Inverted Social Norms

Back the day rural areas were viewed positively, with high morality, great character, all the virtues (at least so my mother thought). Meanwhile urban areas were viewed negatively, with dubious morality, poor character, divorce, gambling, drugs,  many dangers. By the 1970's it was clear where the balance of goodness was.

These days it seems that rural areas are the ones with problems, higher death rates, drugs, broken marriages, etc.   Meanwhile the gentrified urban areas and suburbs are seeing a new social conservatism--less sex outside of partnerships or marriage, indeed less divorce, less smoking, etc. 

The Big Sort

[Note: I drafted this several days ago but didn't publish.  Then I wrote yesterdays post. Although I never added the links, I ]

I've played with the idea that our big sort  resulted from the proliferation of housing developments after WWII. 

Today from pieces in my two newpapers I'm more persuaded by another factor:

• The Post had a graphic showing how population had shifted--people had moved from the smaller states to the bigger states, presumably the big metropolitan areas within the states (i.e., Massachusetts, New York, DC, Texas, Florida, California.
• The Times had a graphic showing the party splits in presidential elections from 1988 to 2020.  You see some states moving to the Democrats (Virginia, Colorado, New Jersey) and some states moving to the Republicans, and other states become more of what they were before (especially Dakotas)

So my new idea is the younger Democrats are moving to economic opportunity. The nation has emphasized the value of higher education since the 1940's.  The jobs for college graduates tend to be in the bigger metropolitan areas, not in the more rural ones. 

Take a look at the rankings of states by education level.  Eyeballing the HS graduation, it looks as if the non-Southern Republican stats do very well. The South and NY (40th) are low  and CA ( is at the bottom. When you change to bachelors degrees the picture changes drastically.  NY has jumped from 40th to  10th, CA  to 14th, and the top is dominated by Democratic states.  When you go to advanced degrees the spread at the top widens a lot.

Where are the divisions? 

They identify four areas of gradually deepening division: economic inequality, political partisanship, and questions of identity relating to race, as well as gender and sexuality.

From wikipedia:

 Additionally, since the 1970s, income disparities have disproportionately increased in metropolitan areas due to the concentration of high-skilled jobs in urban zones.[10][11] For example, even though New York is the state with the highest inequality levels in the country, the upstate part of the state has a much lower rate of income inequality than the downstate, as the economy of New York City (Gini index 0.5469)[12] is highly reliant on high-salary earners.[11] States with better financial development tend to be more unequal than those with worse financial opportunities, but the trends go in the opposite directions for high-income and low-income states, with the former actually seeing more equality up to a certain level of development, beyond which the inequality rises non-linearly

The Big Sort and Rural Migration

 Can't find sources for my guesses.  This is the closest, showing the ratio of women to men in rural areas went from 99.8 in 1990 to 99.0 in 2000. My guesses are:

• in the old days, women were more conservative in rural areas, men could migrate to urban areas for jobs, both manufacturing and others.
• smart rural women could find jobs as teachers.
• smart rural men went to college and ended up in jobs in urban and suburban areas.
• the sex ratio was heavier female (despite the "norwegian bachelor farmers")
• in the modern world more women go to college and end up in jobs in urban and suburban areas.
• women are now more into social issues and tending to be liberal.

The forgoing focuses on out-migration, but there's also in-migration, from suburban/rural areas to rural. I think when it happens it's generally older people, who also tend to be more conservative.

The combination of all these trends means rural areas have become less Democratic and more conservative; urban areas the opposite.

Farmers and Internet

 The post on the Rural Blog reports that 28 percent of farmers with over $500,000 gross income have poor or no internet service. More farmers had a cellphone than had a computer.

Changing Rural Population

 Interesting post on Rural Blog about the changing demographics of rural areas.  Briefly, for the first time ever total US population in all rural areas fell but the proportion of Hispanics/people of color increased from 17% to 20.8%.  The county where I grew up, Broome County, NY, saw its white population fall by 7 percent while the nonwhite/Hispanic increased by 60 percent (resulting in a 1 percent net increase).

Looking at the maps, it looks as if the Delta and the black belt saw drops in population, as did WV and KY and counties on the Great Plains. Looking at Fresno, CA, Sherman, KS, and Leflore, MS, counties I visited 30+ years ago, all saw a decrease in white population, Fresno a big increase in Hispanic, Sherman a smaller increase in Hispanic, and Leflore a small decrease.

"Gifted Students" and Rural Schools

 New York City is going to phase out its schools for gifted and talented students.  That stimulates discussion on social media, discussion which is largely among the educated classes who might lean Democratic.

