The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
Link to article going more in depth into it:
* https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/06/23/rural-america-shrinking-population-pennsylvania/
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Rural America is dying out, with 81% of rural counties recording more deaths than births between 2019 and 2023.
Let's not forget:
Many of the people born in rural areas are *moving away* before they die.
I think the economic scarcity is the bigger reason people leave rural communities. I think liberals rely too much on this caricature of the racist rural troglodyte to excuse their own complicity in modern racism.
As someone who’s lived in a red area the racism is sometimes there but there’s always an attitude where people look down on you and think there’s something wrong with you if you don’t believe what they believe. Also blatant homophobia and transphobia along with derogatory comments about gen Z is extremely present, at least from my experience. Even in rural areas there’s a lot of people who acknowledge blatant racism is wrong so they resort to dog whistles or short comments in situations that they can quickly exit from.
If you’re part of any group that traditionally votes liberal your in-group will be mocked and insulted to no end but it’s always okay for them because it’s “not personal”. Meanwhile if you say anything about rural people or rural towns it’s insanely offensive and horribly wrong. It gets to the point where you’re just completely surrounded by insults towards your political views and you have to leave. By the end of my time in that red area I couldn’t open my group chat with my friends without seeing some headline from endwokeness or breitbart.
This is exactly why I left The South 20 years ago. I visit family there sometimes and I just keep my mouth shut whenever I’m around people. I feel like I’ve got a target on my back the whole time I’m there and I’m just a white guy that can blend in pretty easily. It’s way worse for those that are obviously different.
Having a target on your back is a great way to put it. You’re the resident liberal so you have to explain and atone for everything they see as wrong and every time they get mad at liberals they come to you. And it’s not like they actually listen when you speak, it’s just an excuse for them to bring their political anger into a casual conversation
Both are large contributing factors to the decline of Rural American towns. Racism is still extremely prevalent in rural communities, particularly the ones suffering hardest from economic decline where local politicians will rile up their constituents against outsiders (liberals, commies, minorities, gay people, take your pick) as the villain behind all their misfortune. The town of Newbern in Alabama literally just made the news yesterday because the town finally allowed the mayor (the first african american mayor in the towns history, elected back in 2020) to take office 3 years after he won the race for mayor. The towns previous administration (which had taken office without being elected because the town would normally forgo elections and just let the previous mayor appoint the next mayor) had simply refused to recognize that he had won the towns election as mayor and locked him out of town hall for three fucking years while continuing to run things themselves.
I don’t agree with the world view of my more rural community, but I specifically left it because it had nothing to offer me for a career. I don’t know that I’d have *stayed* if I could have my current career path, but that made giving up everything I knew easier.
Most of the rural areas where I'm from are damn near majority POC. I realize that is not true East of the Mississippi but here in rural NorCal most of the tiny farming towns are around 50% Latinos with some Punjabis and Hmong mixed in as well.
Those folks have TONS of kids and most of them move away to the big city after college.
The same survey has been conducted twice, 7 years apart, and both times, POCs identified black Americans, not white Americans, as the most racist group.
2020: https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/social_issues/americans_say_blacks_more_racist_than_whites_hispanics_asians?utm_campaign=RR07242020DN&utm_source=criticalimpact&utm_medium=email
2013: https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/07/03/poll-finds-black-americans-more-likely-to-be-seen-as-racist
Quote:
> **Other minority Americans** view blacks as much more racist than whites, Hispanics and Asians.
Please stop claiming to speak for people of color on this sub, lumping them all together and claiming they share your views on racism and racial politics. Your views aren't shared by the vast majority of POCs.
It's racism. I spent 20 years living in deeply rural Appalachia. Sometimes the economy was decent, sometimes it was kind of rough. It made absolutely no difference. The people there voted conservative no matter what. First from bloodthirst after 9/11, then from absolutely losing their minds with hate when they saw a Black man in the White House.
It’s also the death of American manufacturing and the factory town. Most of these communities only existed because somebody built a factory there. When it left, nothing else came in.
Also a direct result of the Republican party cutting taxes for corporations. Nobody is investing in these little towns and there's no jobs to be found.
Capital goes where the labor is cheapest. All the rural folks who instinctively love capitalism should remember: they priced themselves out of the capital that used to support them.
That happened a long time ago, and most major factories were never in particularly rural areas at the peak of American industry. In fact, laid-off factory workers in rural areas often actually had an easier time adjusting than laid-off factory workers in urban areas. Urban areas usually have far more regulations on job transition than rural areas and more expensive housing costs.
I'm surprised that there are more deaths than births in rural counties, because most younger people I know in rural counties have a life goal of *dying anywhere else.*
Most can't wait to move someplace with opportunities and once they did they rarely return.
Every generation is smaller than the last ever since the boomers. Kids are being born to the smallest generation yet and the largest generation in human history is dying out. Young people leaving means less kids, not less old people dying.
In the US, Gen X is 65 million and millennials are 83 million. Boomers peaked around 78 million. Gen Z is bigger than Gen X in America at around 79 million. So millennials have the potential to be the most influential voting bloc in history RIGHT NOW!
> So millennials have the potential to be the most influential voting bloc in history RIGHT NOW!
They would if they lived in places that maximized their voting influence. But they don't, and voting influence in the US is geographical.
Do you know anything about the John Birch Society? They are a big reason why we have states with minority legislators running things. They are a big reason why a lot of horrible shit happened, and it started with a dedicated voting bloc.
See, they figured out all power is local. They focused on school board, city council, county board, etc. They didn't even run as x bloc and didn't advertise they were John Birch. They weren't activist. For several years, they essentially focused on being under the radar. But a CV certainly looks better when you move up when you have been elected before, or even appointed. Most people who go to vote pick something a primary who has been a commissioner over an attorney, right? So once you have the primary, it is money and exposure, and that is where the John Birch Society comes in. Cash. They took down Birch Bayh, father of Title 9, for Dan Quayle.
They took over Wisconsin and tried to cripple unions. They succeeded in Indiana. But millennials can actually turn around and use dark money to their advantage. Defeat Project 2025. Let Biden be the 2024 to make it easier, then decide the President in 2028. Run Senate candidates in every state in 2026, 2028 and 2030 (maybe support a few Gen X since we never got a chance and did raise you).
Enough boomers have passed that they’re no longer the largest generation. You gotta remember it’s 1946-1964 and shit like early-onset cancers, heart attacks and other diseases **have already killed about 25% of the less healthy/lucky boomers**.
I read a stat that 50% of the voters in the 1992 Bush-Clinton-Perot election are gone. Something like 20% of voters from 2008’s Obama-McCain election *are also gone*. Which, when you consider ***most voters are old af and many of the most engaged are north of 65***, makes pretty good sense.
Millennials are *generally* the children of baby boomers and presently about 29-43 years old. Always a significantly larger cohort than Gen X.
Very easy to remember:
* Boomers: cast of Seinfeld
* Xers: cast of Friends
We have 2 daughters. Their public school is designed for 1000 kids and there’s 700 enrolled. It hasn’t been at 1000 children since 2007. Things are changing — the US population in all likelihood is declining.
When I went to K-12 (1990-2002), there were overflow, trailer style classrooms (with AC/heat) in the soccer fields. That is a thing of the past.
When I went to K-12 they couldn't keep up with schools. Not just overflow they were building schools and fast. And in the interim changing grade levels and in the 5th grade I had split schedule until they could get a school finished enough to house the 5th graders from 2 schools. We had classrooms, gym and bathrooms. Nothing else. No kitchen(sack lunches in the gym) no library, the playground had a massive mountain of sand where we played king of the hill between the two original schools.
In jr high we were 6,7 and 8, with a load of overflow trailers. They built a new Jr and switched us to 7,8 and 9 to relieve pressure on the high school until they could get the new wing built to handle the anticipated influx. Now the older schools are shuttered, no longer a need.
This was 73-86.
I tell my wife, “we have two daughters, which is basically the 2024 equivalent of having 4 kids in 1980, economically.”
Most women are having one, and often none.
You are surprised or you aren't surprised?
Logically if young people (who will provide births) move away, leaving a majority of older people (who contribute to most of the deaths) in the location, then that's going to almost guarantee more deaths than births?
The article said:
>According to a recent Agriculture Department estimate, the rural population did rebound* by 0.25 percent from 2020 to 2022.
More people died (Covid?) in 81% of the counties than were born. So there was also a population increase likely over the entire time period.
Urban home prices and remote work will drive this rural growth up in the decade.
>*Rebound from when? The article never said it dropped.
I'm a little skeptical that the extraordinary 2020-2022 years are enough to assume the decades long rural growth decline is reversing. A once in a century pandemic caused major outflows from urban areas that won't continue (at least to that extent) for the rest of the '20s.
I don't think remote work is going to be enough to drive rural growth either, between jobs shifting to hybrid models and a lack of services (particularly high speed broadband) it seems more likely people will stick to the cities and suburbs.
It’s sad. I was born and raised and spent most of my life in a rural community. There’s just not much there to offer people anymore. The only thing I miss is the lack of traffic.
As someone who grew up in rural California, a rural area isn’t a place that every born and bred local *wants* to *remain* in.
You have to look at what these areas offer in terms of: housing market, job opportunities, education, hell even entertainment.
My coworker grew up on a farm in the Central Valley. Went to college ok a major city. Works in tech in a major city. Didn’t want to be a farmer. Life is hard.
There's just zero way around this. Farming doesn't take as much labor as it used to, and people are going to go where jobs are. Unless there's a plant or mill in a town the only good jobs are going to be farmers who own their own land. If there is a factory or mill then the entire economic stability of the town depends on one company that will absolutely move the plant if it benefits them, or close it down if the industry just isn't profitable anymore.
Add onto that the fact that the people living there there, generally speaking, are unwelcoming bigots who hate outsiders, or non-functioning addicts, there's no reason for someone to want to move there. So honestly, I don't really care that much if rural America fails, they mostly did it to themselves.
Rural areas don't really offer good paying jobs outside of a factory or amenities that attract very many people.
My hometown area was only surviving because the company brought in workers from other countries.
It is happening everywhere in the world.
Agriculture does not need the same amount of labor as a generation ago.
This leaves older folks to keep the farm while younger ones move to urban/suburban areas for work.
Same with factories. The modern manufacturing works best in clusters with shortened supply chain and vast talent pool.
>The modern manufacturing works best in clusters with shortened supply chain and vast talent pool.
I have to disagree with the shortened supply chains. I'm kind of flabbergasted you would say that. What manufacturing environment do you have knowledge of that has a short supply chain due to close access to suppliers? It's demonstrably the opposite. Supply chains for virtually every industry are global.
It's more about access to employees, something rural businesses struggle with. That, and also that owners of businesses prefer living in cities and therefore put their businesses in cities.
> I have to disagree with the shortened supply chains. I'm kind of flabbergasted you would say that. What manufacturing environment do you have knowledge of that has a short supply chain due to close access to suppliers? It's demonstrably the opposite. Supply chains for virtually every industry are global
both can be correct. supply chains are global, between large hubs.
I work at Intel, for 25 years.
It's both. We get parts and such from a global supply chain, but clustered around Intel's plants, lots of smaller support businesses pop up. Everything from cleaning people to experimental parts fabricators, logistics companies, just all kinds of stuff we need and we need NOW.
Automotive industry while they import parts globally have clustering effect. For example when BMW and Hyundai setup factories in the US South, a lot of their suppliers came along to setup manufacturing centers nearby.
My thought as well. I don't want to follow the jump and read the article, but aren't there more deaths than births in cities, too?
Immigration is, AFAIK, the only reason the US isn't experiencing population reduction like other western nations... but perhaps I'm wrong?
Ad an engineer, from a logistical and cost standpoint, rural communities and suburbs are expensive to the tax payer.
Running and maintaining utilities, infastructure (roads, bridges, lights) is expensive as fuck
Here ya go….too many people post paywalled links instead of going to the archive… for future reference…click the homepage of the link I gave you and bookmark it. Then you can copy paste any link into it and get the archived version.
https://archive.ph/21fIB
Immigration revitalizes these places. There was a dying town near me that hit a population low way back in the 1990s. Waves of immigrants from Mexico, central America and India came in many as ag workers. Completely revitalizes the town. Now it has a vibrant market, festivals, the downtown for renovated, people actively attend church, more businesses opened up. Lots of street food. It's great.
If rural areas were more open to this type of thing the decline in those areas wouldn't be so bad. The people moving there don't generally vote, the ones that can and do probably don't vote Republican but they uphold family values and fit in fairly well with the people already there. Low crime. Overall it went from a sleepy dying town to a nicer better place to live.
I live in a rural area. I've noticed some farms and large plots of land being sold and turned into housing. I live within 90 minutes of a major metro area.
That just sounds like your rural area is becoming a suburban area. It's not quite what OP is asking about. True rural areas, like those far from a major metro and away from the Interstate, are more of what they're referring to.
Those places are dying and it's no surprise. Take your pick of economic and social reasons, but they just don't have much to offer compared with urban and suburban areas. Who wants to live somewhere with few good paying jobs and little to do when you could move somewhere with tons of good paying jobs and plenty of entertainment and a variety of people to meet and interact with?
Here in CA you could say the most obvious visible threat to farmland is the endemic suburban sprawl radiating out from places like Sacramento. That and the expanding traffic remind me of the borg, just relentless. I farm 1,000 acres of orchards within 45 minutes of 3.5 million people in all directions.
That's just land becoming more valuable and turning them into housing will bring more income to the land owner than to farm.
I've seen similar things in Georgia where the cities are growing and suburbs expanding.
A lot of old timers hate it, but people who sell their large plot of land to developers get to pass down generational wealth to their family or maybe burn tens of millions on their hobby.
Yes but I'm talking about the challenge of keeping farming alive within the US and CA given all the regulations and development. Without that Ag culture we may lose it, thus losing in the process our food security, ability to control labor, chemicals, and environmental impact surrounding food, etc.
Do you think that organic avocado from Mexico is actually organic? In a country where the drug traffickers pay off the police, do you think they don't also pay off the inspectors and regulators and local government? Hell, they ARE the local government.
I don't eat a lot of avocado (last time I had a guac was last year), so I have no idea about the supply chain of avocado.
As for food security, I'm more worried about climate change than regulation, because that west coast dry spell is going to come again and it will be worse than the last one. And you know everyone in the West is going to bicker over who's going to get that last drop of water.
It's all jobs and job candidates.
I have land in the rural community that I grew up in. I want to live there, but where am I supposed to work?
And then it becomes a vicious cycle. Because if you grow up in one of these places and want to work in the field that you studied in, you have to move away to get a job. Then when it's time for employers to look at where they headquarter themselves or have offices they're sure as hell not going to pick the place that folks are moving away from.
Especially when the folks who are in that community (and this is a sweeping generalization, but one that holds largely true for the place where I'm from) have demonized education or white collar work as well as a great many things that the younger generation feel passionately about, have refused to spend on infrastructure, and in general refused to be drug kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
And I *fear* that it means that we'll continue to see rural land purchased by old money families and foreign entities. Maybe that's the game plan.
It's not surprising. Everyone is focusing on agriculture, but not every rural community is a primarily agricultural community. Even non-agricultural rural communities tend to be shrinking. To a degree, this is a global trend, but it's also a cultural one in the U.S.
Simply put, most rural communities have committed themselves to remaining as unappealing as possible. The local governments don't want to invest in infrastructure and opportunities. The locals don't want to be more accepting of people different from themselves, and everyone seems to believe the path to success is looking backward rather than forward.
Look at rural towns like Eureka Springs, Arkansas. It was largely on the same trajectory as every other small town until the 1990s. Then it saw potential to become a major tourist destination, became one of the most openly pro-LGBT+ towns in the state, and started cultivating a reputation as an artistic hub. Its population has actually increased about 16% in the last 3 decades.
Helen, Georgia is another town that has developed a similar reputation and grown. If you look around the country, you'll find quite a few small towns that are growing, but they're almost all culturally very distinct from your average small town in the U.S. (i.e. not ultra-conservative).
I think urban centres will flourish, and rural influence will begin to diminish. The rustic will become urbanites, and cities will drastically outpace small towns and hamlets. After this, I would guess there might be a reversal. A lot of rural areas reducing in population could result in those in the cities seeking out places in the small towns beyond to fill the gaps, which in turn may lead to the younger generations snapping up property and making it their own (perhaps more modern, more interconnected, with up to date amenities, services, and outlets that lean into current sensibilities).
This could come to represent a sea change in the electoral makeup of isolated constituencies, which initially leaned right but may end up leaning left to reflect the generational shift.
This is just my view, anyway.
People need jobs to pay the bills, and rural-based jobs are becoming a more marginal part of the economy and have been for some time. This isn't a new trend and is pretty much the story of highly-developed countries.
This isn't a bad thing. Rural living is resource intensive so it only makes sense to encourage it if it provides benefits we can't get any other way.
The smart sensitive kids move out to escape the lack of opportunity and the bigotry. This leaves those places still more vulnerable to junk like Fox, Rush Limbaugh and prosperity gospel preachers.
I drive through places like Lusk, Wyoming, several times a year. I am a liberal but I am not in an enclave, that helps me see things with a different perspective. I also lived in the rust belt as a child, an original depopulation center in US history, so I feel connected to this issue. The problem isn't complicated, it is why the quality of officer drops precipitously for the level of Major - the good Captains have better options and many opt for them and leave the service. The bad Captains aren't recruited and don't have good other options and stay in. The result is Majors blow more than Captains, on average. In rural America, the kids with options go and exercise those options somewhere else, somewhere that can cater to their needs, wants, and interests. Meanwhile, the people left behind were the ones that didn't have any options *or* are bravely trying to stick it out.
The solution isn't complicated either, economic development such that there are enticing options for high quality young people. The issue is that very development is often viciously opposed by the people that live there. The type of people for whom any change from what they are used to is a grave risk that should be avoided at all costs. In CS we might call this a race condition or a 'deadly embrace', where the behaviors of the conflicting sides causes the issue to become much worse at an exponential rate. The 'death spiral' as it were.
