Why is the urban-rural "gap" in shared cultural understanding so much bigger in the US?

[SevenEleven]

My theory?

The USA has always been a mobile nation, socioeconomically and geographically. Most of us can point to near relatives (grandparents, parents) from different states or even countries. A gifted child in West Virginia who has the ability to become a good doctor, can pursue that path. It's not expected for him to back to West Virginia. In fact, it's unlikely, as doctors benefit from areas with many patients and the money to spend, i.e. not West Virginia. The free-flowing nature of US population movement, the inherent brain drain from any area that demonstrates low opportunity, and the self-selection bias caused by those who actively choose to live as far away from "others" as possible converge to amplify these effects to the extreme.

People in urban areas who want more seek to "do better". People in rural areas who want more seek to "get out". Our culture and tradition encourage upward mobility. Likewise, you don't see many immigrants from the DF. Most Mexican immigrants come from the rural north areas or the deeper southern parts of Mexico.

The modern urban lifestyle lends more convenience, opportunity, and amenities. The only benefit to living in a rural environment is avoiding other people. There's a reason why it costs more to live in an urban area.

[SevenEleven]

The modern urban lifestyle lends more convenience, opportunity, and amenities. The only benefit to living in a rural environment is avoiding other people. There's a reason why it costs more to live in an urban area.

The rest of the post is... uh... not very generous, but this part in particular is baffling to me. This reads to me like something that an upper middle class city-dweller whose only experiences outside of a city are vacationing would say. Can you really not think of a single other reason why people would choose or at least want to live in a rural area? Do you really think so little of these areas?

I wouldn't say that I "think little" of these areas. There's a lot of beauty out there, for sure. But we recently had a similar discussion on discord, and the conclusion was that you work harder and see less income in a rural area. There's some decent rural areas in the mountain west, but most of the west is highly urbanized. Given the geographic center of population, most occupied rural areas are in the east, rust belt types or underprivileged deep South types. The Rust Belt name says enough. It's not the steel or iron belt. The overwhelming majority of Americans do not want to live in areas like that and for good reason.

You're correct in suggesting that I have never lived in a rural area. My appreciation for America lies in her diversity. I don't want to live somewhere where I can't visit a taco truck, or go to an Indian market, or eat some amazing hand-pulled noodles. You can call that a bias, I guess, but I think the numbers speak for themselves. Talent flows out of less populated areas into populated areas. Populated areas are more desirable and thus cost more.

My post has less to do with my feelings on rural areas, rather, I seek to explain the dichotomy presented in OP and why it is so stark compared to elsewhere. I can do without the pearl-clutching, thank you very much.

[SevenEleven]

And then yes the brain drain. Maybe the new post virus age of working remotely and using Zoom will change that some, but not nearly as much as advertised.

It's not going to change it at all. In lieu of going to the office, people working remotely are going to need to get their social interaction elsewhere and rural areas do not adequately provide that. Office types will still need their fancy Equinox gyms and health clubs and they will need nice bike paths to ride their nice bicycles on. The only people who might be likely to move to a rural area are large families (four or more children).

[SevenEleven]

I normally like SevenEleven's contributions to the Talk Elections blog a lot but his posts in this thread evidence a pretty stark empathy gap. I can only speak for myself, but I hate living in communities with more than ~30,000 people and it has nothing to do with wanting to avoid people or not caring about having things to do. Living in the Boston area actually exacerbated my sense of loneliness and alienation, for all sorts of reasons.

I would like to hear more about this. So far ive heard a lot of "you're wrong" with no one offering any other viewpoints. My post was primarily looking at the numbers and migration patterns, but assuming you are referring to my "list" of reasons to prefer rural to urban. Why is less than 30k better? I'm genuinely interested in learning.

[SevenEleven]

Anecdotally, I have noticed since moving to a more urban area that people are actually less trusting and keep more to themselves than people in smaller communities, where people are more likely to actually know their neighbors and, perhaps because of the fewer conveniences, be more willing to help and depend on each other. Preferring rural over urban has nothing to do with avoiding people. Individualism is fairly prevalent in American society as a whole, and that's no less true in large cities where convenience and accessibility are took as givens.

