By Dr. James M. Dahle, WCI Founder
Dave Ramsey is taking some flack in the traditional and social media for an answer he gave on his program recently. I'm not going to defend everything Dave says or how he says it; I have certainly criticized him myself on this blog more than once. However, his general argument in this case was correct.
He was asked by a viewer if landlords should feel guilty about raising rental rates, because they might be Christian and because they're worried about displacing families. Here's the clip of his answer:
The reaction looked like this in my local newspaper:
Social media was even worse (as usual):
I was surprised to see such vehement disagreement with what I thought was pretty much common sense, so I polled my Twitter followers:
More than three-fourths were in 100% agreement.
Capitalism and Socialism
There are still plenty of socialists in the world. Personally, I'm a proud capitalist. I'm not a capitalist because I think capitalism can do no wrong. I know that it does, and I put many dollars toward both governmental and charitable organizations every year to cure some of those ills. I'm a capitalist because capitalism is the worst system out there except for everything else we've tried so far. Capitalism is hard, but it's better than everything else.
Let's carry the line of thinking in some of the media and social media postings to its logical extreme and point out why charging below-market rents long-term is often a bad idea.
It's a Free Country
First, let us say this: if you are a landlord, you may charge whatever you want for rent. Seriously. Your property. Your right. You can charge below-market rent, market rent, or above-market rent. You can raise rents, leave them the same, or even lower them. As long as you follow the rental laws in your state, you get to do what you want. It's your property. If anyone wants to dispute this, they have literally thousands of years of case law they will have to somehow overcome. We're not talking about legal obligations in this post, only moral obligations.
Decisions Carry Consequences
However, while we are free to choose in this life, we are not free from the consequences of our choices. It's like a stick: you can't pick up one end without picking up the other. What you charge in rent has consequences on you, your family, your tenants, and society at large. You should consider all of them when you make decisions.
Obligations to Tenants
A landlord absolutely does have obligations to tenants. There are legal obligations (see your state laws for details) but also moral obligations. The landlord needs to have a clear contract with clear expectations for the tenant. If the tenant keeps their end of the deal, the landlord should keep their end. If there was no damage to a property, the damage deposit should be returned in full. The tenant should not be illegally discriminated against based on things that do not matter. If there is an issue with an appliance, a door, or with the plumbing, the landlord should fix it ASAP. However, I do not think a landlord has some sort of moral obligation to charge anything but the most money that landlord can get for the space.
It's very similar to negotiating a salary at your new job. Do you think that because you're a Christian (or a Muslim or a good person with no faith whatsoever), you have an obligation to work for less? To sell your labor for less than market rate? Of course not. You expect to be paid a fair rate in exchange for your time. So does your property.
Be a Human
Now, just because you can do something does not mean you should do something. Consider Dave's explanation from the call:
“I've had situations because I manage a property with a heart and a head . . . that someone is sick. I remember a long time ago, a lady had cancer. Am I going to evict someone while they're going through chemo? No, I'm not. I'm going to work with them. I'm going to be kind. I'm going to have clear conversations. I want to know what's really going on. I don't want to be duped by the situation. But on the other hand, I also want to treat other people like I want to be treated. That's a Biblical mandate. If I were in the situation, how would I want to be treated. Well, I'd love some mercy and some grace. But mercy and grace because rents went up in general and I can't afford to live here anymore . . . because of inflation?”
I don't think I could have said it better myself. But are the headlines in the media, “Dave Ramsey provides cheap housing for cancer patient?” No, of course not. They're “Dave Ramsey is a f***ing parasite.” Somehow, for some reason, people expect this particular investment, this particular business, to have different rules than any other business.
It reminds me of another line of business I know of where people expect free services: emergency medical care. I'm always astounded to meet people who expect me to work on them for free but would never in 100 years go to a grocery store and expect that store to give them free groceries. It's the same issue with rent. There is no constitutionally given right to housing, groceries, or medical care. Even EMTALA laws contain no obligation to work for free. They simply say you cannot ask for payment prior to rendering care. While effectively the same thing for many patients, there is a subtle and important difference. If society expects someone to provide free or discounted housing, food, or medical care, then it needs to pay for it via taxes or charitable contributions.
