking about.
I frankly can't tell if these journalists assume I'm stupid or are just incompetent, but the credibility of the whole article has been killed for me.
(This is not to say I think the premise -that the system is unfairly harder on the poor and on certain minorities- is wrong)
Check out Spent looking for change [0] cool documentary on millions of Americans who can't get a bank account. It's completely different from the article and I understand your criticism, just mentioning it because the documentary addresses the reasons a lot of people actually use services like Ace Cash over banks.
Beyond that, there's generally an information deficiency for poor people. I come from a low-income background but we always did really well because on both sides of my family there's a long tradition of higher education. So forms concerning finances, taxes, housing, education etc, wasn't a challenge.
But I can easily see how not everyone is aware of every single value offer by different banks, especially when so many of them have a history of hidden fees and when you're going to places like ACE Cash for your payday loans anyway.
I mean hell my girlfriend for example, did her Masters', bright girl, upper middle class white family... she's missed out on about $8k the past few years because she wasn't aware of all the tax rules. After I talked her through it she's now netting an additional $1.5k per year. If she'd been poor, parents illiterate, didn't know how to use the internet properly to find information, it'd be even worse. I mean I have educated friends who're in their 50s and they just never use the internet to compare pricing or deals. If two banks offered him an account with minimum balances, and he had one before and got fines because he wasn't able to keep a minimum balance, it's entirely expected that he assumes all banks are like that and goes to ACE Cash.
I fully agree with you, doesn't justify the crappy journalism. That's his job, talk to people and verify their claims and report the story. Just trying to contextualise the experiences of people the journalist probably talked to, trying to explain why they're not using banks.
And I think his point is still valid which is that some of the rioting, e.g. breaking into ACE Cash, might be linked to the predatory practices of ACE Cash that the middle class never has to deal with. Which isn't cashing checks (his mistake), but rather shit like payday loans, where a poor person earns enough, but has crappy cash flow, and has the option of payday loans which have ridiculous 5000% or 7000% interest loans on the people that can least afford them. People who put up their car for collateral lose it. And you see people who borrow $300, and end up paying $400 in interest by the time they pay off the $300 principal, when these are the same people that had to take a loan to pay the rent to avoid becoming homeless and can't afford that. In that context he wants to put the riots, which isn't that crazy.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAxL4TB6pmQ
Beyond that, there's generally an information deficiency for poor people. I come from a low-income background but we always did really well because on both sides of my family there's a long tradition of higher education. So forms concerning finances, taxes, housing, education etc, wasn't a challenge.
But I can easily see how not everyone is aware of every single value offer by different banks, especially when so many of them have a history of hidden fees and when you're going to places like ACE Cash for your payday loans anyway.
I mean hell my girlfriend for example, did her Masters', bright girl, upper middle class white family... she's missed out on about $8k the past few years because she wasn't aware of all the tax rules. After I talked her through it she's now netting an additional $1.5k per year. If she'd been poor, parents illiterate, didn't know how to use the internet properly to find information, it'd be even worse. I mean I have educated friends who're in their 50s and they just never use the internet to compare pricing or deals. If two banks offered him an account with minimum balances, and he had one before and got fines because he wasn't able to keep a minimum balance, it's entirely expected that he assumes all banks are like that and goes to ACE Cash.
I fully agree with you, doesn't justify the crappy journalism. That's his job, talk to people and verify their claims and report the story. Just trying to contextualise the experiences of people the journalist probably talked to, trying to explain why they're not using banks.
And I think his point is still valid which is that some of the rioting, e.g. breaking into ACE Cash, might be linked to the predatory practices of ACE Cash that the middle class never has to deal with. Which isn't cashing checks (his mistake), but rather shit like payday loans, where a poor person earns enough, but has crappy cash flow, and has the option of payday loans which have ridiculous 5000% or 7000% interest loans on the people that can least afford them. People who put up their car for collateral lose it. And you see people who borrow $300, and end up paying $400 in interest by the time they pay off the $300 principal, when these are the same people that had to take a loan to pay the rent to avoid becoming homeless and can't afford that. In that context he wants to put the riots, which isn't that crazy.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAxL4TB6pmQ
The article makes things sound very dire, but worse, doesn't really offer any solutions to the issue.
I've seen some throwing around the idea of raising the minimum wage, but I'm skeptical this would solve the problem as well. I'll admit that I don't know a thing about economics, but it just seems a bit unfair for those that worked their way up to whatever the minimum wage would be raised to.
On the other hand, I do think that everyone deserves a chance to have a better life. Sadly though, what people deserve doesn't seem to really align with the supply/demand side of things. After all, I certainly don't feel like I deserve to get paid way more than most just because I happen to be a developer: I am just lucky I like something which pays well.
Perhaps the free community college would help with this issue?
I've seen some throwing around the idea of raising the minimum wage, but I'm skeptical this would solve the problem as well. I'll admit that I don't know a thing about economics, but it just seems a bit unfair for those that worked their way up to whatever the minimum wage would be raised to.
On the other hand, I do think that everyone deserves a chance to have a better life. Sadly though, what people deserve doesn't seem to really align with the supply/demand side of things. After all, I certainly don't feel like I deserve to get paid way more than most just because I happen to be a developer: I am just lucky I like something which pays well.
Perhaps the free community college would help with this issue?
Well, it's an article written by a German newspaper correspondent for a German audience... So it's understandable that the author doesn't try to offer solutions.
Free community college might be good but for some it is too late for many. If you have not graduated high school, have 2 felonies already then you probably will not be taking advantage of free community college.
Focus on middles schools and reducing single parent households and having kids at a young age.
Focus on middles schools and reducing single parent households and having kids at a young age.
This way I oppose illegal immigration and amnesty for adults. It hurts working class people without that don't have higher education. A disproportionate number who are black. It depress wages at the lower end. It is only one issue in a complicated situation but it is a another thing that is piling on those on the bottom rung economically. It disappointing to see Obama, Bush, Clinton, and some elite people pushing it.
Had the author spent time in the Ozarks, in mid-sized rural midwestern cities, in predominantly white manufacturing suburbs in the rust belt, or for that matter in most US cities other than New York, their conclusions would have been different.
Race is certainly an issue in the US! I just doubt we have much to learn about it from the fact that white corporate lawyers living in Park Slope are willing to have Jamaicans be nannies. It is not in fact that case that middle and upper-middle class families throughout the US tend to have black nannies, the way corporations in Dubai tend to have south asians as construction workers.