The author tells us, from his researches, that the 400 richest individuals in USA have more wealth than all 16 million black households. He grew up in a normal middle class white household but has worked among communities of colour and sees massive inequalities.
I don't live in America, but I've been reading about it. I suggest if you go back to Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickel and Dimed, you will see this now decades-old undercover journalism book showing how the poor people (like the woefully unqualified middle aged home-maker she pretended to be) worked two or three physical jobs to live indoors, while the rich people owned firms where their staff could not afford to buy goods and kept wages below the official poverty line. This policy was not aimed at any race or class; it was just about money. The poorer people included those with less education, or less good education, and this accentuated a racial divide which has since been perpetuated.
Another book, Third Wave Capitalism: How Money, Power, and the Pursuit of Self-Interest Have Imperiled the American Dream by John Ehrenreich, has shown me that public policies across many states have been privatising public services and the new owners closing those that don't bring income, like libraries, while firing staff and paying less for essential workers. This author explained that women, who spent less time in higher education and work due to family issues, plus people of colour, were much more often the losers from this kind of policy. Women of colour were thus the biggest losers. The author shows that even when politicians were elected on a platform of prioritising public services, generally they did the opposite. He colour-coded states so house-hunters could see where to bring up kids; the states along the coasts were mostly spending more on education, those in the centre and south, less.
The author of the current book may see lobbying for the interests of wealthy giant corporations as racially biased; I venture to suggest that this may be the outcome but it would not be even necessary to the picture. If the company thinks it can make more money by exploiting a law or loophole - like operating a polluting plant in a state that doesn't require them to clean the air and water and clean after they close the plant - that is what they will do regardless of what colour community lives nearby. It just happens that communities of colour are the ones with this kind of legislature running their state or county. And better off people won't move there because they can afford houses in a clean water district. Why the legislature is allowing this kind of harm is the question that needs to be answered. The local people need to vote better and provide better candidates, whom they then hold responsible. Peter Matthiessen wrote Indian Country about lands and people being exploited for water rights and mining coal and uranium. The people there just happened to be Native American. Whoever lived there would have been exploited. They needed jobs.
Schools are shown at the start as being closed down 'due to lack of need', resulting in an under resourced school trying to cater for all the pupils of the district and failing. I started aged four in a class of 59 to 61 pupils; one teacher. Nobody was a different colour. Now in Ireland, a class half that size would raise protests from teachers. But that is because Ireland is better off now. Ireland is not spending vast amounts on arms. Ireland funds education. Even having said that, a juvenile prison was built in the west of Dublin with a gym, showers, library, metalwork and other training facilities. A school nearby promptly asked to swap buildings. They had been asking for that kind of funding for those kind of buildings for years, and not received them. The school said if schools in the area got better facilities than prefabs, the juvenile jail would not be needed. There was no colour issue here.
The author has a chapter on 'the criminal justice money pit.' He tells us that disproportionately more people of colour are stopped and searched in New York. I recently heard a police officer from London explaining that whoever the people are who are selling drugs or carrying knives, those are the people you need to be searching, not the harmless ones. And generally, the victims of those criminals will be in their own communities. So, there are two sides to that story. The minor crimes he mentions like asking for a water cup but filling it with soda, or sharing a netflix password, relate to not having enough money. He could try living in Germany, where people assure me nobody breaks the rules, but everyone is well paid, so they don't need to break rules.
Later in the book the author talks about undocumented immigrants (who have no voice) compared to Wall Street. More money is spent on lobbying government (major and local) than is spent on doing good. Medical care is far more costly than it needs to be in the US. Like Naomi Klein in This Changes Everything - a book about climate change and exploitation of communities - the author tells us that ordinary people have to get organised if they are going to beat the highly organised lobby of the wealthy.
This is certainly an interesting book, not cheerful, but economics has been depressing for decades. I suggest looking to policies set by the EU for control over major firms, GDPR and limiting pesticide use, providing healthcare, equality of treatment etc.
Notes P255 - 285 in my ARC. I did not get an index. The graphs are mainly about state spending. I would have been interested to see some photos. The editing and references (often links) are to a good standard.
I read an e-ARC from Net Galley. This is an unbiased review.