Support NeoGAF

[kirblar]

Source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/rural-america-is-the-new-inner-city-1495817008

I strongly recommend reading the entire piece- there are charts and graphs that are baked into the article that I can't copy/paste easily where I'm at, and there are a lot of anecdotes I've left out that are woven into the piece- I've just pulled the hard data into the OP.

One thing this article illustrates very well is that the forces leading to this decline aren't reversible. This isn't something where job retraining alone will help, because by and large, the jobs aren't going to be coming back because they're moving permanently to bigger metropolitan areas. And with the US's fixation on homeownership, this leaves a very large number of people trapped, shackled to investments that are no longer going to pay out as expected.

At the corner where East North Street meets North Cherry Street in the small Ohio town of Kenton, the Immaculate Conception Church keeps a handwritten record of major ceremonies. Over the last decade, according to these sacramental registries, the church has held twice as many funerals as baptisms.

In tiny communities like Kenton, an unprecedented shift is under way. Federal and other data show that in 2013, in the majority of sparsely populated U.S. counties, more people died than were born—the first time that's happened since the dawn of universal birth registration in the 1930s.

For more than a century, rural towns sustained themselves, and often thrived, through a mix of agriculture and light manufacturing. Until recently, programs funded by counties and townships, combined with the charitable efforts of churches and community groups, provided a viable social safety net in lean times.

Starting in the 1980s, the nation's basket cases were its urban areas—where a toxic stew of crime, drugs and suburban flight conspired to make large cities the slowest-growing and most troubled places.

Today, however, a Wall Street Journal analysis shows that by many key measures of socioeconomic well-being, those charts have flipped. In terms of poverty, college attainment, teenage births, divorce, death rates from heart disease and cancer, reliance on federal disability insurance and male labor-force participation, rural counties now rank the worst among the four major U.S. population groupings (the others are big cities, suburbs and medium or small metro areas).

In fact, the total rural population—accounting for births, deaths and migration—has declined for five straight years.

In the 1980s, rural Americans faced fewer teen births and lower divorce rates than their urban counterparts. Now, their positions have flipped entirely. The education and employment gaps between rural and urban areas have widened as rural areas have aged much faster than the rest of the country. And even after adjusting for the aging population, rural areas have become markedly less healthy than America's cities. In 1980, they had lower rates of heart disease and cancer. By 2014, the opposite was true.

In the first half of the 20th century, America's cities grew into booming hubs for heavy manufacturing, expanding at a prodigious clip. By the 1960s, however, cheap land in the suburbs and generous highway and mortgage subsidies provided city dwellers with a ready escape—just as racial tensions prompted many white residents to leave.

Gutted neighborhoods and the loss of jobs and taxpayers contributed to a socioeconomic collapse. From the 1980s into the mid-1990s, the data show, America's big cities had the highest concentration of divorced people and the highest rates of teenage births and deaths from cardiovascular disease and cancer. ”The whole narrative was ‘the urban crisis,'" said Henry Cisneros, who was Bill Clinton's secretary of housing and urban development.

To address these problems, the Clinton administration pursued aggressive new policies to target urban ills. Public-housing projects were demolished to break up pockets of concentrated poverty that had incubated crime and the crack cocaine epidemic.

At that time, rural America seemed stable by comparison—if not prosperous. Well into the mid-1990s, the nation's smallest counties were home to almost one-third of all net new business establishments, more than twice the share spawned in the largest counties, according to the Economic Innovation Group, a bipartisan public-policy organization. Employers offering private health insurance propped up medical centers that gave rural residents access to reliable care.

By the late 1990s, the shift to a knowledge-based economy began transforming cities into magnets for desirable high-wage jobs. For a new generation of workers raised in suburbs, or arriving from other countries, cities offered diversity and density that bolstered opportunities for work and play. Urban residents who owned their homes saw rapid price appreciation, while many low-wage earners were driven to city fringes.

As crime rates fell, urban developers sought to cater to a new upper-middle class. Hospital systems invested in sophisticated heart-attack and stroke-treatment protocols to make common medical problems less deadly. Campaigns to combat teenage pregnancy favored cities where they could reach more people.

As large cities and suburbs and midsize metros saw an upswing in key measures of quality of life, rural areas struggled to find ways to harness the changing economy.

There has long been a wage gap between workers in urban and rural areas, but the recession of 2007-09 caused it to widen. In densely populated labor markets (with more than one million workers), Prof. Moretti found that the average wage is now one-third higher than in less-populated places that have 250,000 or fewer workers—a difference 50% larger than it was in the 1970s.

As employers left small towns, many of the most ambitious young residents packed up and left, too. In 1980, the median age of people in small towns and big cities almost matched. Today, the median age in small towns is about 41 years—five years above the median in big cities. A third of adults in urban areas hold a college degree, almost twice the share in rural counties, census figures show.

Consolidation has shut down many rural hospitals, which have struggled from a shortage of patients with employer-sponsored insurance. At least 79 rural hospitals have closed since 2010, according to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

 

[Lois_Lane]

http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/05/26/rural-america-is-new-inner-city-2.html

This link isn't behind a pay wall.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

I mean rural America votes for the party that doesn't want to invest, or even reduce investments. It's hard to find too much sympathy

 

[Ephemeris]

http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/05/26/rural-america-is-new-inner-city-2.html

This link isn't behind a pay wall.

Thanks

 

[Captain Zyrain]

That is interesting.

I imagine the suburbs to the major cities should be fine, but the way outlying towns are kind of screwed.

I half wonder if that'll make them happy though? Will everyone leave them alone when they become insignificant?

 

[Lord Frieza]

I mean rural America votes for the party that doesn't want to invest, or even reduce investments. It's hard to find too much sympathy

Yeah, I mean...yeah.

 

[HStallion]

No surprises here. My parents live in super rural central NY and the smallest towns are basically ghost towns.

 

[kirblar]

That is interesting.

I imagine the suburbs to the major cities should be fine, but the way outlying towns are kind of screwed.

I half wonder if that'll make them happy though? Will everyone leave them alone when they become insignificant?

It's unlikely. The Deaths>Births thing is a major issue- the older residents are losing access to people who can help take care of them.

 

[Fuchsdh]

Source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/rural-america-is-the-new-inner-city-1495817008

I strongly recommend reading the entire piece- there are charts and graphs that are baked into the article that I can't copy/paste easily where I'm at, and there are a lot of anecdotes I've left out that are woven into the piece- I've just pulled the hard data into the OP.

One thing this article illustrates very well is that the forces leading to this decline aren't reversible. This isn't something where job retraining alone will help, because by and large, the jobs aren't going to be coming back because they're moving permanently to bigger metropolitan areas. And with the US's fixation on homeownership, this leaves a very large number of people trapped, shackled to investments that are no longer going to pay out as expected.

I don't know about this. Were people paying more attention and actually interested in better work-life balance, stuff like telecommuting could easily have encouraged people to live where they wanted and keep small towns viable instead of creating a brain drain of young people heading to cities. The article itself points out welfare reform was very badly designed for the rural poor as well, and that politicians ignored non-urban areas when campaigning.

But like any societal trend, the further along you go the harder it is to reverse or stall. At this point in time, I'd agree that it's unlikely there's going to be a shift away from cities, especially when in the sum total of American existence the global and national trend, save for the explosion of the suburbs, has always been towards urban cores. Thomas Jefferson was already writing the eulogy for an agrarian America in his time.

It's also worth pointing out the article briefly points out that there are problems with cities as well, namely real estate, and that's likely why the smart money is on revitalizing older cities where rent is cheaper rather than trying to turn America into a world of megacities. That still leaves out rural areas, however.

 

[kirblar]

I don't know about this. Were people paying more attention and actually interested in better work-life balance, stuff like telecommuting could easily have encouraged people to live where they wanted and keep small towns viable instead of creating a brain drain of young people heading to cities. The article itself points out welfare reform was very badly designed for the rural poor as well, and that politicians ignored non-urban areas when campaigning.

