Critical Race Theory and systemic inequalities

[Ken]

You seem to be implying that it's a high calling or at least very virtuous for Christians to try to pull lower class people up to a higher class, but I see no support for this in scripture. When I read the beatitudes, I see nothing in there blessing affluence or high class, in fact I read the exact opposite.

So you ask what Christians should be doing? Stop defining success in worldy, western, white (protestant) terms, and start defining it in Godly terms

I'm not Boot but I would argue that you are making a false comparison.

In my mind, none of this is about "pulling lower class people up into a higher class" It is simply about working to eliminate systemic injustices. Which first requires that we actually identify those that exist and seek to remedy them. For example, why are public schools in the US so unequal between wealthy and poor communities when that isn't the case in other developed countries like Norway, Finland, or even Canada? Why are public parks and green spaces more prevalent and better maintained in wealthier zip codes? That happens even in liberal cities like Portland where parks and green spaces are so much nicer on the wealthy west side than poorer east side. Why do affluent areas have nicer streets and sidewalks that are safer?

People are still going to succeed or fail on their own terms. But at least we can make sure that we aren't contributing to the problem.

[Bootstrap]

You seem to be implying that it's a high calling or at least very virtuous for Christians to try to pull lower class people up to a higher class, but I see no support for this in scripture. When I read the beatitudes, I see nothing in there blessing affluence or high class, in fact I read the exact opposite.

Like you, I don't think the Bible says we should be upper class or rich.

I do think concern for the poor is everywhere in Scripture, Old Testament and new. I also think reaching out to others redemptively is everywhere in Scripture. And not shaming the poor is also a major theme - they should be treated well.

So if poor people choose to live in better neighborhoods, I think we should welcome them. I don't live in a rich neighborhood, neither I nor my neighbors are wealthy by any stretch of the imagination, but I do live in a safe neighborhood that is cheaper than most in my area. And a mixed-race, multicultural neighborhood. Exactly the kinds of neighborhoods Raj Chetty is championing. When people move here, I want to be welcoming.

So you ask what Christians should be doing? Stop defining success in worldy, western, white (protestant) terms, and start defining it in Godly terms.

I read that, but I couldn't see what you think white Christians like us should be doing that might help with the struggles some people are facing in the worst neighborhoods. Do you think we should do anything to care for those people? If so, what?

If your affluent white neighbors object to people moving into your neighborhood, will you welcome your new neighbors or join the rich in criticizing and shaming the poor?

[Ken]

What about the Josh types who throw up all manner of structural economic barriers to prevent poorer families from moving into nicer neighborhoods?

Huh? Josh is not a banker nor a policy maker. He personally oversees quality housing for a few lower class people at his own cost. Maybe you should avoid personal attacks on people you don't know.

Josh is the one here on this thread and the other who is arguing that economic barriers are justified in order to keep poorer folks from being able to move into wealthier areas and attend nicer schools. That using the structures of the state to hoard opportunity and segregate or exclude the less wealthy is justified. I'm responding to his words here, not whatever he does in his personal life. For example:

I’m simply saying that higher class people don’t want to live surrounded by single wide trailers, junk cars, domestic disputes, meth labs, scrap meds gatherers, and pitbulls. Nor do they want to deal with trying to share a school with such people.

And frankly, I can understand why. Why would someone want to send their kids to school with people whose parents think stealing cats to make a living and dealing drugs is OK?

[nett]

I read that, but I couldn't see what you think white Christians like us should be doing that might help with the struggles some people are facing in the worst neighborhoods. Do you think we should do anything to care for those people? If so, what?

You said "choose", implying that the people who are leaving have some agency of their to leave. If those people leave, where does that leave the people who can't leave? This whole discussion lacks any empathy or even consideration for the people left behind (which will be most people). Suburban housing in "good" areas is incredibly inefficient, and there is not even close to enough of that housing to go around. So it's great for the small percentage of people who have the resources to leave, or who are fortunate enough to have the government do it for them, but what about everyone else who is left behind?

If your affluent white neighbors object to people moving into your neighborhood, will you welcome your new neighbors or join the rich in criticizing and shaming the poor?

