Chart of the Day: The Housing Bubble Increased Racial Segregation

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Via Suzy Khimm, here’s an interesting bit of research from Amine Ouazad and Romain Rancière. During the housing boom of the aughts, it became easier for low-income families to buy more expensive homes. Since African-American families have lower incomes than average, this suggests that the housing boom, on average, should have allowed them to move into less segregated neighborhoods.

And it did. But it also allowed white and Hispanic families to move, and it turns out that Hispanic families mostly moved into Hispanic neighborhoods:

Hispanic families have used the easier access to credit to buy houses in predominantly Hispanic neighbourhoods with the consequence of enrolling their children in schools with fewer black peers, and more Hispanic and white peers. We estimate that, because of the credit boom, black students in 2006 had 2% fewer Hispanic peers….Credit markets enabled a substantial fraction of Hispanic families to live in neighbourhoods with fewer black families, even though a substantial fraction of black families were moving to more racially integrated areas.

The chart below shows the impact of the housing boom on black household segregation. In 1997, black students in public schools had an “isolation” of 50.5%. That is, 50.5% of their peers were black. By 2007, that had dropped to 49%. But the housing boom actually slowed the rate of decline. The authors conclude that if the housing boom had never happened, black isolation would have dropped to 48%. Their conclusion: “The net effect is that credit markets increased racial segregation.” 

TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and it's truly crunch time: About 15 percent of our yearly online giving usually comes in during the final week of the year, and in "No Cute Headlines or Manipulative BS," we explain why we simply can't afford to come up short right now.

The bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. And advertising or profit-driven ownership groups will never make time-intensive, in-depth reporting viable.

That's why donations big and small make up 74 percent of our budget this year. There is no backup to keep us going, no alternate revenue source, no secret benefactor. If readers don’t donate, we won’t be here. It's that simple.

And if you can help us out with a donation right now, all online gifts will be matched thanks to an incredibly generous matching gift pledge.

payment methods

TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and it's truly crunch time: About 15 percent of our yearly online giving usually comes in during the final week of the year, and in "No Cute Headlines or Manipulative BS," we explain why we simply can't afford to come up short right now.

The bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. And advertising or profit-driven ownership groups will never make time-intensive, in-depth reporting viable.

That's why donations big and small make up 74 percent of our budget this year. There is no backup to keep us going, no alternate revenue source, no secret benefactor. If readers don’t donate, we won’t be here. It's that simple.

And if you can help us out with a donation right now, all online gifts will be matched thanks to an incredibly generous matching gift pledge.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate