Does the concept pay rent though? There are a lot of ways to end up powerless and marginalized; a legacy of racism is one but I named a few others. Generally the concept that encompasses the result of a group of people being marginalized, irrespective of how it happened, is class.

Does it sufficiently capture reality to say that this discrimination happens to the lower class? In that case, "systemic racism" is mostly acting as shorthand for statistics that black people have less wealth on average, and points to an explanation of why. Or does this happen to black communities over and above that of other communities of comparable wealth? In that case, it makes sense to say that racism is a separate factor, beyond just economics.

I guess what I'm saying is, these are two different concepts with two different implied solutions:

A) A history of racism is why black communities are poor, and all poor communities equally suffer these burdens.

B) Black communities suffer these burdens over and above equally poor communities.

In case A, measures to increase wealth equality might solve the problem. In case B, that might not be sufficient, and deeper causes of lingering racist discrimination might need to be sought.

Just labeling the issue "systemic racism" does more to confuse rather than clarify how to solve it, I think.

What do you mean by 'racist consequences'? Intent can be racist, belief can be racist, but consequences are just the resulting state. A racist policy is one that targets one particular race in a hostile way. A policy that is applied evenly to the entire population but impacts one race disproportionately, while entirely unfortunate, does not in itself constitute racism.

I know this is tangential and a bit of a nitpick, but I feel the semantic difference here is important.