Untroubled by Inequality

Dana Goldstein writes about a new report naming DC the "third most unequal" city in America. Here, I think, we've come to the level of analysis at which it stops making sense to care about inequality or even poverty rates as such. DC could, after all, probably reduce its poverty rate by razing public housing, slashing public services, eliminating all jobs programs, and handing out bus tickets. That, though, wouldn't solve anything in particular. Similarly, it would be easy enough to adjust tax policy in such a way as to induce all the rich people to move to Bethesda, thus reducing inequality but also wrecking the city's tax base, eliminating many jobs, and ultimately leading to declining services and well-being for the poor.

Many Americans towns probably have a low poverty rate not because they're doing something awesome to fight poverty, but just because they're too expensive for poor people to live there.

The specific aspect of inequality in the District that should worry people is that our public schools perform poorly (much worse, even, than the average urban district -- one of the very worst if not the worst big city in the country) which makes it an unattractive place for middle class families with children to live. Even so, given that school reform is hard it makes perfect sense for a troubled city (like DC 15 years ago) to focus first on the relatively easy task of turning itself into a place that's appealing to a larger number of prosperous single people thus creating circumstances (more revenue, less crime) and then pivot to the more challenging problem of the school system. That seems to be about the point we've reached as a city, with Mayor Fenty's campaign focused mostly on education-related promises and people seemingly enthusiastic about Michelle Rhee's efforts in tha regard, and that's all to the good.

Still, while a country featuring a huge gap between haves and have-nots is probably a sign of bad national policy in my view, a city having such a gap tells us very little other than (a) some very poor people can afford to live there, and (b) some very rich people deem it a good place to live. It's not clear that making either (a) or (b) cease to be the case would advance the cause of justice in any real way, and the prospects for a municipality trying to undertake wealth redistribution are very bad.

Comments

Here in Atlanta we like to think of our city as highly diverse rather than unequal. My local Kroger serves Emory heart surgeons and Hispanic day-laborers. Is this supposed to be bad?

Posted by Th | October 26, 2007 8:42 AM

Not every child has the benefit of parents passing on to them an earnest curiosity to learn and explore. Nor does every child have parents willing or able to teach them the basic building blocks of reading, math, geography and other subjects a child of 3, 4 or 5 years of age is perfectly capable of comprehending. That said I still believe school reform starts at home. It's no wonder schools have the difficulty they do when children show up wholly unprepared for learning. When I was young it was common for kids to already know how to read before they entered 1st grade, along with addition and subtraction and many other learning concepts. The idea it's the parent's responsibility to teach their children, to acclimate them to school and to look over their shoulder constantly to assure they're working is passe'. Whenever I hear parent's bitching about failing schools I immediately question just how much effort THEY put into the program.

Posted by steve duncan | October 26, 2007 9:13 AM

one reason it's passe is way more fams where 2 incomes needed just to get by. time scarce.

Posted by nick | October 26, 2007 9:22 AM

Here, I think, we've come to the level of analysis at which it stops making sense to care about inequality or even poverty rates as such.

So it turns out your ox is not the one we were looking to gore. Surprising!

a city having such a gap tells us very little other than (a) some very poor people can afford to live there, and (b) some very rich people deem it a good place to live.

With pretty minor adjustments, this seems equally likely to be true for a country. In fact, isn't that precisely the argument made by people who say we shouldn't worry about inequality?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 26, 2007 9:36 AM

DC parents who want their kids to have a good public education shouldn't have to put up with this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/19/AR2007101901546.html

I am the product of the NYC public school system and benefitted from it tremendously (Bronx Science, '78). Unfortunately, DC public schools are atrocious, and anecdotes like this column only reaffirm my decision to reside in Fairfax County where my children receive first rate public education for my tax dollars.

Posted by Pan | October 26, 2007 9:41 AM

one reason it's passe is way more fams where 2 incomes needed just to get by. time scarce.

Posted by nick
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You wouldn't buy an expensive car and then complain to the bank you weren't getting enough hours at work to pay for it. You knew what it would take to meet your loan obligation BEFORE you purchased the car. Similarly I'd venture a couple knows before giving birth whether they're of a sufficient income level to both pay their bills AND properly raise a child. If you can't participate in a responsible manner regarding any aspect of a potential child's upbringing because you'll be short on time to do it then don't have the child.

