A lot of baby boomers are now in their 50s and in mid-life many are enjoying new-found and improved finances: The generation before is dying off, in many instances leaving behind substantial wealth, assets and ongoing income.

But such munificence does not touch all households. It presumes that in an earlier time all could acquire a home with some ease, that loans were equally available on the basis of credit alone, and that we could each work for the education we wanted and in the profession we preferred and thus have equal access to income.

Such presumptions are wrong.

It wasn't long ago that segregation was the law in many states and "gentlemen's agreements" elsewhere prevented integrated housing. Quotas were used to keep African-Americans, Jews, Catholics, Asians and women out of colleges, banks, stock brokerages and various businesses -- thus limiting incomes and opportunities. Deeds were written with specific prohibitions against possession by or resale to blacks, Jews, and Assyrians. Neighborhoods were "redlined" to reduce or eliminate mortgage options (and thus ownership opportunities) for minorities. Country clubs were notoriously restricted regardless of financial success. It wasn't until 1960 that we had our first Catholic president, John Kennedy.

As I mentioned several years ago, basic appraisal textbooks were updated in 1977 to say that "it was once common practice to examine the racial, religious or ethnic composition of a neighborhood in an effort to detect any sign of nonconformity or change. Such an approach is now regarded as misdirected and the use of factors relating to the racial, religious or ethnic composition of a neighborhood in arriving at a conclusion of value is now deemed an unreliable practice." (See: "Appraisers Institute Settles Suit," The Washington Post, Nov. 19, 1977)

In other words, integration by race, faith and nationality were used to justified lower appraisals which means that home values were suppressed not because of their bricks and mortar but because of the people living in them.

It wasn't until 1980 -- 1980! -- when an industry policy statement concluded that "the value attributed to the property is not dependent upon the homogeneity of racial, religious or ethnic characteristics of the neighborhood...and the lack of such homogeneity in a neighborhood does not cause a diminution of value." (See: "Agreement Set In Rights Case Against Lenders," The Washington Post, Jan. 26, 1980)

This new view, of course, could not undo the damage of past decades.

As a country we've made impressive progress toward a more inclusive society. Just look at our military, workplaces, medical centers, media, colleges and professions. Look at our neighborhoods.

And yet considering the headway we've made, it's telling that penalties from prejudice remain below the surface -- and sometimes above it.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development, as one example, says that at the end of 2004 nationwide homeownership stood at 69 percent and that 74.4 million American families owned their own homes.

"Minorities set a new quarterly record of 51.4 percent in the fourth quarter," said HUD. "There are now 15,504,000 minority homeowners in the United States."

But let's say that minority homeownership was equivalent to ownership levels in the general population. We would then have 20.8 million minority homeowners -- 5.3 million more than we have today. Seen another way, for no observable reason other than minority status, five million households rent rather than own.

Given that homeownership is a major source of familial wealth, those who rent are less likely to accumulate assets which can be passed on to heirs. In effect, one by-product of long-ago discrimination is today's inter-generational wealth divide.

For instance, according to the state government of Oregon, "Between 1984 and 2001, the median net worth of households headed by people age 65 and older increased by 82 percent (after accounting for inflation). Although the rate of growth has been substantial for both older black and older white households, large differences in wealth continue to exist. In 2001, the median net worth of older white households ($205,000) was five times larger than for older black households ($41,000)."

A new and exceptional report produced jointly by the NAACP and the National Association of Homebuilders makes this point:

"Millions of American families struggle to find affordable housing in areas of opportunity -- those places that offer dynamic schools, good-paying jobs and a secure environment. These families commute long distances, live in segregated neighborhoods, endure overcrowded or substandard housing, or spend far too much of their incomes on housing. While this issue cuts across all racial and ethnic boundaries, its effects are felt most acutely by African Americans and other minority families."

Given the enormous value of homeownership, both financial and social, it's obviously something which should be encouraged. Wealth, after all, is not a zero-sum game. If you have more, I'm not required to have less.

Show me a homeowner and I'll show you someone who pays property taxes that finance the schools, police and roads used by everyone.

Show me a homeowner and I'll show you a household taking an important step toward building inter-generational wealth -- wealth that will ultimately increase demand for products, services and jobs throughout the economy, spending which benefits everyone.

Show me someone able to finance and buy a home without the impact of discrimination and I'll show you more real estate demand, more pressure to raise home prices, greater national wealth and a more-just society.

For more articles by Peter G. Miller, please press here.