Month: May 2017

Despite the Fair Housing Act being passed, housing discrimination is still frequent today in the United States. The act was passed to promote equality of all groups when renting or buying a home, yet minority groups are still being discriminated against in subtle ways. Redlining, the refusal of financial help such as loans based on race or ethnicity, is often used in the sense that people of color tend to receive higher down payments for homes regardless of their economic standing. This makes it even harder for minority groups to purchase or rent homes since they tend to be paid less and have a harder time finding jobs. Research provided by the CQ Researcher also demonstrated that white clients who were looking to buy or rent a home were shown “safe” neighborhoods, while minority groups were often shown to less safe areas with high crimes. If this is true for most cases, then certain neighborhoods would be predominantly one race or ethnicity, indicating a possible underlying form of segregation existing in the housing system. Thus, fueling the inequality that exists in America. While it’s hard to combat a system filled with different mentalities, a plausible solution as to how to decrease discrimination is through education. If people are educated, especially at a young age, about the social injustices that exist in our country, there can be an understanding about what they can do to change a system built to keep some people winning and majority losing.

Moreover, chapter 12 touched on increasing the minimum wage and similar to every issue that comes up, it comes with opposition and support. While a rise in the minimum wage might lead to slight inflation and an increased cost in expenditures on business owners, the overall benefits would outweigh this. In exchange, more people will have more money in their pockets for spending both on their necessities as well as luxuries, making life easier for more families. 

Urban poverty and housing discrimination are two issues that go hand in hand, and both collectively reveal that discrimination based on race, origin, and other characteristics that still presents a very real problem in our country. While poverty itself certainly isn’t race specific –it can happen to anyone—alarmingly high rates are seen in blacks, Hispanics, other minority groups, and even disabled individuals. This trend also appears for housing discrimination in which minorities and other disadvantaged groups share most of the burden. This discrimination even extends to bank loans and mortgage rates, which are made much more unfair for minority groups, making it even harder for them to purchase a home. Even honest bankers honest bankers who do not discriminate take into consideration factors like income and debt when lending money, which is problematic due to lower average income levels in minority groups. Thus, inadvertently or not, the system has made it increasingly hard for certain races and groups of individuals to gain access to equal housing, and by relegating them to poorer areas of the city, issues of poverty in these individuals continue to recur.

Chapter 11 makes it clear that it’s not just having a home that matters – the location and quality of a home matters just as much. To learn that one-third of African Americans living in cities are in fact living in hyper-segregated neighborhoods was extremely concerning because the neighborhood you live in dictates the opportunities you get, which poses grave socioeconomic obstacles for those living in isolated neighborhoods. For example, they are at a major disadvantage when it comes to accessing better school districts, and even better-paying jobs, thus hindering their growth and perhaps even contributing to further waves of poverty.

I strongly believe that it’s the government’s responsibility to enforce inclusion of people from all backgrounds in every neighborhood. While laws such as the HUD’s Fair Housing Act of 1968 exist for the purpose of prohibiting acts of discrimination when they are purchasing housing, it’s clear that this kind of segregation continues to exists, raising question as to the adequacy/proper enforcement of these laws. Diverting more funding towards preventative measures –those that would enforce inclusion in white-only suburban areas, and address the root causes of poverty in certain racial groups—as opposed to short term ameliorative measures such as food stamps is how our government should consider dealing with these issues.

The recession in 2007 made our economy suffer tremendously. My father, for instance, was working in the mortgage business for over ten years and lost his job. Thankfully, we never faced poverty but our economy is still suffering and hasn’t fully recovered yet. Poverty is an issue that countless administrations have tried to solve. And each one has come up with different ways to combat poverty. Considering poverty is still so prevalent today, there hasn’t been any policy or program that has been able to win the “war on poverty”. Poverty is caused by “racism, crime, unemployment, poor schools, family breakdown, high incarceration rates…” There are food stamps and lower-cost housing for people living in poverty, but public assistance isn’t helping them become independent. Instead, they remain dependent on the government; something they themselves don’t want.

The thing that strikes me about poverty is that people who are working full-time jobs cannot support themselves. Working minimum wage, as I’ve said in past responses, is not sufficient to live off of. Both democrats and republicans agree that our economy needs to grow and that there need to be more, better-paying jobs in order to help alleviate poverty. But the parties don’t agree when it comes to raising the minimum wage. Democrats make a good point that the minimum wage should reflect the times and the inflation rates. More than 40% of employable working-age adults are working full-time and they should be able to live off of their salary. Those opposed to a minimum wage raise, explain that a raise could get rid of the number of entry-level jobs. They also see the salary that workers are being paid lining up with their value, and their output. When their value increases, their salary will increase. They believe that people living in poverty won’t be hired at all for jobs because they won’t be willing to pay them the new minimum wage.

Fair-housing laws outlawed race discrimination, but that doesn’t mean the practice has ended. Landlords still manage to employ discrimination in housing through various loopholes. For example, a landlord might not show a Hispanic tenant a two-bedroom apartment, but he will show it to the white applicant. White tenants might be offered preferential rents or have fees waived while other minorities are not given these privileges. Not only to people of color and different race face discrimination, but this is also a severe issue for disabled people as well.

As a result, minorities and the disabled are forced to settle in poor neighborhoods and are unable to receive the same comforts, security, and opportunities. Thus, housing discrimination contributes to the prevalent issue of poverty in New York City. This is an example of the interconnectedness of various problems faced by New York City residents.

