Rural/urban divide?

[Traitorfish]

Reverse is probably true, too. From the most rural parts of the rural, a small town does look urban. From the most urban parts of the urban, the middle Manhattan, that same small town is country as can be.

I'd venture that the former probably have a more accurate perspective than the latter.

A rural landscape is, essentially, one directly concerned with the production of raw materials, either plant or animal. A rural settlement is one populated by people engaged in that production, or directly servicing those people. Farmers, and people who's customers are mostly farmers. When a settlement's primary economic activity is directed elsewhere, it's no longer rural. The hayseed who looks at the small town and sees it as "urban" is seeing an economy based around services and manufacturing which is not orientated towards farming, and he is correctly identifying this place as something other than rural. The city-slicker who looks at the same small town and sees it as "rural" is merely falling back onto prejudices about the height of buildings and the amount of space between them, he is not seeing anything that is really there.

 

[Lexicus]

I'd venture that the former probably have a more accurate perspective than the latter.

A rural landscape is, essentially, one directly concerned with the production of raw materials, either plant or animal. A rural settlement is one populated by people engaged in that production, or directly servicing those people. Farmers, and people who's customers are mostly farmers. When a settlement's primary economic activity is directed elsewhere, it's no longer rural. The hayseed who looks at the small town and sees it as "urban" is seeing an economy based around services and manufacturing which is not orientated towards farming, and he is correctly identifying this place as something other than rural. The city-slicker who looks at the same small town and sees it as "rural" is merely falling back onto prejudices about the height of buildings and the amount of space between them, he is not seeing anything that is really there.

I really strongly disagree with the definiton of rural you've advanced here as it excludes in fact virtually all areas of the US. Most economic activity in the rural parts of the US comes from energy in one way or another, not farming. Most of our energy infrastructure is located in rural areas and the Republican dominance of rural areas is actually connected to the fact that the Republicans are the party of these kinds of (fossil fuels, mining, also farming but there is more economic weight behind fossil fuels) interests whereas Democrats represent the financial, education, and other industries/interests that tend to be concentrated in urban areas.

As for the small and medium towns you refer to as having diversified economies based around manufacturing, they mostly no longer exist. Deindustrialization has wiped nearly all of them out. A lot of them are dying out slowly, and the ones that aren't either tend to have economies centered around, again, fossil fuels or other energy, or are becoming more "urban" in the sense that they're attracting/developing things like educational institutions, tech, finance - in short, the sorts of industries that tend to support Democrats.

That is part of the reason for the polarization. But imo the political sorting between rural and urban is really about the fact that the Republicans represent the kinds of economic interests that tend to dominate rural areas whereas Democrats represent the interests that tend to be concentrated in cities, be that smallish ones like Pittsburgh or Austin or the major metro areas.

I'd say a better definition of "rural" would be an area where the main economic activity is in the primary sector which is much broader than just plant or animal agriculture.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I really strongly disagree with the definiton of rural you've advanced here as it excludes in fact virtually all areas of the US. Most economic activity in the rural parts of the US comes from energy in one way or another, not farming. Most of our energy infrastructure is located in rural areas and the Republican dominance of rural areas is actually connected to the fact that the Republicans are the party of these kinds of (fossil fuels, mining, also farming but there is more economic weight behind fossil fuels) interests whereas Democrats represent the financial, education, and other industries/interests that tend to be concentrated in urban areas.

As for the small and medium towns you refer to as having diversified economies based around manufacturing, they mostly no longer exist. Deindustrialization has wiped nearly all of them out. A lot of them are dying out slowly, and the ones that aren't either tend to have economies centered around, again, fossil fuels or other energy, or are becoming more "urban" in the sense that they're attracting/developing things like educational institutions, tech, finance - in short, the sorts of industries that tend to support Democrats.

