The Thinking 

How the Cost of White Flight Has Undone the White Family

June 10, 2011


KENDRA writes:

I am writing to add to the ongoing discussion of the traditional vs. two-income family.

Never mentioned is the cost that families incur in order to live in a safe place away from the destruction of poor blacks. I live in an old gentrifying black neighborhood. My husband works, and I am a homemaker and homeschool our children. We don’t rely on the local schools, at which the majority of students are black underclass, are underachieving, and on the free lunch program. White families in my neighborhood send their children to private schools at great expense, and so both parents must work in order to pay tuition.

Of the suburban white families I know, the woman works full-time. Homes in “safe” neighborhoods are hundreds of thousands of dollars more expensive than my mostly black neighborhood. Four bedroom historical homes here cost $60,000 with low taxes, but then you must deal with bad schools, feral thugs, teenage gangs, graffiti, police presence, shootings, blight, section-8 rentals, and poverty. If we lived in the suburbs, our home would cost over $350,000, taxes would be much higher, and my husbands commute would be more expensive.

I read on the Stuff Black People Don’t Like site today about the cost of fleeing from underclass blacks and wanted to send the post. It is one of the largest costs to families right now:

“Is it possible to find out what the economic impact of the NAACP, SPLC, ACLU has had on America and Americans? I know this would be a large undertaking but I am curious as to the real dollars and cents that are generated/lost with appeasing the Blacks in America.”

I don’t think the costs are accurately quantifiable-there are far too many variables involved,and the numbers are probably too large for us to contemplate. Which might be a good thing,since an accurate and comprehensive study might very well lead to a bunch of blood in a bunch of gutters. ( I’ve addressed this subject here before,and appreciate the opportunity to do it again. )

The raw numbers would also have to involve things like housing costs for the part of the population that wound up moving to the burbs to keep their children in “good” ( aka “white” ) schools.

Then you have to add in the second and third vehicles needed by families,since Mom,Dad,or both now needed to commute 20 or 30 miles to work every day,and you would also need to throw in the operating costs of said vehicles,and the insurance and repairs.

Then you have to also throw in-somehow-the estimated loss of value of the real estate that was abandoned to the black community. And the costs of businesses relocating from areas that were now in community territory and had trouble keeping the help.

Then you could be really picky and start adding stuff like the farms that turned into subdivisions,but here you get into another argument. Are we,as a people,better off since we’ve paved over untold acres of what were once working farms,so that little Tim and little Jane didn’t get their heads cracked open in their old schools?

Since I mentioned head cracking,you really need to at least make an attempt to add up how much local hospitals have lost from having to provide very expensive trauma care to people in the community who had no ability to pay for that care,or any intention of paying for it. And while I’m on that subject,how much has been spent at various ER’s by theNON-black victims of black crime,and was that ever paid back? ( I thought not… )

And on,and on-like I said,I don’t think anyone is capable of figuring out what we’ve paid out,and I’ve only scratched the surface.


                                                                    — Comments —

Samson writes:

How opportune: I was just saying a similar thing on another site. Somebody made the argument that certain changes in the economy (particularly men’s wages) aren’t really so bad after all; anyone can live on a 1970s income as long as they are willing to live with a 1970s standard of living. I replied with the point that yes, in theory that may be true. But the critical difference is this: in the 70s, everyone lived a 70s lifestyle (obviously), so that the typical family was able to live in a good, safe neighbourhood. Today, in contrast, if you are going to raise a family in a 1970s-size house, with one or no cars (typical of 1970s living), etc., then your family will need to live in a rough, undesirable area. It’s not as simple as saying, well, if you want to have a male breadwinner and a stay-at-home-mom, then just suck it up and live with fewer material possessions. In fact, living with fewer of our modern gadgets is something that a lot of people would find fairly easy, I expect. It’s the neighbourhood that’s the bitter pill to swallow. I’m not sure what the solution is to this.

Laura writes:

First, it’s important to note that if many people were determined to deal with this, there would be more solutions.

 One of the biggest problems is that living in a safe neighborhood now entails having two cars and all the expenses of gas and insurance. The fact that so many families are willing to do this only perpetuates the dilemma. The first step is for many people to say, “No, We don’t want to live this way. We want traditional one-income families.” Once many more people reject the propaganda that the traditional family is obsolete and decide to make this a priority, solutions will be found. But the more dual-earner couples there are, the higher housing prices become. It is a vicious cycle.

If more women were around all day, they might use their ingenuity to make do with fewer cars. The child tax credit should be returned to its 1950 levels.

In the meantime, couples should try to search for those cheap, small houses or apartments – anything that offers a roof over their heads – in safe neighborhoods. In metropolitan areas like Boston and Washington, D.C., where housing prices are extremely high, it seems that home ownership is truly out of reach for the middle-class one-income family. But, this family can still find a safe place to live and make do in an apartment. 

Many more white families could live in our cities if all-white schools were permissible. It will never happen if we continue to accept the idea that middle-class whites must leave the city to educate their children affordably.

Melissa writes:

Many neighborhoods in NYC that were historically white are now becoming white again, with corresponding decreases in crime and increases in school quality, cleanliness, and other quality of life markers. Of course “social justice” groups are crying “Gentrification!”

I personally had an illuminating experience. I work in Harlem, which is mostly black and Hispanic. Some areas in Harlem have improved (guess what kind of people have been moving there?), but not where I work. I have to make sure to leave work early because the neighborhood is so frightening. It is dominated by the hideous towers of The Projects. Dirt is all around. Men will sexually harass you even if you are dressed properly. It is a truly awful place. I contrast it with my own neighborhood in Queens, which is mostly non-white, but is a completely different environment. Most people are hard-working Christian middle-class immigrants, who don’t receive government housing or other assistance. It is a perfectly safe and nice place to live. People keep to themselves and preserve their traditions.

People who think government assistance helps poor people are delusional, it just leads to the unraveling of family, religious traditions, and work ethic. I notice liberals who support these programs typically live in heavily gentrified neighborhoods. I think anyone who supports housing projects should have to live near them.                            

Share:Email this to someoneShare on Facebook0Tweet about this on TwitterPin on Pinterest0Share on Google+0