Everyone likes the idea of getting something for free. At first glance, it sounds awesome, but there are consequences to our actions. Let's talk about them.
The Consequences of Below-Market Rent on Other Landlords
First, let's consider the effects of offering below-market rent on other landlords. If you are offering below-market rent, you are artificially lowering the amount of income that other landlords can charge. Now, they must compete with you. Lower rents push down the value of their rental properties, depress the income they live on, push down their ability to provide nice places to live, and make it more difficult for them to purchase or build additional properties.
The Consequences of Below-Market Rent on Homeowners
Speaking of property values, you know who else below-market rents affect? That's right, homeowners. They scrimp and save up a down payment and then pay on a mortgage for years. They did everything right. Yet, there is some guy in their neighborhood renting out a bunch of houses for way less than market value. That lowers the value of the landlord's properties, but it also lowers the value for the homeowner. Why would anyone want to buy their house if they can just rent a place in the same neighborhood from the below-market landlord guy? They wouldn't.
The Consequences of Below-Market Rent on Investors
Consider an investor that does not yet own any rental properties. This investor is choosing from a plethora of investments. Maybe they'll open a franchise. Maybe they'll just buy some stocks or cryptocurrency. Bonds, mutual funds, precious metals. There are plenty of choices. One of those choices is investment real estate. But if an investor can't get a decent return out of investment real estate because it would be immoral for them to charge market rents, then they will invest elsewhere. If enough people do that, there will be fewer places to rent, and rent will go up for everyone. Affordable housing depends on investors charging a fair price and earning a fair return on their investment.
The Consequences of Below-Market Rent on Renters
It isn't just the wealthy property owners that are hurt by below-market rents. Think about what has happened in a place like California with Prop 13. This proposition basically made it so property taxes only go up when you move. If you stay put, taxes never go up. This lowers mobility of the workforce, decreases career opportunities, hurts incomes, increases commuting, destroys the environment, and forces people to stay in crummy neighborhoods. It's unforeseen consequences. Does Prop 13 help people stay in their homes? Yes. Does it help people move? Absolutely not. In fact, it heavily incentivizes them not to move. The exact same thing happens when landlords are offering below-market rent either by choice or by law.
There are other issues, too. When a renter is paying market rent, they have no qualms whatsoever asking the landlord to do their part—to follow their contract and to maintain the home properly. When they are paying less than market rent, they don't want to bug the landlord. They worry if they are too needy, the landlord will raise the rent. So, the property gradually falls into disrepair. Now the renter is living in a crummy house or apartment. Even if the landlord is very diligent about keeping an eye on it, the landlord has less money to use to keep it up. It's not like 100% of that rent payment is profit. In most situations, it's more like 10%-20%. It doesn't take much of a rent discount to wipe out all the profit in many situations.
When rents are artificially held down, there is less housing available. Nobody is moving, and no investors are building new homes or apartments. Now a renter can't find a place to live at any price. A dysfunctional market is not doing anyone any favors.
If “nice” landlords don't raise the rent, guess who is going to be the landlords in a while? That's right, the mean people. The nice ones find somewhere else to invest their money and get out of the business. Even if they don't, since the mean people have higher returns, they end up owning more and more of the properties. Now, all renters end up with mean landlords. That's not good either.
The Consequences of Below-Market Rent on Givers
Sure, it's nice to charge someone below market rent. I like being nice. I like giving money away to good causes. But when you charge below-market rent, you are saying “My favorite charitable cause is my tenant. I prefer to give money to them rather than use the money to free children across the globe from child traffickers or feed the local homeless.” Now if that's really the way you feel, that's fine. But I prefer supporting needier people, even if it means my tenant has to find somewhere cheaper to live and I have to go through the hassle of finding a new tenant.
Below-Market Rents Can Be Discriminatory
Here's another issue. To whom are you most likely to give a below-market rent? Someone you like. Someone you know. Someone you spend time with. They may share the same religion, gender, race, or sexual orientation as you. While it is illegal to discriminate against anyone when renting a place out, nobody is watching who avoids rent increases. So what happens? Minorities of whatever persuasion are discriminated against.