But like any societal trend, the further along you go the harder it is to reverse or stall. At this point in time, I'd agree that it's unlikely there's going to be a shift away from cities, especially when in the sum total of American existence the global and national trend, save for the explosion of the suburbs, has always been towards urban cores. Thomas Jefferson was already writing the eulogy for an agrarian America in his time.

The fundamental issue (that's alluded to w/ the broadband issues) is that it's far, far more efficient to service people living in denser cities and suburbs.

 

[Captain Zyrain]

It's unlikely. The Deaths>Births thing is a major issue- the older residents are losing access to people who can help take care of them.

At some point it has to flip the other way though, doesn't it? If you end up with all this empty space in the heartland.. won't someone eventually capitalize on that?

Or will the dwindling population eventually leave some guy in charge of the whole county? He'll be a king of nothing!

Maybe the cities will expand into megacities and just slowly push out further and further?

 

[makingmusic476]

At some point it has to flip the other way though, doesn't it? If you end up with all this empty space in the heartland.. won't someone eventually capitalize on that?

Or will the dwindling population eventually leave some guy in charge of the whole county? He'll be a king of nothing!

Maybe the cities will expand into megacities and just slowly push out further and further?

This is what is happening.

 

[Lord Frieza]

Or will the dwindling population eventually leave some guy in charge of the whole county? He'll be a king of nothing!

Just bidding my time

 

[Fuchsdh]

The fundamental issue (that's alluded to w/ the broadband issues) is that it's far, far more efficient to service people living in denser cities and suburbs.

More efficient, sure, but by and large the cable companies took federal money to pay for that deployment, spent it, and then told the government "we don't wanna do this" and paid more money to buy off legislators so they didn't have to honor their agreements, in rural or urban areas.

Now, you can still say this is an example of those rural republicans shooting themselves in the foot, because it's been Republicans who have largely cowtowed to business and stopped the FCC from making productive changes in that respect. But handwaving it as "it's just inefficient, that's why it didn't happen" ignores that certain parties actively didn't want it to.

 

[entremet]

Correct.

Cities and their suburbs are the were the money is. We're entering hyper urbanization globally.

The problem is that the US is ruled disportionately by these rural communities and they assert their outdated ways of thinking on our governance.

There's poor investment in mass transit, smart urban planning and education and the like because of these constituents.

They are holding us back.

 

[The Adder]

Bullet trains would ease this a bit. Being able to take transit in and out of urban hubs in a reasonable time no matter how far out into type boonies you live would lead to the people already there having better opportunities and the people in the cities spreading out some again.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

The fundamental issue (that's alluded to w/ the broadband issues) is that it's far, far more efficient to service people living in denser cities and suburbs.

And more environmentally friendly, provided a good public transit network and walkable areas.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

I mean these people purport to believe in a hands-off, unfettered approach to capitalism. I hate to break it to them, but global free trade neoliberalism is that pretty much to a "t". They are the losers in the system they are ideologically aligned with. But they just can't come to terms with that reality, and have wound up blaming the winners for their lack of success. Maybe they just need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and everything will be alright.

 

[zethren]

Correct.

Cities and their suburbs are the were the money is. We're entering hyper urbanization globally.

The problem is that the US is ruled disportionately by these rural communities and they assert their outdated ways of thinking on our governance.

There's poor investment in mass transit, smart urban planning and education and the like because of these constituents.

They are holding us back.

Yep. Rural America is in for a rude awakening when their orange king does nothing for them.

 

[TestOfTide]

The good news is that over time these rural areas are going to have less and less power because they aren't growing in population like they used to. Dems will take back power just from rural flight being a thing.

The bad news is that for now the rural voters are being overrepresented.

 

[The Technomancer]

I am 100% fine with us dedicating more resources towards supporting people in these communities but they need to vote for people who stand for supporting resources in these communities

 

[jtb]

The good news is that over time these rural areas are going to have less and less power because they aren't growing in population like they used to. Dems will take back power just from rural flight being a thing.

The bad news is that for now the rural voters are being overrepresented.

