WSJ: Rural America Is the New ‘Inner City’

[ApatheticAustrian]

Rural U.S. has worst rates of poverty, higher ed, teen births, divorce, heart/cancer deaths, disability, working men

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Suburbia]

It is sad. Changes need to be made in rural America for all races. They are plenty of black and Latino people living in the rural areas as well. Native Americans as well.

[Hydera]

Rural america were glad that the inner city was decaying during their worst 1970-1980 period and now they want sympathy that they never gave to inner city areas.

[JerryArkansas]

Rural america were glad that the inner city was decaying during their worst 1970-1980 period and now they want sympathy that they never gave to inner city areas.

And they will get it because it's happening to white people now.  We all know that when something happens to white people it's a tragedy and not their faults, but when it happens to minority communities, we hear that they are just lazy or disinterested in bettering themselves.   Just look at the opioid crises reactions and contrast that the war on drugs. 

[Santander]

Rural america were glad that the inner city was decaying during their worst 1970-1980 period and now they want sympathy that they never gave to inner city areas.

And they will get it because it's happening to white people now.  We all know that when something happens to white people it's a tragedy and not their faults, but when it happens to minority communities, we hear that they are just lazy or disinterested in bettering themselves.   Just look at the opioid crises reactions and contrast that the war on drugs. 

Oh give me a break. White people have white relatives and tend to have mostly white friends and live in mostly white neighborhoods. Every problem is foreign and uninteresting until it hits close to home. Seeing people they care about suffering makes the decline of small town America real to people.

[Technocracy Timmy]

If anybody wants good insight on rural white America, this piece is a great read. Really, really great insight.

[JA]

Rural America is experiencing this crisis due not only to broader changes in America's economy, but also the culture found in most of these places. Based upon my interactions with those from rural America, which include many individuals within my own family, I am not particularly surprised regarding their condition. Most of them hold contempt or at least disregard for higher education, are unwilling to relocate for better opportunities, believe Infowars type conspiracy theories about immigrants and the "gay agenda," find unstable family life (divorces, out-of-wedlock births, teenage childbearing) as the norm, and hold contempt for the culture and people in most urban areas. Add to that the lack of skills and local policies that would attract or retain outside investment and a globalized economy that has essentially eliminated the need for their widely dispersed, low-skilled labor and you have the perfect recipe for stagnation and decline - both economically and socially.

The only way to reverse this in the long-term is to focus on changing their cultures and attracting outside investment, both of which will be fiercely resisted. But, for the sake of future generations, that is essential. Not to mention many of them will simply need to relocate to urban areas for more opportunity; whether that is right or wrong does not matter at this point when they must focus on mere survival.

[Torie]

I see it with my own eyes every day, and it's very, very sad.

[Hydera]

Just to add a little more. the rural economy was miserable but employed(mostly lower wage jobs) while inner cities were undermeployed and depressed.  Rural areas spit at the inner city for obvious reasons and didnt care about their suffering.

Now that the equation is reversed with inner cities actually benefitting from its place in the center of metropolitan areas while gentrification has been bringing lower wage jobs its the inner city being miserable but employed while rural economies have became underemployed and depressed due to industrial decline. It would be interesting to see how the inner city respond to this seitch in contrast.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Just to add a little more. the rural economy was miserable but employed(mostly lower wage jobs) while inner cities were undermeployed and depressed.  Rural areas spit at the inner city for obvious reasons and didnt care about their suffering.

Now that the equation is reversed with inner cities actually benefitting from its place in the center of metropolitan areas while gentrification has been bringing lower wage jobs its the inner city being miserable but employed while rural economies have became underemployed and depressed due to industrial decline. It would be interesting to see how the inner city respond to this seitch in contrast.

     I would be surprised if they cared much. Other than their shared plight of getting the short end of the stick, rural areas and inner cities are worlds apart.

[user12345]

As someone who lives in a rural southern Missouri town of 8,000 I can personally attest to this being true. I'm lucky to live in one of the richer towns in the area as we have a large factory here that employees a lot of the town but the poverty, lack of access to health care and education are very apparent. Drug addiction is as common as can be.

[KingSweden]

This is all so very sad

[Storebought]

The difference between the poverty of the 1980s and today is that, back then, the urban populations had a basic recognition of the causes of their plight, but requested a scale of government intervention (welfare, education grants, ..., all the stuff Jesse Jackson campaigned on in '84 and '88) that the Reagan administration would never consent to. Far from it: Reagan won two massive landslides mocking and exacerbating urban America's social disintegration.

That situation doesn't exist now. No Democrat stands in the gates of power vetoing the rejuvenation of rural America; their GOP representatives have complete control of Congress, the presidency, and most state legislatures. And the poster above me pointed out that rural Americans in any case don't regard themselves as suffering from any particular social decay besides job loss and persecution from "elites" (who they consider to be elite is very far from what Atlas Forum considers elite).

People have to acknowledge a problem exists before it can ever be addressed in a meaningful way. But with the stupidity of people believing in "Fake News" -- problems aren't problems because only Democrats and libs say they are -- I don't see how any meaningful debate can take place on the topic.

[catographer]

Rural america were glad that the inner city was decaying during their worst 1970-1980 period and now they want sympathy that they never gave to inner city areas.

And they will get it because it's happening to white people now.  We all know that when something happens to white people it's a tragedy and not their faults, but when it happens to minority communities, we hear that they are just lazy or disinterested in bettering themselves.   Just look at the opioid crises reactions and contrast that the war on drugs. 

Oh give me a break. White people have white relatives and tend to have mostly white friends and live in mostly white neighborhoods. Every problem is foreign and uninteresting until it hits close to home. Seeing people they care about suffering makes the decline of small town America real to people.

That just further proves the hypocrisy. When it happens to non-whites (who white people can read about and reach out to if they'd like), they don't want to help them. Let's not forget too, that when we help one community, the benefits reverberate to help all communities. Helping blacks helps whites helps hispanics helps et cetera.

[Dr. Arch]

The difference between the poverty of the 1980s and today is that, back then, the urban populations had a basic recognition of the causes of their plight, but requested a scale of government intervention (welfare, education grants, ..., all the stuff Jesse Jackson campaigned on in '84 and '88) that the Reagan administration would never consent to. Far from it: Reagan won two massive landslides mocking and exacerbating urban America's social disintegration.

That situation doesn't exist now. No Democrat stands in the gates of power vetoing the rejuvenation of rural America; their GOP representatives have complete control of Congress, the presidency, and most state legislatures. And the poster above me pointed out that rural Americans in any case don't regard themselves as suffering from any particular social decay besides job loss and persecution from "elites" (who they consider to be elite is very far from what Atlas Forum considers elite).

People have to acknowledge a problem exists before it can ever be addressed in a meaningful way. But with the stupidity of people believing in "Fake News" -- problems aren't problems because only Democrats and libs say they are -- I don't see how any meaningful debate can take place on the topic.

[Santander]

Rural america were glad that the inner city was decaying during their worst 1970-1980 period and now they want sympathy that they never gave to inner city areas.

And they will get it because it's happening to white people now.  We all know that when something happens to white people it's a tragedy and not their faults, but when it happens to minority communities, we hear that they are just lazy or disinterested in bettering themselves.   Just look at the opioid crises reactions and contrast that the war on drugs.  

Oh give me a break. White people have white relatives and tend to have mostly white friends and live in mostly white neighborhoods. Every problem is foreign and uninteresting until it hits close to home. Seeing people they care about suffering makes the decline of small town America real to people.

That just further proves the hypocrisy. When it happens to non-whites (who white people can read about and reach out to if they'd like), they don't want to help them. Let's not forget too, that when we help one community, the benefits reverberate to help all communities. Helping blacks helps whites helps hispanics helps et cetera.