I live in a rural area, so the chances of your scenario being realized are quite low, but I would welcome anyone as my neighbor.

I hope you've picked up from my tone that I don't have a low opinion of poor people, in fact I think poor people are implicitly closer to God's heart. I categorically reject the notion that the poor are so because they don't "live by christian principles".

In fact, I think it's very possible to cherry-pick "biblical principles" that will lead to wealth, and then pat yourself on the back for being rich because you're a good person, when the biblical reality is actually very far from that.

[nett]

Josh is the one here on this thread and the other who is arguing that economic barriers are justified in order to keep poorer folks from being able to move into wealthier areas and attend nicer schools. That using the structures of the state to hoard opportunity and segregate or exclude the less wealthy is justified. I'm responding to his words here, not whatever he does in his personal life. For example:

I’m simply saying that higher class people don’t want to live surrounded by single wide trailers, junk cars, domestic disputes, meth labs, scrap meds gatherers, and pitbulls. Nor do they want to deal with trying to share a school with such people.

And frankly, I can understand why. Why would someone want to send their kids to school with people whose parents think stealing cats to make a living and dealing drugs is OK?

I do not see him advocating for economic barriers. I think you're confusing his lack of ideologically support for heavily subsidized programs for him desiring economic barriers to be put in place. There are lot of natural barriers in place to prevent lower class people from mixing with upper class folks, there always have been, and there always will be.

As Christians, we're a part of a different class, and Jesus welcomes all with open arms, but it has nothing to do with material wealth, ancestry, or skin color.

I think you and boot are REALLY missing the fact that what you're advocating takes neighborhoods that are already struggling and absolutely shreds what little structure and community they had. I have heard almost no care or empathy for the people left behind in your dream world scenarios. Can you address that please? Who do you believe deserves to live in polluted, unsafe cities? because a LOT of people have to, as I've said before suburbs are unsustainable.

[Ken]

Josh is the one here on this thread and the other who is arguing that economic barriers are justified in order to keep poorer folks from being able to move into wealthier areas and attend nicer schools. That using the structures of the state to hoard opportunity and segregate or exclude the less wealthy is justified. I'm responding to his words here, not whatever he does in his personal life. For example:

I’m simply saying that higher class people don’t want to live surrounded by single wide trailers, junk cars, domestic disputes, meth labs, scrap meds gatherers, and pitbulls. Nor do they want to deal with trying to share a school with such people.

And frankly, I can understand why. Why would someone want to send their kids to school with people whose parents think stealing cats to make a living and dealing drugs is OK?

I do not see him advocating for economic barriers. I think you're confusing his lack of ideologically support for heavily subsidized programs for him desiring economic barriers to be put in place. There are lot of natural barriers in place to prevent lower class people from mixing with upper class folks, there always have been, and there always will be.

As Christians, we're a part of a different class, and Jesus welcomes all with open arms, but it has nothing to do with material wealth, ancestry, or skin color.

I think you and boot are REALLY missing the fact that what you're advocating takes neighborhoods that are already struggling and absolutely shreds what little structure and community they had. I have heard almost no care or empathy for the people left behind in your dream world scenarios. Can you address that please? Who do you believe deserves to live in polluted, unsafe cities? because a LOT of people have to, as I've said before suburbs are unsustainable.

What am I talking about? I happen to live in a growing town where most of the new development is required by LAW to be single family homes on large lots which means most of the new housing being constructed is million and multi-million dollar homes. Like for example: http://www.theparklandsatcamasmeadows.com/ Any property owner or developer who actually wants to build something more affordable like town homes or smaller condominiums or anything that a less than affluent family might be able to afford is actually prohibited BY LAW from doing so.

This is due to the local elected officials who are bound and determined to prevent any change and make sure that local property values stay high. And since they are mostly subsidized in their elections by wealthy developers (many from out of state), they do whatever they can to kick tax benefits towards that sort of new construction.

