You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
New Twin Cities data show more significant gains among whites.
Funny how the income gains among the lowest-income households (bottom quintile), which were higher in percentage terms (2.6%) than for the other two groups mentioned (median, 80th centile), are considered a negative, yet the others are considered a positive. How does that work?
A few politically correct and incorrect realities. On a positive note, The "International Center" in St. Paul, has been in existence for near or over a century and is one of the top five organizations in the country the U.S. State Department partners with to assist immigrants settle in the U.S. 100 years ago this applied to principally to northern Europeans as Minnesota closely aligned with the climate from their native land. Then in the '70's, '80's and '90's, this same organization was utilized to assist in other resettlements (e.g., Hmong, Somalians, Hispanics, etc.). Conversely, in the mid-to late '70's many of the social welfare benefits in Minnesota were "the" most favorable in the United States and quite frankly lured many individuals to the state more interested in handouts than responsibly integrating into the broader society. So yes, there is validity as to gaps in education, income, etc. However, recall that the minority population in this state has traditionally and continues to be small in relation to other parts of the country and the cry "racism", while an easy battle cry does not take into account other contributing factors. Not all those Northern Europeans who migrated to Minnesota 100 years ago were wealthy and well educated. It took time to assimilate, learn new skills, become educated, etc.
The Strib at least didn't offer it's tired solution of more taxes on the wealthy. Government created dependency is partly to blame for the disparities so hopefully more handouts will not be suggested as a solution.
"New Twin Cities data show more significant gains among whites" ............ So is this some kind of surprise? After all they are the ones who in the main own the businesses and provide the jobs. They also, via taxes, pay for the benefits and handouts. If this group did NOT show significant gains any "economic recovery" would be DOA. Far from being some kind of grim omen for the future, as this article would have us believe, this is actually GOOD news.
So is there something we're supposed to do about this, or should the poor just figure it out on their own? Wonder what Pope Francis would say?
How can this be? State government is clearly dominated by progressives who keep telling us that their progressive policies, of which they have implemented many, are just the medicine needed to end these disparities. What's gone awry?
This story is well done. I challenge the Strib editorial team to be more consistent in using the disparities gap/lens on nearly every story you write. It's great when you bring it up every once and a while because when you begin to peel the onion about what's really happening for the growing majority of our community, it's only then that you are telling the whole story, the whole truth and that's what readers deserve.
So, we've got the "let 'em eat cake" crowd on the right, and the people with an element of social conscience on the left who are willing to provide something for the poor. But what we really need is fundamental change in the political and economic institutions that would promote the common good, thereby eliminating spending on social services.
vlombardy - "So, we've got the "let 'em eat cake" crowd on the right, and the people with an element of social conscience on the left who are willing to provide something for the poor." --- What exactly are the people on the left providing other than other people's money?
dave9398: Everyone with money enough to pay taxes provide for the poor, whether they like it or not. The point is that social support is not necessary for people who are self-sufficient. That is, people with jobs that pay enough for a person to have enough to eat, a home to care for, and enough left over to provide for a similar retirement. The economic system in the United States today makes that impossible for the majority of Americans, which has resulted in the bottom 3 quintiles of Americans owning 0.3% of the wealth. Which brings us back to the cake-eaters vs those with a conscience. BTW, I think having a conscience is a conservative attribute, since it would be quite liberal to think that not having a conscience is a good thing.
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks