Update 8/12/2021 8:30 am CDT: I've added a section to the post, describing my own family's financial history, to reflect on the notion of intergenerational wealth accumulation.
---
This little nugget was presented as trivia in a PBS News Hour enewsletter that showed up in my inbox today:
On this day in 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act, which included a formal apology for the internment of more than 100,000 Japanese Americans during World War II and offered $20,000 payments to survivors. However, it took another 30 years for the Supreme Court to reverse its decision upholding Japanese internment, Korematsu v. United States.
I don't have a memory of this bill. But it's an interesting precedent for the US government paying reparations.
I suppose we all know that repairing the wrongdoing is a fundamental (albeit an often-overlooked) element of reconciliation in Catholic sacramental theology.Does $20,000, paid some 35 or so years after the fact, actually repair the wrong of interning Japanese-American citizens? It is a one-size-fits-all remedy for hurts and wrongdoings which could have varied greatly from one individual to another. Still, it strikes me as a powerful gesture, an outstretched hand of acknowledgement, contrition and peace, on the part of the US government.,
I acknowledge the obligation to repair whatever wrongs I have done to others. But if the wrongs were committed by my ancestors from five or six or seven (or more) generations ago, as would be the case for my slaveholding ancestors, it seems to me that my responsibility is greatly diminished. Honestly, I've thought that, when the time horizon is that long, my obligations have completely expired. I suppose one could say that I've inferred a moral statute of limitations on my culpability for my ancestors' misdeeds. It seems my skepticism is fairly conventional; this article from earlier this year indicates that the payment of reparation to the descendants of slaves is a cause still mostly in search of a constituency.
A case for intergenerational responsibility to repair past wrongdoing
But this article by conservative writer David French challenges the conventional thinking. His view is encapsulated by a follow-up article's subhead: "We aren't guilty of the sins of our ancestors, but we must still choose to work to repair the damage they did." French uses the example of redlining to illustrate that the ill effects of unjust discrimination can victimize not only the original victims but also their descendants. As an attorney who has argued cases before the Supreme Court, French is a gifted communicator and persuader. His argument on housing discrimination is worth quoting at some length:
I’ll turn to perhaps the most commonly cited example (because it’s so significant) of how racism can be truly “structural” or “systemic” and thus linger for years even when the surrounding society over time loses much of its malign intent.
Residential segregation, through redlining and other means—especially when combined with profound employment discrimination and educational disparities—resulted in the creation of large communities of dramatically disadvantaged Americans. Because of centuries of systematic, de jure (by law) oppression, they possessed fewer resources and less education than those who didn’t suffer equivalent discrimination.
While the passing of the Civil Rights Act meant that black Americans had the right to live elsewhere, they often lacked the resources to purchase homes or rent apartments in wealthier neighborhoods with better schools. Indeed, to this day, the median net worth of a black family ($17,150) is roughly one-tenth the median net worth of a white family ($171,000). That means less money for down payments, less money for security deposits, and overall fewer resources that enable social mobility.
One of the solutions to this problem is permitting more multi-family housing in wealthier communities. But that’s exactly when NIMBYism rears its head. Even if every member of a local zoning and planning commission isn’t racist, there are multiple non-racist reasons for them to resist greater population density. There’s traffic congestion. There’s school overcrowding. There’s the potential consequence to property values. There are environmental objections. There are a host of related infrastructure concerns.
These non-racist reasons to block multi-family development are a reason why even the most deep-blue, race-conscious progressive neighborhoods so often bitterly resist new development, school zoning changes, and other concrete reforms that would grant individuals in historically segregated neighborhoods greater access to the educational and economic opportunities of historically white communities.
Time and again, there are non-racist reasons for wanting to maintain the structures racists created. Thus, you can begin to understand the cultural and political divide. A person who harbors absolutely no racial animus gets angry when they’re told they’re perpetuating systemic racism, or that racism can exist without malign intent. To be told you’re perpetuating racism when, in your heart of hearts, you know you’re making choices based on road safety, your child’s education, or the beauty of your environment can feel deeply offensive.
Conversely, a person who lives in the midst of the economic and educational deprivation originally created by racists are understandably angered when they’re told there is no racism present when powerful people repeatedly block reforms that would change the status quo. Justice fails when the same unjust outcomes are perpetuated, even though the newest generation of elites may possess different intent.
One city's attempt to address historical racial discrimination
Earlier this year, Evanston, IL, the home of Northwestern University, became the first city in the United States to offer a program of reparation to some of its Black residents:
The first phase involves giving 16 residents $25,000 each, for home repairs or property costs. This plan, however, is far from the direct payments that have come to characterize reparations — redress for slavery and the subsequent racial discrimination in the United States. But experts say Evanston's plan is a noble start to a complicated process...
The housing program is the first initiative in a historic plan to distribute $10 million in reparations to Black residents of Evanston, according to the resolution. The effort is to directly acknowledge and address the “historical harm” done to Evanston residents through “discriminatory housing policies and practices and inaction by the City.” The effort would prioritize descendants of Evanston residents who lived in the city between 1919 and 1969 or suffered housing discrimination after 1969.
It's worth noting that Evanston's program, at least in this initial phase, isn't an attempt to atone for slavery; it's an attempt to address the lingering effects of unfair formal housing policies that still were in effect through the 1960s, i.e. well into our lifetimes. There may well be Black residents of Evanston still living today who were personally affected by those discriminatory policies. And even if the initial victims no longer are alive, their children and grandchildren may make a credible case that those discriminatory policies prevented their parents and grandparents from accumulating wealth which may otherwise have been inherited by these descendants.
I heard a radio discussion earlier this year about Evanston's reparations program. People are all over the map, so to speak, with some believing that the program's funding is not nearly enough, and others believing that the entire initiative is foolish and misbegotten.
I know that a number of religious orders have been examining their histories of owning slaves, and working hard to identify the slaves' descendants to offer them reparation.
All of these items have prompted me to take a fresh look at my objections to my paying reparations to people who were not direct victims of sins I personally did not commit. But I still retain a modicum of skepticism.
My own family history to illustrate some limits to the notion of intergenerational wealth
Let us think a bit about intergenerational wealth accumulation in light of my own life experience. I share this to illustrate some real-life limits on the notion of intergenerational wealth.
Perhaps one could say I am fortunate, in that both sets of my grandparents were relatively well-off. Both my grandfathers started and owned parts of businesses that prospered, at least while they were alive. When I was growing up, they had nice (but not huge or gaudy) homes, and one of them drove an upscale-ish car (a Cadillac sedan).
When my grandparents all eventually died, their estates were willed to their children, including my parents. None of their wealth came directly to me.
By the time my grandparents died, I was already a young adult and financially independent of my parents. I had already graduated from college. My parents both are still alive, and they have done virtually nothing to support me financially since I was 21 or 22 (a fact for which I don't blame them; they would have helped if I had needed it, and they have helped some of my siblings over the years). So at least to this point in my life (I'll be 60 next month), whatever wealth my grandparents accumulated hasn't reached me.
Will any of it ever reach me? Difficult to say. Three of my grandparents lived well into their 80s, so they were living on their accumulated savings for a lot of years before they died. Whether they had burned through most of their savings, some of it or just a little of it, I don't know.
To be sure, my parents benefitted financially (to what extent, I don't know) from my grandparents' estates. But my parents also have lived into their 80s. They've been dipping into their accumulated wealth for retirement income for a couple of decades or more already.
If and when my last living parent dies, I believe their will stipulates that the estate be evenly divided between me and my six siblings. So I'll receive a fraction of whatever is left.
I am not expecting to be able to quit my job and retire on whatever comes to me. It's quite possible that, while one or more parent still is alive, I will have actually retired and already be living on whatever savings I've been able to accumulate.
My own life has been good. My wife and I both have had professional careers. We own a home (or are sharing the ownership with a bank :-)), own comfortable if not flashy cars, and have put our children through college. We've both saved for retirement. By today's American standards, we're not among the very rich, but I recognize that the majority of people in the world would be very happy to have the life situation I have.
I offer this to illustrate that, despite having many things seemingly in my favor, intergenerational wealth hasn't made a significant impact on my life. It may not even have made much of an impact on my parents' life - and they're only one generation removed from my grandparents' wealth.
Naturally, I am describing only one family financial history here, and others' experiences may vary widely from mine. As I mentioned, some of my siblings have been helped by my parents. Not all families are as long-lived as mine. I am sure many of us can point to people we've known whose financial situations have improved dramatically via inheritance. If I am not mistaken, home ownership is one of the data points which most distinguishes the "haves" from "have-nots" in American society, and in my observation, many parents and grandparents help their young adult children financially to purchase their first house or condo. I certainly am not suggesting that intergenerational wealth is a non-factor in what divides us racially (and, perhaps even more, economically). But my story suggests that the notion of intergenerational wealth is complicated. In my case, any wealth my grandparents may have accumulated, could well be completely dissipated before any of it reaches me.
