> people living in the big city and considering themselves poor are usually way richer There are always outliers, but it is unlikely that there is really anyon

> people living in the big city and considering themselves poor are usually way richer There are always outliers, but it is unlikely that there is really anyone more poor than students subsisting on student debt. Those in other financial hardship situations aren't usually granted ability to go so far into the red. Schools in rural areas aren't entirely unheard of, but rare. The vast majority of these people are going to be found in cities. And these people tend to be left-leaning. > It's largely a matter of perception. Quite true. Those students usually don't think of themselves as being poor. There is probably something to be said about city folk in general seeing themselves as being much better off than they actually are (cities are known to offer hope and optimism), and thus align with the "well off" leanings even when they aren't. Whereas the poor in rural areas know that they are poor, so they have no illusions about aligning with the leanings that caters to the poor. > in terms of yearly earnings I've studied the income data pretty closely and the median income is quite often significantly lower in cities. Granted, this may be because of the aforementioned students occupying the population with little-to-no-income, but either way that doesn't really hold in the general case. There are definitely specific rural areas that are exceptionally hard up, but not as a rule. More often, cities are places of extremes – where you find exceptionally rich people, and exceptionally poor people, while in rural areas people fall into being much more equal. Which makes sense. That's what cities are for: To be able to concentrate capital so that a few winners can take all. Something that is generally not possible in rural areas where the capital is necessarily spread out (becoming less true with the rise of information capital, but historically so at least).