One Reason I Don't Invest Directly
It's really easy for me to say I'm a hardcore capitalist and that I'm always going to charge market rents. But let's be honest. I'm kind of a nice guy. I work for free for 20% of my patients as part of my chosen career, and I consider it an honor. I've had one direct rental property. Not only did I feel bad raising rents, but I also really disliked the hassle of finding a new tenant. Between those two qualities, below-market rent was inevitable. I discovered I didn't want to deal with it, so I quit dealing with it.
Now, I hire other people (via REITs, funds, syndications, etc.) to deal with it. It's really not all that different from any other business. I felt bad raising the prices for ads here at The White Coat Investor on people who had been with me for years, despite the fact that we were providing excellent value for their dollars. I didn't really need the money; I was practicing medicine on the side so I felt bad raising the prices as much as I should and continued to “give away the store.” I eventually hired somebody else to raise the prices and compensated her to do so. Without her taking over that task, there would be no White Coat Investor for you to be reading today, and the other 12 jobs that were created using the funds she collected would not exist either. If you mess with markets, somebody always gets hurt, whether you can see that person or not.
WCI’s No Hype Real Estate Investing is the best real estate course on the planet and the best way to get started in this exciting (and profitable) asset class. Taught by Dr. Jim Dahle and more than a dozen other experts, this course is packed with more than 27 hours of content, and it gives potential investors the foundation they need to learn about all the different methods of real estate investing. If you’re interested in real estate investing, you can’t afford to miss the No Hype Real Estate Investing course!
The Bottom Line
If you want to charge somebody less than market rents temporarily because they are going through a hard time, I applaud you for your generosity. If you are doing it long-term, I would ask you to consider the impact of your decision on yourself, your family, your tenants, other tenants/homeowners/landlords/investors, and people all over the world in need of your generosity. Don't feel guilty about charging a fair price for a good product or service. You are helping the world by doing so.
What do you think? Do you think a landlord has an obligation to charge less than market rent? If so, under what circumstances and for how long? What have you done in the past? Comment below!
Featured Real Estate Partners
The root of this housing problem is a substantial supply/demand imbalance. When there is a shortage of housing, prices go up. Those with more resources and wealth are able to afford better quality housing in a better location. Those who are poor will struggle the most to secure even basic housing in a constrained market.
There are huge barriers to the development and density of new housing. Until it becomes easier to develop more housing, this problem won’t go away. We also may need some new rules to rein in the empty housing issue as well. Perhaps second homes that sit empty should pay higher property taxes? And perhaps short term rental homes for transients should pay higher property taxes? I am against rent control, but some limits on empty housing are going to have to be created in order to preserve viable communities. In the mountain west, there is no workforce housing available, in Jackson, in Aspen, in Telluride, etc. And the same goes for some of our expensive cities, NY and San Francisco.
I too am a capitalist. But just the same we need some changes to our laws to promote development of more affordable housing, and to preserve work force housing in places where the market is totally out of balance.
This is very true. The problem for builders (I am not one) is that it’s not financial feasible for them to build low income housing. Just can’t make money on them so they build bigger. There need to be incentives for building low income housing. I actually really surprised there is not much political noise about this stuff. And sadly, most of the time the decision is just to have restrictions on rents and can’t come up with more nuanced ways to improved the problem.
Part of it is NIMBYism. I was shocked to see what the people of the Salt Lake valley did when there were proposals to build multiple homeless shelters around the valley. People turned out en masse in multiple places to protest their mayor (who was more than willing to build a shelter in their suburban town). The mayors all backed down
Interesting you bring that up. This is a major part of DLP’s mission, so I suppose investing with them in some small way helps alleviate it. Although they’re certainly not building in Jackson, Aspen, or Telluride.
Raising from $ 1334 monthly to $1950 in one fell swoop…especially a 55 + community, disgraceful!
Who’s looking out for the consumer?
So you are of the school of thought that thinks a landlord should not charge market rent? Or should only adjust rent at some certain pace? What is the pace? 10% a year max? 30% a year max? What’s disgraceful and what is not?
My property. My right.
That said I have never raised rent because I would prefer to keep good tenants happy and intact. This is actually the first time in 25 years one of my properties is significantly undervalued because of supply vs demand and an unexpected new build community that has increased nearby values. I’m probably going to sell it when the lease expires which I suppose could lead to similar moral outrage as a nice family will be displaced.