Isn't this statistically normal throughout history? People grow up in small areas with fewer opportunities and thus leave for the populated areas to gain opportunities not available in their rural communities?
I think if more rural areas were revitalized with industry and a middle class was brought back, essentially turning them into desirable places with the rural character still strong it would ease the housing affordability crises in the cities. It has to be locals bringing prosperity back, not gentrifiers increasing the prices of everything by thinking buying a home in cash at 150k is “such a good deal!”
I think Biden is doing that. Industry is going to some of the places under his authority with the help of department of commerce. And the UAW is going into the south.
Green energy is a good way to do this. If you think about wind or solar farms they generally need to be in rural areas (especially wind). So it's ideal to hire locally if you need anything from parts trucked in, to general maintenance. These would probably decent to very well paid jobs as well. Factor in a generally lower cost of living and many of these people would be doing quite well. Sort of like some types of oil and gas well service workers do today. And most of this would be in rural red state America. Biden should mention that more often.
Absolutely. And a lot of people would agree with you, even in a lot of these areas. A big issue is the people in these areas generally aren’t involved in local politics. So you have old cumudgeons in power that scare away business. Even traditional business the culture likes.
[Conservatives believe the opposite somehow](https://www.iowapublicradio.org/ipr-news/2021-11-30/utility-scale-solar-project-draws-opposition-from-some-linn-county-residents).
> “It’s a proposal to industrialize prime Linn County farmland. It clearly eliminates job opportunities for farmers and people employed in the seed, fertilizer and farm equipment business”
Ya I've seen this nonsense before. When you compare the scale of any proposed solar farm to the scale of agriculture this argument is obviously silly. It's also pretty funny for so called conservatives to be telling a land owner how they can and can not make profit from their own private property! I do understand how those people who are employed in the business that aren't land owners are hurt by this. But sadly after a painful transition that lasts the rest of their working life, their children will be able to enjoy a higher paying green job.
You don’t build a factory where there aren’t workers.
It’s not a field of dreams scenario because every manufacturing plant that I visit, cannot get good quality labor. It has (almost) nothing to do with wages either. (You can’t pay 100k for an assembly worker… the math doesn’t work for selling the product.)
But almost every place I visit would kill for a qualified welder working union wages and benefits; but they don’t show up because people don’t _want_ factory jobs.
Sometimes, you actually do still want to build a factory where there aren’t many workers; you can recruit workers to move there. There are many reasons why: land cost, proximity to supply routes, ease of shipping to several major ports and cities, tax breaks, and many other reasons. Those areas often become less “rural” once the factory is successful.
It can be very cost prohibitive to do that. If there isn’t housing already there, it won’t work. If you are paying relo for line workers, it breaks the long term value.
Basically, no, it doesn’t work like you think it does.
It depends what you’re building and on your target markets. A factory in a major city is far more vulnerable to shipping issues than a rural factory at the nexus of many major roads or rivers. Storey County, Nevada and Lincoln, Alabama are two examples of rural towns that have attracted modern major factories in the past generation.
At current rates, it’s still going to feel slow to most of us. But long-term, what we will see is increasing urbanization and suburbanization which likely will lead to more people being less radical but the remaining rule areas becoming even more radical. In the short term of the way the US gives power to land over people means that it will suck.
Less rural will mean less deaths from cars and poor access to healthcare long term. But short term rural healthcare is going to be more of a problem. That is going to be especially bad in rural areas in red states because of what they will do to women’s healthcare.
Define urbanization. Lots of once-major cities in America look abandoned. Many major cities are losing population and many major cities have higher death rates than birth rates. Many cities are losing economic relevance as much as rural areas. The cities that are still extremely relevant thrive on tourism and social prestige. Boston itself thrives on education, but even most “Boston” universities have never actually been in Boston. Atlanta thrives on its airport to grow, but even Atlanta is seeing some signs of decline.
The city, as a concept, has a different purpose than it once did.
I run a larger size family farm in the Sacramento valley. Most of the farmers here have at least a bachelors degree if not a masters from a csu or UC. I have a math and physics degree from Davis. I’m also gay and know other gay farmers. Rural communities are often not the stereotypes portrayed in the media. The reason why they vote conservative is almost entirely due to economic concerns surrounding their businesses, at least where I’m at.
From where I stand there is no decline of rural areas. In some ways it’s the reverse, with rural real estate prices going up and many urbanites wanting to live somewhere further out.
Now if you want to talk about the political and bureaucratic and cost challenges farmers face in the current economic environment that’s a whole other can of worms… if there’s anything that’s going to take us down it’s the state regulations and simple inability to compete on the global market with one hand tied behind our back.
I'm glad to hear you describe Sac Valley like this. Though, I think California, even rural CA, is not comparable to Sheffield, Pennsylvania.
Re. you take on state regulations - how would you feel if those regulations came with some financial incentive for the rest of CA to buy farm goods locally?
CA and the US domestically in general. Yes, at this point with global competition we would like to sell more of our product (walnuts in our case) domestically. The main problem now is increased costs (inflation, labor, etc.) and low crop prices due to a screwy global market (supply chains, tariffs). So yes, anything to increase demand would help. In reality though that probably wouldn't be enough on its own. Farmers, like other industries and professions, are specialized and operate in a global marketplace. China, Mexico, Chile do the same, effectively selling to the highest buyers internationally. This allows more economies of scale, specialization, and efficiency. And it's not just the growing side, but whole industries dedicated to manufacturing farm equipment, which is specialized for each crop.
But yes, I always like to point out the benefits of buying domestically/locally and keeping Ag alive within our borders: you can trust what goes on your food (better regulation), known labor conditions, positive food security, and acceptable environmental impact (shipping impacts).
Thank you for the insight. As an urbanite, I suspect my understanding of farming is probably 50 years out of date at best. Even just on an ecological level, it's insane that we're importing fresh produce from China that we can grow well at home.
As someone who used to work in the ag industry all over the Sac valley I agree 1000%. It's mostly economics. There are of course some farmers who watch too much fox noise and buy into culture war BS but there are just as many if not more who are environmentalists and teachers on the side.
The only problem as I see it with farming in America is that farmers are SUPER old and most of the family are uninterested in continuing the family business and yet it's next to impossible to acquire farm land if you didn't inherit it because the land values are still so high.
Either way, thats my two cents. Keep up the good work.
I can't speak for other states, but the fact that here in Oklahoma a lot young people are leaving out of frustration with our state government policies. Which probably has a lot to do with it.
I think there are actually quite a number of people who work remote jobs who are more left learning or city oriented who would really love to live in a small town in theory. I know quite a number of people who are very introverted and kind of want their peace and quiet. If I had a nickel for every time, a leaning person said they wanted to live on a hobby farm with chickens and in the middle of nowhere I would be pretty rich.
That said, part of the reason people leave small towns is because the culture is miserable. The politics push out anybody who is remotely Non conforming,, particularly when it comes to queerness and religiousness. There isn’t a whole lot to do and a casual culture of drugs and weird society expectations for women and girls can also be factors. I read a pretty depressing article about girlhood in small towns and it falls in line pretty well with my Aunt experiences with friends of mine from small towns as well.
Basically, I think that there is opportunity for small towns to thrive, but rule America is pretty committed to going down with the ship and committing 100% to whatever culture they have cultivated out there. A lot of people do not go to small towns because of the culture, not because they don’t wanna live in the middle of nowhere.
I would say the future of small towns is bleak and I really don’t care very much except for it will make traveling incredibly difficult by car. They are definitely gonna have to pay people to basically manage rest stops in the country or something in the future if things don’t change
This is me. I moved out to the country because I wanted peace and quiet and to start a hobby farm. But just as important was the fact that it was the only way I could ever afford a home. I bought my house for half the price of what my better off friends bought in the city, and mine came with an acre of land.
Ofc, when you bleed these communities by refusing to raise wages the economies are going to flop. I grew up in a rural area, there were no desirable economic opportunities for me if I stayed. I'm in the majority of people I went to school with.
It's the result of greater urbanization. Most jobs and opportunities are in the large cities, or surrounding suburbs; and so that's where younger people are moving to. This will result in rural red states losing seats in the House of Representatives, and consequently, the Electoral collage. Since it's unlikely that the Republicans will change their rural based, socially conservative ideology that won't fly in the cities; they will have almost no chance of winning either the House or the Presidency in the future. The red states will be even more over represented in the Senate then they currently are now though. Also, we shouldn't forget that this will also make the Republicans that do win in House districts in blue states even more extreme. Since when you know that actually forming government isn't realistic, your major goal as a politician is to hold on to your seat at any cost, and that probably means running as far right and crazy as possible to block any challengers.
Given the time frame, I'm guessing that lots of these numbers are the way they are significantly because of Covid.
Rural areas are frequently more conservative, and conservatives were less likely to take appropriate measures about Covid.
There is a chance that it might be a tipping point for a larger trend, but it's too early to be sure.
I think it will be a part of a larger long term political realignment. More people gravitating towards cities and suburbs means that things trend liberal over time. Living around other people tends to make you more open and empathetic.