Yes, when you have to work and raise kids, you're a hypocrite if you don't take the time to seek out suffering people who don't like you who live in another time zone... get real.

Most people are not ideological.
Most people don't care about what's happening outside of their community or state.
Most people don't even think about race on a day-to-day basis.
Most people only develop positions on issues when it affects them or someone they care about.

That's not just white people either. That's everyone. And that's just fine.

[pbrower2a]

It is sad. Changes need to be made in rural America for all races. They are plenty of black and Latino people living in the rural areas as well. Native Americans as well.

The only areas in which blacks are common in rural areas is in the South. Blacks outside the South are highly urbanized.

First Peoples are in really bad shape in some rural areas, typically the Reservations. As I recall the poorest county in America is in South Dakota.  

Low costs of living attract people on disability. If I am on disability and SNAP, then I am far better off in rural Mississippi than in the San  Francisco Bay Area even if I find life in rural Mississippi empty, stale, and meaningless) -- if the money is the same. But if I am a smart person with a good work ethic and solid talents, I might want to head for the San Francisco Bay Area even with its horrible rental prices.  

Dope? There is a generational factor. People in their fifties through seventies in ghettos have experience with illegal drugs (especially heroin and cocaine) and know what it does -- and they impress upon the young the idea that illegal drugs are to be avoided. Rural areas? Rural low-lives are finding out the hard way what opiates and meth are big trouble.

There is an objective measure of how well large groups of people are doing by state, county, zip code, some urban areas, and Congressional district: human development index (HDI). HDI shows how well people are doing as a group, It is not per-capita income. The range is from 3.81 in Mississippi to 6.17 in Connecticut. (You know the old story about American demographics: if you want to know what is wrong in America, just look at Mississippi). For an example of the contrast, Louisiana has an above-average per capita income but does badly in translating such into human welfare as measured in statistical indices of education and health -- so poorly that the state is toward the bottom in HDI among the states. Much of the income is from oil, revenues largely being siphoned off to other states. Oil exploitation and production is not a labor-intensive  activity; people in the oil business can make above-average pay, but comparatively few people work in it for the revenue that it generates. Most Louisiana residents thus get stuck in activities not closely related to oil production, like tourism. As in many other states, the biggest non-government employer in Louisiana is Wal*Mart. In contrast, Vermont is a poor state in per capita income, but it does well in measures of health and education. There are few ways to get filthy rich in Vermont, but Vermonters seem to keep what they earn. Vermont institutions seem to work well. -- well enough that Vermont has an HDI of 5.31.   Louisiana has an HDI of 4.12, sixth-lowest in America. Schools and healthcare in Louisiana, to put it crudely, suck. Louisiana is fairly close to Mississippi and an HDI of 3.81. For the US as a whole, HDI is 5.06.

OK, white privilege is real. But how much is it worth? In a Pennsylvania, a state near the near the national average of HDI at 5.07 (I could have picked other states, but some of them have small numbers of minorities, like Maine or an unusual distribution of minorities, like Alaska).

White people have an average HDI of 5.31 in Pennsylvania. Hispanics are at 4.40; Asians are at 7.45 (Hey, would-be social-climbers: look for an Asian spouse if you want your life to improve, at least statistically!); blacks are at 3.58. The Asian numbers are solid through most of America. Pennsylvania doe not have enough First Peoples to offer a solid sample. For First Peoples, a possible analogue is Michigan, statistically the second-best state in which to be such (3.89) and is probably the closest analogue to Pennsylvania in institutional practice and state politics, which is still poor.