Carry that to its logical extreme. Someone stays 20 years and you’re charging them $300 for rent when comparable market rent is $1500? You’re not even going to be able to cover expenses like that, even if the mortgage is paid off.
For sure although my properties are all in young starter neighborhoods of excellent school districts so my average occupancy is 4-5 years.
Excellent article, Dr. Dahle. I especially like your explanation of how we discriminate when we generally have a bias if we avoid rent increases on well-liked tenants or harm our charitable intentions if we have less money to donate because of deflated rental income. Here in the rural deep South many poor white friends could use money but I donate to the UNCF (reparations of a sort) and to progressive candidates hoping to improve life for everyone not just those I have met.
As Ziggy suggests empty homes- sometimes the honest investments of foreigners, sometimes illgotten gains of those like Russian oligarchs or other despots turning a country’s stolen money into a storable asset for after their flight once the country collapses or turns on them- have an effect on all of this. Not a player in real estate, but I am glad when I read of a company here who is making homes for rent to people, not jumping into some market to have condos for sale to overseas investors to own but never use.
I can’t imagine overseas investors make up a large percentage of landlords in any US city. Seems like a stretch to find someone to blame.
A business can be charitable but a business is not a charity.
This vile debate goes back to the early 20th century. Ignorance and distain for markets projected in different directions. This anti-market sentiment was used to demonize Jews and other ethnic minority groups of being greedy landlord oppressors in places like Brooklyn and Harlem but with the revival of the neomarxist melodrama and a continued(possibly because of a) handicap on basic economic and historical education it’s now any property owner trying to provide a service for a sustainable price. If Ramsey was being “unfair” then the market would “fairly” reward him with a failed business. There are of course exceptions where the feedback loop of capitalism fails but for the most part you get what you’d deserve in a service exchange economy.
“…At the bottom of many criticisms of the market economy is really a lack of belief in freedom itself.”
“I threw that family out on the street because I believe in freedom! I’m actually a hero!”
Consensual agreements on the exchange of goods and services as well as the end result of failing to abide by them, are always amoral. Ultimately, there is no heroism in bankrupting yourself and your family.
That’s an awful nice man made of out straw you got there
I’m unclear on how you are this to “Socialism”, as you mentioned in the sub-section “Capitalism and Socialism”. The debate people are having about raising rent on people who may be a difficult financial situation is not by any means “Socialism”. That word is used in far too many contexts in which it has little to no meaning.
With Socialism people believe they get a say on how other people use their money and other assets. The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money. If it feels like there should have been more to that section, it’s probably because 3/4 of it was removed prior to publication. We felt it was too ranty and political.
It should better be referred to as Marxism which has both economic and social entanglements. It has philosophical origins dating back to Plato in searching for man’s return back to the garden of eden. This thesis suggests private property created every negative incentive in humanity since we transitioned from hunter-gathers via the agricultural revolution and if we eliminate private property with “better institutions” we will thus create a “new man”. Because of this complex entanglement, resource allocation becomes an abstraction with economic, philosophical, social and moral components. In this example, contemplating if society would better benefit from rent being solely market based or having a discretionary moral component.
Stick to personal finance! Enough political rants.. thought you had rules against that….
Thanks for the feedback.
There are many connections between taboo subjects like sex, politics, and religion and our primary economic topics. Hard to keep them completely separated.
I do love the youtube video featured: “Landlords caused climate change”. Classic. I wonder what other political buzzwords they can link those “bad people” to.
Landlords caused systemic racism?
Landlords caused January 6th?
Landlords furthered white privilege?
These people are so unoriginal and predictable
The fact is, Jonah, that landlords did often cause those very things.
There are a large number of books written about how this happened. I encourage you to avail yourself of them.
I am a landlord. In my town, rents have gone up around 5% a year. I raise mine 3% each year. Over time, my good tenants end up with quite a bargain and when apartments are open, I take it to the going rate. Seems to work for me as I now have a bunch of great tenants I love and they love me.
I have also had renters run into problems. I treat them with love and trust. They, for the most part, do not disappoint me.
