[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...

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

[3] http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/25/fathers-disa...

[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?

[EvanPlaice]

And... That's why statistics alone don't paint a very accurate picture.

The culture of the midwest varies a lot from state to state.

In many ststes like Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona white and Mexican cultures are pretty consistently intermixed. Most of the hispanics are second or third generation Chicanos who grew up in American schools and primarily speak English. Basically, Caucasian and Hispanic family makeup is pretty much indistinguishable.

Outside of the major metros (ie Detroit, Chicago), citys don't have inner-city ghettos like you'd find on the East/West coast.'

In Colorado, the suburbs that are almost all white, upper middle class consist mostly of Californians who left Cali for cheaper property and a higher standard of living. They are, by no means, representative of the local culture.

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that more homogeneity causes less inequality. Maybe in terms of cultural homogeneity.

The opposite is true in areas where strictly racial homogeneity is the norm. In cities like Detroit and Memphis neighborhoods could be clearly and easily separated on racial boundaries. Racism is rampant on both sides.

As for Black people in the midwest. I didn't live close enough to the city so I can't really say one way or another. The black families that live in the suburbs are clearly the minority in terms of numbers and apparently in terms of culture. The black families I've known from the suburbs usually have good, stable families, and their children do as well or better in schools than the norm.

Of course, I'm speaking in terms of the western mid-west. The demographic of, say, Iowa will be dramatically different. Likewise, St. Louis it will be dramatically different in a completely different way.

Trying to assess the US statistically as one whole is like trying to measure all of Europe as one country. There is a lot of cultural variation between the different states and people generally migrate away from areas that lack a culture that they identify with.