The Sum of Us Discussion Questions

What is zero-sum theory, and how does it affect people in The Sum of Us?

Zero-sum theory comes from the idea, in game theory, of a “zero-sum game,” a situation where one person’s win must be another person’s loss. Therefore, a zero-sum paradigm is an us-versus-them mentality, in which people (and, in this case, voters) believe that one group cannot progress without another group being set back. Specifically, some white voters believe that, if something, such as Obamacare or a higher minimum wage, benefits Black people, it must set white people back, often because they believe that they have earned that benefit and others have not. Studies showed that people who believed this strongly were against even race-neutral policies, such as raising the minimum wage. This is true even of people who might benefit from the policy. For example, if someone is making $13.00 an hour but others are making only $8.00 an hour, that person making $13.00 an hour is ahead of those making the lower wage. If the minimum wage goes up to $15.00 an hour, the person who was making $13.00 would benefit from the raised minimum wage, because they’d be making an additional $80.00 each work week. But they would also be getting the lowest possible wage, with no one below them. This might make them feel they are suffering from a loss of status.

Throughout the book, McGhee expresses surprise that white voters would believe this so strongly that they would vote against policies that would benefit them, such as not wanting unions or voting against candidates who are for everyone having health care. Many people cannot even explain why they are against Obamacare, since the hospitals are hurt when uninsured people can’t pay their bills and they pass the debt on to others in the form of higher costs. However, McGhee notes that the zero-sum paradigm is “the default framework for conservative media,” such as Fox News. In the past, racism has sometimes benefited white people. For example, they have had better school funding or were able to get government-subsidized loans more easily than others. But in many cases, this zero-sum paradigm hurts white people too. They are often against policies that will ultimately benefit them. The policies they seek only benefit the very wealthiest people.

According to Heather McGhee in The Sum of Us, what is the relationship between economics and race?

In an ideal world, McGhee writes, there would be no relationship between economics and race. Deserving people would be more successful, and people who don’t work hard would be less successful. Unfortunately, that isn’t the case. The remnants of the slavery era, as well as the times that followed, when Black people were unable to amass property or earn the same income as white people, are still with us. Programs like the G.I. Bill, which allowed millions of veterans to attend college, left out Black veterans or encouraged them to attend trade schools. Therefore, they made less money. Without inherited wealth, they were less able to send their own children to college. Therefore, the lower economic status is self-perpetuating.

Moreover, the author notes, Black people are more likely to be victimized in ways that affect them economically. Even if a Black person goes to college and gets a good job, they might not be able to buy a house because of racist practices like redlining. Even now, certain neighborhoods, neighborhoods with many people of color, are considered a bad risk. Then, if they manage to buy a house, Black people are more likely to be victimized with predatory practices such as subprime second mortgages. McGhee explains this is why it is often difficult for Black people to get ahead, even if they are doing everything right.

What are the costs of segregation as illustrated in The Sum of Us?

Segregation has costs both to Black people and to white people. The costs to Black people are more obvious. If they are sending their kids to schools that, because of their neighborhood, are underfunded, their children suffer and don’t get as good an education. Restrictive covenants, which created segregated neighborhoods, harmed Black people because those neighborhoods were often less convenient and less desirable (the “wrong side of the tracks”). Even environmental hazards, such as incinerators, garbage dumps, and factories, are more likely to be in African American neighborhoods. But there are also costs to white people. White people are overpaying for their homes, to be in “good” neighborhoods and “good” school districts, which are the ones without Black people. Many are also paying to send their children to private schools, specifically so their children can be in an all-white environment. This is a huge monetary payment, not to mention missing out on the benefits of integration, which will be discussed in the next question.

What are the benefits of integration?

Tucker Carlson asks, “How precisely is diversity our strength?” because he believes people get along better with people who are similar and share the same “values.” But most people are not Tucker Carlson. They would say in surveys that they see benefits of diversity and wish they knew more people of other races, even if, in practice, they don’t necessarily do anything about it. Studies have shown that groups make decisions better if they include diversity. People assume the people who are like them will share the same thoughts. Therefore, they listen more in a group that includes diversity. Even juries that were diverse deliberated longer and performed better.

Diverse schools are also preferable to all-white schools. Ali Takata, the parent who sent her kids to a mostly white school because she thought it was better, found that they thrived in a diverse school. They learned more about the real world where not everyone is rich. Diverse schools do not even have lower test scores than segregated schools once the study is controlled for income. Children who attend integrated schools learn more about the world they live in and will be more successful in life.

According to Heather McGhee in The Sum of Us, is fiscal conservatism moral?

The author recalls a girl in her predominately white middle school who stated that her family were “fiscally conservative but socially liberal.” This answer was met with approval by classmates because it seems to imply that the speaker just wants fair taxation, while being pro-choice, pro–gay rights, and presumably against overtly racist policies such as school segregation. Therefore, it seems like a moral answer. However, McGhee says, many so-called fiscally conservative policies are put into place for racist reasons, as described in this book. For example, people are against Medicare for all or for including more people in Medicaid because they fear providing government benefits for what they perceive to be lazy, undeserving Black people. This is also why many people are against a higher minimum wage and more funding for public universities so that students can graduate without mountains of debt.

That said, whether it is immoral is a stickier question. People who describe themselves this way usually don’t think of themselves or their ideas as racist. They think they are simply trying to save money. That’s because they have been persuaded to believe that the people who will benefit from these policies are undeserving. Politicians use coded language, dog whistles, to cause white voters to have this reaction, by talking about “having babies with a lot of different women” or “welfare queens” or “taking on more debt than they can afford,” which doesn’t sound like it is talking about a particular race but which implies it. They are also usually unaware of racist policies that caused these wealth disparities in the first place. Moreover, much of “fiscally conservative” voting is to the detriment of white people almost as much as it is to Black people, since white people are also overspending for health care and college and everything else. Therefore, the author says, their fiscal conservatism hurts them too. They just don’t realize it.