Regarding the racism, I have heard many (including me, at times) complain about all the regulations. We have regulations because at some point, someone made a bad decision about how they treat their neighbors and we had to make it a law to prevent that in the future.
Yes, landlords, banks, real estate investors have made really racist decisions in the past. And frankly, currently. I’m continually shocked by the racist, misogynist comments I hear from fellow investors. Horrible. I just remind them that there are laws against such behavior.
If you hate so many regulations, perhaps you should encourage your fellow investors to be less….. bad.
LOL! *chefs kiss*
Even threw in a “racist, misogynist” for good measure. Could have gotten a perfect 10 if you added in a “homophobic” or “transphobic” to really stick the landing.
Interesting that you think being racist or misogynist is funny. It is not.
It is also against Federal law to behave that way, for obvious reasons (see comment above).
Unfortunately, the racism is real. I rented my very nice townhome to an African family working at the United Nations. They were diplomats, very active in the local church. Their son was attending medical school locally. Overall a very upstanding and respectable family. The rent was $5000/month in this upscale community. The neighbor, who was on the HOA board, went crazy because I rented to “those people”. Yes, racism is real.
Imagine a caller saying “I didn’t take out $400,000 in student loans, the marketplace did, the economy did”. Imagine the criticism they would get. This is a perfect example of what we see all the time in society, the people who are the most demanding of accountability and responsibility in others are the least willing to accept it for themselves. As you stated, this is a moral discussion, not a legal discussion. The market is just people making decisions, at least have the decency to take responsibility for your decisions.
I think Ramsey is getting called out more for the “good Christian” comment more than the raising rent (still some people criticize that too). A landlord raising rent to make money doesn’t make them a bad person if the rates are reasonable market rates. However, that doesn’t mean it’s the right Christian thing to do to be driven by a profit motive. Capitalism and Christianity are more at odds with one another in this scenario than ethics and capitalism. It also depends on the luxury level of the properties. If this is relatively low income housing, then yes, it probably does make Dave a bad Christian (and person probably) for kicking poor people out of their housing by raising rates. Not so much for pricey high rise apartments in the middle of NYC.
A good Christian, when given 10 talents, earns 10 more. Jesus seem to support market-savy investing.
One thing I see frequently is businesses focused on the short term and only profit. I have a friend that charges below market rental rates and rarely increases rents never because the market would allow it. He makes it up with better tenants, less turnover, never vacant, and much fewer issues. Look longer and wider if you want better long term results! Not easy
If we agree that we’re going to be working within the framework of free market capitalism, then how does the section “The Consequences of Below-Market Rent on Homeowners” belong here? Why should any landlord worry about other landlord’s ability to collect rent or make their mortgages and so on? Surely, landlords must be competing with each other to entice the best renters with attractive rates?
In other words, my question is, isn’t this act of reducing rent a component of pricing-in the information that drives market prices?
Lots more comments at the WCI Forum on this one: https://forum.whitecoatinvestor.com/general-welcome/313824-discuss-latest-wci-blog-post-raising-rent-is-dave-ramsey-wrong#post313992
Another reason to own your home… don’t have to deal with landlords like Mr. Ramsey!
What is the conclusion? Allow renters to pay under market rent until what end point?
There is a difference between helping someone out in the short term and enabling them in the long term. I think it is fine to allow someone to pay under-market rent for a short period, especially if they are a good renter; however, to continue this past a certain point may be enabling the situation that the renter is in, and allowing them to not fix the situation. If you own the property, you get to decide how long “short term” is.
Being a Christian does not mean enabling, or getting cheated by someone “gaslighting” you to get you to charge under-market rent. The people who would criticize a Christian landlord for charging market priced rent are not likely to “pitch in” funds when the rental unit needs something fixed or needs an upgrade.
Not sure where anyone gets the idea that a Christian cannot make money, especially if there is a mutual benefit.
^This. Well said.
I agree with most of the post except Prop 13 in California. Although it may have unintended consequences and give a huge tax advantage for certain businesses like golf courses, there is no doubt that it is beneficial to ordinary homeowners. I bought a house 6 years ago in California which essentially doubled in value. I don’t think I should pay taxes for the current value while I have no plan on selling it. It is like paying taxes on unrealized gain.