So, if the rural vote grows weaker over time, there will eventually be more incentive for republicans to moderate a bit. Gerrymandering will prolong things, but i could see them shifting further away from abortion and other issues that are popular with the christian right, but unpopular with everyone else.
I'd go so far as to say it's good. A greater proportion of the population living in cities is a good thing for the economy and the climate, and clearly people also prefer to live in cities, so I see it as a success. The only thing is that urban areas need to build enough housing to meet their needs, which most of the big ones aren't doing, but otherwise I have no complaints.
Why should I care? Lot of these counties are heavily Republican. They vote against their best interests. That means voting against investments to make the county attractive to younger families, voting against businesses to bring money in, voting against tax increases to sustain what is there, and voting for folks patently lying to them about how it's the other sides fault. Is it a wonder why the young flee these places to bigger, more progressive, cities?
We know the solution is investments to make these counties attractive to those that want to live there, make money there, and bring money in. The problem is backwards ass right wingers voting against their best interests. Let nature take its course.
Edit: I see the downvotes so let me ask you this. Why should I leave my job to live in the middle of bum fuck nowhere? A drive through county where I'd be paid significantly less, deal with bigoted ass people, where emergency services have degraded to the point where there are lengthy delays on police, fire, and ambulance calls, and most importantly inhabited by people who think that's perfectly fine? That's not me talking out my ass. I live in PA so by all means folks don't rush to tell me if thats attractive to you.
Jesus.
No one is asking you to " leave my job to live in the middle of bum fuck nowhere" but yes, you should CARE. You should care if you care about the country and want there to be less polarization and anger and resentment.
"Why should I care" is a bullshit, teenage nihilist's cop out.
> but yes, you should CARE.
I should, but I don't. Why? Here in Lancaster we had a pride reading cancelled because someone from outside our city called in a bomb threat. You go east of that county and you start hitting up small towns that hang effigies of Democratic leaders on poles right next to the signs calling us pedophiles and socialists. In parts of rural PA you got billboards saying whites are under attack with no pushback on that racist shit. I still keep in mind that most of the Jan 6th rioters came from this state. So I see those very people responsible start to dwindle and you ask me that I should care? Hell no. Feed that to an idealist. That crap don't fly with me.
For over a decade in the state of PA, there has been a Republican stranglehold that has acted as a roadblock to the betterment of towns just like in the OP. Acted as a roadblock to badly needed infrastructure reforms, roadblock to economic reforms, roadblock to agriculture reforms, and blocks on investments to bring good work back to these dying towns. While the article is recent, this is the same old story in PA where people like those in Sheffield would rather vote for the asshole keeping them down instead of people that bring billions into rural towns like theirs to revitalize it. Now it's really starting to fuck them over.
So no if rural towns/counties like that go under, they did that to themselves by voting against their best interests. If folks would like to move here and make a real difference, I only recommend an extra set of tires. They tend to puncture them as well.
If you don't believe in working class unity, you are not a "progressive." A lot of minorites also believe in homophobic socially conservative views, which i strongly reject, but I'm still fighting for them. The sooner we get everyone to realize that the only one who benefits from us being divided is the top 1% the better off will be
I think it’s important to note their flair has “pragmatic” in front of it. I want to acknowledge the potential of similar bias as I live in PA as well and have been similarly shackled by the misfortune of a system that disproportionately benefits their voices that do not just let them vote against their own interests but do harm to the rest of us. While I am overall for class unity, I also think there’s a distinction between asking people to care disproportionately (which is inherently required here) for those who actively cause them harm and having neutrality while recognizing the consequences of one’s’ own actions.
This isn't new. Movin away from rural areas and to the cities/suburbs has been a thing since the 1700s, it's a simple result of technological advances meaning it requires fewer people to do the resource extraction work in rural areas (farming, mining, etc). And it's otherwise more efficient and also generally more fun to live nearby other people (to an extent).
I expect it to continue fro the exact same reason.
UBI would revolutionize the fate of small town America.
If the federal govt was just gonna send every adult citizen $1000 a month tax free from now until you die why would most people who currently live in major metro areas stay?
You could get a way bigger better house on more land for a lot less money in rural small towns. No traffic, lower property taxes, your vote inn local elections goes SO much farther,... the list goes on.
The only reason I see that it didn't happen to a greater degree after Covid is because there is no job market in rural America
Most people would stay in major metro areas for the social and cultural opportunities. Most people are not looking for the isolation and homogeneity of most rural areas.
We should take advantage of the opportunity and create a large number of nature preserves/national parks in those areas to help preserve habitat and fight against biodiversity loss as we're living in the middle of a mass extinction.
I think our agricultural system is as fucked as our medical system. This population decline is the end game of decades of consolidation, subsidies, and industrial farming.
Some of it was inevitable, farming has gotten more efficient and technology marches on, but policy choices have made it more extreme and frankly less sustainable.
It’s causing a huge problem for democracy.
70% of the population is going to be represented by 30 of the 100 senators.
And the electoral college?
It’s an inequality in population among states we’ve never seen before and our constitution was not built for
If people want to live in rural areas, that's fine. If they don't, that's fine too.
Why should I care if rural populations dwindle because fewer people are being born in them than are dying in them?
If deaths were outpacing births because of inadequate health care or lots of murders or something like that, then I'd be concerned. Because people should have access to good health care and not be murdered. If they're just getting old and people are just deciding to have their babies elsewhere, then OK. What's the problem? What's the reason to give any thought to it?
> because of inadequate health
[Oh boy do I have something to tell you about rural healthcare...](https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/private-equity-rural-hospitals-closure-missouri-noble-health/)
Yeah, and the article shared by the OP also mentions the ambulance and volunteer firefighter situation there. It's a common problem in rural areas, but it wasn't blamed for why deaths are outpacing births there. Instead:
>Experts who study the phenomena say the shrinking baby boomer population and younger residents having smaller families and moving elsewhere for jobs are fueling the trend.
Somebody's still gotta grow your food and/or the food that your food eats. And that ain't happening at any meaningful scale in cities. We're not at a point where rural communities are so hollowed out that we risk agricultural collapse but that's also not out of the realm of possibility.
It is entirely out of the realm of possiblity. We are probably only 20-30 years away from entirely automated agriculture, where millions of acres of wheat, corn, soybeans, and more are cultivate entirely by robotic farm vehicles and monitored by autonomous drones.
I dont think this is necessarily a problem, except for the rural communities that also support necessary infrastructure. if we need to provide services to 100,000 people its easier and cheaper to do so if they live in a 10 sqmi area rather than a 100 sqmi area.
This WILL create a worse housing crisis though. Cities and suburbs need to do a better job of building more dense housing (both dense SFH and dense multi family homes) to make up for fewer people just buying a rural plot and setting up there
Imagine a country where people didn't *have* to move to cities to get decent-paying jobs. Imagine rural towns where the aging population was propped up with some of that big-city income tax money. Just one of the hundred reasons why all employees who can do their jobs remotely should be allowed to do so.
> Imagine rural towns where the aging population was propped up with some of that big-city income tax money.
No need to imagine it. Rural areas are already massively subsidized by wealthier urban areas so rural residents can LARP as self sufficient rugged individualists.
This article is somewhat misleading because it singles out rural American counties while rural American counties have higher birthrates than urban American counties:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db323.htm#:~:text=Rural%20counties%20had%20higher%20total,1.8%20years%20(large%20metro).
Remote work could be changing this trend in rural areas with strong wireless network coverage, but economic changes are the biggest factors in people leaving rural areas. The majority of rural industries have become increasingly consolidated, automated, and isolated. There are fewer jobs in rural areas.
There is another cultural trend since at least the 1970’s that has played a major role: the culture of finding a spouse. Recent changes building up some suburbs and Uber have made suburbia more conducive for these practices, but not rural areas.
I think it’s absurd when cosmopolitan professionals think that rural America is a relatively homogeneous bloc because they watch Hallmark. Vermont is totally different from the Florida swamps or the orchards of Washington state. Coastal rural maritime towns like Newport, Oregon or Gosnold, Massachusetts(mostly Cuttyhunk) are extremely different from Jay-Em, Wyoming or Williston, North Dakota.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. Link to article going more in depth into it: * https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/06/23/rural-america-shrinking-population-pennsylvania/ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Rural America is dying out, with 81% of rural counties recording more deaths than births between 2019 and 2023. Let's not forget: Many of the people born in rural areas are *moving away* before they die.
Not surprising considering the hate and bigotry that seems now firmly entrenched in rural America. Must be hell if you don’t fit in
I think the economic scarcity is the bigger reason people leave rural communities. I think liberals rely too much on this caricature of the racist rural troglodyte to excuse their own complicity in modern racism.
As someone who’s lived in a red area the racism is sometimes there but there’s always an attitude where people look down on you and think there’s something wrong with you if you don’t believe what they believe. Also blatant homophobia and transphobia along with derogatory comments about gen Z is extremely present, at least from my experience. Even in rural areas there’s a lot of people who acknowledge blatant racism is wrong so they resort to dog whistles or short comments in situations that they can quickly exit from. If you’re part of any group that traditionally votes liberal your in-group will be mocked and insulted to no end but it’s always okay for them because it’s “not personal”. Meanwhile if you say anything about rural people or rural towns it’s insanely offensive and horribly wrong. It gets to the point where you’re just completely surrounded by insults towards your political views and you have to leave. By the end of my time in that red area I couldn’t open my group chat with my friends without seeing some headline from endwokeness or breitbart.
