Rural/urban divide?

[El_Machinae]

I can do simple arithmetic, and when my take home pay went up it was because of GOP tax cuts. Not enough to buy my loyalty, but the Democrats offer even less. As mentioned earlier, I got screwed on my insurance because of the HHS mandate.

The neat thing about this is (I think) how hard it is to judge the various numbers. A tax cut is visible, being forced to pay more for something is visible. But (as we know), it's all the invisible policies that actually determine income and quality of life. I'm not saying your calculation is wrong, not at all. But, the counter-factual on the more meaningful policies is harder to measure. As a Canadian, I know I get "a good deal" when it comes to the taxes that I pay for healthcare, but the actual cost is basically invisible to me. Whereas, say, the Canada Pension Plan is easy to track with regards to the return I'm getting, but I don't know the counterfactual of how the economy would be doing if we had not had it.

 

[Hygro]

Soil and water for 40 years. I don't have enough years left for them to dig out.

The alternative being to not try ... ?

 

[Farm Boy]

They seem to think so? But we'll see!

 

[Hygro]

Yeah well "they" depend on Republican victory, too, so it's the same point.

 

[Farm Boy]

Sometimes!

 

[Lexicus]

Where did the Republicans raise my taxes

The Republican "tax cut" increased my taxes by nearly $2000 because I could no longer deduct the local (DC) income tax.

 

[River_Ghost]

Does a cultural divide exist between urban and rural areas? What causes it? Is it continuing to widen? Are the differences(if any) significant enough to have practical effects(positive or negative)?

Yes. Racial mistrust, cultural differences, tribalism, religion, preferred standards of living, and crime. It depends where you live rather it is widening. Our perspectives on reality, in todays world, really are limited to our localized communities. It's different across states and even counties. Where I live, the ethnic demographic in the rural areas/farm land are 99.8% white, out of population of 55,000. They have elements of the Klan that keep out other racial demographics. They collectively do not want urbanism, trends, outsiders, a change in their culture, way of life, economy, traditions, or newest hash tag, and actively resist the encroachment of, so called, Woke culture. They don't want transvestites in their schools seducing their children, they don't want gangs, drugs, trash, graffiti, arson, riots, rape, murder, and all the rest of the glorious splendors modern urbanism brings. They couldn't care less about twitter, facebook, or racial narratives being crammed down their throats every day. They want to keep to their own people and live centralized, rural, simple lives, with people that share their perspectives, look like them, feel like them, and behave like them. They see everything else offered, that's foreign, as poisonous, rather or not it is lethal, or a slow drip. They resist change, cling to their guns, and want nothing to do with what other people and cultures have to offer them. It's white flight, to the point it is impossible to purchase land in the area that isn't in the middle of a swamp. They refuse to sell and they pass the land onto their kin. These communities exist, they will always exist, and as the rest of the U.S. becomes more and more atomized, they will become more solidified and hardened against change. Tribalism is making a come back. It will ultimately be minority groups in the cities and, any whites who won't conform, in the rural areas.

Moderator Action: "They" can post their views here if they want. We are interested in your views and in you observing the board rules. ~ Arakhor

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

Our perspectives on reality, in todays world, really are limited to our localized communities

Only if that's how you wish to live your life, and actively shun/reject any other realities.

 

[River_Ghost]

Only if that's how you wish to live your life, and actively shun/reject any other realities.

How I meant was that which we see with our own eyes. Not on T.V., Social media, 'news', statistics, or narratives fed to us by talking heads. What you see with your own eyes and experience in your day to day life. There are many narratives that people push in media, on the radio, T.V., and the internet. I trust my own experience rather then what i'm told by people I don't know and have never met. I've travelled extensively, both abroad in Europe and in America. That is what I base my opinion on. From all I have seen, the delusional narrative that is spoon fed to people by a select group of bad actors flies in the face of my life experience. I trust my own "lying eyes" and "foolish ears" more then I trust anything "They" have to say about the opinion I choose to form for myself.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

The Republican "tax cut" increased my taxes by nearly $2000 because I could no longer deduct the local (DC) income tax.

If you lost out on that much money because the SALT tax deduction is capped at $10k, you're not working class. A vote for the Democrats is in your best interest, but what's best for you isn't necessarily best for a baw in flyover country.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

The neat thing about this is (I think) how hard it is to judge the various numbers. A tax cut is visible, being forced to pay more for something is visible. But (as we know), it's all the invisible policies that actually determine income and quality of life. I'm not saying your calculation is wrong, not at all. But, the counter-factual on the more meaningful policies is harder to measure. As a Canadian, I know I get "a good deal" when it comes to the taxes that I pay for healthcare, but the actual cost is basically invisible to me. Whereas, say, the Canada Pension Plan is easy to track with regards to the return I'm getting, but I don't know the counterfactual of how the economy would be doing if we had not had it.

That's very true.

When DJT signs a tax cut and your paycheck jumps, you can draw a straight line from the tax cut to the result.

When Chimpy signs a tax cut and your paycheck goes up by pocket change, you can say "Gee, thanks! Wherever will I spend all this money?"

When your local factory closes and sends all the jobs to China, you can blame bad trade deals - after all, the company doesn't do that unless it's cheaper even after shipping.

When you change jobs, you have no way of knowing whether a different regulation would have created a domino effect that kept a stronger resume out of the applicant pool. It becomes a T Rowe Price commercial where rubber production in one country affects cattle prices halfway around the world.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm not familiar with the underlying math, but isn't allowing local taxes to be deducted essentially a federal subsidy from low-tax states to high-tax states? Did something sketchy happen when they removed the SALT deduction? I guess if you're left-leaning, you see the SALT deduction is 'incentivising' states to raise their taxes, but if the states raising taxes is 'good' for the state, then the higher benefit from that spending would mean that a federal subsidy is less needed, not more needed.

 

[Lexicus]

If you lost out on that much money because the SALT tax deduction is capped at $10k, you're not working class. A vote for the Democrats is in your best interest, but what's best for you isn't necessarily best for a baw in flyover country.

I made less than $50,000 that year

 

[Samson]

When your local factory closes and sends all the jobs to China, you can blame bad trade deals - after all, the company doesn't do that unless it's cheaper even after shipping.

If you did so, you would probably be wrong. It probably was exporting some before, because that was cheaper than even after shipping. The issue is with the international capitalist system, not the individual trade deals. You could go full on merchantist, but history indicates that is likely to involve a lot more closed factories.

 

[Quintillus]

There somewhat is such a cultural divide (in the U.S. at least), but to some degree I think it's overstated, especially by people who stick to their existing urban or rural environment.

There are activities and hobbies that are more popular in urban or rural areas, simply due to the availability or lack of things such as population density or land, which contributes to a different culture.

Lately, we've seen the political party divide more closely fall along urban/rural lines than in the past. I think this has caused people to perceive the cultural differences as being stronger, especially if they stick to their bubble. And I've heard people express preferences for staying in their bubble, both offline and online.

But having spent a fair amount of time in both urban and rural settings in the past year, fundamentally the people are fairly similar. Hobbies can differ. You do come across people who match the stereotypes of the areas they live in from time to time. But most people aren't radically different.

In other words, I think a tribalist aspect has emerged, that isn't very grounded in the reality, which is that hobbies may differ but what the people want in life is fairly similar, and that rural and urban areas are interdependent on each other. Spending more time outside of our bubble, whichever one that is, would likely soften feelings towards each other. And the pandemic probably hurt that as people often couldn't travel outside their bubble easily or safely.

I'm not familiar with the underlying math, but isn't allowing local taxes to be deducted essentially a federal subsidy from low-tax states to high-tax states? Did something sketchy happen when they removed the SALT deduction? I guess if you're left-leaning, you see the SALT deduction is 'incentivising' states to raise their taxes, but if the states raising taxes is 'good' for the state, then the higher benefit from that spending would mean that a federal subsidy is less needed, not more needed.

That was my conclusion as well, also not having a degree in it. There's nothing wrong with wanting to pay more in taxes to receive a higher degree of services, but why should the federal government subsidize that decision by letting you pay less in federal taxes?

 

[Traitorfish]

Lately, we've seen the political party divide more closely fall along urban/rural lines than in the past.

I'm sceptical of this. The rural population of the US is no more than 20%; it doesn't seem credible that they constitute a majority of Republican voters, let alone the overwhelming majority we would need to argue that partisan divides fall along urban vs rural lines.

If, in federal elections, the US sees turnouts of roughly 60-70%, and roughly half of those votes are cast for the Republicans, for rural voters to constitute even a majority of Republican voters, it would require at least 80% of rural residents to vote Republican, which if we allow that rural areas must contain at least some Democratic voters, would realistically require turnouts of 90% or more, far above the national average- when in fact, the opposite appears to be true, that rural residents in much of the US are markedly less likely to vote than urban residents, so it seems very probable that the great majority of Republican voters reside in urban and suburban areas.

If there is a rural/urban divide in US politics, it seems rather than the specific set of entrenched interests that the Republican Party represents, like resource-extraction, arms manufacturing and agriculture, are not as economically reliant on urban populations as those which the Democratic Party represents, and so are more likely to see cities as big, messy, expensive things that they would rather not subsidise. This leads the Republican Party to adopt anti-urban policies without it following that they should adopt pro-rural policies.

 

[Farm Boy]

Lower incomes, deeper poverty, less services, and always, always, the call for more taxes.

 

[Rg339]

The rural population of the US is no more than 20%

I find this thought-provoking. Statistically, I trust your number is accurate; I’ve heard 30% in the past, but long enough ago that I find it plausible it’s shrunk to 20% given long-existing demographic trends.

That 20% number just doesn’t “feel” correct to me. I’ve looked it up, and the US census treats any town above 2500 as urban. That’s broadly encompassing, and doesn’t capture the difference between a small town of 3000 and a major city of 3 million.

If an American from Seattle introduces himself to an American from small-town Indiana, the one from Seattle is very likely going to have never heard of X town in Indiana. Culturally, I feel like this is sorta how Americans define “urban” vs “rural”: if you can introduce yourself to another American from halfway cross country, and he’s heard of your hometown, it’s decidedly urban. If there’s he’s never heard of it, the perception is it’s the country, it’s rural.

edit: I would suppose my point, in brief, is that the census data referenced can be examined using the same tiers of degree you wrote of earlier: that a small village in a county defined as urban by the census is not exactly as urban as the middle of NYC. The census, seems to me, is largely ham-fisting people into two rigid categories when the reality is more complex.

edit 2: corrected misinterpretation of definition in light of helpful Birdjaguar post.

 

[Birdjaguar]

US Rural population:
Rural population refers to people living in rural areas as defined by national statistical offices.

2020
57 million; 17.3%

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/rural-population

What is rural

 

[Rg339]

I was surprised to learn that the Census definition of urban is considerably more generous than I feel pop culture is. I live in a town of approx 30k, and often receive the reaction I’m from absolutely nowhere when speaking to people from what’s commonly understood to be a big city. Yet, the average small town here is over 2500(but not much), so it qualifies for micropolitan, and urban.

The county I live in is considered mostly urban, according to the OMB. I expect we must be an edge case, and that they include population outside of the 30k town into the estimate, or maybe consider my town part of a larger metropolitan area. Seems a stretch to me personally.

I don’t feel like I could claim my hometown is an urban area to someone from a major market, present the Census data, and have them recognize the claim.