Seems more fair to just lower the tax rate for all, not charge some people a higher rate than others which is in effect what Prop 13 does.
As a person of African descent, I feel insulted by your quote “… I prefer to give money to them rather than starving HIV+ kids in Africa hiding from machete-wielding genocidal maniacs in malarial-ridden swamps.” This is the classic, time-old, Eurocentric view of Africa, the land that can’t survive without our “white savior’s charity.” Not your best post, I agree with a previous comment, stick to personal finance. You can make your point without disparaging a whole continent by cherry-picking and highlighting some of its problems. You might as well have said “sh*thole countries.” Famine, HIV, war, genocide and malaria is not definitive, representative or defining of Africa. I’d like to see a post that highlights the positive economic growth and emerging markets in Africa. That whole paragraph reeks of a common American Christian mentality to want to save the starving black kids of faraway countries while ignoring their nearby black neighbors suffering from systemic racism and the socioeconomic downfalls and injustice of it all. Please don’t repeat that phrase again.
Apologize for the offense, that was not my intent. I’ll change the quote to something else. The point of the argument is that there are probably a lot of people in the world that are far more in need of charity than one’s tenants,
Of course there are impoverished people on every continent. That includes Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas; every corner of the globe has some who are struggling. Just the same, if you look at the countries with the most extreme poverty objectively, here are the top 10 by percentage of the population living in extreme poverty. Unfortunately, extreme poverty is quite a significant problem in many countries in Africa. I donate to many charities dedicated to helping with food security, education, clean water and more, both local and international. I am pleased that these efforts include supporting some of the most needy in Africa. If that leads you to look down on me and my efforts as those of a misguided, privileged savior, so be it. I like to focus on the positive and hope that some good will come of it, rather than put these efforts to help in a negative light.
South Sudan – 82.30%
Equatorial Guinea – 76.80%
Madagascar – 70.70%
Guinea-Bissau – 69.30%
Eritrea – 69.00%
Sao Tome and Principe – 66.70%
Burundi – 64.90%
Democratic Republic of the Congo – 63.90%
Amen, Jim. Very well said. This opened my eyes to situations I hadn’t realized before so thanks.
Thank you for you post Jim! I think this is right on. There are a lot of unintended but real consequences to consider, and you have outlined them very well.
Looks like Dave ran in to Cancel Culture. People taking a snippet of what he said and distorting it for their own reasons. Society/Social media has gotten ridiculous with the cancelling of a statement etc. Although I don’t agree with a lot of what Dave has to say, he was right on target with this one.
As a side note, I have no sympathy for those that don’t understand basic economics and capitalism. Educate yourself, work hard…every single day and good things will happen for you if you live in the US.
I commend everyone who gives, donates and support impoverished countries anywhere in the world, especially Africa, and I don’t look down on them. My problem with the quote is the tendency to often paint all of Africa with the big brush of HIV, poverty, famine, disease-stricken, war-torn land with maniacs as if this is the only thing Africa is known for. It happens a lot in American culture, news, tv etc. It reinforces a certain stereotype to the point that that is all you see and know about Africa. And in the context of this discussion of Landlords vs tenants, which is a discussion of home-ownership versus renting, this entire post ignored the people who are most affected by housing insecurity in this country-> black people. 73% of white people own homes in this country compared to only 42% of black people, so clearly black people typically rent more than white people. Why is this the case? Black people in this country were not allowed to own land, homes or property for centuries, in fact, they were responsible for building generational wealth for their white enslavers. And once they were freed, discriminatory practices such as redlining, Jim Crow laws etc limited the ability of black people to own homes in this country. They were prevented from getting GI bills that sponsored a lot of baby boomers to buy suburban homes with FHA loans. Gentrification is worsening the problem today and racism still exists. The home appraisal for a black couple went up almost $500K after they had their white friends pose as the home owners (https://www.yahoo.com/now/home-appraisal-black-couple-skyrockets-160543526.html). A good analogy by Kimberly Jones summed up the issue: It’s like a game of Monopoly where a number of the players had no land/ability to purchase property and after 10 rounds of playing the game, you now say everyone is on the same level playing field. This is a big factor if we’re gonna summarize that the market is fair, and let’s let the market decide. The market was not fair for several centuries and black people are still dealing with the consequences today, so if we’re gonna talk about home-ownership, landlord vs renting in this country, we cannot do so without discussing the impact of racism in home- and land-ownership in this country, certainly not on MLK day. My original point is that this is a tough realization to accept particularly for the Caucasian population. It’s much more easier to ignore, not confront or discuss it, and make ourselves feel better by saying let’s let the market decide here, and after-all, I help black kids in Africa. I don’t mean to offend anyone with my comments, I’m just looking at it from the black perspective. I’ll step off my soapbox now.