I'm not sure I would use your area of Virginia to judge anything.

I suppose if you're getting more to the point that with an abundance of people they become sort of a commodity, I could buy into that. It's harder for people to care about certain things if the easier path is to move on and replace. That's something I would say has both upside and some negatives. A more close-knit community might be a valid reason for preferring a rural are, I suppose.

Still, I would try out NoVA if I were you. The vibe is totally different.

[SevenEleven]

I normally like SevenEleven's contributions to the Talk Elections blog a lot but his posts in this thread evidence a pretty stark empathy gap. I can only speak for myself, but I hate living in communities with more than ~30,000 people and it has nothing to do with wanting to avoid people or not caring about having things to do. Living in the Boston area actually exacerbated my sense of loneliness and alienation, for all sorts of reasons.

I would like to hear more about this. So far ive heard a lot of "you're wrong" with no one offering any other viewpoints. My post was primarily looking at the numbers and migration patterns, but assuming you are referring to my "list" of reasons to prefer rural to urban. Why is less than 30k better? I'm genuinely interested in learning.

For one thing, I'm somebody who responds very strongly in deeply emotional ways to my physical environment, meaning that the greater natural beauty of the countryside is a genuine saving grace for me rather than just a case of polishing the turd. Trees are important to me; being able to see the stars at night is important to me. I also find navigating public transit hectic and unsettling in a way that interacts very poorly with my autism (ideologically I obviously support a massive expansion of public transit (leftist, normal), but that's not the same thing as enjoying using it myself). And I'm lucky enough to live in Western Massachusetts where even the small towns still have fairly eclectic local food options and progressive or at least moderate politics, so my experience of rural life isn't going to be nearly as alarming as that of someone from the very beating heart of MAGA Country.

So if I'm given a choice between living in Boston where all the creature comforts I could want are at my fingertips but I'm constantly stressed out from the Green Line or depressed because the night sky is greyish-orange, or living in Franklin County where I might have pretty crummy local Chinese food options but have a view of five or six different hardwood species from my home office window and can still find cool restaurants to go to if I look for them, I'm going to choose small-town life each time.

I guess I was wondering what made you suggest a lack of empathy on my part. To be fair, what you are describing seems to fit the mold of "avoiding people" that I mentioned, which is fine if that's what makes you comfortable. I myself am a huge fan of natural beauty, but for example Los Angeles has Griffith Park, Topanga Park, and some fairly remote beaches out near Malibu. DC has Rock Creek Park, which pairs well with it's lower skyline. So you can enjoy the natural beauty in an urban setting but what you don't get is the solace of vast emptiness. You'll probably see other hikers further out on the trail, or you can look out upon Downtown LA. Am I correct in my understanding that you value the "emptiness"?

[SevenEleven]

You're correct in suggesting that I have never lived in a rural area. My appreciation for America lies in her diversity. I don't want to live somewhere where I can't visit a taco truck, or go to an Indian market, or eat some amazing hand-pulled noodles. You can call that a bias, I guess, but I think the numbers speak for themselves. Talent flows out of less populated areas into populated areas. Populated areas are more desirable and thus cost more.

My post has less to do with my feelings on rural areas, rather, I seek to explain the dichotomy presented in OP and why it is so stark compared to elsewhere. I can do without the pearl-clutching, thank you very much.

This line of thought takes such an incredibly narrow (not to mention heavily commoditized) view of diversity. Rural areas have diversity of attitudes/cultures/temperaments (contrast: isolated Mormon communities versus rural Minnesota versus people on the Ozark plateau), diversity of landscapes (needs no examples), diversity of industry (ranching, forestry, and agricultural can all be found in Southern Idaho alone), diverse histories (e.g., even the two Carolinas have two pretty different colonial patterns of settlement and institution-building), diversity of cuisines (hot dish versus soul food), and even an obvious racial and ethnic diversity that your monetized examples try to illustrate.

Uh, alrighty. You realize that diversity among rural areas does not demonstrate diversity within rural areas, right? There's more varied food options within two blocks of my house than you'll find within fifty miles of most of the areas you mention. Not to mention people from literally all over the world bringing unique cultural perspectives.

