by Portland Reed

Created on: November 24, 2008

The problem with analyzing the distribution of household income by race is that we incorrectly see it as a race issue; which connotes that income levels are being attributed to people by color lines. Income is more a function of classism than racism. Statistics do show that African Americans have lower income levels than their white counterparts; but I would argue that it's because of their socioeconomic status and not their race. I say this because when an African American is afforded similar access to better schools, neighborhoods, etc. they achieve a better income level. Conversely, when a White American is not provided the economic opportunities, he/she cannot rise above their low income levels.

I am not, however, naive to the fact that there is a disproportionate number of poor African Americans who are victims of terrible school systems and the erosion of their neighborhoods due to gangs and drug infestation. But I would also argue that poor whites (and there are more poor whites than poor blacks) are also victims of abject poverty due to drugs and failing schools. The poor Blacks are in the inner-cities and the poor Whites are in the rural areas. So, my point is that we must begin to focus any analysis about income on who has access and who does not have access to the resources that would provide the ability to make a decent wage. If the lens of poverty is constantly being seen through the Black lens, then we ignore the plight of hundreds and thousands of White people who are mostly excluded in these types of debates.

I believe the distribution of income is based largely on environment, the quality of education, and the access to resources. Now, I'm not talking about the outliers or the exceptions to this rule, I'm talking about the average citizen in this country. Capitalism is an economic system based on the "Zero Sum Game" which states that for someone to "win" someone has to "lose." For instance, I was taught in my economics 101 class that resources are scarce so it's impossible for everyone to get top notch health care - if we all got good care, it wouldn't be good care. What makes good health care is that there is bad healthcare. I was disturbed by this notion; but soon came to understand that this ideology governs our behaviors when it comes to wealth: everyone cannot have the same access to wealth because there has to be people who are poor and don't have access. For example, if everyone could get into Harvard, then the value of the benefits that accompany attending Harvard would be diminished. Harvard would then be more like a Jr. College or technical college which admits most of its applicants. I don't mean to sound classist; but I'm emphasizing the schools as examples of one factor that determines your income level. So, to avoid belaboring my point, I would suggest we take another look at this subject from the vantage point of classism to get a true sense of the inequalities of income distribution in America.

Learn more about this author, Portland Reed.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.