Leaving aside the statistics, which I am very dubious about, why doesn't the headline read "fortunate homeowners saved $156 billion by buying homes in lower-cost 'black neighbourhoods'"?
Upvote
0
Leaving aside the statistics, which I am very dubious about, why doesn't the headline read "fortunate homeowners saved $156 billion by buying homes in lower-cost 'black neighbourhoods'"?
It's called "inner cities" now.
Every place where black people live is part of the inner city.
And that factor also negates the problem of homes not appreciating in those neighborhoods as greatly.
The article is linked right there, you could answer the question you posed easily by reading the article.Did the article summarize the study correctly?
People that often argue statistics are "weak" often fail to make an argument that refutes the statistics presented. Nor do they present flaws in the actual statistical analysis. I am never surprised by these unsubstantiated arguments.The study did not actually address the question of change in value over time. So we don't know how much those homes appreciated.
Statistically speaking, the whole study seems to be so weak as to be useless.
Certainly, nobody has "lost" anything by buying an affordable home.
I read it. But you said most people don’t read the research the article is based on. So does the research show something different than the article?The article is linked right there, you could answer the question you posed easily by reading the article.
People that often argue statistics are "weak" often fail to make an argument that refutes the statistics presented. Nor do they present flaws in the actual statistical analysis. I am never surprised by these unsubstantiated arguments.
Where does this assumption lie? Please explain. Moreover, you've constructed a straw man discussing appreciation of property value, which is not an apples-to-apples comparison as was conducted in this study. We know your argument is a straw man because it has no bearing on the analysis in this study.The study did not address change in value over time.
Therefore one can draw no conclusions about change in value over time. That should be obvious.
In addition, after allowing for a number of factors, it assumes, but does not prove, that race is the issue driving house prices.
Where does this assumption lie? Please explain. Moreover, you've constructed a straw man discussing appreciation of property value
I don't think you understood the study.Well, no. It's only if property fails to appreciate at a "normal" rate that a homeowner can be said to have "lost" anything.
I don't think you understood the study.