corrections:
1] no one gives a crap about your phones or you
2] you're trolling for likes not sharing anything
3] nobody is your friend

i always thought i didn't live up to the my mom's generation and
all the hardships they went through....then i saw millennials, yuck

women everywhere: "awwwww so super cute"

also women everywhere: "is it a baby? kill it!"

awesome plan...what could possibly go wrong

paying women more for less valuable work is gender extortion and
that's exactly what's happening
in order to comply with the fascist laws women who perform less
important, less valuable, less difficult work are paid much more
than market value to reach an average comparable to the men who
typically perform the more highly paid work

#FEMALEVIL

"especially WHITE, middle-class families who had been ABLE to build wealth through home equity."
this clearly says "whites were ABLE" as in others were NOT able.
nothing whatsoever to do with how many "whites" there were or were not.
the sentence clearly suggests that whites were ABLE to build equity and
others were not based on the colour of their skin and not because of catastrophic
drug use, violence, poverty, rape, and other criminal activity
in a particular community of people.
i still don't know what any of this has to do with concepts which may or may not be open.

or the sentence could have gone this way

many families DID NOT have enough money to trade up from their wartime houses—especially BLACK families who had NOT been able to build wealth through home equity."
why not pray tell, why were black families not able to get "open concepts"
because although the article tries to race bait with the racially insensitive remark
it also fails to explain its existence in the context of "open concepts".

i'm not surprised as white racism as become so common place and accepted.
do you see it now? do you see how it accuses an actual whole race of people for
what some may or may not have done for reason that are not really known and
are definitely not explained in the "open concept" article?

in a piece about "open concept", i'd say it is racist, at the very least race baiting.
"black" people owned homes in the 60's you ignorant twit so no there is nothing
accurate about the "mention" or the "dig" at "white" people.

what does the colour if someone skin have to do with "open concept"?

"white, middle-class families who had been able to build wealth through home equity"
nice racist identity politics dig at people whose skin is the lightest color and is achromatic because it fully reflects and scatters all the visible wavelengths of light
through no fault of their own as they were born with it and according to you that enabled them to get a place and that's the only reason they got it as in "if your skin is as mentioned
above you get to have a house and that's all the qualifications one needs"

thank you for continuing to spread hate between the skin tones, don't ever stop.
it seems to be working really well as divisions are becoming deeper and deeper,
let's never forgive, let's always hate.

what are you trying to achieve? is this a solution?
open concept=white=racist home ownership practices by banks in the 50s. the end?
maybe you should mention slavery while you're at it why stop at jim crow.
how about colonization, gender fluidity, man-spreading, slut walks etc...
when will you be satisfied? when will your thirst be quenched?
i think most people would like to move on as NONE OF US can change the past.

did you think you were uncovering some great hidden secret that some people
had it rough, had it tough, had to fight, had to die and still didn't have the ability
to get any kind of "concepts" open or otherwise.

you are the very thing you think you are fighting.