Not necessarily. Districting/states means that denser D districts and urban D states are inefficiently allocated compared to Republican districts and states.

 

[captive]

Bullet trains would ease this a bit. Being able to take transit in and out of urban hubs in a reasonable time no matter how far out into type boonies you live would lead to the people already there having better opportunities and the people in the cities spreading out some again.

bullet trains do not work like this. The bullet trains proposed in Texas go Houston -> Austin -> Dallas or some combination thereof. Having the train stop in bumbfuck texas because 2 people want to get off is not efficient use of the technology.

 

[Zoe]

I don't know about this. Were people paying more attention and actually interested in better work-life balance, stuff like telecommuting could easily have encouraged people to live where they wanted and keep small towns viable instead of creating a brain drain of young people heading to cities.

In my experience, telecommuting just allows people to live in the urban center of their choice. Very few people choose to live BFE when given the option.

 

[Cymbal Head]

I mean rural America votes for the party that doesn't want to invest, or even reduce investments. It's hard to find too much sympathy

This attitude is poisonous, and it contributes significantly to the growing polarization against the liberal establishment in rural areas. They're not stupid, and they can see the paternalism and contempt emanating from elite power centers.

It blows my mind how common it is to hear things like this from people who claim to be from the party of compassion.

 

[TestOfTide]

Not necessarily. Districting/states means that denser D districts and urban D states are inefficiently allocated compared to Republican districts and states.

Except it's also suburban areas that are trending blue.

This attitude is poisonous, and it contributes significantly to the growing polarization against the liberal establishment in rural areas. They're not stupid, and they can see the paternalism and contempt emanating from elite power centers.

It blows my mind how common it is to hear things like this from people who claim to be from the party of compassion.

I get where you are coming from, but rural America is increasingly becoming THE problem holding America back and stubbornly doing so. Particularly WHITE rural America.

If they can actually be won over by Bernie types at the local and state level I am willing to try, but:

- Nationally Dems need to focus on just maximizing suburban and urban votes
- If they CAN'T be won over by Bernie types than we shouldn't waste any time with them.

 

[uncredited male]

It is an impressive idealogical hold for a party to seem relatively unconcerned that a chunk of their support base is dying off. And that process is being accelerated by many of their own policies.

I figure most of these towns that cannot get some sort of commercial connection to larger urban centers are toast regardless of policy. Climate change and technology could change that but most of the land will have probably been gobbled up by conglomerates before then.

 

[HStallion]

This attitude is poisonous, and it contributes significantly to the growing polarization against the liberal establishment in rural areas. They're not stupid, and they can see the paternalism and contempt emanating from elite power centers.

It blows my mind how common it is to hear things like this from people who claim to be from the party of compassion.

Its hard to find compassion for those constantly spits in your face with every vote they make over and over again.

 

[sphagnum]

I mean these people purport to believe in a hands-off, unfettered approach to capitalism. I hate to break it to them, but global free trade neoliberalism is that pretty much to a "t". They are the losers in the system they are ideologically aligned with. But they just can't come to terms with that reality, and have wound up blaming the winners for their lack of success. Maybe they just need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and everything will be alright.

This is part of why they are turning to fascism. As capitalism becomes in their view (((globalism))) they will support people who promise to return to the good old days when white men had it good and (((liberal city elites))) hadn't screwed them over.

They're not going to disappear quietly, and liberals (I don't just mean that in the American sense) don't have too much interest in helping them, nor do they want help from liberals.

 

[Aselith]

I am 100% fine with us dedicating more resources towards supporting people in these communities but they need to vote for people who stand for supporting resources in these communities

Yeah, as long as they think that bootstraps are their friends, there's not a whole lot to be done. Gotta vote in your own interest.

 

[pa22word]

People in here interested in the subject beyond just saying "fuck the rural poor" and want something easily digestible to take a look at it check out the movie Hell or High Water. As someone who grew up in a rural community and saw it decay into nothingness over the years it's a really cathartic film.

 

[zethren]

Yeah, as long as they think that bootstraps are their friends, there's not a whole lot to be done. Gotta vote in your own interest.