Blacks are still getting a raw deal in America (judging the results), but some things matter even more than race. White privilege is real -- but Asians do better. But HDI for whites in West Virginia is at 3.97, which is much lower than for whites in neighboring Virginia (5.96), Latinos in Virginia (5.20), or blacks in Virginia (4.07). It is safe to say that West Virginia is not the state in which you want to be 'average', even if you are white. West Virginia institutions must (pardon the indelicate word) suck. Michigan is only two state border crossings away from West Virginia, and Michigan's First Peoples do almost as well as white people in West Virginia.  

Now for a critique of the study: I began a thread on rating the states, and I disputed the idea that income was an adequate explanation of how good life is. $30K a year is very good in rural Mississippi and awful in New York City. But there are likely far fewer ways to earn $30K a year in Mississippi than there are to make $50K a year in New York City. I used the average credit score by state, as poor credit scores indicate economic distress more than that people have splurged at stores. People are more likely to end up broke because they are having trouble with taxes, utility bills, and medical costs; poorer people are more likely to have trouble meeting those costs.  
Minnesota is likely the state in which one would get stuck for high costs of clothing and heating (four distinct seasons including a brutal winter) and need housing with better insulation  -- but Minnesotans have the best average statewide credit score. They apparently get paid adequately on the job to meet those costs. Mississippi residents get stuck with low pay.

[tschandler]

It is a very complex issue.  North Alabama is a very different animal for instance that South Alabama.  North Alabama for various factors is actually doing really well right now.  A decade or so ago, it really wasn't.  The bust of the textile industry hurt North Alabama badly.   

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

- snip -

Thanks for providing your insight, as per usual. That said, I do want to comment on it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's very common to see aggregate numbers for Asian Americans and see "Wow, Asians are doing better than whites." Then the more unscrupulous among us make the conclusion "There must be some form of Asian privilege!" Saying either statement uncritically neglects a few things:
 1.  Asians are concentrated in high-COL areas like California or the Northeast, which makes certain statistics (e.g. Asians' higher than average incomes) seem more impressive than they really are. So be careful with stats like HDI* if they don't take into account COL.
 2a. Raw economic numbers don't account for any cultural disadvantages Asians have in American society, e.g. the dearth of Asians in the American music, film, and TV industries, the troubles Asians have with dating, etc.
 2b. In fact, a lot of economic difficulties are hidden by aggregate measures like HDI, e.g. the so-called "bamboo ceiling" Asians face as they try to work their way up into upper management (obstacles that stem from the cultural attitudes alluded to in 2a).
 3. Treating Asians as a monolithic bloc, even if you know that they're clearly not one, is troublesome because...well...they are clearly not one. While certain groups like Indian-Americans are doing well, others (particularly Southeast Asians) have higher than average poverty rates and worse socioeconomic indicators.

Anyways, back on the thread topic...

Since I've already mentioned Asian Americans, and other people have mentioned rural poverty faced by other races, I may as well mention a "case study" involving Asians in rural America.
NPR did an interesting article on the so-called Mississippi Delta Chinese, a community of Chinese-Americans who live in the rural Mississippi Delta, a lifestyle in contrast to the urban and suburban lifestyles of most Asian Americans these days. Now the Delta is perhaps the most deprived rural area in America, with socioeconomic indicators comparable to the developing world.** Because of this deprivation, the children of the Mississippi Delta Chinese, like children from rural areas across America, are leaving their hometowns for better pastures:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

On top of the usual deprivation found in the Delta, the community has also faced virulent racism; not terribly surprising, unfortunately, but it's interesting to see how racism from the Jim Crow era (and beyond) is experienced by people outside of the black-white dichotomy. That said, the whole article can be a read as a case study of the problems of rural America that have already been mentioned in this thread.

*The measure that you're quoting is not the HDI that people usuall talk about, which is always reported with three digits or decimal places. What you're using is the American Human Development Index, which was developed by Measure of America to be an index similar to the actual HDI.

**If anyone wants to read about extreme deprevation in America, I recommend reading $2 a Day by Kathryn Edin and H. Luke Shaefer. It talks about Americans literally living on less than two dollars a day, usually with no cash income at all, using case studies from both urban and rural America (including the Mississippi Delta, where the poverty and inequities are described quite vividly).