That is part of the reason for the polarization. But imo the political sorting between rural and urban is really about the fact that the Republicans represent the kinds of economic interests that tend to dominate rural areas whereas Democrats represent the interests that tend to be concentrated in cities, be that smallish ones like Pittsburgh or Austin or the major metro areas.

I'd say a better definition of "rural" would be an area where the main economic activity is in the primary sector which is much broader than just plant or animal agriculture.

It may be a UK look on this but mining has always been seen as an urban activity. Possibly because mining areas have always been Labour voting. Still, I think theres a better reason for seeing them as non-rural. Forestry doesn't involve recruiting a large labour force from outside the local area. Mining, oil extraction etc do. They are going to change the local area in a way the locals don't like.

 

[Traitorfish]

I really strongly disagree with the definiton of rural you've advanced here as it excludes in fact virtually all areas of the US. Most economic activity in the rural parts of the US comes from energy in one way or another, not farming. Most of our energy infrastructure is located in rural areas and the Republican dominance of rural areas is actually connected to the fact that the Republicans are the party of these kinds of (fossil fuels, mining, also farming but there is more economic weight behind fossil fuels) interests whereas Democrats represent the financial, education, and other industries/interests that tend to be concentrated in urban areas.

The United States is the most advanced industrial economy in the world; why would we expect more than a small part of its population to be involved in agriculture? Consequently, why would we expect more than a small part of it to be characterised as "rural"? Are we starting with the premise that a certain portion of the population must be identified as "rural", and defining that term however is necessary to achieve the desired percentage?

The cultural divide that's been appealed to in this thread doesn't seem to be rural vs urban, or even urban vs non-urban, but cosmopolitan vs non-cosmopolitan. Everyone's noticed that half of the population live in a few dozen major cities, and that this share of the population seems to be broadly culturally cohesive, so we have to imagine that the other half of the country has some similarly coherent character. But what if it doesn't, what if it's just a heterogenous mass of suburbs, commuter towns, small towns, and, yes, genuine rural communities, without anything in particular holding it together except, perhaps, shared resentment of those few dozen major cities?

At the very least, that heterogeneity, that lack of a shared economic or cultural character and therefore of any shared interest, would seem to help explain why that half the country seems to have thrown itself behind a party with no coherent political program beyond "win at any cost".

 

[Birdjaguar]

Urban and rural boundaries are harder to define now than in the past. There are far more complex patterns of population than before. I would just choose some scale (city/town boundaries, per sq mile, county, township, etc.) and count people per sq unit of space. Then choose the urban/rural boundary line.

 

[Lexicus]

It may be a UK look on this but mining has always been seen as an urban activity. Possibly because mining areas have always been Labour voting. Still, I think theres a better reason for seeing them as non-rural. Forestry doesn't involve recruiting a large labour force from outside the local area. Mining, oil extraction etc do. They are going to change the local area in a way the locals don't like.

In the US we do not see mining as an urban activity. I don't know what else to say. The places with intensive coal mining tend to be extremely rural - West Virginia and Wyoming both come to mind. I do not think it makes sense to define urban and rural based on what seems to be a particularity of the UK's experience. In the US the locals tend to support and like the mining and other extractive industries because that's where the jobs and economic activity come from.

The United States is the most advanced industrial economy in the world; why would we expect more than a small part of its population to be involved in agriculture? Consequently, why would we expect more than a small part of it to be characterised as "rural"? Are we starting with the premise that a certain portion of the population must be identified as "rural", and defining that term however is necessary to achieve the desired percentage?

No, I'm actually going from the official definitions of rural as found on the US census page and the Economic Research in the Department of Agriculture.

Here is the census map of rural land in the United States:

The cultural divide that's been appealed to in this thread doesn't seem to be rural vs urban, or even urban vs non-urban, but cosmopolitan vs non-cosmopolitan. Everyone's noticed that half of the population live in a few dozen major cities, and that this share of the population seems to be broadly culturally cohesive, so we have to imagine that the other half of the country has some similarly coherent character. But what if it doesn't, what if it's just a heterogenous mass of suburbs, commuter towns, small towns, and, yes, genuine rural communities, without anything in particular holding it together except, perhaps, shared resentment of those few dozen major cities?

At the very least, that heterogeneity, that lack of a shared economic or cultural character and therefore of any shared interest, would seem to help explain why that half the country seems to have thrown itself behind a party with no coherent political program beyond "win at any cost".

My point would be that it is not so much "urban vs rural" as the types of interests that run the local economy that determine whether an area tends to vote Republican or Democrat. Democrats tend to represent the interests of finance, educational institutions, and tech, while Republicans tend to represent the interests of extractive industries, agribusiness, and the energy sector (which still in the US largely means fossil fuels at least if you're talking about GDP).

The GOP also in fact does have a broadly coherent political program. It is the Democrats who represent a much more heterogeneous coalition that is more united by its hostility to the Republican vision for the country than by any positive vision of what the country should look like.

 

[AmazonQueen]

In the US we do not see mining as an urban activity. I don't know what else to say. The places with intensive coal mining tend to be extremely rural - West Virginia and Wyoming both come to mind. I do not think it makes sense to define urban and rural based on what seems to be a particularity of the UK's experience. In the US the locals tend to support and like the mining and other extractive industries because that's where the jobs and economic activity come from.

I would agree that it doesn't make sense to define rural and urban based purely on UK experience. Anymore than it would to base it purely on US experience.

 

[Traitorfish]

No, I'm actually going from the official definitions of rural as found on the US census page and the Economic Research in the Department of Agriculture.

All right, then what is that definition, and in what way do you think it contradicts what I've said?

My point would be that it is not so much "urban vs rural" as the types of interests that run the local economy that determine whether an area tends to vote Republican or Democrat. Democrats tend to represent the interests of finance, educational institutions, and tech, while Republicans tend to represent the interests of extractive industries, agribusiness, and the energy sector (which still in the US largely means fossil fuels at least if you're talking about GDP).

This is a point I made several pages ago so I think we're in broad agreement on this.

 

[Samson]

Here is the census map of rural land in the United States:

That is an interesting site, but it is a very specify description and is a small part of the US.

This is the US with metro areas purple

82% of the population live in 486 Urbanized Areas (yellow) and 3,087 Urban Clusters (brown). Of the remaining 19% of the population that live in rural areas areas, 54.4% live in metro areas (Purple).

Spoiler Images of the Bay area :

Also, what this says about the rural population: Maine and Vermont have the highest proportion of population living in rural areas (about 61 percent) At a county level,

• 704 completely rural counties accounted for 5.4 million people.
• 1,185 mostly rural counties accounted for 36.8 million people.
• 1,254 mostly urban counties accounted for 266.6 million people.

Spoiler West Virginia Coal mines and Urban areas :

 

[Rg339]

For a thought exercise, I tried to imagine what would happen if the two parties swapped stances on resource extraction/tech, but their social policies remain unchanged.

I think the current voting patterns would remain similar. Religious voters would still have different policy preferences on social policy.

WV might become more of a contest, but even there, the social preferences the Dems favor? I don’t see those going over well in WV.

 

[Farm Boy]

The United States is the most advanced industrial economy in the world; why would we expect more than a small part of its population to be involved in agriculture? Consequently, why would we expect more than a small part of it to be characterised as "rural"? Are we starting with the premise that a certain portion of the population must be identified as "rural", and defining that term however is necessary to achieve the desired percentage?

The cultural divide that's been appealed to in this thread doesn't seem to be rural vs urban, or even urban vs non-urban, but cosmopolitan vs non-cosmopolitan. Everyone's noticed that half of the population live in a few dozen major cities, and that this share of the population seems to be broadly culturally cohesive, so we have to imagine that the other half of the country has some similarly coherent character. But what if it doesn't, what if it's just a heterogenous mass of suburbs, commuter towns, small towns, and, yes, genuine rural communities, without anything in particular holding it together except, perhaps, shared resentment of those few dozen major cities?

