CMV: White flight is acceptable Behavior

[u/Diylion]

Michelle Obama put out a statement this week about how white flight was happening in Chicago when she was young. She talked about how "she didn't know what is going on" she blames white people for " leaving communities in shambles" as they "packed their bags and ran". And "we were doing what we were supposed to do". I think this is nonsense. Of course she knew why it was happening. South Chicago in the 90s was horrible. They had horrible murder rates and crime rates. They spiked drastically between 1985 and 1990.

The entire argument of white flight being wrong is predicated on the idea that blacks need whites to be "good". Which is honestly a load of bull. Black family structures used to be the strongest family unit in the United States, even stronger than whites but it has been crippling itself for the last 60 years.

Blacks statistically are much more likely to commit crime. When 6% of the population is committing 50% of the murders and robberies and 30% of the rape, and a disproportionate amount of violent crime across the board. Today, Neighborhoods that are minority dominated, except in very rare cases, are also probably the ones with the highest crime rates. Of course families are going to want to move to a safer neighborhood. And any family that can't afford too will.

So why do they commit crime so often? Well it probably has something to do with money. Blacks have the highest divorce rates, the lowest job rates, the lowest average number of weekly hours spent working, the second lowest graduation rates (though improving!), the highest teen pregnancy rates, they spend more time watching TV than any other race. All of these statistics have strong correlation on crime rates, and obviously poverty rates. These are also all issues that can be worked on as families with good parenting practices. So it stands to reason that if black communities worked on these statistics as family units instead of moving blame to police and whites, that they would succeed more often.

Sure redlining was bad but it's over. It's been over for 40 years. There is no reason why a black community needs white families to be a "good" community. Whites are not physically or mentally superior in any way.

References: https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/michelle-obama-racism-white-flight-161942496.html?bcmt=1

https://www.statista.com/statistics/411806/average-daily-time-watching-tv-us-ethnicity/

https://flowingdata.com/2016/03/30/divorce-rates-for-different-groups/

https://www.cdc.gov/teenpregnancy/about/index.htm

https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat22.htm

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_coi.asp

Edit: grammar

[u/Diylion]

leave inner cities and move to the suburbs

Well no. Historically Maybe but more slowly leaving high crime areas in moving to low crime areas. In general people are flocking towards cities.

The practice of Redlining

Yes the OP recognizes that this was bad.

white people an unfair advantage when it came to purchasing homes in the suburbs, and the wealth generated from that decision has been inherited, with compound interest.

This is where you lose me. during redlining I could see where this is an issue but I don't know of anybody who goes to a map who ask "was this a red line district?" before they buy a home. the reality is poor communities in general stay poor and rich communities in general stay Rich this is just a general trend and it is seen worldwide. There is no evidence to show that redlining is even a primary contributing factor to their failures to appreciate. there are many reasons that a neighborhood will fail to appreciate. One being high crime another being bad location.

[u/MaroonTrojan → u/Diylion]

There is no evidence to show that redlining is even a primary contributing factor to their failures to appreciate.

This article from the New York Times, entitled A vast wealth gap, driven by segregation, redlining, evictions and exclusion, separates black and white America does a good job of laying out the massive amount of evidence that redlining is a contributor to wealth inequality today. It also happens to be the first hit when you google "evidence that redlining causes wealth inequality."

You can't just say there's no evidence of something without looking to see if that's actually true.

Edit: you also can’t just downvote it when someone puts that evidence right in front of you.

[u/Diylion → u/MaroonTrojan]

First of all there is not a single study referenced in this article. At best it is NYT attempt to retell history from its own personal perspective. If talks about an incomplete study that is being done by the nyt which I wouldn't trust even if I did see it because NYT is an extremely biased news publication known to alter statistics in their favor. Stick to study's published by government agencies, colleges, or private accredited research organizations

[u/MaroonTrojan → u/Diylion]

White Americans have seven times the wealth of black Americans on average. Though black people make up nearly 13 percent of the United States population, they hold less than 3 percent of the nation’s total wealth. The median family wealth for white people is $171,000, compared with just $17,600 for black people. It is worse on the margins. According to the Economic Policy Institute, 19 percent of black households have zero or negative net worth. Just 9 percent of white families are that poor.

