4 ms·

Hmm, the poverty rate in rural America is almost the same as in urban (https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/the-changing-geography-of-us-poverty/ https://www.b

by md_ 6y ago

Hmm, the poverty rate in rural America is almost the same as in urban (https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/the-changing-geography-of-us-poverty/ https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/the-changing-geography...). The broad trends in union membership, financial insecurity, and income and wealth distribution hinted at in the article are, to my knowledge, broadly true in the US, and also true when broken down by geographic distribution (rural vs urban). Anecdotally—I grew up in rural America, and people would talk about the nearby (50k person) city like "the big city." I would say there was very little awareness of urban folks how rural residents nearby lived, and similar ignorance in the reverse.

jonfw 6y ago
Does the Brookings poverty rate adjust for cost of living? I can't find a source. The core of the argument OP is making is that you can have a more comfortable lifestyle in a rural area on a lower income.
- md_ 6y ago
  I think in that link they're just using US Census data, which uses fixed thresholds. You're right that rural costs of living are lower. Unfortunately I don't see any good data adjusting for this. Nonetheless, the idea that rural America is doing just fine is sort of silly, for a few reasons: - It's a minority of the population. So from a policy perspective, it's unclear to me what the conclusion should be. That more people should move to rural areas? That the Atlantic article is missing the experience of 1/5th of the population? ;) - The same macro trends (rising GINI, declining real household wealth) exist across rural/suburban/urban divisions. (Note too that the Simpsons is probably set in a suburban, not rural, area—and suburban areas have experienced a sharp increase in poverty.) - Qualitatively, rural poverty is associated with prescription drug abuse (extremely prevalent where I grew up), limited education and labor flexibility, limited geographic flexibility, etc. So I never know what to make of these "it's going fine in Rural America" arguments.
  - Kalium 6y ago
    The US Census threshold-based poverty rate does OK at country-level aggregates, but it flatters high-cost/high-income places and exaggerates the problems of low-cost/low-income places. We might be better served by using the Census Bureau's supplemental poverty rates. It has a significant impact on rates: https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2020/demo/p60-272.html https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2020/demo/p60-27... California's, for example, goes from 12-ish percent (average) to 18-ish percent (below only DC).
    - md_ 6y ago
      Thanks!
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      "exaggerates the problems of low-cost/low income places"? You know, the federal poverty level for a single individual is under $13K per year. In which low income / low cost area do you think that's not a problem?
      - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
        When you're comparing rates it doesn't matter where the bar is set. That just changes the size of your numbers. For the sake of comparison the threshold just needs to be set somewhere that doesn't result in a huge number of states being crammed at one end of the spectrum. The problem is the flattening of urban and rural within state like others have said. A suburb of NYC may as well be a foreign country compared to a suburb of Buffalo. Of course if you're gonna doll out aid based on the absolute number you should set a sane threshold but that doesn't really matter for the purposes of this discussion.
        pmiller2 6y ago
        I must be dense. I don't understand what you're saying. Why does the distribution matter? If anything, yes, I agree the thresholds should be set much higher than they are now, and should be dependent on local CoL, but $13K/year is going to be a problem no matter where you live.
Ancapistani 6y ago
I strongly suspect that poverty where I live, in a county of 34k people and a median family income of <$30k, is qualitatively different from poverty in a large city.

by md_ 6y ago

jonfw 6y ago

Does the Brookings poverty rate adjust for cost of living? I can't find a source. The core of the argument OP is making is that you can have a more comfortable lifestyle in a rural area on a lower income.

md_ 6y ago
I think in that link they're just using US Census data, which uses fixed thresholds. You're right that rural costs of living are lower. Unfortunately I don't see any good data adjusting for this. Nonetheless, the idea that rural America is doing just fine is sort of silly, for a few reasons: - It's a minority of the population. So from a policy perspective, it's unclear to me what the conclusion should be. That more people should move to rural areas? That the Atlantic article is missing the experience of 1/5th of the population? ;) - The same macro trends (rising GINI, declining real household wealth) exist across rural/suburban/urban divisions. (Note too that the Simpsons is probably set in a suburban, not rural, area—and suburban areas have experienced a sharp increase in poverty.) - Qualitatively, rural poverty is associated with prescription drug abuse (extremely prevalent where I grew up), limited education and labor flexibility, limited geographic flexibility, etc. So I never know what to make of these "it's going fine in Rural America" arguments.
- Kalium 6y ago
  The US Census threshold-based poverty rate does OK at country-level aggregates, but it flatters high-cost/high-income places and exaggerates the problems of low-cost/low-income places. We might be better served by using the Census Bureau's supplemental poverty rates. It has a significant impact on rates: https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2020/demo/p60-272.html https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2020/demo/p60-27... California's, for example, goes from 12-ish percent (average) to 18-ish percent (below only DC).
  - md_ 6y ago
    Thanks!
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    "exaggerates the problems of low-cost/low income places"? You know, the federal poverty level for a single individual is under $13K per year. In which low income / low cost area do you think that's not a problem?
    - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
      When you're comparing rates it doesn't matter where the bar is set. That just changes the size of your numbers. For the sake of comparison the threshold just needs to be set somewhere that doesn't result in a huge number of states being crammed at one end of the spectrum. The problem is the flattening of urban and rural within state like others have said. A suburb of NYC may as well be a foreign country compared to a suburb of Buffalo. Of course if you're gonna doll out aid based on the absolute number you should set a sane threshold but that doesn't really matter for the purposes of this discussion.
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        I must be dense. I don't understand what you're saying. Why does the distribution matter? If anything, yes, I agree the thresholds should be set much higher than they are now, and should be dependent on local CoL, but $13K/year is going to be a problem no matter where you live.

Ancapistani 6y ago

I strongly suspect that poverty where I live, in a county of 34k people and a median family income of <$30k, is qualitatively different from poverty in a large city.