comments_image Comments

"Shopping While Black": Is Conspicuous Consumption Related to the Black/White Wealth Gap?


Trayon Christian was racially profiled while buying a $250 belt at Barneys. Kayla Phillips was accosted by police after buying a $2,500 handbag from the same store. Their treatment is unacceptable.

Racial profiling is wrong—it is also ineffective in preventing crime.  Al Sharpton is correct in his efforts to defend the basic right of individuals to shop while be treated equally and fairly—regardless of their skin color.

The United States has been described as a “consumer’s republic”; capitalism, democracy, and the right to participate in the marketplace are conflated with full citizenship in this country. As such, the phenomenon which has come to be known as “shopping while black”, reinforces, through racism and classism, a belief that people of color are perpetual outsiders and a type of Other in American society.

However, in locating the experience of “shopping while black” within a broader social, historical, and political context, we must also confront a very uncomfortable and challenging question.

Of course, Christian and Phillips should not have been discriminated against because they were black and shopping at a luxury store. But, what do the choices by two young people to spend hundreds of dollars on a belt, and thousands of dollars on a handbag, reveal about the impact of conspicuous consumption on the black community’s economic health?

Blacks in the United States possess significantly less wealth and earnings than their white counterparts across all class levels. African-Americans possess approximately 10 cents in wealth for every $2.00 in wealth owned by whites.  Black women in the 36 to 49 year old age range have a net worth of 5 dollars. White women in the same cohort have a net worth of 40,000 dollars.

These wealth disparities are a result of centuries of public policy in the United States where white wealth creation was subsidized by the State, and economic resources and opportunities have been systematically denied to people of color.

For example, the Homestead Act, the FHA and VA home loan programs, as well as the G.I. Bill, created untold billions of dollars in wealth for white people while denying non-whites access to the same opportunities.

Because of discrimination in the labor market, black Americans do not receive the same return of investment on their educations as comparably (or even in some cases, less) educated whites. Even ostensibly “race neutral” polices such as “last hired, first fired” have caused disproportionate harm to people of color, as they have long been denied access to jobs by racist hiring practices--yet, black and brown workers are the first to be dismissed when the economy contracts.

Systematic housing segregation means that black communities are also less resourced as compared to comparable white communities.

Three centuries of chattel slavery  robbed African-Americans of  at least 20 trillion dollars of labor and income.

Wealth is inter-generational. The sum effect of centuries of economic disenfranchisement from the past to the present is that the black community is both wealth and income poor.

America’s system of racial Apartheid was also an active form of economic exploitation against non-whites.

African-Americans who choose to purchase $350 belts and $2,500 handbags are not responsible for the structural inequalities which have produced the stunning lack of wealth held by Black America. However, such aggregate choices by individual African-Americans do contribute to the racial wealth gap because  each dollar put into overpriced clothing, cars, jewelry, electronic goods, etc. are fewer resources put into savings and investment.

Why would members of a group that is poor in wealth, and comparatively disadvantaged in terms of income, spend their resources on expensive consumer goods as opposed to investment or saving?

See more stories tagged with: