Homeowners have lost $156 billion by living in a 'black neighborhood'

[Radagast]

Homeowners have lost $156 billion by living in a 'black neighborhood'

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'"?

 

[Nithavela]

In LA that’s ghetto.

It's called "inner cities" now.

Every place where black people live is part of the inner city.

 

[RDKirk]

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'"?

Well, you can't really call it "saving" because in most cases they probably would not have been able to buy a more expensive home in a better neighborhood. They actually made some capital gains in the only situation that was available to them, which is better than having made no capital gains at all.

And that factor also negates the problem of homes not appreciating in those neighborhoods as greatly.

People without the ability to make better choices buy where they can.

 

[RDKirk]

It's called "inner cities" now.

Every place where black people live is part of the inner city.

Even when we live in predominantly white neighborhoods?

 

[Nithavela]

Even when we live in predominantly white neighborhoods?

Yes. Lots of little inner cities surrounded by white homes.

 

[Radagast]

And that factor also negates the problem of homes not appreciating in those neighborhoods as greatly.

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.

 

[SummerMadness]

The findings in this study mirror much of what is discussed in Richard Rothstein's, The Color of Law. There are some people that argue that much of the disparities we see are due to de facto segregation alone without recognizing the effects of du jure segregation and its continued impact on our society. But complaining and attacking the issue as only being about de facto segregation strongly suggests one has not read the article, which is linked right there.

 

[SummerMadness]

Did the article summarize the study correctly?

The article is linked right there, you could answer the question you posed easily by reading the article.

 

[SummerMadness]

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.

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.

 

[Hammster]

The article is linked right there, you could answer the question you posed easily by reading the article.

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?

 

[Radagast]

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 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.

 

[SummerMadness]

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, 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.

 

[Radagast]

Where does this assumption lie? Please explain. Moreover, you've constructed a straw man discussing appreciation of property value

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.

 

[SummerMadness]

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.

I don't think you understood the study.

 

[Hammster]

The study itself is probably correct. Similar houses in different neighborhoods sold for different amounts. It’s the conclusion that is presented in the article which is flawed.