The Minneapolis Miracle (and a rebuttal)

[Docere]

Originally Posted by pdxtex

isn't minneapolis the unofficial grain/cereals capital of america too? its got the only grain "stock" exchange on the continent as far i knew. there's alot of money in wheat.

Minneapolis = a more white collar Winnipeg?

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by pdxtex

isn't minneapolis the unofficial grain/cereals capital of america too? its got the only grain "stock" exchange on the continent as far i knew. there's alot of money in wheat.

i believe kansas city has/had one unless the cme recently gobbled it up.

[10023]

Originally Posted by pdxtex

isn't minneapolis the unofficial grain/cereals capital of america too? its got the only grain "stock" exchange on the continent as far i knew. there's alot of money in wheat.

You can omit the word "stock" which generally refers to equities.

Anyway, MGEX only handles a handful of agricultural futures and it does so on CME's electronic platform. Basically it's not anything.

And yes the KC BoT has been owned by CME for a few years. It was tiny anyway, and its trading operations were moved to Chicago.

[Don't Be That Guy]

Originally Posted by Chef

The local government assistance program did help Minneapolis and St Paul maintain service levels in the '80s and '90s when white flight was in full swing, crime was spiking and their tax bases were eroding. It likely prevented them from falling as far as they would have otherwise. It is easy to forget now, but in the early to mid 90s Minneapolis was not headed in a good direction, crime was high and it seemed like things were spiraling out of control. The homicide rate wasn't far behind cities like Baltimore or New Orleans today. In many parts of the city people were dealing drugs on the street and you would hear gunshots on an almost daily basis. LGA was a useful source of revenue to help the city get through that era. Decreasing the gap in service levels between poor municipalities and richer ones probably helps stabilize communities while they are in crisis and gives them the opportunity to find their way back. That in turn probably benefits the broader society in the long run in terms of social cohesion and equalizing opportunity. Now most of the benefit of LGA goes to the blue collar suburbs rather than the central cities.

The other program that works towards the same end is open enrollment which allows any child in Minnesota to attend any public school that has room for them. This makes it less necessary for families to live in "the right district" for the sake of their children. In turn that opens up large swathes of the metro to being seen as acceptable places for middle class families to live (especially the central cities), which probably reduces price pressure on middle class and upper middle class suburban areas. I would imagine that if more states had open enrollment you would see a lot more middle class families living in cities.

It's a shame, but not surprising, that this thread has devolved into boosterism and silly regional character arguments. Minneapolis' success has largely been one of smart policy at the local and state levels.

The stabilizing effects that the local government assistance program and the school choice legislation had cannot be overstated. Keeping, and supporting, the middle class and working class through school choice and keeping lower-income municipal services from going under were incredibly successful progressive ideas that have worked and should be replicated throughout the country. This is especially true with schools. Improving schools and allowing school choice is going to be the thing to keep the current urban boom going once the Millennials fueling it start having children enmass.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Don't Be That Guy

Improving schools and allowing school choice is going to be the thing to keep the current urban boom going once the Millennials fueling it start having children enmass.

Michigan has perhaps the most progressive schools choice laws in the nation. Basically anyone can attend anywhere. Doesn't seem to have helped Detroit.

In contrast, states like New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and California have basically no cross-district school choice, yet urban areas are vibrant and filled with millennials. I'm not sure school choice is really that closely linked with urban vibrancy.

[Don't Be That Guy]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Michigan has perhaps the most progressive schools choice laws in the nation. Basically anyone can attend anywhere. Doesn't seem to have helped Detroit.

In contrast, states like New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and California have basically no cross-district school choice, yet urban areas are vibrant and filled with millennials. I'm not sure school choice is really that closely linked with urban vibrancy.

I'm not saying that school choice is a panacea for urban problems, but school quality itself is often the #1 cited reason families take off for the suburbs.

In the case of Detroit, I'd guess that the lack of decent schools to begin with, and lack of mobility for motivated students to get to good suburban schools are those reasons. The city was mostly hollowed out of a middle class by the time school choice was implemented, so it was a case of too little, too late for that to work.

As for NY, NJ, MA, PA etc... I would guess that the income discrepancies would show that poverty, and bad school districts, are largely isolated for lack of a better non-inflammatory term. The poor performing school districts are in lower-income municipalities and neighborhoods with little ability for students to move to better schools without physically moving to a new residence.