
Economic mystery: Why is the American midwest more equal than rest of the US? - nkurz
http://qz.com/594766/help-explain-an-economic-mystery-why-is-the-american-midwest-more-equal-than-the-rest-of-the-country/
======
Broken_Hippo
I find it odd to not talk about the effects of minimum wage compared to cost
of living in the area. I am from Indiana. It is common for people to take
paycuts when they move to the area - the basis being that in most of the
places, the cost of living is quite a bit lower (metro areas, especially
chicago, aside). Many places have headquarters in mid-sized hub towns of
40-60k people. Sometimes people are quite happy because it lets them live
pretty comfortably at the top without costing as much money. Moving to a coast
for a payraise and then moving back can grant an overall lifestyle and
payraise.

Yet minimum wage is the same in the midwest as it is other places, sometimes
lower. Most of the available jobs are in the minimum - $13/hr zone. Had it not
been for federal regulation, I speculate it would have stayed around the
$5/hour zone. When minimum wage rises in Indiana, only those legally affected
tend to get a raise. We get told that it theoretically isn't supposed to work
that way. It really has lessened the gap between workers and management
because they don't tend to get any raises, unless they are lucky enough to get
a cost of living or performance raise each year.

------
emanuer
As a non-American I am less than qualified to provide an answer, but one
possible hypothesis is Race and ethnicity. The midwest has according to
Wikipedia with 79% the highest Non-Hispanic White ratio of any region.[1] As
Blacks have the highest rate of poverty 27%, followed by Hispanics 25%
compared to 10% for non-Hispanic Whites. [2] Income equality might be
explained by having less poor people.

A follow up hypothesis would be that racial homogeneity might lead to less
ghettoisation resulting in less competition for the lowest paying jobs. One
might feel less compelled to pay only the lowest possible wage if one can
relate to the other person, by race, neighbourhood, etc.

Now, as to why Blacks and Hispanics have higher poverty rates; one explanation
may be that the American social system relies very heavily on both parents
present (and working) for a child to grow up in an advantageous situation.
This is something I have observed to a much lesser extend in more socialist
societies in Europa. And famously in all but 11 states, most black children do
not live with both parents. In every state, 7 in 10 white children do. [3]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_Unit...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States)

[2]
[http://www.csgmidwest.org/policyresearch/1012incometrends.as...](http://www.csgmidwest.org/policyresearch/1012incometrends.aspx)

[3] [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/25/fathers-
disa...](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/25/fathers-disappear-
from-households-across-america/?page=all)

~~~
a_humean
In the case of Black poverty in the US there are probably better places to
look first than the issue of single parent households.

The main reason for the high poverty rates among the black population is
pretty well understood. Firstly, the legacy of slavery and legally mandated
segregation that amounts to 300 years of outright state sanctioned oppression.
Secondly, historical and ongoing discrimination in employment and educational
opportunities, discrimination over housing, discrimination over the
availability of credit with good terms, and institutional discrimination in
the criminal justice system and beyond.

After that you might then say something about how single parent households are
typically less stable than two parent households, and the rate of single
parent households is higher than the norm among black households. By this
point though you might need to re-think the direction of causation.

The kind of analysis you put forward can easily start looking like its saying
that poverty among black people is a moral failing of black people, rather
than a moral failing of society. The latter is where most, but of course not
all (black people are individuals with moral agency as well of course!), of
the blame lies.

Example: The crack cocaine epidemic hit black communities quite hard, and
although there are individual moral failing that lead to addiction and further
societal breakdown (single parent households, highschool dropout rates
etc...), the vulnerability of black populations due to historic systematic
oppression played a large role in making those individual moral failings much
more likely.

~~~
humanrebar
> In the case of Black poverty in the US there are probably better places to
> look first than the issue of single parent households.

With all due respect, you have a lot to say on an empirical claim (does race
matter much more than parental status with respect to poverty?) without any
data to back it up.

One could argue that broken families today is part of the legacy of slavery
from 150 years ago, or disagree with the sources already cited, but I don't
see you making those arguments. Or citing factual sources otherwise.

> The kind of analysis you put forward can easily start looking like its
> saying that poverty among black people is a moral failing of black people,
> rather than a moral failing of society.

Yes, prejudice is a danger. Do we ignore the analysis because of the risk of
bigotry? Or is there a way to phrase the issue that lets us presume good
faith, have an honest discussion, and perhaps correct subtle bigotry if it
becomes clear?

~~~
andrewvc
Casting doubt here is pointless and detracts from the discussion. If the bar
for discussion on hacker news is the same as for a peer reviewed paper no one
will ever be able to say anything of use here.

~~~
humanrebar
> If the bar for discussion on hacker news is the same as for a peer reviewed
> paper no one will ever be able to say anything of use here.

Agreed, but when someone posts some sources, replying with speculation isn't
very useful, in my opinion.

~~~
a_humean
In my opinion pedantry isn't helpful for stimulating conversation. You
admitted ignorance of the causes of US poverty and of US history ('As a non-
American I am less than qualified to provide an answer'), suggested a very
simple single parent household theory with evidence of a correlation with
poverty. I merely placed your theory and evidence within a historical and
ongoing context of oppression (slavery and state sponsored oppression didn't
end 150 year ago).

Pretty sure that Jim Crow and Slavery aren't speculation, but are common
historical facts that don't require citation, much like saying World War 2 or
the Annexation of Crimea happened doesn't require citation.

The point wasn't that single parent households aren't a cause of poverty (it
certainly doesn't help), but that it is far too simplistic, that it is
probably more symptomatic than causal, and with a US political lens can be
seen as a case of dog whistle politics (not accusing you personally of
engaging in such politics, which I should have made more clear).

~~~
humanrebar
> You admitted ignorance of the causes of US poverty and of US history

You're confusing me with another commenter.

------
marincounty
The all consuming quest to be the richest guy on the block is less important
than on the coasts.

Religion plays a part? I've been to a few Midwestern states, namely Missouri,
and Ohio. There's a morality they have that's missing here.

When I was there, I never felt like I was being lied to, or taken advantage
of. Here, on the west coast, I'm leary of most people daily--regardless of
socio-economic class. I'm not claiming the Midwest is some utopia, but it's
less about the almighty Buck.

I've met a few women in my days. The only two I ever considered marrying just
happened to be from the Midwest. I would have done anything for Gena at one
point in time; she shot me down pretty quick. I still think about her.

------
alanwatts
Less diversity, less natural wealth (agriculturally speaking), less industry,
and it's land locked, meaning less ease of access to global markets via
oceanic transport.

Both the east and west cost have provided great agricultural wealth due to
climate favoriability and nutrient rich soils, are home to many traditionally
poorer immigrant cultures and have a greater means for increasing their by
using the ocean for trade and transport.

------
jkot
Is it possible there are no rich people in midwest? How many billionaires live
there?

~~~
DougN7
Like I mentioned below, Johnson Couty, Kansas is one of the richest im the
country:

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_County,_Kansas](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_County,_Kansas)

~~~
JBReefer
19th richest is not particularly rich, especially when the median household
income is only $73,733. Power law distributions are really critical here.

EDIT: In fact I'd argue that this supports point that the Midwest is very
equal - one of the wealthiest counties is really not that rich.

------
csense
Having grown up in the Rust Belt, I think the answer is that there's a talent
drain. Smart, ambitious kids with prospects tend to leave -- it's not
something that just affects CEO's and the 1%, it's something that affects the
lower-upper and upper-middle classes as well.

------
andrewclunn
So it's more equal because they are all poorer together. It's really not that
hard. Hard to be unequal if you're pretty much without wealthy people.

~~~
vinay427
> Hard to be unequal if you're pretty much without wealthy people.

Clearly you haven't visited places like India, where in many cases the low
economic status and illiteracy of the poorest are used to make the wealthy
even wealthier.