I'm still a reparations skeptic. I'd rather see the money and energy spent on remedying present day wrongs and poverty. I can't find the source link, but I remember when someone asked Joe Biden prior to the election if he favored reparations. He said "only if they included Native Americans." Which I thought was a point well taken. And if reparations were based on slave ancestry, do you leave out Blacks who were more lately arrived? The ones in our town are mostly from African countries such as South Sudan, and the timeline is less than fifty years ago.
ReplyDeleteI understand what the religious orders which owned slaves are doing. In that case it is the people who benefitted remediating the direct descendants of the ones who were affected.
Biden prior to the election if he favored reparations. He said "only if they included Native Americans."
ReplyDeleteI would add "only if the wealth comes from the upper one percent of wealthiest Americans." It is fairly easy to figure out the most disadvantaged (e.g. Native Americans former Slaves). It is clear to me that the most advantaged don't really deserve all their money.
As for all the rest of us between the very rich and very poor, who is to say? My Polish grandfather fled the Russian and German armies that divided Poland and were conscripting young Polish men to fight in their armies. Do Russia and Germany owe me something? My grandfather ultimately died of Black Lung disease because he worked in the mines; my grandmother got Black Lung benefits which I guess were a form of reparation ( It seems that mine owners paid for those). Anyway if we went too far in this reparations thinking it could get very complicated. I say keep it to the very poor and the very rich.
Jack - what you're proposing re: the very rich taking care of the very poor, reminds me of a well-established principle in civil law, in which the party with deep pockets is the one who pays the most in damages - even if that isn't the party which contributed most to the original hurt.
DeleteI admit I haven't embraced that principle wholeheartedly. It seems more just to me that the parties who caused the problem should pay the restitution and punitive damages. But that would mean less money flowing to the victims. I've talked with lawyers who I thought would be sympathetic to my views, but they more or less dismissed it with, "That would be a big change to the legal system." Ah well, I have other idiosyncratic views, too, which I don't expect most people to agree with :-)
A lot more than reparations are needed. French touches on education - but access to a solid education is absolutely necessary if the poor are to have a chance at gaining a foothold on the ladder that can lead to the kind of comfortable lives all of us enjoy.
ReplyDeleteThat means replacing our system of funding public schools via property taxes.
Richer neighborhoods can afford better public schools because of the value of the housing stock. Poor neighborhoods deserve to get funding that will help them educate their kids- funding not limited to property tax revenue. . This funding should go beyond just paying for buildings, but should include « reparations » in the form of financial support for families - subsidized before and after school daycare programs, in addition to enough money to hire enough teachers to keep class sizes small, money for tutoring for kids who don’t have parents at home with the knowledge and skills to help their children with homework. Money for extra resource teachers such as ESL teachers, classes at night for parents to teach them how to reinforce what their children are learning at school, etc
In DC, the Catholic schools used to provide a relatively affordable alternative to the terrible public schools. Not any more. Rather than spend money to keep the inner city schools open, perhaps by increasing the « taxes » on the wealthy suburban parishes to help support the inner city parochial schools, the PTB closed almost all of the inner city Catholic schools. From what I read, this has happened in cities all over the country.
Vouchers take away money from the public schools so are not the best solution. The entire funding structure must change, along with at least some changes to nimbyism. Around here new developments, from apartment complexes to McMansions, must provide a certain number of « affordable « housing units in each project. Not enough but a start.
Richer Catholic parishes ( which probably includes St. Edna’s, should pair with poorer parishes to help support their schools and establish scholarships for those who can’t even afford minimal tuitions, to fund after school tutoring and care programs in the parish for public school students. Sadly, there seems to be little interest among middle class and upper middle Catholics to help the people and schools in the poor parishes.
"n DC, the Catholic schools used to provide a relatively affordable alternative to the terrible public schools. Not any more. Rather than spend money to keep the inner city schools open, perhaps by increasing the « taxes » on the wealthy suburban parishes to help support the inner city parochial schools, the PTB closed almost all of the inner city Catholic schools. From what I read, this has happened in cities all over the country."
DeleteYes, this certainly has happened in Chicago as well.
My view is that the Catholic schools' financial model broke when religious orders no longer were able or willing to teach in Catholic schools for a pittance. If anyone was to tell me that religious sisters were exploited for generations, I wouldn't say s/he is wrong. Perhaps the sisters should be paid reparations!
Regarding my parish: we do partner with a "have-not" parish on the South Side of Chicago. We provide some financial assistance every month. (Perhaps we could provide more, although the pandemic has made all pastors' and parish managers' jobs more challenging as revenues have shrunk.) FWIW, Chicago has a program to pair up parishes this way, with one or more "have" parishes partnering up with a "have-not" parish to provide financial assistance. And it's not just financial: there are attempts to build bridges and relationships between members of the two parishes. A busload of their parishioners comes to visit us every year, and we send a busload down to them. It's not exactly transforming everyone's lives, but it's not nothing. As I say, probably more could be done.