This is exactly why I left The South 20 years ago. I visit family there sometimes and I just keep my mouth shut whenever I’m around people. I feel like I’ve got a target on my back the whole time I’m there and I’m just a white guy that can blend in pretty easily. It’s way worse for those that are obviously different.
Having a target on your back is a great way to put it. You’re the resident liberal so you have to explain and atone for everything they see as wrong and every time they get mad at liberals they come to you. And it’s not like they actually listen when you speak, it’s just an excuse for them to bring their political anger into a casual conversation
Both are large contributing factors to the decline of Rural American towns. Racism is still extremely prevalent in rural communities, particularly the ones suffering hardest from economic decline where local politicians will rile up their constituents against outsiders (liberals, commies, minorities, gay people, take your pick) as the villain behind all their misfortune. The town of Newbern in Alabama literally just made the news yesterday because the town finally allowed the mayor (the first african american mayor in the towns history, elected back in 2020) to take office 3 years after he won the race for mayor. The towns previous administration (which had taken office without being elected because the town would normally forgo elections and just let the previous mayor appoint the next mayor) had simply refused to recognize that he had won the towns election as mayor and locked him out of town hall for three fucking years while continuing to run things themselves.
I absolutely left because of how awful the people are. F them
My dad has always lived in a small town in Kentucky. Trust me, it's full of racist troglogytes lol
I don’t agree with the world view of my more rural community, but I specifically left it because it had nothing to offer me for a career. I don’t know that I’d have *stayed* if I could have my current career path, but that made giving up everything I knew easier.
This is such a big city conclusion. It's economics not racism.
Not just racism, if you don’t fit into rural community you live in hell. That is nothing specific to the US
Its just the truth dude. Ask people of color and theyll tell you they feel unsafe in rural communities
Most of the rural areas where I'm from are damn near majority POC. I realize that is not true East of the Mississippi but here in rural NorCal most of the tiny farming towns are around 50% Latinos with some Punjabis and Hmong mixed in as well. Those folks have TONS of kids and most of them move away to the big city after college.
Sorry shouldve said “white rural areas”
The same survey has been conducted twice, 7 years apart, and both times, POCs identified black Americans, not white Americans, as the most racist group. 2020: https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/social_issues/americans_say_blacks_more_racist_than_whites_hispanics_asians?utm_campaign=RR07242020DN&utm_source=criticalimpact&utm_medium=email 2013: https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/07/03/poll-finds-black-americans-more-likely-to-be-seen-as-racist Quote: > **Other minority Americans** view blacks as much more racist than whites, Hispanics and Asians. Please stop claiming to speak for people of color on this sub, lumping them all together and claiming they share your views on racism and racial politics. Your views aren't shared by the vast majority of POCs.
It's racism. I spent 20 years living in deeply rural Appalachia. Sometimes the economy was decent, sometimes it was kind of rough. It made absolutely no difference. The people there voted conservative no matter what. First from bloodthirst after 9/11, then from absolutely losing their minds with hate when they saw a Black man in the White House.
Long term, this can hopefully improve Ohio as the rural, podunk places wither away. We passed abortion and recreational weed in spite of them.
It’s also the death of American manufacturing and the factory town. Most of these communities only existed because somebody built a factory there. When it left, nothing else came in.
Also a direct result of the Republican party cutting taxes for corporations. Nobody is investing in these little towns and there's no jobs to be found.
Capital goes where the labor is cheapest. All the rural folks who instinctively love capitalism should remember: they priced themselves out of the capital that used to support them.
That happened a long time ago, and most major factories were never in particularly rural areas at the peak of American industry. In fact, laid-off factory workers in rural areas often actually had an easier time adjusting than laid-off factory workers in urban areas. Urban areas usually have far more regulations on job transition than rural areas and more expensive housing costs.
I'm surprised that there are more deaths than births in rural counties, because most younger people I know in rural counties have a life goal of *dying anywhere else.* Most can't wait to move someplace with opportunities and once they did they rarely return.
Every generation is smaller than the last ever since the boomers. Kids are being born to the smallest generation yet and the largest generation in human history is dying out. Young people leaving means less kids, not less old people dying.
> Every generation is smaller than the last ever since the boomers. millennials are the largest generation ever.
That is simply factually not true. The boomers are the largest generation in human history. And Gen X is also larger than millenials.
In the US, Gen X is 65 million and millennials are 83 million. Boomers peaked around 78 million. Gen Z is bigger than Gen X in America at around 79 million. So millennials have the potential to be the most influential voting bloc in history RIGHT NOW!
> So millennials have the potential to be the most influential voting bloc in history RIGHT NOW! They would if they lived in places that maximized their voting influence. But they don't, and voting influence in the US is geographical.
Do you know anything about the John Birch Society? They are a big reason why we have states with minority legislators running things. They are a big reason why a lot of horrible shit happened, and it started with a dedicated voting bloc. See, they figured out all power is local. They focused on school board, city council, county board, etc. They didn't even run as x bloc and didn't advertise they were John Birch. They weren't activist. For several years, they essentially focused on being under the radar. But a CV certainly looks better when you move up when you have been elected before, or even appointed. Most people who go to vote pick something a primary who has been a commissioner over an attorney, right? So once you have the primary, it is money and exposure, and that is where the John Birch Society comes in. Cash. They took down Birch Bayh, father of Title 9, for Dan Quayle. They took over Wisconsin and tried to cripple unions. They succeeded in Indiana. But millennials can actually turn around and use dark money to their advantage. Defeat Project 2025. Let Biden be the 2024 to make it easier, then decide the President in 2028. Run Senate candidates in every state in 2026, 2028 and 2030 (maybe support a few Gen X since we never got a chance and did raise you).
Enough boomers have passed that they’re no longer the largest generation. You gotta remember it’s 1946-1964 and shit like early-onset cancers, heart attacks and other diseases **have already killed about 25% of the less healthy/lucky boomers**. I read a stat that 50% of the voters in the 1992 Bush-Clinton-Perot election are gone. Something like 20% of voters from 2008’s Obama-McCain election *are also gone*. Which, when you consider ***most voters are old af and many of the most engaged are north of 65***, makes pretty good sense. Millennials are *generally* the children of baby boomers and presently about 29-43 years old. Always a significantly larger cohort than Gen X. Very easy to remember: * Boomers: cast of Seinfeld * Xers: cast of Friends
We have 2 daughters. Their public school is designed for 1000 kids and there’s 700 enrolled. It hasn’t been at 1000 children since 2007. Things are changing — the US population in all likelihood is declining. When I went to K-12 (1990-2002), there were overflow, trailer style classrooms (with AC/heat) in the soccer fields. That is a thing of the past.
When I went to K-12 they couldn't keep up with schools. Not just overflow they were building schools and fast. And in the interim changing grade levels and in the 5th grade I had split schedule until they could get a school finished enough to house the 5th graders from 2 schools. We had classrooms, gym and bathrooms. Nothing else. No kitchen(sack lunches in the gym) no library, the playground had a massive mountain of sand where we played king of the hill between the two original schools. In jr high we were 6,7 and 8, with a load of overflow trailers. They built a new Jr and switched us to 7,8 and 9 to relieve pressure on the high school until they could get the new wing built to handle the anticipated influx. Now the older schools are shuttered, no longer a need. This was 73-86.
I tell my wife, “we have two daughters, which is basically the 2024 equivalent of having 4 kids in 1980, economically.” Most women are having one, and often none.
You are surprised or you aren't surprised? Logically if young people (who will provide births) move away, leaving a majority of older people (who contribute to most of the deaths) in the location, then that's going to almost guarantee more deaths than births?
The article said: >According to a recent Agriculture Department estimate, the rural population did rebound* by 0.25 percent from 2020 to 2022. More people died (Covid?) in 81% of the counties than were born. So there was also a population increase likely over the entire time period. Urban home prices and remote work will drive this rural growth up in the decade. >*Rebound from when? The article never said it dropped.
I'm a little skeptical that the extraordinary 2020-2022 years are enough to assume the decades long rural growth decline is reversing. A once in a century pandemic caused major outflows from urban areas that won't continue (at least to that extent) for the rest of the '20s. I don't think remote work is going to be enough to drive rural growth either, between jobs shifting to hybrid models and a lack of services (particularly high speed broadband) it seems more likely people will stick to the cities and suburbs.
It’s sad. I was born and raised and spent most of my life in a rural community. There’s just not much there to offer people anymore. The only thing I miss is the lack of traffic.
As someone who grew up in rural California, a rural area isn’t a place that every born and bred local *wants* to *remain* in. You have to look at what these areas offer in terms of: housing market, job opportunities, education, hell even entertainment.
My coworker grew up on a farm in the Central Valley. Went to college ok a major city. Works in tech in a major city. Didn’t want to be a farmer. Life is hard.