The result is actually something of a Ponzi scheme because all the new construction in they area imposes much higher public maintenance costs than all the older construction and neighborhoods that are less affluent. All the new large lot subdivisions with dead end cut-de-sacs require more linear feet of water and sewer pipes per home than older neighborhoods, more feet of electrical wire and fiber per home, more square feet of road pavement per home, all of which is going to be more costly for taxpayers to construct and maintain. So it is actually a massive public subsidy for the wealthy that is required by law. People living in the poorer and older parts of town are actually subsidizing this development pattern but don’t benefit from it. The new homes being built use about 5-10x more public resources per home than the existing more modest homes.

We live in a more modest part of town and I advocate for building more modest town homes that are more energy efficient, require less public resources and subsidies, and are more affordable for families ($500k instead of $1-plus million) in neighborhoods that are more connected and require less driving. But that sort of thing falls on deaf ears. It doesn’t mean I’m advocating for pit bulls and double-wides in the neighborhood. But if the area is going to grow I’d like to see better planned urban neighborhoods that are more affordable rather than endlessly clear cutting more forest land on the fringes to put up more multi-million dollar mansions that the rest of us taxpayers are going to have to subsidize. None of that is even possible under our existing zoning laws and is the sort of thing I’m talking about when it comes to systemic or structural barriers.

If people want to build multi-million dollar homes around here fine. It is a free country. I’m objecting to all the local laws and systemic structures that require that outcome and require the rest of us to subsidize it. Expand this local situation across the rest of the country and we have the state of affairs that we have today where huge inequities exist that are often heavily subsidized by the rest of us.

[nett]

This is funny, because with the exception of one statement, I agree 100% with everything you have here. I'll comment inline.

What am I talking about? I happen to live in a growing town where most of the new development is required by LAW to be single family homes on large lots which means most of the new housing being constructed is million and multi-million dollar homes. Like for example: http://www.theparklandsatcamasmeadows.com/ Any property owner or developer who actually wants to build something more affordable like town homes or smaller condominiums or anything that a less than affluent family might be able to afford is actually prohibited BY LAW from doing so.

This is due to the local elected officials who are bound and determined to prevent any change and make sure that local property values stay high. And since they are mostly subsidized in their elections by wealthy developers (many from out of state), they do whatever they can to kick tax benefits towards that sort of new construction.

It's not just wealthy developers, federal subsidies have a lot to do with this as well.

The result is actually something of a Ponzi scheme because all the new construction in they area imposes much higher public maintenance costs than all the older construction and neighborhoods that are less affluent. All the new large lot subdivisions with dead end cut-de-sacs require more linear feet of water and sewer pipes per home than older neighborhoods, more feet of electrical wire and fiber per home, more square feet of road pavement per home, all of which is going to be more costly for taxpayers to construct and maintain. So it is actually a massive public subsidy for the wealthy that is required by law. People living in the poorer and older parts of town are actually subsidizing this development pattern but don’t benefit from it. The new homes being built use about 5-10x more public resources per home than the existing more modest homes.

Suburbs are categorically unsustainably. I'm in total agreement.

We live in a more modest part of town and I advocate for building more modest town homes that are more energy efficient, require less public resources and subsidies, and are more affordable for families ($500k instead of $1-plus million)...

$500k??? let's get real. Lower class, underprivileged people cannot afford that, nor will they ever be able to. Housing in that price range will never accomplish what you're hoping for. I think you're out of touch with just how little the people you want to help actually have.

... in neighborhoods that are more connected and require less driving. But that sort of thing falls on deaf ears. It doesn’t mean I’m advocating for pit bulls and double-wides in the neighborhood. But if the area is going to grow I’d like to see better planned urban neighborhoods that are more affordable rather than endlessly clear cutting more forest land on the fringes to put up more multi-million dollar mansions that the rest of us taxpayers are going to have to subsidize. None of that is even possible under our existing zoning laws and is the sort of thing I’m talking about when it comes to systemic or structural barriers.

I would take that a step further. Why do you need to ravage the environment to build new housing when there are solid houses standing vacant. Why not repair older buildings in town that as you said are VERY sustainable? Can't we Invest in the towns, and make them pleasant places to live, like they are in Europe?

If people want to build multi-million dollar homes around here fine. It is a free country. I’m objecting to all the local laws and systemic structures that require that outcome and require the rest of us to subsidize it. Expand this local situation across the rest of the country and we have the state of affairs that we have today where huge inequities exist that are often heavily subsidized by the rest of us.