At the very least, that heterogeneity, that lack of a shared economic or cultural character and therefore of any shared interest, would seem to help explain why that half the country seems to have thrown itself behind a party with no coherent political program beyond "win at any cost".

The definitions here will be challenged as a core identity point.

 

[Lexicus]

All right, then what is that definition, and in what way do you think it contradicts what I've said?

The census defines it in terms of population density but includes cities up to something like 50,000 people outside of major metro areas. So, it validates what you're saying to an extent. But I really do think this definition of rural makes more sense than restricting it only to areas dominated by plant or animal agriculture. In part because, in this country, agriculture is highly industrialized and concentrated.

 

[Farm Boy]

Ever driven around in flyover country? Like, is most of Illinois 'concentrated?'

I would say, yeah, it is. By bioshare, but that's more 'intensive' than 'concentrated.' In not sure how you would get to concentrated. There used to be 40%, of a smaller population granted, on farms. Now it's about a percent and a half. It's not concentrated. The ground is still the ground. I guess the service and support is more concentrated. Sensor goes out and you pay IP fees to programmers in San Fran rather than mechanics in Farmersville, I guess? But that's economics, again.

 

[Lexicus]

Ever driven around in flyover country?

Indeed, yes.

Like, is most of Illinois 'concentrated?'

I would say, yeah, it is. By bioshare, but that's more 'intensive' than 'concentrated.' In not sure how you would get to concentrated. There used to be 40%, of a smaller population granted, on farms. Now it's about a percent and a half. It's not concentrated. The ground is still the ground. I guess the service and support is more concentrated. Sensor goes out and you pay IP fees to programmers in San Fran rather than mechanics in Farmersville, I guess? But that's economics, again.

In terms of where most of the money is, it's "concentrated" because that's the first word in "Concentrated Animal Feed Operation".



My main point is just that farming in the US today meets some of the criteria that @AmazonQueen mentioned earlier when saying mining has typically been considered an "urban" activity in the UK, notably extreme damage to the local environment (that brown rectangle is a pool of animal poop, for those unfamiliar with what CAFOs are).

 

[Farm Boy]

Some of it does, depending on the state, yes. But that place is huge. It's massive. And that type of facility is not allowed in some major pork producing states. Pink pig ponds, looks like North Carolina? Just saying. But, that is only livestock, you know? Go drive around again. Unless it's a state park, developed, or just unfit, it's mostly tilled, scraped, dug up, or allowed to grow and fodder in some fashion. You can drive pretty much all the way through Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa right now and mostly only see an ocean of grain. The nation's wealth is everywhere.

 

[Lexicus]

Some of it does, depending on the state, yes. But that place is huge. It's massive. And that type of facility is not allowed in some major pork producing states. Pink pig ponds, looks like North Carolina? Just saying. But, that is only livestock, you know? Go drive around again. Unless it's a state park, developed, or just unfit, it's mostly tilled, scraped, dug up, or allowed to grow and fodder in some fashion. You can drive pretty much all the way through Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa right now and mostly only see an ocean of grain. The nation's wealth is everywhere.

It's pretty similar in rural Virginia and Pennsylvania both of which I've been to lately. Less grain around here I think, but plenty of fields everywhere.

 

[Farm Boy]

Hills. Right. You all have hills, right?

I guess this just looks like a solid section of the country that isn't even "western" yet, at least to me, and I'm not thinking "concentrated" but I am thinking "intensive."

Spoiler Pictures are fun! :

Just sort of fishing for your feel.

 

[Lexicus]

Hills. Right. You all have hills, right?

I guess this just looks like a solid section of the country that isn't even "western" yet, at least to me, and I'm not thinking "concentrated" but I am thinking "intensive."

Spoiler Pictures are fun! :

Just sort of fishing for your feel.

I would describe what you posted as much more of a rural landscape than an area with lots of CAFOs, for sure.