I highlighted your post because it traced out the exact type of condescension of supposedly open-minded urbanites that I described as promoting antagonism in my post right above yours. Your post reads like a sneering Hillbilly Elegy-style pathology of rural people as poor, unambitious, and self-loathing rubes with absolutely no larger perspective on why such places may be "low opportunity" or why "talent flows out of less populated areas". Sorry if pointing out that your attitude provides the (stereotypical) fuel for Trumpist grievances is "pearl clutching".

I sense a lot more condescension in this response to my post than I see in my post. OP asked a question about why the culltural gap in the US is so much wider than what is seen in other developed nations. Noting the history of American geographic and social mobility and easily observable population trends within our borders, I made an argument centered on self-selection. Strange to me that no one actually wants to engage with the OT and instead talk about how I'm "sneering". I don't think it's wrong to be able to admit that America's rural areas are typically not bastions of opportunity.

For all of this talk of the advantage of rural areas being places to avoid other people, the brief time I've spent living and working in rural areas had much more resembling community than the majority of urban places I have lived. People are friendlier to strangers, neighbors know and frequently check in on each other, people leave their doors unlocked, more (although still shockingly few) public institutions and meeting spaces are still active. There is far less entitlement. People have a sense of place and belonging that is often rooted in tradition. The pace of life is slower and more comfortable. Families are stronger and there is much less emphasis on individual "fulfillment". I'll put it like this: for a place that by your telling is probably very rich in social fabric, if you stepped onto a train at the DC Metro station I grew up near, every single passenger would avoid eye contact with you as you looked desperately for the most isolated seat to stare at your phone on.

I have never lived in a rural area so I can't really speak on how friendly the people there are. The urban areas I've lived in have all been great experiences. I've never had any struggles meeting new acquaintances while out and about. In fact, even in DC I met plenty of awesome people on the Metro trains. I'm sorry that you didn't get to enjoy that. In LA, I'm constantly fascinated meeting people that are very interesting. You might learn about Armenian Christmas celebrations, or a specific style of tamal from a region in Mexico that you never knew about! I love being able to do that.

Obviously they're not areas without problems - rampant poverty, drug addiction, depopulation, less economic and intellectual dynamism, increasing political polarization and crumbling civic institutions like the rest of the country. These are not places I want to live in right now, although I have several rural transplant friends who itch to leave Denver constantly. Some but not all of these things are due to forces that are not only beyond these people's control but at times due to decisions made by people in DC, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, or London. People should give these people credit and treat them with dignity, or at the very least not be surprised when this level of rank condescension is not received well.

It sounds like you are engaging in more condescending stereotypes than I ever did in my post. Not all rural areas are drug-infested dumps. That still doesn't make them ideal places to live for most people.

I appreciate Nathan's post because he actually highlighted some of the cool diversity in his area. Being able to see a large variety of trees and different shining stars every evening is pretty cool, imo.

Notice that no one engaged my point about most Mexican immigrants coming more rural areas.  You can dogpile urban liberals all you want but the purpose of my post was to explain the gap noted by OP, not denigrate rural areas or rural people.

[SevenEleven]

I normally like SevenEleven's contributions to the Talk Elections blog a lot but his posts in this thread evidence a pretty stark empathy gap. I can only speak for myself, but I hate living in communities with more than ~30,000 people and it has nothing to do with wanting to avoid people or not caring about having things to do. Living in the Boston area actually exacerbated my sense of loneliness and alienation, for all sorts of reasons.

I would like to hear more about this. So far ive heard a lot of "you're wrong" with no one offering any other viewpoints. My post was primarily looking at the numbers and migration patterns, but assuming you are referring to my "list" of reasons to prefer rural to urban. Why is less than 30k better? I'm genuinely interested in learning.

For one thing, I'm somebody who responds very strongly in deeply emotional ways to my physical environment, meaning that the greater natural beauty of the countryside is a genuine saving grace for me rather than just a case of polishing the turd. Trees are important to me; being able to see the stars at night is important to me. I also find navigating public transit hectic and unsettling in a way that interacts very poorly with my autism (ideologically I obviously support a massive expansion of public transit (leftist, normal), but that's not the same thing as enjoying using it myself). And I'm lucky enough to live in Western Massachusetts where even the small towns still have fairly eclectic local food options and progressive or at least moderate politics, so my experience of rural life isn't going to be nearly as alarming as that of someone from the very beating heart of MAGA Country.