I agree. I don't think rich people should be free to decimate the environment and consume massive amounts of shared resources just because they have deep pockets. If anything, I think the govt should penalize this behavior not subsidize it. You want to build a multi-million dollar mansion? You're gonna get slapped with a 5 mil temporary tax for say 50 years.

So I agree in principle with everything you're saying, although I think you're stated numbers are absurd, but then again I'm not on the west coast. How do you arrive at the conclusion that shipping people out of the ghettos and into these unsustainable suburbs is going to fix anything?

[Ken]

This is funny, because with the exception of one statement, I agree 100% with everything you have here. I'll comment inline.

What am I talking about? I happen to live in a growing town where most of the new development is required by LAW to be single family homes on large lots which means most of the new housing being constructed is million and multi-million dollar homes. Like for example: http://www.theparklandsatcamasmeadows.com/ Any property owner or developer who actually wants to build something more affordable like town homes or smaller condominiums or anything that a less than affluent family might be able to afford is actually prohibited BY LAW from doing so.

This is due to the local elected officials who are bound and determined to prevent any change and make sure that local property values stay high. And since they are mostly subsidized in their elections by wealthy developers (many from out of state), they do whatever they can to kick tax benefits towards that sort of new construction.

It's not just wealthy developers, federal subsidies have a lot to do with this as well.

The result is actually something of a Ponzi scheme because all the new construction in they area imposes much higher public maintenance costs than all the older construction and neighborhoods that are less affluent. All the new large lot subdivisions with dead end cut-de-sacs require more linear feet of water and sewer pipes per home than older neighborhoods, more feet of electrical wire and fiber per home, more square feet of road pavement per home, all of which is going to be more costly for taxpayers to construct and maintain. So it is actually a massive public subsidy for the wealthy that is required by law. People living in the poorer and older parts of town are actually subsidizing this development pattern but don’t benefit from it. The new homes being built use about 5-10x more public resources per home than the existing more modest homes.

Suburbs are categorically unsustainably. I'm in total agreement.

We live in a more modest part of town and I advocate for building more modest town homes that are more energy efficient, require less public resources and subsidies, and are more affordable for families ($500k instead of $1-plus million)...

$500k??? let's get real. Lower class, underprivileged people cannot afford that, nor will they ever be able to. Housing in that price range will never accomplish what you're hoping for. I think you're out of touch with just how little the people you want to help actually have.

... in neighborhoods that are more connected and require less driving. But that sort of thing falls on deaf ears. It doesn’t mean I’m advocating for pit bulls and double-wides in the neighborhood. But if the area is going to grow I’d like to see better planned urban neighborhoods that are more affordable rather than endlessly clear cutting more forest land on the fringes to put up more multi-million dollar mansions that the rest of us taxpayers are going to have to subsidize. None of that is even possible under our existing zoning laws and is the sort of thing I’m talking about when it comes to systemic or structural barriers.

I would take that a step further. Why do you need to ravage the environment to build new housing when there are solid houses standing vacant. Why not repair older buildings in town that as you said are VERY sustainable? Can't we Invest in the towns, and make them pleasant places to live, like they are in Europe?

If people want to build multi-million dollar homes around here fine. It is a free country. I’m objecting to all the local laws and systemic structures that require that outcome and require the rest of us to subsidize it. Expand this local situation across the rest of the country and we have the state of affairs that we have today where huge inequities exist that are often heavily subsidized by the rest of us.

I agree. I don't think rich people should be free to decimate the environment and consume massive amounts of shared resources just because they have deep pockets. If anything, I think the govt should penalize this behavior not subsidize it. You want to build a multi-million dollar mansion? You're gonna get slapped with a 5 mil temporary tax for say 50 years.

So I agree in principle with everything you're saying, although I think you're stated numbers are absurd, but then again I'm not on the west coast. How do you arrive at the conclusion that shipping people out of the ghettos and into these unsustainable suburbs is going to fix anything?

Housing is expensive here on the west coast.