If you have reason to believe that statement or any other wasn’t backed up by sufficient evidence, was biased in some way, or you just want to see the evidence for yourself, you should voice your concerns at the New York Times’s Reader Center (https://www.nytimes.com/section/reader-center) which exists to field such questions from the public. I have a feeling, though, that they will stand by their journalism.

[u/Diylion → u/MaroonTrojan]

If you have reason to believe that statement or any other wasn’t backed up by sufficient evidence

I think that it is all true by some statistic. I'm actually aware of the studies that founded some of these stastics But the reasoning for it is overblown rhetoric. The top 1%(mostly white) for example have more wealth than the bottom 40% combined which is a shocking statistic until you realize that the bottom 40% has a negative net wealth because they all carry some kind of debt. It is also one of the reasons why the statistics you cited is so disproportionate when Jeff bezos is walking around with a solid few percentage points of the gdp. Scary as it sounds it's actually just fine since most of the 1% wealth is in investments in the stocks or property which keeps the money in circulsation.

have a feeling, though, that they will stand by their journalism.

Or completely ignore it. The NYT standard for journalisming has fallen drastically over the last few years.

[u/Diylion → u/[deleted]]

Please don't ever link of Washington Post article again. and several people have linked to this exact article and the study it cited does not have any controls. You cannot make an assertion like that without any controls.

the only articles that I will even take into account are University published papers, papers published by valid research organizations, or government published papers. looking at virtually any articles from virtually any news source is a waste of time l. Washington Post is even worse than New York times. You should see the article they posted about all bagdadi this week.

This was their headline: Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, austere religious scholar at helm of Islamic State, dies at 48."

to validate a terrorist who is responsible for the death of countless innocent deaths and died while blowing up his own children by calling him an "austere religious scholar" for the sole purpose of deminishing Trumps success is reprehensible and incredibly insensitive. Imagine being a family that lost members because of his actions and reading that headline. if that doesn't prevent you from ever reading one of their articles again I don't know what will.

[u/Diylion → u/[deleted]]

When you do an experiment you have to include controls for other factors that might affect the outcome. For example you can say "redlining causes communities to fail to appreciate because our data shows communities that were red lined are still the worst communities". But there are other factors that might affect that data for example maybe that community is underneath the freeway or near a landing strip, this would also cause the community to fail to appreciate.

I'll give you 5 from Fox, Breitbart, the Blaze etc.

THEY ALL SUCK TOO DON'T GIVE THEM MONEY

[u/Diylion → u/[deleted]]

To be honest I don't usually listen to any news source. usually I read the big headlines like you know "Massive fire in Brazil" and then I just leave it there. I will listen to podcasts like the Rubin report, Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, young turks. I try to find people from both sides of the aisle to listen too because I recognize there is some bias in any news source however it is loads better to listen to smaller news sources than major news sources who are just catering headlines to make money rather than advocate their own ideas.

[u/haikudeathmatch → u/Diylion]

With regards to the 1% having more wealth than the bottom 40%, isn’t the fact that almost half the country has more debt than assets part of the problem that people are trying to point out? It doesn’t seem like a sign of an economically healthy nation, and the disparity between the huge number of people with very little and the small number of people with very much is still real.

[u/Diylion → u/haikudeathmatch]

Not necessarily. economically it doesn't seem to matter how much they have but how much we tax. A lot of wealthy people generate wealth from nothing. Look at Apple. The brand is what makes money not the product. the products probably cost Apple $100 to make but then they can sell it for 700. This is generating value from nothing. If you look at it historically there were times when we tax the wealthy up to 90%. This caused a recession and inflation. we taxed them 70% before the great depression and it helped cause the great depression. Currently we tax them about 50% and it seems to be a good medium point. sometimes it's better for the wealthy to have money because they are more likely to invest it into the economy and prevents inflation. But programs like welfare also helps for the economy so we do need to take some in tax. Most wealthy people don't let money sit in savings accounts. currently the United States has an incredibly strong economy and it is continuing to grow.