So if I'm given a choice between living in Boston where all the creature comforts I could want are at my fingertips but I'm constantly stressed out from the Green Line or depressed because the night sky is greyish-orange, or living in Franklin County where I might have pretty crummy local Chinese food options but have a view of five or six different hardwood species from my home office window and can still find cool restaurants to go to if I look for them, I'm going to choose small-town life each time.

I guess I was wondering what made you suggest a lack of empathy on my part. To be fair, what you are describing seems to fit the mold of "avoiding people" that I mentioned, which is fine if that's what makes you comfortable. I myself am a huge fan of natural beauty, but for example Los Angeles has Griffith Park, Topanga Park, and some fairly remote beaches out near Malibu. DC has Rock Creek Park, which pairs well with it's lower skyline. So you can enjoy the natural beauty in an urban setting but what you don't get is the solace of vast emptiness. You'll probably see other hikers further out on the trail, or you can look out upon Downtown LA. Am I correct in my understanding that you value the "emptiness"?

An empathy gap isn't a lack of empathy in the sense in which it's become fashionable to accuse people with politics you don't like of having a lack of empathy. It just means a gap in an otherwise understanding person's ability to empathize with a particular situation or attitude. Sorry for the confusion; I didn't mean it to sound as insulting as it probably came across.

"Vast emptiness" is a weird way to describe the countryside I'm familiar with. Here's the current view from the home office window I mentioned:

(The grass isn't usually that yellowish; we've had an extremely dry summer.)

This might be an east/west distinction; even rural parts of Northeastern states are more densely populated than most Western (and some Southern) states. In terms of population density alone (as opposed to land use and culture), when I describe a preference for rural life, it's basically a preference for what would be considered outer-suburban life out west. It's definitely easier to avoid people if I want to than it is in Boston or LA, but it's not really the solace of wild places I'm looking for either.

Fair enough. It seems what one may consider "rural" is about as varied as the use of the term "working class" around here. What I meant by vast emptiness, which was probably poor word choice on my part, was the fact that you could probably walk an hour in the woods and not run into any of other people. Of course, that's just an assumption. I frequently go hiking in the mountains and canyons around LA and there's a lot of natural beauty there, but at the same time, you're going to see or even run into multiple groups of people. I've actually met some awesome people this way, but again, it's probably not in the realm of what you're looking for.

Another aspect of my bias can be acknowledged by considering the type of rural person you might meet who moved to a large city. LA, in particular, attracts a certain "crowd". Nonetheless, I do think that to a certain extent such acknowledgement reinforces the self-selection argument I was trying to make.

[SevenEleven]

Fair enough. It seems what one may consider "rural" is about as varied as the use of the term "working class" around here. What I meant by vast emptiness, which was probably poor word choice on my part, was the fact that you could probably walk an hour in the woods and not run into any of other people. Of course, that's just an assumption. I frequently go hiking in the mountains and canyons around LA and there's a lot of natural beauty there, but at the same time, you're going to see or even run into multiple groups of people. I've actually met some awesome people this way, but again, it's probably not in the realm of what you're looking for.

Another aspect of my bias can be acknowledged by considering the type of rural person you might meet who moved to a large city. LA, in particular, attracts a certain "crowd". Nonetheless, I do think that to a certain extent such acknowledgement reinforces the self-selection argument I was trying to make.

Given that you live in what from my perspective is a gigantic city, I wonder if you would call "rural" a city of around 95,000 people which includes many sparsely populated hills and beyond which most is "empty" countryside, especially to the north. This describes where I live.
See also the photograph in my signature.

It depends, I suppose. 95k is quite a chunk of people and to be within 30-60 minutes from a similar size city I'm not sure that's really "rural". To me, rural is middle of nowhere, far from any kind of urban setting. Otherwise it's more suburban or exurban.