Yes, $200,000 homes would be nice but they don’t exist other than perhaps small studio condos. A $500,000 family home is still a huge improvement over a $1 million home that is required by law to be built in much of the land around here. Doing the math, if you buy a $500,000 home with 10% down that leaves a $450,000 mortgage which at current interest rates of 3.5% is about $2300/month for a 30 year mortgage. Call it $3,000/mo after taxes, insurance, maintenance, etc. That isn’t in reach if you are a single mom working at Wal-Mart, but a middle class 2-income family, say a nurse married to a teacher is going to have a household income in the $100k to $150k around here. That comes to gross income of roughly $8.5k to $12.5k per month of which $3,000/mo of housing costs is affordable and within the recommended 30% of gross income. Rents are going to be in the same ballpark for a single family home so you are stuck either way.

My larger point is that we don’t even allow much construction of $500,000 homes around here. Much of the land by law requires homes in the $1 million plus range, which gets subdivided by all the rest of us in a hundred different ways. Much of the rest of the country is similar.

And no, I don’t expect underprivileged lower income people to be able to buy $500,000 homes. We don’t generally build homes for poor people. That’s not the point. But if you build homes that are affordable to middle class people then they will move up and and the homes they leave behind are then more affordable for the people under them too move up. And so forth. That used to be how things worked in this country. There was much more opportunity for upward mobility. But not so much anymore. Right now used cars are ridiculously expensive because of the semi-conductor shortages preventing new cars from being built. It is part of the same cascade effect. Used cars don’t need new semiconductors but the supply constraints and price increases at the top affect the entire market all the way down to the bottom nevertheless.

[Bootstrap]

If your affluent white neighbors object to people moving into your neighborhood, will you welcome your new neighbors or join the rich in criticizing and shaming the poor?

I live in a rural area, so the chances of your scenario being realized are quite low, but I would welcome anyone as my neighbor.

I hope you've picked up from my tone that I don't have a low opinion of poor people, in fact I think poor people are implicitly closer to God's heart. I categorically reject the notion that the poor are so because they don't "live by christian principles".

Yes, I hear that and appreciate it. And I agree.

In fact, I think it's very possible to cherry-pick "biblical principles" that will lead to wealth, and then pat yourself on the back for being rich because you're a good person, when the biblical reality is actually very far from that.

I agree. And an awful lot of the most visible Christianity in the United States seems to conflate Christianity with all kinds of things that are not in the Bible. So yeah, let's not do that.

[nett]

Housing is expensive here on the west coast.

Yes, $200,000 homes would be nice but they don’t exist other than perhaps small studio condos. A $500,000 family home is still a huge improvement over a $1 million home that is required by law to be built in much of the land around here. Doing the math, if you buy a $500,000 home with 10% down that leaves a $450,000 mortgage which at current interest rates of 3.5% is about $2300/month for a 30 year mortgage. Call it $3,000/mo after taxes, insurance, maintenance, etc. That isn’t in reach if you are a single mom working at Wal-Mart, but a middle class 2-income family, say a nurse married to a teacher is going to have a household income in the $100k to $150k around here. That comes to gross income of roughly $8.5k to $12.5k per month of which $3,000/mo of housing costs is affordable and within the recommended 30% of gross income. Rents are going to be in the same ballpark for a single family home so you are stuck either way.

My larger point is that we don’t even allow much construction of $500,000 homes around here. Much of the land by law requires homes in the $1 million plus range, which gets subdivided by all the rest of us in a hundred different ways. Much of the rest of the country is similar.

And no, I don’t expect underprivileged lower income people to be able to buy $500,000 homes. We don’t generally build homes for poor people. That’s not the point. But if you build homes that are affordable to middle class people then they will move up and and the homes they leave behind are then more affordable for the people under them too move up. And so forth. That used to be how things worked in this country. There was much more opportunity for upward mobility. But not so much anymore. Right now used cars are ridiculously expensive because of the semi-conductor shortages preventing new cars from being built. It is part of the same cascade effect. Used cars don’t need new semiconductors but the supply constraints and price increases at the top affect the entire market all the way down to the bottom nevertheless.

Ok, I see where you are coming from, but it sounds an awful lot like trickle down reaganomics, which I find classist, and unpalatable, and delusional.

Why do rich people deserve an enormous house, but poor people need to live in shacks?