One of the problems is that they actually think they ARE voting in their own interests. They are constantly used and lied to by their candidates/representatives.

 

[fireflame]

I do not like the idea of posing a condition or an ultimatum to give people help or sympathy. Farmers contribute a lot to this world and life is hard on them(not just U.S). Even if we think someone votes for the wrong party, we should not treat that person without respect.

 

[Brinbe]

Don't have any sympy at all. In many case, they brought it on themselves. This is what they voted for and supported. Enjoy your tax cuts to the wealthy, while your infrastructure crumbles around you!

And that article is awful and full of coded conservative language. Those inner cities, with all those minorities/BLACK PEOPLE suffered, but now things are turning around!

These people just want to have their cake and eat it too, which is why they supported Trump/Romney and everyone who promised a return to the good old 1950s. When the white man had it good, even with no education.

 

[The Technomancer]

This isn't actually wholly capitalisms fault. Capital opposition to social programs is why some material conditions, from healthcare to education, are degrading, but any economic model would still run into people leaving areas where there's no work to be done and any system would chafe providing resources to sparsely spread communities that aren't engaging in whatever economic system is managing labor. Like, socialism doesn't mean a farming town of 500 becomes a do nothing town of 500

 

[The Kree]

This attitude is poisonous, and it contributes significantly to the growing polarization against the liberal establishment in rural areas. They're not stupid, and they can see the paternalism and contempt emanating from elite power centers.

It blows my mind how common it is to hear things like this from people who claim to be from the party of compassion.

Nobody offers compassion unconditionally, probably not even you. You want that, maybe visit a monastery. The rest of the world is give and take.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

RuraL America

 

[cubicle47b]

Yeah, brain drain is the harsh reality for small towns/cities. The talented and ambitious leave and never come back.

 

[KoopaTheCasual]

I'm seeing it happen in this thread, and I want to caution against this behavior because it has a worrying trajectory:

Please don't demonize Rural America, for simply being Rural Americans.

It's one thing to say, "Oh you voted for an asshole? you're either an asshole or just plain stupid." It's another thing entirely to say, "Oh you live in an area that historically votes for assholes? you're either an asshole or just plain stupid."

Hand-waving the slow decay of the entirety of Rural America because you assume they're probably backward thinking folk is a big leap in logic, and only breeds a condescending bias against them.

I'm not preaching any "reach across the isle/just try talking to the bigots!" type of nonsense. All I'm saying is to not let the lone mention of the phrase "Rural America" sap any semblance of concern you have for these people away. There are Rural Americans who didn't vote Trump, and Rural Americans who aren't bigots.

 

[fredrancour]

Bullet trains would ease this a bit. Being able to take transit in and out of urban hubs in a reasonable time no matter how far out into type boonies you live would lead to the people already there having better opportunities and the people in the cities spreading out some again.

High speed rail is most efficient when it makes as few stops as possible. Areas that are already too spread out for normal rail service are even worse candidates for a train where acceleration and breaking are extra difficult.

 

[sphagnum]

This isn't actually wholly capitalisms fault. Capital opposition to social programs is why the material conditions, from healthcare to education, are degrading, but any economic model would still run into people leaving areas where there's no work to be done and any system would chafe providing resources to sparsely spread communities that aren't engaging in whatever economic system is managing labor

Ah, but that opposition manifests itself in a party that manipulates rural voters into voting against their economic interests by promoting racism and conspiracy theories, taking advantage of the fear of outsiders that always pops up in self-contained rural areas. Without that opposition we'd already be providing the services and retraining needed to keep these people from dying. Things would just be transforming rather than collapsing.

So I still blame it!

 

[lightskintwin]

I am 100% fine with us dedicating more resources towards supporting people in these communities but they need to vote for people who stand for supporting resources in these communities

This.