It strikes me as an instance where the elite discussion unconsciously disses rural areas. In such areas the schools are smaller and the opportunity to do enhance instruction for gifted and talented students is constrained.  So to rural ears the discussion seems tone-deaf and irrelevant.

Gentrification: Disturbing a Way of Life

 Liberals seem often to express sympathy for those adversely affected by gentrification.  Over the years I've seen articles in the Post covering protests by black inner-city residents of DC over the progress of gentrification.

I've tended to have ambivalent reactions.  On the one hand, having lived in DC during some of its worst days, namely the 1970s, I want to applaud any signs of "progress", a growing population rather than shrinking, people with good incomes.  On the other hand, you can't help but sympathize with the people who've lived in an area for all their life, who are in middle age or older, and who don't have jobs and income which would give them choice and power over where they live. 

On the third hand, I remember the patterns of life in rural NY when I grew up, and I know those patterns were changing then and have changed even more in the 60 years since I left.  The fact I left aggravates my ambivalence. 

The Long Slow Progress of Direct Deposit

Been 25 years or more since FSA started pushing direct deposit (it was just starting back in the mid 90's before I retired)  According to the notice about 82 percent are now direct deposit/ Since I retired they've come up with a waiver provision, presumably for hardship, but only 5 percent of the paper check people have a current waiver on file.  

It seems that it's still the producer's option--she "invokes" the waiver for one of the three permissible reasons, there's no burden on the FSA to determine the validity. I'm curious whether compliance with the requirement is greater among the other agencies which issue payments to the public. Somehow I expect farmers to be more resistant to the change.

Might have helped to sell the idea to note that having direct deposit makes it easier and more foolproof to get benefits issued by IRS, as has happened now several times this century.

Of course the answer is for everyone to get a basic bank account with fees paid by the government, but that would be against the American individualistic ethic, so a nonstarter.

A Different Perspective--Rebanks

 James Rebanks is a skilled writer whose book I enjoyed.  He's got a new book for sale, already released in the UK and now in the US on August 3.

I haven't read the new book, but anticipate I will, likely from the library. Civil Eats has an excerpt from it, describing his visit to Wendell Berry in Kentucky and to Iowa.

While he calls Iowa farmers the "best farmers that ever lived", he doesn't like our production agriculture, mourning the transition we've made over the last 60 years or so.

I agree with him there have been big tradeoffs, but I'm not as negative as he is about current agriculture.  I don't know how well his sheep farm could support his family without, I'm guessing, significant support from his writing.  

But he's worth reading. 

Polarization--A Speculation on Rural Rootedness

Ezra Klein has a new book out on our polarized nation.  Bob Somerby sees polarization as the biggest issue we have. There's different views on causes, but it seems true that some of the polarization is rural versus urban.

I've a speculation to offer: Is it true that rural residents are less mobile than suburban and urban ones?  My mental image is of counties which were settled in the 19th century, like Perry County, IL where my great grandparents settled.  Since the initial settling, sons and daughters have moved away, leaving a relatively static population of the oldest son (who got the farm) and his wife.  His children would repeat the cycle.  All that should mean that current rural dwellers have a long family history with the area which would contrast to the mobility seen in urban and suburban areas.

I don't know whether that image is true. It might not be. 

Rural Fatties

My mother would be sad at the news that world-wide obesity is more of a problem in rural areas than urban ones.  Her basic belief was in the superior virtue of rural people and the better life in rural areas.

Why Blue America Is Blue--II

See this tweet on bankruptcies increasing from 2017 to 2018.

And see this report from Politico. 

I'd predict some "emergency" farm legislation will move before 2020.

Why Blue America Is Blue I

From the Rural Blog:

About 15 percent of Americans live in rural areas; the percentage has been declining for more than a century. The 35 percent of counties that have experienced long-term, significant population loss now have about 6.2 million residents, a third less than in 1950. Depopulation mostly started with young adults moving to cities or suburbs; the slide in population continued because fewer women of childbearing age were left in rural areas to boost the population"

That's part of the "Big Sort" which underlies our political divisions. 

Modern Loneliness--Brooks and Sasse

Arthur Brooks has an op-ed in the Times on loneliness in modern times, partially keyed off Sen. Sasse's book.  (DA paragraph:

Mr. Sasse worries even more, however, about a pervasive feeling of homelessness: Too many Americans don’t have a place they think of as home — a “thick” community in which people know and look out for one another and invest in relationships that are not transient. To adopt a phrase coined in Sports Illustrated, one might say we increasingly lack that “hometown gym on a Friday night feeling.”

This tweet by Adam Rothman includes some pushback to the position.