In terms of intergenerational wealth, neither of my parents inherited any money from my grandparents. In fact they helped their parents mostly in terms of free care (e.g. my mother did housekeeping for both her parents).
ReplyDeleteAs an only child I inherited all my parents wealth which was from the money that my father earned as a steelworker (my mother never worked in the labor economy).
Both my parents and I have never had any money problems largely because we lived within our means and saved money. My father and mother were aided by the fact that Dad had retirement income from his years as a Steelworker in addition to Social Security. I have my public employees retirement but that means I get less Social Security than most people with my years of Social Security before I became a public employee.
I have done well in large part because I never married or had children. Both my parents and I have lived frugally in the sense that we never ate out much, kept our cars for a long period of time (in my case ten years) nor took expensive vacations. Our homes have been nicely decorated.
I probably could not have worked in public mental health if I had married and had children. I would have had to move to the private sector. While my salary was not high, as senior management I was able to do whatever I wanted which was more important than money.
On the subject of "intergenerational wealth", I don't have great expectations. One of my sisters quipped that our family talked about money like they talked about sex. That is, they didn't. I don't know how they will sort out Dad's estate, I am not the executor (thank the Lord!) I do know it was in a "living trust". If the past is prologue, there won't be a lot of cash, and the land will be tied up in an undivided parcel in which no one can sell unless we all decide to. Which is unlikely. It's a good thing we don't need it to survive in retirement. Even though I'm unretired at the moment.
ReplyDeleteInter-generational wealth is not only money. I have looked, and although estimates vary, it seems that about only about 20-30% of people leave an inheritance of any kind - paid for houses, securities etc. My husband's grandfather was both very frugal and a savvy investor, buying stocks during the depression. He never owned a car, but lived in a nice home, and wrote down every penny spent in a ledger (which we once owned). He was a civil engineer - I don't know when he was born, but in the 1800s sometime. He sent his 4 daughters to college - almost unheard of in the late 1920s-early 1930s. He set up a trust to care for his wife after his death, and left money to the daughters. My husband's mother was also very frugal - but they also lived in a nice home, paid for by his father's federal civil service income. They sent their 4 children to college also. His mother left her estate to her 4 children and 8 grandchildren. This inheritance paid for our sons' college educations.
ReplyDeleteMy mother's father was also successful in business. He sent his 4 children (3 sons, 1 daughter) to college also. So my mother was also among the relatively small number of women to receive a college degree in 1931. My father's family was less well to do, but he graduated from UCLA and obtained a Masters in Chemistry. But he was not frugal, did not inherit, did not manage his money well. There were no inheritances from my parents. When in high school my mother sometimes borrowed money from me (I earned $1/hour) to pay the mortgage or the grocery bill. My sisters and I all earned academic scholarships, and one brother got an athletic scholarship. Another brother had disabilities and did not go to college. My mother lost our home in the divorce - everything went to pay my father's debts and there was nothing left.
But, we were beneficiaries of a different kind of wealth - both parents had college degrees and both had a love of learning and the intellectual life. Education was stressed. They never stopped reading. Their examples filtered through to us. We were all exceptional students (hence the scholarships). My parents divorced, my mom went to work again at 55, and we (her children) bought her a condo when she retired at 68.
I feel that the stress on education, on learning was the best inheritance, but it is also (for reasons given by David French) one that is as out of reach for many African Americans as a trust fund is.
I think reparations should take the form of supporting education in the inner cities and other poor neighborhoods - this will pay off in the long run more than simply handing out checks. Give the kids a solid educational foundation, give them support that their parents may not be able to give (not having good educations themselves), help them get GOOD high school educations that will lead to decent work, and help those who want to go to college do so. Georgetown is setting up something along those lines.
It is also important to support housing initiatives that make "good" neighborhoods with "good" schools accessible to lower income families.
My husband and I live in a nice house in a professional community where everyone values education. We have top notch schools. We are frugal my our community standards - seldom eat out, go to movies or concerts, etc, We mow the lawn, paint the walls, clean the house ourselves. We do take nice vacations. My husband and I both deferred social security until 70 to maximize the checks (8%/year guaranteed!). He worked full time until age 72, and part-time until 75. I worked until about 67, when my hearing loss made it impossible to continue. Our children and grandchildren will inherit financially barring a total world economic meltdown. We think though, that the inheritance they have already received - good educations, work habits and discipline - is more important than the money they may receive down the road.