[Technocracy Timmy]

2a. Raw economic numbers don't account for any cultural disadvantages Asians have in American society, e.g. the dearth of Asians in the American music, film, and TV industries, the troubles Asians have with dating, etc.

This seems to be gender specific within the Asian community. Asian women have it far better than Asian men do when it comes to finding partners.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

2a. Raw economic numbers don't account for any cultural disadvantages Asians have in American society, e.g. the dearth of Asians in the American music, film, and TV industries, the troubles Asians have with dating, etc.

This seems to be gender specific within the Asian community. Asian women have it far better than Asian men do when it comes to finding partners.

Yeah I know, but I also wanted to include the fetishization of Asian females in there as well.

[Tintrlvr]

Rural america were glad that the inner city was decaying during their worst 1970-1980 period and now they want sympathy that they never gave to inner city areas.

And they will get it because it's happening to white people now.  We all know that when something happens to white people it's a tragedy and not their faults, but when it happens to minority communities, we hear that they are just lazy or disinterested in bettering themselves.   Just look at the opioid crises reactions and contrast that the war on drugs. 

Preach.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

As ever certain responses to this thread are highly troubling. I am a leftist at one level, because I believe that empathy is one of the most valuable traits a person can have. That we can look at a young man in prison for theft or a dropout pregnant teen or an immigrant being deported away from his adopted home due to petty bureaucracy and say "this person made mistakes, but part of the reason was a rotten system that would have swept me up too if I had been in their shoes".  With that in mind, I find it baffling that i should turn this trait off for people whose main sin is voting for Donald Trump.

I would also add that I think it is a useless exercise to sectarianise poverty, but I assume it'll fall on deaf ears

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

As ever certain responses to this thread are highly troubling. I am a leftist at one level, because I believe that empathy is one of the most valuable traits a person can have. That we can look at a young man in prison for theft or a dropout pregnant teen or an immigrant being deported away from his adopted home due to petty bureaucracy and say "this person made mistakes, but part of the reason was a rotten system that would have swept me up too if I had been in their shoes".  With that in mind, I find it baffling that i should turn this trait off for people whose main sin is voting for Donald Trump.

I would also add that I think it is a useless exercise to sectarianise poverty, but I assume it'll fall on deaf ears

One part of it is that Republicans have always derided the failures of hard-luck folks as personal failures, that they just need to "pull up by their bootstraps." Whether it's right or wrong, to a lot of leftists, blaming Trump supporters for their own poverty, instead of systemic forces, would just be returning the favor.

[Hydera]

As ever certain responses to this thread are highly troubling. I am a leftist at one level, because I believe that empathy is one of the most valuable traits a person can have. That we can look at a young man in prison for theft or a dropout pregnant teen or an immigrant being deported away from his adopted home due to petty bureaucracy and say "this person made mistakes, but part of the reason was a rotten system that would have swept me up too if I had been in their shoes".  With that in mind, I find it baffling that i should turn this trait off for people whose main sin is voting for Donald Trump.

I would also add that I think it is a useless exercise to sectarianise poverty, but I assume it'll fall on deaf ears

One part of it is that Republicans have always derided the failures of hard-luck folks as personal failures, that they just need to "pull up by their bootstraps." Whether it's right or wrong, to a lot of leftists, blaming Trump supporters for their own poverty, instead of systemic forces, would just be returning the favor.

So for years you try to develop policy proposals to help them. Universal healthcare, raising the minimum wage, increasing funding for education. then on election day they come back and say they pulled the GOP lever because "the immigrants, the gays, the etc etc etc"

The white working class have been voting GOP by 60%+ since 1984 with the exception of 92, 96. Because of "the immigrants, the gays, the etc etc etc". So why wouldnt we be disillusioned?