The major reason for lack of black homeownership is low marriage rates.
A contributor to the factually challenged 1619 Project attempts to tackle the problem of poverty in the U.S. The results are, unsurprisingly, defective.
I n the 1619 Project, sociologist Matthew Desmond used faulty accounting to magnify the importance of the slave economy to United States’ economic growth, as well as grossly misunderstanding the dramatic labor-productivity increase of enslaved blacks. Now, in a recent New York Times article, Desmond has continued his politically driven errors with an inaccurate assessment of poverty trends and, just as important, an inadequate set of policies needed to reduce poverty still further.
Desmond begins by noting correctly that, according to the government’s official poverty measure, there has been little change in the share of the population considered poor over the last 50 years. He then notes that the official measure does not include many government safety-net programs, such as food stamps and the earned income tax credit; but he incorrectly suggests that their inclusion would also find little change in poverty over time. He does this by a statistical sleight of hand: Instead of reporting changes in the share of the population that is poor — what he did when presenting official statistics — Desmond now switches to reporting actual numbers: “The U.S. officially gained three million more” poor people.
Desmond neglects to mention that the U.S. population has grown by over 65 percent since 1970, more than offsetting the 10 percent growth he cites in the number of poor people. When the transfer payments mentioned above are included and a more widely accepted measure of the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U-RS) is used, the poor as a share of the population declined from 18 percent in 1970 to 6 percent in 2018, and when a measure of consumption is used, the decline is even greater.
Then, once more Desmond makes a crucial statistical assertion that is false. His major anti-poverty proposals are: (1) more support for private-sector unionizing efforts to raise incomes of low-paid workers and (2) reducing the high rents paid and low homeownership that typify black neighborhoods. Unionizing Starbucks or Walmart would have little positive impact on the income of the poor. But as Jason Furman pointed out years ago, Walmart is most beneficial to the poor by providing lower prices for consumer goods. And both Walmart and Starbucks provide more than competitive wages and benefits. They fight unionization because these chains want complete control over scheduling and the hiring-firing process.
There is no question that rents are higher and housing prices are lower in many poor neighborhoods because families lack the creditworthiness necessary to gain a mortgage for homeownership. However, the Section 8 government-housing program allows its funds to be used for homeownership, and this option should be expanded. Moreover, the major reason for lack of black home ownership is low marriage rates. In 2022, black homeownership was 44 percent, but for married couples it was 64 percent, virtually the same as the overall white homeownership rate.
These homeownership statistics point to a major flaw that afflicts liberal analyses: assuming that the high rate of single-parent households has no impact on any of the ills the black community faces, including poverty, low educational attainment, and high violent-crime rates. Liberals not only inflate societal inadequacies but, more damaging, they refuse to see changing behaviors as part of the solution. Matthew Yglesias, after pointing out the flaw in Desmond’s narrative, considers only increased transfer payments as an effective solution. Unfortunately, the poor lapse into harmful adaptations, and changing these behaviors is necessary for them to truly move ahead. By seeking only societal changes and more generous transfers, liberal solutions are too often ineffective and sometimes counterproductive.
As educator Ian Rowe has documented, it is important to encourage youth to follow the success sequence: finish school, get a job, marry, and then have children — whereby virtually all black families would escape poverty. In addition, by reducing the marriage penalty that many low-earning mothers face, we might increase the marriage rate somewhat. However, more importantly, government should focus resources on aiding young unmarried mothers through visiting nursing and pre-school programs, like Parent as Teachers, so that these women would gain the knowledge needed to put themselves and their children on a pathway to success. The key — directly engaging mothers — is also an important reason for the success of charter schools: enabling them to become the parents they desire to be.
Just as important, the government should formulate effective post-secondary programs to put more young Americans on the road to success. Too many 16-year-olds lack the academic skills necessary for college programs after high school. These students need effective occupational programs to put them on the road to the middle class. For many, it means beginning with short-term certificate programs that provide the credentials necessary for entry-level employment, credentials that often provide the first taste of educational success for many and a stepping stone to pursue further stackable certificates that aid in their employment advancement.
None of this denies that poor youth face unfair obstacles and live in circumstances that were no fault of their own. This is why some measure of government support is justified and has helped dramatically reduce the share of the population judged poor. However, to further reduce poverty (and the number of near-poor individuals) we must help youth correct behavior deficits and harmful decision making if we want them to truly succeed.