Posted by steve duncan | October 26, 2007 9:47 AM

Another aspect of inequality in the District that should worry people is that residents are more concerned that the quality of the public schools makes D.C. unattractive to middle class families than that schools are not offering equal educational opportunities to all residents.

This is one reason school reform is hard.

Posted by Maureen | October 26, 2007 9:47 AM

I wonder how much of this is due to DC's small area. Note, e.g., that Atlanta, also on the 'most unequal' list, has a small area as well.

Posted by MattF | October 26, 2007 9:50 AM

I wonder how much of this is due to DC's small area. Note, e.g., that Atlanta, also on the 'most unequal' list, has a small area as well.

I can think of other possible points of similarity between Chocolate City and Black Mecca. I don't know how much explanatory power they have (or even whether they might be related to the size of the legal city).

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 26, 2007 9:57 AM

Similarly, it would be easy enough to adjust tax policy in such a way as to induce all the rich people to move to Bethesda, thus reducing inequality but also wrecking the city's tax base, eliminating many jobs, and ultimately leading to declining services and well-being for the poor.

One could also imagine this taking place on a national level.

Posted by right | October 26, 2007 10:01 AM

Matt, that is basically my argument for why gentrification is not the evil others make it out to be. Many of my city-planning friends got into the business in large part to fight gentrification. But to me its an impossible problem to fix on the municipal level. Cities don't have the fiscal and political power it takes to redistribute wealth so that poor parts of the city get better without pricing out the poor residents. Redistributive policies can only be effective on the national level.

What's more, I think the gentrification-fighters are overlooking the abnormal poverty imbalance cities have had for the last generation. Its only natural that cities will start to swing back towards more wealthy residents, which is bound to displace some of the poor. Just look at European cities, where the poor tend to live in the suburbs.

Posted by nathan | October 26, 2007 10:35 AM

I am not a racist.

Don't you love it when people have to start a conversation by saying that.

I grew up in a town that is now about 50% black and was about 35% black when I was in high school.

I married my high school sweetheart who happened to have the highest class rank of any black in the school.

My point is that I read in the paper a few years ago that the graduating class had 2 black girls ranked in the top 10 along with 4 white boys and 4 white girls.

Out of a class of 350 kids, the highest ranked black boy was 54.

If the class is split about 25/25/25/25 between blacks and whites and boys and girls then there is virtually ZERO chance of the poor performance of black boys being a random event.

I don't know what the cause of the problem is. I don't know what the solution is.

However, I do know that we can't solve the problem of poor performing schools in urban areas if black boys don't start doing a lot better.

Posted by Larry | October 26, 2007 10:43 AM

Usually I derisively refute Matt's take on things, but this time I appreciate his post - reflects my take on such studies and their worth (or lack thereof). Thanks.

Posted by Neekoo99 | October 26, 2007 11:19 AM

You wouldn't buy an expensive car and then complain to the bank you weren't getting enough hours at work to pay for it. You knew what it would take to meet your loan obligation BEFORE you purchased the car. Similarly I'd venture a couple knows before giving birth whether they're of a sufficient income level to both pay their bills AND properly raise a child. If you can't participate in a responsible manner regarding any aspect of a potential child's upbringing because you'll be short on time to do it then don't have the child.

Shorter Steve: Procreation is a privilege, not a right. You have to demonstrate financial qualifications to experience the joy of having children.

Posted by nolaboyd | October 26, 2007 11:23 AM

The specific aspect of inequality in the District that should worry people is that our public schools perform poorly (much worse, even, than the average urban district -- one of the very worst if not the worst big city in the country) which makes it an unattractive place for middle class families with children to live.

To take the example of New York, which also has rising inequality and a diminishing middle class, since I'm more familiar with it: the big problem is the lack of a middle rung on the ladder out of poverty. Yes, the public schools are bad, which means many middle-income people have to leave, since they can't afford to send their kids to private schools and won't send them to public schools.

The other big problem, however, is that there end up being fewer and fewer middle-class neighborhoods. There's nowhere where poor people can afford to move up to slightly better housing if they get slightly better jobs (or any jobs), without moving far away and making their lives much more complicated.

The public-policy answer isn't wealth redistribution at the city level, per se, but affordable housing and attention to public schools. In other words, cities do have an interest in making sure middle-class people can afford to live in them.

Posted by Antid Oto | October 26, 2007 11:27 AM

However, I do know that we can't solve the problem of poor performing schools in urban areas if black boys don't start doing a lot better.