 

[Kurt Angle]

get treated the way you want to be treated with your votes

 

[hydrophilic attack]

This isn't actually wholly capitalisms fault. Capital opposition to social programs is why some material conditions, from healthcare to education, are degrading, but any economic model would still run into people leaving areas where there's no work to be done and any system would chafe providing resources to sparsely spread communities that aren't engaging in whatever economic system is managing labor. Like, socialism doesn't mean a farming town of 500 becomes a do nothing town of 500

The more federally funded program that existed, the better off losing regions would be in situations like this

 

[pa22word]

This isn't actually wholly capitalisms fault. Capital opposition to social programs is why some material conditions, from healthcare to education, are degrading, but any economic model would still run into people leaving areas where there's no work to be done and any system would chafe providing resources to sparsely spread communities that aren't engaging in whatever economic system is managing labor. Like, socialism doesn't mean a farming town of 500 becomes a do nothing town of 500

This is the ultimate end of the discussion. People in here on the left can cry that they don't vote for dems, but at the end of the day there's nothing the democrats can actually do for these people that isn't anything other than making sure they don't starve and maybe have better health care. Rural america is dying more for economic reasons that have nothing to do with how they voted x years back. The economy has been sliding further and further towards mass urbanization for over a century now, and it's finally hit terminal decline. Republicans may believe in voodoo economics that don't really pan out, but telling them if they cut taxes a business might open up in your area and bring jobs is a much more appealing message than "get on the dole or move".

 

[Tawpgun]

I don't agree with the reversible thing per se, but there will be other shifts.

Jobs are moving to the cities and the cities are jacking their prices up. Soon enough you won't be able to have enough labor because people cannot afford to live there.

 

[The Adder]

bullet trains do not work like this. The bullet trains proposed in Texas go Houston -> Austin -> Dallas or some combination thereof. Having the train stop in bumbfuck texas because 2 people want to get off is not efficient use of the technology.

Drive to relatively nearby hub town in Nowhere, USA. Get on train at hub along with a bunch of other people from Bumbfuck, Assend, and Middla. Head off to Urban Center

Turn what would be a 1 stop line into two. Offer another line or two to cover more of the state. Doesn't solve the problem, but eases it some.

Sacrificing some degree of efficiency to help people is reasonable. Especially if it motivates others to spread out, making the lines that much more efficient and bringing some life to dying towns.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

I'm seeing it happen in this thread, and I want to caution against this behavior because it has a worrying trajectory:

Please don't demonize Rural America, for simply being Rural Americans.

It's one thing to say, "Oh you voted for an asshole? you're either an asshole or just plain stupid." It's another thing entirely to say, "Oh you live in an area that historically votes for assholes? you're either an asshole or just plain stupid."

Hand-waving the slow decay of the entirety of Rural America because you assume they're probably backward thinking folk is a big leap in logic, and only breeds a condescending bias against them.

I'm not preaching any "reach across the isle/just try talking to the bigots!" type of nonsense. All I'm saying is to not let the phrase Rural America sap any semblance of concern you have for these people away. There are Rural Americans who didn't vote Trump, and Rural Americans who aren't bigots.

I feel for these people, and I want them to succeed economically. I want them to escape these rural hell holes. Hell, before this election, I wanted the people I didn't politically agree with to succeed as well because that is the decent human empathetic thing to want for all people. But after these fucks made it clear they want to harm my child who has a disability out of spite for "libruls", those latter mother fuckers can waste away for all I care. They made it personal, not me.

I still hope those who didn't wish for this find a way to escape and join the better half of America.

 

[teruterubozu]

So rural America is the pits while urban America like San Francisco is unaffordable.
Both Americas have failed.

 

[Abinash117]

This is the ultimate end of the discussion. People in here on the left can cry that they don't vote for dems, but at the end of the day there's nothing the democrats can actually do for these people that isn't anything other than making sure they don't starve and maybe have better health care. Rural america is dying more for economic reasons that have nothing to do with how they voted x years back. Republicans may believe in voodoo economics that don't really pan out, but telling them if they cut taxes a business might open up in your area and bring jobs is a much more appealing message than "get on the dole or move".

It is possible for Dems to campaign on tax cuts for the middle class and tax reform that help small businesses. That is something Obama and many other Democrats talked about often actually.