https://www.history.com/news/gi-bill-black-wwii-veterans-benefits
I am in a mixed race marriage and my spouse has helped me better understand some of the deep challenges faced by minorities in this country. I fully agree that we all need to work harder to assure that every person in this country is given the support and the opportunity to reach their fullest potential, to find great success.
However, while providing opportunity to all is of great importance, striving for personal success and pulling yourself up through effort, education, and hard work is equally important. Finding that balance is the critical factor and it seems that in some spheres today, the personal responsibility ingredient that is necessary for success is being forgotten.
I agree with you that with GREAT effort, black people can achieve “personal” success in this country, but if we are really being honest with ourselves. No one more man/woman is an island. The “personal” success you think you have achieved is often linked to a lot of socio-economic-cultural advantages you overlooked along the way. We all love to hear about the “individual” success stories of people who pulled themselves up with their bootstraps, and I can tell you mine. I grew up in Africa, immigrated to the US at 16yo. My parents quit their jobs and sold everything to get their kids to this country, they worked odd-ends jobs here. I worked hard in school, worked part-time at Walmart in college, made it to medical school with the help of a bunch of student loans, became a neurosurgeon, voila-> personal success story! Here are a few of the challenges I had to face: college advisor told me I couldn’t make it to medical school, I didn’t have money to take MCAT prep courses, in medical school, advisor told me to reconsider neurosurgery as my chances of matching were slim. During residency, my Chair didn’t believe in me, didn’t let me operate, had to transfer to a different program that was supportive, took longer than it should have. I have A LOT of minority friends who went through the same thing in medicine and surgery, many didn’t finish. So how was I able to do it? Here are the “bootstraps” that I think I had- Not growing up in the USA, I had an upbringing that raised me to be confident, to pursue my dreams and a supportive cultural believe system; My parents were upper middle class is Africa, so my elementary-high school educational background was solid, i had attended private schools in Africa; I had a 2-parent household; I had an African research mentor in undergrad who put me on a bunch of publications, I had an Indian mentor in med school who I took a year off to do research with etc. But after having lived in this country for more years than I lived in Africa, after each discriminatory episode then the other, I have less faith in the system than when I first got here. The realities of racism eats at you bit by bit. I now understand the plight of African-Americans better. I used to be like you and say, but the opportunities are there! Now, I can easily imagine that if I was born in this country, I might have been discouraged at one point and given up. It should not have to be that hard.
So, what I’m trying to say is there are NO personal success stories, a lot of the historically disenfranchised people in this country don’t have boots or bootstraps to pull themselves up with. The system that disenfranchised them needs to do better.
I encourage everyone to look deeper at the factors that made you successful, it wasn’t just your personal efforts. If a hospital has a problem with central line infections, it doesn’t say each person who places it needs to do better. They make systemic changes, that’s what makes the meaningful difference. The few and far between individual successes pales in comparison to the marginalized masses. This country needs to do better to eliminate systemic racism and the infrastructure that was long in place and it’s remnants still continue to prevent the marginalized from achieving success without great strife. And we need to have more productive discussion and posts about how to make that difference.
I think you have to meet your costs and make a profit.
I have lived in my home in California for 25 years. I have had my property taxes raised 23 times. I’m not sure why you think Prop. 13 only allows property taxes to rise when a home is sold? Prop. 13 allows 2% increase yearly. This definitely isn’t one of your better posts.
Thanks for the correction. While 2% a year does add up after a while, my understanding is there is usually a huge increase upon transfer these days. Am I wrong?