Posted by Larry | October 26, 2007 10:43 AM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Someone needs to start a foundation that gives away belts to young black men. You know, belts for their pants. I think one reason young black men have difficulty in school is because they only have the use of one hand. The non schoolwork hand is holding their pants up, pants perpetually askew and drooping to knee level despite the best efforts of that non schoolwork hand to hold them up. So, city, state and the federal government need to team up and donates belts to inner city youth. Later in life it would seem shaking the hand of a prospective employer might be difficult while having to simultaneously hold up your pants. Then again it might work to your advantage if the employer thought you needed the job very badly so you could buy a belt. But if he gave you a job you'd have to, you know, buy a belt. At that point what the hell would you do with a suddenly free second hand? After years and years of going through life with only one free hand the sudden availability of a second hand might be a tragic shock to the system. Might take a blunt to calm you down I suppose.

Posted by steve duncan | October 26, 2007 11:29 AM

"Shorter Steve: Procreation is a privilege, not a right. You have to demonstrate financial qualifications to experience the joy of having children."

Posted by nolaboyd | October 26, 2007 11:23 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's a bit selfish for adults to want to experience the joy of having children if part of the "joy" is shortchanging a child's future by lacking proper discretionary time to properly raise them. The joy of anything-a car, a home, a pet, yes even a child- has an attendant responsibility of properly maintaining and nurturing that which is providing you the joy. Would you buy a dog and run it straight to the back yard, chain it to a tree, and then proceed to ignore it save the time it took to shove a bowl of food under its nose twice a day? You know, because you and the wife were so busy with other things. Some joy. How is it any different with a child?

Posted by steve duncan | October 26, 2007 11:38 AM

thanks for all the great comments, steve. Have a great day.

Posted by nick | October 26, 2007 12:12 PM

Still, while a country featuring a huge gap between haves and have-nots is probably a sign of bad national policy in my view, a city having such a gap tells us very little

But D.C. is unique in that it's the only city in the nation that is constantly micromanaged by Congress - none of who's voting members actually represent people living in the district itself. In fact most of them run on an anti-DC platform.

This results in all manner of rules exempting the powerful at the expense of the city itself, and the people have no one to appeal to or hold accountable.

Are you honestly arguing that that has no effect on the residents themselves?

Posted by Jinchi | October 26, 2007 1:45 PM

As Watson implied, IQ is the problem. Of course there are 6 million US blacks with higher IQs than the average IQ of US whites.

Nonetheless, a community of blacks will have fewer high-IQ leaders and fewer people capable of exercising initiative. The result, apparently, is a society which cannot operate at a modern level. See DC and Zimbabwe, for example.

Until we recognize this problem, and treat people as individuals, using IQ tests for initial training placement instead of using race, we will be unable to solve these problems either within the US or internationally.

The US military manages to do this; (and as a result a white US citizen is about twice as likely to die in Iraq as is a black US citizen) why can't the rest of US society?

Posted by Robert Hume | October 26, 2007 5:07 PM

Shorter Steve: Procreation is a privilege, not a right. You have to demonstrate financial qualifications to experience the joy of having children.

Posted by nolaboyd | October 26, 2007 11:23 AM

================================================

Shorter nolaboyd: Self-reliance and personal responsibility are SO 19th century. I can have as many kids as I want and if I can't afford to support them it's the government's job to pay for it. Says right there in the Constitution

Posted by Campesino | October 26, 2007 5:42 PM

There is a national program underway to reduce inequality in DC and in NYC: having immigrants drive out African Americans. America's white elites in DC and NYC like easy immigration because it's making the top elite cities unaffordable for African-Americans. Thus, for example, the number of American-born blacks in NYC has been declining since 1979.

Posted by Steve Sailer | October 26, 2007 6:02 PM

Steve and campesino: but we're not talking about having 17 or 18 kids (like the Republican rightwing christianist Duggars) or keeping either children or dogs chained up in the backyard. We're not even talking about the oft-demonized single-mom-headed families. What nick mentioned, quite clearly if a bit telegraphically, is the fact that for more and more families, two incomes are a necessity (as indeed has been the case in most times and places - the 1950s were an anomaly, and even then only for middle-class whites). In some cases, both parents have to work simply to provide a roof overhead, food on the table, and some pretty pitiful "luxuries". For many middle class parents, two incomes are necessary to remain in the middle class and give their offspring a chance at the same- to raise their kid/s in a safe neighborhood with access to good schools, save for their college education, etc. Your position really boils down to: for the most part only the rich (and the most well-off within other classes) get to have kids, an any peons who imagine they somehow have a right to do so are disgustingly irresponsible fools.

"When I was young it was common for kids to already know how to read before they entered 1st grade, along with addition and subtraction and many other learning concepts.

No. (Unless you define "know how to read" as being able to recognize and write letters, one's name, and a few other high frequency words, in which case ok, but that's kinda weak - in contrast, here in Philly, kids are now expected to finish kindergarten being able to read books with several sentences per page - which isn't to say they all do, but still - and this is recognized as a major, recent, and perhaps not necessarily appropriate change). It was less uncommon among bright children with highly educated and involved parents, etc., but in your average 1st grade classroom, most of the children would learn to read, in any meaningful sense, over the course of the year. Meanwhile, the idea that kids customarily started 1st grade adding and subtracting is rather fantastical. I can only imagine you grew up in a somewhat unusual (and impressive) environment.

Posted by Dan S. | October 26, 2007 11:06 PM

steve duncan:

When I was young it was common for kids to already know how to read before they entered 1st grade, along with addition and subtraction and many other learning concepts.

When were you young?!

When I was young virtually no one could read or do arithmetic before 1st grade. It was not expected. In kindergarten, which was 1/2 day and included nap time, we played, we learned coiors, shapes, animals, songs, counting, and how to get along with other kids in a classroom setting. We were not taught the alpahbet until 1st grade.

When was that? I was smack dab in the middle of the baby boom crowded classroom crunch in the schools. (I transfered in 2nd grade to parochial with even bigger class sizes, sometimes 40 to a room, but supposedly better outcomes.) Same for 3 of my 4 siblings, also boomers. The 5th was a Gen X'er suprise baby. Now he did learn numbers and the alphabet before school. That's cause his worn out old 40-something Mom plopped him in front of Sesame Street every chance she got starting in infancy, he didn't get patty cake with Mom, he got Big Bird.

Parents I knew helped with flashcards and such after school ONLY when the teacher told them the kid needed extra help. They would otherwise not interfere with the educational system by trying to educate their own children before they got to school. There was too much respect for teachers, teachers were the ones who were supposed to know how to educate kids in stuff other than morals and how to eat with a knife and fork and graduate from bottle to sippy cup to glass without spilling on the floor to washing the dishes and hanging up your clothes.

Middle class parents had large families back then. It was considered a feat to get kids fed, bathed and clothed, the younger ones diapered, keep them from killing each other, teach them how to behave so they didn't look like they grew up in a barn, get them to church once a week and give them a few nice holidays. The houses were smaller and if the kids weren't in school, you kicked them out the door to play. Yes, play. They bought them children's books and read them bedtime stories, but I didn't know anyone who tutored their children before school age. That would have been considered a very bizarre affectation. No one expected a 4 year old to know who the president was or to find Africa on a map. And for the most part, education of that generation eventually proceded with a modicum of success.

Have you ever seen the movie "Parenthood"? You know, with the obsessive parent character played by Rich Moranis? The one who ends up making a maladjusted brat out of a kid by tutoring her in academics daily? Or how about Ward and June Cleaver? Ever see them teach the Beav geography?

Don't get me wrong, I buy 100% that if a kid grows up in a culture and/or family that doesn't value education, the odds are really against that kid doing well in school. But that's not at all the same thing as expecting parents teaching their children actual academic curriculum at an early age. I am also a believer that for some, pushing too hard too early is actually detrimental.

Posted by artappraiser | October 27, 2007 9:17 AM

Steve and campesino: but we're not talking about having 17 or 18 kids
=================================================Neither was I
=================================================
For many middle class parents, two incomes are necessary to remain in the middle class and give their offspring a chance at the same- to raise their kid/s in a safe neighborhood with access to good schools, save for their college education, etc. Your position really boils down to: for the most part only the rich (and the most well-off within other classes) get to have kids, an any peons who imagine they somehow have a right to do so are disgustingly irresponsible fools.
=================================================

Nice straw man. You've decided to misinterprete my position into "if you're middle class and both parents work you shouldn't have children" something I never said. Actually that's been the life experience of my wife and myself. But we waited till we finished school and settled debts before we started a family.

Anyone who is fertile in this country has the "right" to have children. I think it's perfectly appropriate for society to judge it irresponsible for people to have children that they can't support.

Posted by Campesino | October 27, 2007 2:31 PM