I agree there can be loneliness and social isolation in the city or suburb. Some of that is shaped by the social structure, some is chance, and some is personal choice.  The city has always been a place of freedom and opportunity, and it remains so.  The thick society found in rural areas and the smaller towns often has its downsides.  

There have been some reports that American mobility is down, both mobility among classes and geographic moves.  I suspect some of the people who are concerned with the lack of a "thick" community are also concerned with the lack of mobility.  IMHO the two go together in many cases.

When Are Farmers No Longer Farmers

From a Congressional Research Service report on 2018 Farm Income Outlook comes  a table which I can't incorporate.

You can access it here.  What struck me first, from the CRS report, was the rapid increase in farm household income from off farm sources, to the point that off-farm accounted for easily 3 or 4 times as much income as farm sources.

Then, as I tried to find a way to get the image into this post, and failed, I found this ERS spreadsheet.  We all remember the difference between "mean" and "median", right.  According to the table the median farmer had no income from farming in the years 2013-2018. 

That's weird, but this helps to explain it (from a Rural Development Perspectives article)

Almost 90 percent of elderly operators' average household income came from off-farm sources, with nearly half of their off-farm income coming from "other off-farm income," which includes Social Security. Another 19 percent of their off-farm income came from interest and dividends, reflecting savings and investments by these households during earlier years. Unlike elderly operators, operators under age 65 received most of their off-farm income from wages, salaries, or self-employment.

 That was my mother after my father died--for a number of years she continued the poultry operation, but SS income was really the basis of her livelihood.  But we don't think of these situations when discussing "farmers".

Promising Book on Rural Consciousness

May post more later, but just got Katherine Cramer's "The Politics of Resentment: Rural Consciousness in Wisconsin and the Rise of Scott Walker". 

Looks good--I can definitely understand her description of "rural consciousness."

(As the polling of the current election seems to show a growing rural and remote suburb versus urban and close suburb gap, this may be more relevant than ever, even though written before 2016.)

The Future Is Near: The Impact of Autonomous Trucks

This piece at evonomics.com by Andrew Yang is distressing, and convincing. Perhaps the worst part is the impact on small businesses which serve the  trucking industry: the truckstops and motels. Yang doesn't note it, but those enterprises might well be the  lifeline for "flyover America"--the wide open spaces where farming no longer employs the people it used to.

Chicken Feed (Sack) Dresses

Slate has a post on a 2009 scholarly article about the use of chicken feed sacks to make clothing back in the day, my day as it happens.  (It's even a thing on Etsy.)

I remember our getting feed in 100 pound bags.  Usually the bags were burlap and were returned back to GLF (the co-op we patronized and my dad was a board member of) for re-use.  But in my earliest memories (1945 or so) there are some cloth bags with patterns.  My sister remembered mom sewing her dresses from them.  The article says such clothes were a sign of poverty, and they certainly were to my sister.

But the times were such that people did re-use things.  I remember scavenging old nails from boards and trying to straighten them so they could be used again.  Mom had a rag bag where the unwearable old clothes went, someday to be pulled from the bag and cut into pieces, possibly for use in a rag rug, or in a quilt.  The innards of the quilt would be another example of re-use: milk strainer flannels. Much to my surprise, a similar thing is still available--description says "gauze" where my memory is of flannel squares.  When pouring a pail of milk into the milk can, you used a large metal funnel with a filter square at the bottom, the filter intended to filter out foreign materials (i.e., manure and bedding) which could have gotten into the milk pail.  (It's not only sausage-making that the layperson wants to remain ignorant of. :-)  Mom would wash the filters, which by regulation could only be used once, and use them for various purposes.  Stitched together they'd be a towel for drying dishes; stacked four or five thick, they'd become the basis for a quilt.

While I think I've adapted pretty well to changes in our culture over the last 70 years, except for pop music, the change in attitude towards material things still bothers me.  What I mean is the way people, perhaps mostly kids, will leave pieces of clothing out--presumably they've lost track of their shoe(s), or socks, or shirt and don't care to spend the time to search them out and retrieve them, and their parents are willing to buy new.  It bothers.

The Big Sort: Rural Versus Non-Rural

Here's a Wall Street Journal article on the effect of college education on rural youth (barely readable because of pay wall): how can you keep them on the farm once they've seen college life?

Newcomers in Our Midst

Read this bit in a Blog for Rural America piece on inclusion
"In some rural communities, a person who is not from the community but has been living in the community for 20 years may even be seen as an outsider..."

Rang true--remember when my sister was arranging pallbearers for my dad's funeral--she referred to one of the men as a "newcomer", by which she meant his family had only been living in the community for roughly 13 years.

Some dimensions: rural cultures can be slow to welcome newcomers.  And rural cultures can see people leave, like me.