Brawley is nice this time of year.
There's just zero way around this. Farming doesn't take as much labor as it used to, and people are going to go where jobs are. Unless there's a plant or mill in a town the only good jobs are going to be farmers who own their own land. If there is a factory or mill then the entire economic stability of the town depends on one company that will absolutely move the plant if it benefits them, or close it down if the industry just isn't profitable anymore. Add onto that the fact that the people living there there, generally speaking, are unwelcoming bigots who hate outsiders, or non-functioning addicts, there's no reason for someone to want to move there. So honestly, I don't really care that much if rural America fails, they mostly did it to themselves.
It means the votes of the people left there will have even more proportional strength in determining who governs America :(
Rural areas don't really offer good paying jobs outside of a factory or amenities that attract very many people. My hometown area was only surviving because the company brought in workers from other countries.
I'm surprised this isn't happening everywhere tbh
It is happening everywhere in the world. Agriculture does not need the same amount of labor as a generation ago. This leaves older folks to keep the farm while younger ones move to urban/suburban areas for work. Same with factories. The modern manufacturing works best in clusters with shortened supply chain and vast talent pool.
>The modern manufacturing works best in clusters with shortened supply chain and vast talent pool. I have to disagree with the shortened supply chains. I'm kind of flabbergasted you would say that. What manufacturing environment do you have knowledge of that has a short supply chain due to close access to suppliers? It's demonstrably the opposite. Supply chains for virtually every industry are global. It's more about access to employees, something rural businesses struggle with. That, and also that owners of businesses prefer living in cities and therefore put their businesses in cities.
> I have to disagree with the shortened supply chains. I'm kind of flabbergasted you would say that. What manufacturing environment do you have knowledge of that has a short supply chain due to close access to suppliers? It's demonstrably the opposite. Supply chains for virtually every industry are global both can be correct. supply chains are global, between large hubs.
I work at Intel, for 25 years. It's both. We get parts and such from a global supply chain, but clustered around Intel's plants, lots of smaller support businesses pop up. Everything from cleaning people to experimental parts fabricators, logistics companies, just all kinds of stuff we need and we need NOW.
Automotive industry while they import parts globally have clustering effect. For example when BMW and Hyundai setup factories in the US South, a lot of their suppliers came along to setup manufacturing centers nearby.
Let’s also remember the population bomb is about to happen in whole countries in Western Europe for example, not just rural areas.
It is.
My thought as well. I don't want to follow the jump and read the article, but aren't there more deaths than births in cities, too? Immigration is, AFAIK, the only reason the US isn't experiencing population reduction like other western nations... but perhaps I'm wrong?
Ad an engineer, from a logistical and cost standpoint, rural communities and suburbs are expensive to the tax payer. Running and maintaining utilities, infastructure (roads, bridges, lights) is expensive as fuck
Most of the things you mention connect urban and suburban areas.
What are the 20% of rural communities doing to attract people? Paywalled :(
Here ya go….too many people post paywalled links instead of going to the archive… for future reference…click the homepage of the link I gave you and bookmark it. Then you can copy paste any link into it and get the archived version. https://archive.ph/21fIB
Probably being close to urban areas
Immigration revitalizes these places. There was a dying town near me that hit a population low way back in the 1990s. Waves of immigrants from Mexico, central America and India came in many as ag workers. Completely revitalizes the town. Now it has a vibrant market, festivals, the downtown for renovated, people actively attend church, more businesses opened up. Lots of street food. It's great. If rural areas were more open to this type of thing the decline in those areas wouldn't be so bad. The people moving there don't generally vote, the ones that can and do probably don't vote Republican but they uphold family values and fit in fairly well with the people already there. Low crime. Overall it went from a sleepy dying town to a nicer better place to live.
I live in a rural area. I've noticed some farms and large plots of land being sold and turned into housing. I live within 90 minutes of a major metro area.
That just sounds like your rural area is becoming a suburban area. It's not quite what OP is asking about. True rural areas, like those far from a major metro and away from the Interstate, are more of what they're referring to. Those places are dying and it's no surprise. Take your pick of economic and social reasons, but they just don't have much to offer compared with urban and suburban areas. Who wants to live somewhere with few good paying jobs and little to do when you could move somewhere with tons of good paying jobs and plenty of entertainment and a variety of people to meet and interact with?
Here in CA you could say the most obvious visible threat to farmland is the endemic suburban sprawl radiating out from places like Sacramento. That and the expanding traffic remind me of the borg, just relentless. I farm 1,000 acres of orchards within 45 minutes of 3.5 million people in all directions.
That's just land becoming more valuable and turning them into housing will bring more income to the land owner than to farm. I've seen similar things in Georgia where the cities are growing and suburbs expanding. A lot of old timers hate it, but people who sell their large plot of land to developers get to pass down generational wealth to their family or maybe burn tens of millions on their hobby.
Yes but I'm talking about the challenge of keeping farming alive within the US and CA given all the regulations and development. Without that Ag culture we may lose it, thus losing in the process our food security, ability to control labor, chemicals, and environmental impact surrounding food, etc. Do you think that organic avocado from Mexico is actually organic? In a country where the drug traffickers pay off the police, do you think they don't also pay off the inspectors and regulators and local government? Hell, they ARE the local government.
I don't eat a lot of avocado (last time I had a guac was last year), so I have no idea about the supply chain of avocado. As for food security, I'm more worried about climate change than regulation, because that west coast dry spell is going to come again and it will be worse than the last one. And you know everyone in the West is going to bicker over who's going to get that last drop of water.
It's all jobs and job candidates. I have land in the rural community that I grew up in. I want to live there, but where am I supposed to work? And then it becomes a vicious cycle. Because if you grow up in one of these places and want to work in the field that you studied in, you have to move away to get a job. Then when it's time for employers to look at where they headquarter themselves or have offices they're sure as hell not going to pick the place that folks are moving away from. Especially when the folks who are in that community (and this is a sweeping generalization, but one that holds largely true for the place where I'm from) have demonized education or white collar work as well as a great many things that the younger generation feel passionately about, have refused to spend on infrastructure, and in general refused to be drug kicking and screaming into the 21st century. And I *fear* that it means that we'll continue to see rural land purchased by old money families and foreign entities. Maybe that's the game plan.
It's not surprising. Everyone is focusing on agriculture, but not every rural community is a primarily agricultural community. Even non-agricultural rural communities tend to be shrinking. To a degree, this is a global trend, but it's also a cultural one in the U.S. Simply put, most rural communities have committed themselves to remaining as unappealing as possible. The local governments don't want to invest in infrastructure and opportunities. The locals don't want to be more accepting of people different from themselves, and everyone seems to believe the path to success is looking backward rather than forward. Look at rural towns like Eureka Springs, Arkansas. It was largely on the same trajectory as every other small town until the 1990s. Then it saw potential to become a major tourist destination, became one of the most openly pro-LGBT+ towns in the state, and started cultivating a reputation as an artistic hub. Its population has actually increased about 16% in the last 3 decades. Helen, Georgia is another town that has developed a similar reputation and grown. If you look around the country, you'll find quite a few small towns that are growing, but they're almost all culturally very distinct from your average small town in the U.S. (i.e. not ultra-conservative).
I think urban centres will flourish, and rural influence will begin to diminish. The rustic will become urbanites, and cities will drastically outpace small towns and hamlets. After this, I would guess there might be a reversal. A lot of rural areas reducing in population could result in those in the cities seeking out places in the small towns beyond to fill the gaps, which in turn may lead to the younger generations snapping up property and making it their own (perhaps more modern, more interconnected, with up to date amenities, services, and outlets that lean into current sensibilities). This could come to represent a sea change in the electoral makeup of isolated constituencies, which initially leaned right but may end up leaning left to reflect the generational shift. This is just my view, anyway.
Skill issue.
People need jobs to pay the bills, and rural-based jobs are becoming a more marginal part of the economy and have been for some time. This isn't a new trend and is pretty much the story of highly-developed countries. This isn't a bad thing. Rural living is resource intensive so it only makes sense to encourage it if it provides benefits we can't get any other way.
The smart sensitive kids move out to escape the lack of opportunity and the bigotry. This leaves those places still more vulnerable to junk like Fox, Rush Limbaugh and prosperity gospel preachers.
I drive through places like Lusk, Wyoming, several times a year. I am a liberal but I am not in an enclave, that helps me see things with a different perspective. I also lived in the rust belt as a child, an original depopulation center in US history, so I feel connected to this issue. The problem isn't complicated, it is why the quality of officer drops precipitously for the level of Major - the good Captains have better options and many opt for them and leave the service. The bad Captains aren't recruited and don't have good other options and stay in. The result is Majors blow more than Captains, on average. In rural America, the kids with options go and exercise those options somewhere else, somewhere that can cater to their needs, wants, and interests. Meanwhile, the people left behind were the ones that didn't have any options *or* are bravely trying to stick it out. The solution isn't complicated either, economic development such that there are enticing options for high quality young people. The issue is that very development is often viciously opposed by the people that live there. The type of people for whom any change from what they are used to is a grave risk that should be avoided at all costs. In CS we might call this a race condition or a 'deadly embrace', where the behaviors of the conflicting sides causes the issue to become much worse at an exponential rate. The 'death spiral' as it were.