"But, we were beneficiaries of a different kind of wealth - both parents had college degrees and both had a love of learning and the intellectual life. Education was stressed. They never stopped reading. Their examples filtered through to us. "
DeleteAnne, I think this is a great point. I also came from a household that was rich in this respect. And my wife and I have tried to cultivate the same sort of "wealth" in our own home when we were in our prime child-rearing years. I am sure you and your husband did the same.
This sort of thing is not as amenable to government programs as building daycare facilities or subsidizing school breakfasts and lunches.
Just continuing to think about this topic a little more. I added these sentences to the final section of the post:
ReplyDelete"If I am not mistaken, home ownership is one of the data points which most distinguishes the "haves" from "have-nots" in American society, and in my observation, many parents and grandparents help their young adult children financially to purchase their first house or condo. I certainly am not suggesting that intergenerational wealth is a non-factor in what divides us racially (and, perhaps even more, economically). "
As a matter of fact, my wife inherited a bit of money when her grandmother died. It helped us put down the 10% or 20% or whatever was required on our first home purchase. Without that money, we would still be in a house today, but probably would not have been able to pull the trigger for a few more years. So intergenerational wealth has made a practical difference in my life.
I have had a series of non-family educational advantages.
ReplyDeleteFirst I went to a small four room grade school in my home town. There were about fifteen to twenty students in each grade, and two grades in one room. While some of our classes were in common (i.e. both grades) most of time one class studied while the other recited. That was a lot of enforced study time. In the 7th-8th grade room there was a full set of the Latin and Greek classics in English. So I had read things like Caesar's wars even before I encountered them in Latin in High School. That system produced a lot of good students and was probably a large factor in my becoming a National Merit Finalist in High School (one of the few students in our High School that ever did that).
Then the Benedictines said the extra Masses at our parish. I became friends with many of them, and had access to their college and seminary library when I got my driver's license at sixteen.
While my mother was a straight C student in High School and Dad dropped out of school after eighth grade, they both had assumed adult roles in their family after eighth grade so in many ways like them I became an adult when I went to high school.
During college I had the advantage of being supported as a pre-divinity student which greatly reduced the burden on my parents. When I went to graduate school I had a series of scholarships, research and teaching assistantships that made me completely financially independent of my parents. I was able to purchase a brand new car in my last year of graduate school.
My parents understood very little about the church, higher education, the mental health system and all the places where I have spent most of my life. However their strong support for me in everything I did, probably because like them I had grown up early, was certainly important throughout my life, probably more important than any financial wealth. They also passed on to me their good habits of money management so that even if I had not inherited their wealth I would have been financially secure, e.g. when I retired at age sixty I had completely paid off my home.
Jim, I think the government definitely has a role to play, in providing necessities like daycare and school breakfasts, and in encouraging housing policies to help the poor. Subsidized rents etc are important, and programs that help parents be able to work - childcare. Even more important are policies that lead to the less affluent having access to the communities with strong schools, access to the entire community which often supports education in ways that are not done in poor communities, encouraging the less affluent to place greater importance on education.
ReplyDeleteIn our area, developers must agree to certain things before getting approval - to alleviate some of the concerns of the NIMBYs. For example, in addition to the long-standing requirement that they build a certain number of housing units that are affordable (there should be more of this), they often must agree to build roads, schools and other infrastructure to address concerns about traffic, overcrowded schools, etc. What government has a harder time doing is teaching parents how to support their children's educations. Many parents have little education themselves and never learned some of the necessary skills and practices that support their children's educations - such as turning off TV and video games and reading to them! Helping with homework, drilling them in spelling, correcting their grammar(many parents have no knowledge of proper grammar) etc. Many who struggle are recent immigrants, whose parents are not fluent in English and have trouble helping their children. Policies can be developed to support these goals, but it is also an area where community members themselves, especially religious communities could organize and run programs to support parents and families. I suspect you would be very effective in organizing endeavours like this, Jim. It is good that David French has raised your awareness of some of the complicated issues, that go well beyond monetary reparations.
Government help is essential. But as a society, we need to develop creative ways to help the parents, so that they can help their children grow up in life-promoting environments (in the big picture sense) in order to achieve a decent life. Too many grow up in communities characterized by dysfunction and despair.
Anne, I agree with your point a few comments back that we need to find a better way to fund schools than property taxes. Doing it with property taxes ensures that the districts with the most valuable property will have the best schools. It is also unjust in another way. It disproportionately burdens people who make their living in agriculture. It doesn't make any difference if they have a good or bad year financially, their property taxes remain the same. And state and local governments like the property tax funding because it is a lead pipe predictable cinch. It is also why people who pay the most property taxes often oppose bond issues.
ReplyDelete