This is truly thought-provoking, wise, and informative.
One slight critique I might offer is the characterization of "generational wealth" as being impacted by legacy systems of oppression. If, by that term, you mean per capita or per household or per worker wealth, then you might want to leave the word "generational" wealth out. If, by …
This is truly thought-provoking, wise, and informative.
One slight critique I might offer is the characterization of "generational wealth" as being impacted by legacy systems of oppression. If, by that term, you mean per capita or per household or per worker wealth, then you might want to leave the word "generational" wealth out. If, by that term, you mean the accumulation of wealth over generations, then I would submit that until very recently (~the last 20 years) little to no wealth was transferred from one generation to the next. My family has been in the northeast since the 1630s one one side and the 1920s on the other. One side was certainly more well-off than the other, but neither parent started with any accumulated wealth from their parents. They bought a house for $12k in 1965 and did not start saving for retirement outside of pension until around 50 years of age. They were typical. The vast majority of wealth is generated by the people who hold it, not passed down. As you emphasize, it is the "human and social capital required to grow and retain wealth," that differs among groups of people. Efforts to close wealth gaps must therefore focus on human and social capital.
Those are fair points. I like you emphasize human and social capital over fiscal capital but the latter seems to be the obsession of most equity minded folk so I felt I needed to at least mention it.
I would add that the Japanese had to start from scratch after their interment during during WW II. In face of extreme anti-Japanese bigotry, they succeeded. Let's remember, the Japanese had sufficiently different physical features to be instantly recognizable as Not White.
This is truly thought-provoking, wise, and informative.
One slight critique I might offer is the characterization of "generational wealth" as being impacted by legacy systems of oppression. If, by that term, you mean per capita or per household or per worker wealth, then you might want to leave the word "generational" wealth out. If, by that term, you mean the accumulation of wealth over generations, then I would submit that until very recently (~the last 20 years) little to no wealth was transferred from one generation to the next. My family has been in the northeast since the 1630s one one side and the 1920s on the other. One side was certainly more well-off than the other, but neither parent started with any accumulated wealth from their parents. They bought a house for $12k in 1965 and did not start saving for retirement outside of pension until around 50 years of age. They were typical. The vast majority of wealth is generated by the people who hold it, not passed down. As you emphasize, it is the "human and social capital required to grow and retain wealth," that differs among groups of people. Efforts to close wealth gaps must therefore focus on human and social capital.
Those are fair points. I like you emphasize human and social capital over fiscal capital but the latter seems to be the obsession of most equity minded folk so I felt I needed to at least mention it.
I would add that the Japanese had to start from scratch after their interment during during WW II. In face of extreme anti-Japanese bigotry, they succeeded. Let's remember, the Japanese had sufficiently different physical features to be instantly recognizable as Not White.