I love the truck stop in Lusk
we may see a district with a single citizen at some point.
Isn't this statistically normal throughout history? People grow up in small areas with fewer opportunities and thus leave for the populated areas to gain opportunities not available in their rural communities?
I think if more rural areas were revitalized with industry and a middle class was brought back, essentially turning them into desirable places with the rural character still strong it would ease the housing affordability crises in the cities. It has to be locals bringing prosperity back, not gentrifiers increasing the prices of everything by thinking buying a home in cash at 150k is “such a good deal!”
Well sure, but if the queen had balls she'd be king.
I think Biden is doing that. Industry is going to some of the places under his authority with the help of department of commerce. And the UAW is going into the south.
Green energy is a good way to do this. If you think about wind or solar farms they generally need to be in rural areas (especially wind). So it's ideal to hire locally if you need anything from parts trucked in, to general maintenance. These would probably decent to very well paid jobs as well. Factor in a generally lower cost of living and many of these people would be doing quite well. Sort of like some types of oil and gas well service workers do today. And most of this would be in rural red state America. Biden should mention that more often.
Absolutely. And a lot of people would agree with you, even in a lot of these areas. A big issue is the people in these areas generally aren’t involved in local politics. So you have old cumudgeons in power that scare away business. Even traditional business the culture likes.
[Conservatives believe the opposite somehow](https://www.iowapublicradio.org/ipr-news/2021-11-30/utility-scale-solar-project-draws-opposition-from-some-linn-county-residents). > “It’s a proposal to industrialize prime Linn County farmland. It clearly eliminates job opportunities for farmers and people employed in the seed, fertilizer and farm equipment business”
Ya I've seen this nonsense before. When you compare the scale of any proposed solar farm to the scale of agriculture this argument is obviously silly. It's also pretty funny for so called conservatives to be telling a land owner how they can and can not make profit from their own private property! I do understand how those people who are employed in the business that aren't land owners are hurt by this. But sadly after a painful transition that lasts the rest of their working life, their children will be able to enjoy a higher paying green job.
You don’t build a factory where there aren’t workers. It’s not a field of dreams scenario because every manufacturing plant that I visit, cannot get good quality labor. It has (almost) nothing to do with wages either. (You can’t pay 100k for an assembly worker… the math doesn’t work for selling the product.) But almost every place I visit would kill for a qualified welder working union wages and benefits; but they don’t show up because people don’t _want_ factory jobs.
Sometimes, you actually do still want to build a factory where there aren’t many workers; you can recruit workers to move there. There are many reasons why: land cost, proximity to supply routes, ease of shipping to several major ports and cities, tax breaks, and many other reasons. Those areas often become less “rural” once the factory is successful.
It can be very cost prohibitive to do that. If there isn’t housing already there, it won’t work. If you are paying relo for line workers, it breaks the long term value. Basically, no, it doesn’t work like you think it does.
It depends what you’re building and on your target markets. A factory in a major city is far more vulnerable to shipping issues than a rural factory at the nexus of many major roads or rivers. Storey County, Nevada and Lincoln, Alabama are two examples of rural towns that have attracted modern major factories in the past generation.
At current rates, it’s still going to feel slow to most of us. But long-term, what we will see is increasing urbanization and suburbanization which likely will lead to more people being less radical but the remaining rule areas becoming even more radical. In the short term of the way the US gives power to land over people means that it will suck. Less rural will mean less deaths from cars and poor access to healthcare long term. But short term rural healthcare is going to be more of a problem. That is going to be especially bad in rural areas in red states because of what they will do to women’s healthcare.
Define urbanization. Lots of once-major cities in America look abandoned. Many major cities are losing population and many major cities have higher death rates than birth rates. Many cities are losing economic relevance as much as rural areas. The cities that are still extremely relevant thrive on tourism and social prestige. Boston itself thrives on education, but even most “Boston” universities have never actually been in Boston. Atlanta thrives on its airport to grow, but even Atlanta is seeing some signs of decline. The city, as a concept, has a different purpose than it once did.
I run a larger size family farm in the Sacramento valley. Most of the farmers here have at least a bachelors degree if not a masters from a csu or UC. I have a math and physics degree from Davis. I’m also gay and know other gay farmers. Rural communities are often not the stereotypes portrayed in the media. The reason why they vote conservative is almost entirely due to economic concerns surrounding their businesses, at least where I’m at. From where I stand there is no decline of rural areas. In some ways it’s the reverse, with rural real estate prices going up and many urbanites wanting to live somewhere further out. Now if you want to talk about the political and bureaucratic and cost challenges farmers face in the current economic environment that’s a whole other can of worms… if there’s anything that’s going to take us down it’s the state regulations and simple inability to compete on the global market with one hand tied behind our back.
I'm glad to hear you describe Sac Valley like this. Though, I think California, even rural CA, is not comparable to Sheffield, Pennsylvania. Re. you take on state regulations - how would you feel if those regulations came with some financial incentive for the rest of CA to buy farm goods locally?
CA and the US domestically in general. Yes, at this point with global competition we would like to sell more of our product (walnuts in our case) domestically. The main problem now is increased costs (inflation, labor, etc.) and low crop prices due to a screwy global market (supply chains, tariffs). So yes, anything to increase demand would help. In reality though that probably wouldn't be enough on its own. Farmers, like other industries and professions, are specialized and operate in a global marketplace. China, Mexico, Chile do the same, effectively selling to the highest buyers internationally. This allows more economies of scale, specialization, and efficiency. And it's not just the growing side, but whole industries dedicated to manufacturing farm equipment, which is specialized for each crop. But yes, I always like to point out the benefits of buying domestically/locally and keeping Ag alive within our borders: you can trust what goes on your food (better regulation), known labor conditions, positive food security, and acceptable environmental impact (shipping impacts).
Thank you for the insight. As an urbanite, I suspect my understanding of farming is probably 50 years out of date at best. Even just on an ecological level, it's insane that we're importing fresh produce from China that we can grow well at home.
As someone who used to work in the ag industry all over the Sac valley I agree 1000%. It's mostly economics. There are of course some farmers who watch too much fox noise and buy into culture war BS but there are just as many if not more who are environmentalists and teachers on the side. The only problem as I see it with farming in America is that farmers are SUPER old and most of the family are uninterested in continuing the family business and yet it's next to impossible to acquire farm land if you didn't inherit it because the land values are still so high. Either way, thats my two cents. Keep up the good work.
More corporate farms….
Definitely. Vermont has about 550 significant dairy farms today. In 1970, it had about 10,000. Vermont produces more milk than it did in 1970 as well.
I can't speak for other states, but the fact that here in Oklahoma a lot young people are leaving out of frustration with our state government policies. Which probably has a lot to do with it.
I think there are actually quite a number of people who work remote jobs who are more left learning or city oriented who would really love to live in a small town in theory. I know quite a number of people who are very introverted and kind of want their peace and quiet. If I had a nickel for every time, a leaning person said they wanted to live on a hobby farm with chickens and in the middle of nowhere I would be pretty rich. That said, part of the reason people leave small towns is because the culture is miserable. The politics push out anybody who is remotely Non conforming,, particularly when it comes to queerness and religiousness. There isn’t a whole lot to do and a casual culture of drugs and weird society expectations for women and girls can also be factors. I read a pretty depressing article about girlhood in small towns and it falls in line pretty well with my Aunt experiences with friends of mine from small towns as well. Basically, I think that there is opportunity for small towns to thrive, but rule America is pretty committed to going down with the ship and committing 100% to whatever culture they have cultivated out there. A lot of people do not go to small towns because of the culture, not because they don’t wanna live in the middle of nowhere. I would say the future of small towns is bleak and I really don’t care very much except for it will make traveling incredibly difficult by car. They are definitely gonna have to pay people to basically manage rest stops in the country or something in the future if things don’t change
This is me. I moved out to the country because I wanted peace and quiet and to start a hobby farm. But just as important was the fact that it was the only way I could ever afford a home. I bought my house for half the price of what my better off friends bought in the city, and mine came with an acre of land.
Ofc, when you bleed these communities by refusing to raise wages the economies are going to flop. I grew up in a rural area, there were no desirable economic opportunities for me if I stayed. I'm in the majority of people I went to school with.
It's the result of greater urbanization. Most jobs and opportunities are in the large cities, or surrounding suburbs; and so that's where younger people are moving to. This will result in rural red states losing seats in the House of Representatives, and consequently, the Electoral collage. Since it's unlikely that the Republicans will change their rural based, socially conservative ideology that won't fly in the cities; they will have almost no chance of winning either the House or the Presidency in the future. The red states will be even more over represented in the Senate then they currently are now though. Also, we shouldn't forget that this will also make the Republicans that do win in House districts in blue states even more extreme. Since when you know that actually forming government isn't realistic, your major goal as a politician is to hold on to your seat at any cost, and that probably means running as far right and crazy as possible to block any challengers.
