Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
All they need to be is worse to raise the question of why people don't move out of them when there are affordable alternatives.
These suburbs are within commute distance of major metros. I think it's safe to say there are jobs galore, and I won't believe you if you claim to doubt it.
I agree! That's why I'm asking. But the consistency of this phenomenon across metros seems to demand an explanation beyond some idiosyncrasy of one place.
You're right, and that is curious. While I would expect listings to be a bit more valuable than the median home value, simply because nicer ones are more likely to be for sale, the disparity here is too great to be comfortable with that explanation. But while I don't know enough about that particular market to hazard any guesses, I will say that this is one thing that doesn't seem to generalize to other metros' white suburbs. A few more examples:
Greenfield, Indiana (20 miles east of Indianapolis, 96% white) has a Zillow median value of $244k, there are many homes listed for less than that.
Indianola, Iowa (20 miles south of Des Moines, 95% white) has a Zillow median value of $272k with many homes listed for less than that.
Pretty much all the suburbs of Cincinnati are ~95% white, and there are plenty of non-dilapidated homes for <$250k.
Who said anything about idiosyncrasies of one place? The access to jobs issue could easily be common to all.
Here is another problem: It looks like currently about 72% of whites are homeowners but only 43% of blacks are. The Greater St. Louis area is 77% white and 18% black. So, if my math is correct, one would expect a place that is almost all homeowners -- which I think describes the places highlighted on the map -- to be about 88% white. That is little different than several of the places onthe map, and for others, you are essentially asking, why are these places 95% white instead of 88%? A pretty small discrepancy, perhaps so small that it is not worth wondering about, and one which could easily be explained by the fact that most urban black people dont live in awful neighborhoods.
That doesn't really address the question, it just changes it to "why are whites more likely to be homeowners". It's not straightforwardly obvious to me why Hispanics and blacks would prefer to rent rather than own.
Yes, that is my point: The initial conundrum that you present does not seem to be a conundrum at all, at least based on the initial evidence you presented.
Who says that they prefer to rent? It is hardly surprising that Hispanics and blacks have lower rates of home ownership, given their lower income and lower median age. They would have lower rates of home ownership even if they were equally desirous of owning.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link