However, as I was reading this week’s passage, I couldn’t help but think that although housing discrimination is wrong and unfair, from the land lord point of view, shouldn’t it be up to him or her to decide who they want to live in their private property. Their conceptions may be misdirected but after all it belongs to them. Here too, the problem of private property rights and government intervention is debated. How far can the government go without it being considered a breach on private property rights, one of the rights stated in our bill of rights.

Urban Poverty and housing discrimination has many correlations towards one another. Housing discrimination, post civil rights era mainly occurs in urban areas. For example; if a low income family is looking for section 8 housing, it is difficult for them to find that housing because of the  prices of the homes in the city, or land lords are refusing to house them due to their own personal reasons. Also, with the added affects of gentrification, many low income people would have to move outside of the city because it is hard for them to afford the price in crease of rent, when the neighborhood begins changing, and it value increases. That is one of the reasons why there are a lot more of low income people living in the suburbs than the city because of affordability.  That is also a reason why major cities like New York City have a difficult time fitting low income people into the new housing because even though many real estate developers build the apartments, and leave some apartments open for section 8 users, the price of the apartment, plus the money of the voucher still makes the apartment expensive to live in. Also, getting into project housing can take years, and it is already over crowded.

When reading the chapter about Urban poverty, I found it shocking that the poverty rate is still increasing. Granted a lot of the most recent information is from 2014, but with the changes that have been made to deal with poverty, I expected the numbers to be decreasing not increasing. What I did not find to be shocking is that the largest percentage of those who lived in poverty were African Americans. I do not find it to be shocking because there are many historical factors such as limited access to education, jobs, housing, and low mortgage rates from laws like the G.I Bill, has held African Americans back from elevating themselves. Also, with the stereotype that African Americans are the largest group on welfare (which is untrue), many of those who are in need are held back from need based welfare.

In the reading I saw an argument for raising minimum wage. On the yes side of raising minimum wage, they believe that raising the wage would reduce people living in poverty by the millions. They also points out that even though critics believe that people in poverty do not work, in contrary they do work and by increasing minimum wage, a family living in poverty can step out of the threshold. On the no side, the person argues that it will only help about 5% of the people living in poverty,and it would limit the amount of entry level jobs available that will accept people with limited skills. The biggest argument for the no side is that with the minimum wage increase, it may take them out of poverty on paper, but it will stop them from receiving aid that can help them relieve other financial stresses, especially if you live in a huge city where rent, and other expenses can be too much for a certain wage to afford. I actually agree with the no side because it is not enough to raise minimum wage, you also need to raise the poverty threshold so other expenses that live in comes families may have can be paid as well, which is difficult as each state has a different standard of living.

Housing and rental discrimination still persist today.  In the past, discrimination was more open and overt; today, it is subtle.  Minority buyers and renters are treated less favorably than whites.  Whites generally are given more information, help, and options than minorities by realtors, bankers, and insurance providers.  For example, banks have become stricter to minorities, offering “higher down payments and less favorable mortgage rates.”  As a result, minorities have a tougher time buying a house.  Very little has been done to dismantle the segregated neighborhoods.  Real estate practices continue to contribute to residential segregation. Even today, the Fair Housing Act is not adequately enforced.  For example, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is processing fewer complaints, it is taking longer to process complaints, and victim compensation has declined.

I truly believe that educating those in poverty can help decrease urban poverty rates. Inner city schools should provide equal opportunities to students that other schools in the U.S. offer. If funding is an issue for inner city schools, then the government should increase the schools’ funding (easier said than done). Federal aid and programs can work but they are seriously flawed. Many people that qualify to receive aid can use the assistance. But if they are working and receive raises for doing well or promoted to a higher position with a higher wage, those once eligible for aid will no longer be eligible. Thus, these people can be worse off if they receive a wage increase. We can’t slightly open the door for those in poverty and then shut the door once they reach the handle. I remember one class we spoke about whether a job application should have a box to check for those that were incarcerated. If the box disappeared, many more people will be able to get jobs and support their families. Of course those that sexually molested children shouldn’t be able to work in a daycare (or anywhere). But the people who were busted for petty crimes, such as carrying drugs in their pocket, should be able to work.

The “War on Poverty” was declared by President Lyndon B. Johnson fifty years back but this is a war that is still going on today. Furthermore, the issue has just worsened over the last few decades as a study by City Observatory stated that the number of high poverty neighborhoods in our largest cities have tripled since 1970 and the number of poor people living in those high poverty neighborhoods has doubled. This is of course an issue that is being dealt with, but we will need to do a lot more if we ever hope to solve it. I’ll admit that dealing with poverty isn’t so simple. There is a lack of a high-quality education for those from a lower socioeconomic background and a lack of jobs due to many industries that have stagnated over the years. In addition, social issues like housing discrimination make it extremely hard for people, namely minorities, to find housing in a decent neighborhood.

Poverty isn’t something restricted to African Americans, Hispanics, or a specific race – but it’s true that minority groups are hurt the most by the far-reaching effects of poverty. While more federal aid and anti-poverty programs can indeed help, it’s not enough to solve this long-term issue. Poverty is cyclical – those who are in poverty are likely to stay in poverty for a long time but that doesn’t mean we can’t do anything about it. The government will need to take different approaches, some of which will be controversial such as increasing the federal minimum wage or increasing taxes on extremely wealthy individuals. Big businesses should also be doing more against poverty since they have been doing quite well in recent years. If we want to break the cycle of poverty, we will need everyone to do their part.