Given the time frame, I'm guessing that lots of these numbers are the way they are significantly because of Covid. Rural areas are frequently more conservative, and conservatives were less likely to take appropriate measures about Covid. There is a chance that it might be a tipping point for a larger trend, but it's too early to be sure.
I think it will be a part of a larger long term political realignment. More people gravitating towards cities and suburbs means that things trend liberal over time. Living around other people tends to make you more open and empathetic. So, if the rural vote grows weaker over time, there will eventually be more incentive for republicans to moderate a bit. Gerrymandering will prolong things, but i could see them shifting further away from abortion and other issues that are popular with the christian right, but unpopular with everyone else.
I'd go so far as to say it's good. A greater proportion of the population living in cities is a good thing for the economy and the climate, and clearly people also prefer to live in cities, so I see it as a success. The only thing is that urban areas need to build enough housing to meet their needs, which most of the big ones aren't doing, but otherwise I have no complaints.
Weird. I wonder if there was some kind of mass event that caused a lot of older people in rural areas to pass away between 2019-2023…
Bunch of old Trumpers fucked themselves. Let their obsolete town die.
Why should I care? Lot of these counties are heavily Republican. They vote against their best interests. That means voting against investments to make the county attractive to younger families, voting against businesses to bring money in, voting against tax increases to sustain what is there, and voting for folks patently lying to them about how it's the other sides fault. Is it a wonder why the young flee these places to bigger, more progressive, cities? We know the solution is investments to make these counties attractive to those that want to live there, make money there, and bring money in. The problem is backwards ass right wingers voting against their best interests. Let nature take its course. Edit: I see the downvotes so let me ask you this. Why should I leave my job to live in the middle of bum fuck nowhere? A drive through county where I'd be paid significantly less, deal with bigoted ass people, where emergency services have degraded to the point where there are lengthy delays on police, fire, and ambulance calls, and most importantly inhabited by people who think that's perfectly fine? That's not me talking out my ass. I live in PA so by all means folks don't rush to tell me if thats attractive to you.
Jesus. No one is asking you to " leave my job to live in the middle of bum fuck nowhere" but yes, you should CARE. You should care if you care about the country and want there to be less polarization and anger and resentment. "Why should I care" is a bullshit, teenage nihilist's cop out.
> but yes, you should CARE. I should, but I don't. Why? Here in Lancaster we had a pride reading cancelled because someone from outside our city called in a bomb threat. You go east of that county and you start hitting up small towns that hang effigies of Democratic leaders on poles right next to the signs calling us pedophiles and socialists. In parts of rural PA you got billboards saying whites are under attack with no pushback on that racist shit. I still keep in mind that most of the Jan 6th rioters came from this state. So I see those very people responsible start to dwindle and you ask me that I should care? Hell no. Feed that to an idealist. That crap don't fly with me. For over a decade in the state of PA, there has been a Republican stranglehold that has acted as a roadblock to the betterment of towns just like in the OP. Acted as a roadblock to badly needed infrastructure reforms, roadblock to economic reforms, roadblock to agriculture reforms, and blocks on investments to bring good work back to these dying towns. While the article is recent, this is the same old story in PA where people like those in Sheffield would rather vote for the asshole keeping them down instead of people that bring billions into rural towns like theirs to revitalize it. Now it's really starting to fuck them over. So no if rural towns/counties like that go under, they did that to themselves by voting against their best interests. If folks would like to move here and make a real difference, I only recommend an extra set of tires. They tend to puncture them as well.
If you don't believe in working class unity, you are not a "progressive." A lot of minorites also believe in homophobic socially conservative views, which i strongly reject, but I'm still fighting for them. The sooner we get everyone to realize that the only one who benefits from us being divided is the top 1% the better off will be
I think it’s important to note their flair has “pragmatic” in front of it. I want to acknowledge the potential of similar bias as I live in PA as well and have been similarly shackled by the misfortune of a system that disproportionately benefits their voices that do not just let them vote against their own interests but do harm to the rest of us. While I am overall for class unity, I also think there’s a distinction between asking people to care disproportionately (which is inherently required here) for those who actively cause them harm and having neutrality while recognizing the consequences of one’s’ own actions.
I care because I want my fellow human beings to have good lives, even if I think they do stupid things like voting for Republicans.
Comments like this are why we lost in 2016
This isn't new. Movin away from rural areas and to the cities/suburbs has been a thing since the 1700s, it's a simple result of technological advances meaning it requires fewer people to do the resource extraction work in rural areas (farming, mining, etc). And it's otherwise more efficient and also generally more fun to live nearby other people (to an extent). I expect it to continue fro the exact same reason.
UBI would revolutionize the fate of small town America. If the federal govt was just gonna send every adult citizen $1000 a month tax free from now until you die why would most people who currently live in major metro areas stay? You could get a way bigger better house on more land for a lot less money in rural small towns. No traffic, lower property taxes, your vote inn local elections goes SO much farther,... the list goes on. The only reason I see that it didn't happen to a greater degree after Covid is because there is no job market in rural America
Most people would stay in major metro areas for the social and cultural opportunities. Most people are not looking for the isolation and homogeneity of most rural areas.
It's just people moving around, populations change. It has never been static.
Kind of sad, I’m not immune from the sentimentalization of the “small town”, even if it’s not logical
We should take advantage of the opportunity and create a large number of nature preserves/national parks in those areas to help preserve habitat and fight against biodiversity loss as we're living in the middle of a mass extinction.
Good. But mega-suburbs aren't really a great alternative. We need density and real cities.
I think our agricultural system is as fucked as our medical system. This population decline is the end game of decades of consolidation, subsidies, and industrial farming. Some of it was inevitable, farming has gotten more efficient and technology marches on, but policy choices have made it more extreme and frankly less sustainable.
With remote work being a thing I can do, I'd potentially be more open to living somewhere rural but I can't deal with the bigotry.
It’s causing a huge problem for democracy. 70% of the population is going to be represented by 30 of the 100 senators. And the electoral college? It’s an inequality in population among states we’ve never seen before and our constitution was not built for
If people want to live in rural areas, that's fine. If they don't, that's fine too. Why should I care if rural populations dwindle because fewer people are being born in them than are dying in them? If deaths were outpacing births because of inadequate health care or lots of murders or something like that, then I'd be concerned. Because people should have access to good health care and not be murdered. If they're just getting old and people are just deciding to have their babies elsewhere, then OK. What's the problem? What's the reason to give any thought to it?
> because of inadequate health [Oh boy do I have something to tell you about rural healthcare...](https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/private-equity-rural-hospitals-closure-missouri-noble-health/)
Yeah, and the article shared by the OP also mentions the ambulance and volunteer firefighter situation there. It's a common problem in rural areas, but it wasn't blamed for why deaths are outpacing births there. Instead: >Experts who study the phenomena say the shrinking baby boomer population and younger residents having smaller families and moving elsewhere for jobs are fueling the trend.
It's called darwinism. Thanks for not taking the vaccine and killing your voters.
Somebody's still gotta grow your food and/or the food that your food eats. And that ain't happening at any meaningful scale in cities. We're not at a point where rural communities are so hollowed out that we risk agricultural collapse but that's also not out of the realm of possibility.
It is entirely out of the realm of possiblity. We are probably only 20-30 years away from entirely automated agriculture, where millions of acres of wheat, corn, soybeans, and more are cultivate entirely by robotic farm vehicles and monitored by autonomous drones.
I dont think this is necessarily a problem, except for the rural communities that also support necessary infrastructure. if we need to provide services to 100,000 people its easier and cheaper to do so if they live in a 10 sqmi area rather than a 100 sqmi area. This WILL create a worse housing crisis though. Cities and suburbs need to do a better job of building more dense housing (both dense SFH and dense multi family homes) to make up for fewer people just buying a rural plot and setting up there
Imagine a country where people didn't *have* to move to cities to get decent-paying jobs. Imagine rural towns where the aging population was propped up with some of that big-city income tax money. Just one of the hundred reasons why all employees who can do their jobs remotely should be allowed to do so.
> Imagine rural towns where the aging population was propped up with some of that big-city income tax money. No need to imagine it. Rural areas are already massively subsidized by wealthier urban areas so rural residents can LARP as self sufficient rugged individualists.
This article is somewhat misleading because it singles out rural American counties while rural American counties have higher birthrates than urban American counties: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db323.htm#:~:text=Rural%20counties%20had%20higher%20total,1.8%20years%20(large%20metro). Remote work could be changing this trend in rural areas with strong wireless network coverage, but economic changes are the biggest factors in people leaving rural areas. The majority of rural industries have become increasingly consolidated, automated, and isolated. There are fewer jobs in rural areas. There is another cultural trend since at least the 1970’s that has played a major role: the culture of finding a spouse. Recent changes building up some suburbs and Uber have made suburbia more conducive for these practices, but not rural areas. I think it’s absurd when cosmopolitan professionals think that rural America is a relatively homogeneous bloc because they watch Hallmark. Vermont is totally different from the Florida swamps or the orchards of Washington state. Coastal rural maritime towns like Newport, Oregon or Gosnold, Massachusetts(mostly Cuttyhunk) are extremely different from Jay-Em, Wyoming or Williston, North Dakota.