slow growth in rural USA

Poll
1 vote (33.33%)
2 votes (66.66%)
No votes (0%)
No votes (0%)
No votes (0%)
No votes (0%)

3 members have voted

April 16th, 2014 at 1:13:44 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Urban USA has grown by a factor of 2.5 since 1950 ( 249.3 million in 2010 up from 96.8 million in 1950).
Rural USA has grown by only 10% , and has been shown no statistical change in last 30 years
------(53.6 million in 1970 down from 54.5 million in 1950).
------(59.5 million in 1980 up from 53.6 million in 1970).
------(59.492 million in 2010 down from 59.495 million in 1980).

Is this the pattern for the next half century? the flood to the suburbs be replaced with a flood to rural regions?Will minority groups move to the rural regions en masse? Will satellite internet change anything?

There was a jump in the 1970s in rural population, presumably because of affordable gas, and general distaste for city life. Did Charles Bronson fuel or capitalize on a trend?

Will increasingly sophisticated shipping that brings luxury goods to the most remote areas kill some of the need to live in urban places?
April 16th, 2014 at 3:08:39 AM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18136
Rural areas are nice and low cost, but don't expect a rush back to them. There are simply not enough opportunities for gainful employment in them. The thing is that while many small towns have several urban comforts, it is not the same. There may be a nice grocer, but there is one. There may be a nice club, but there is one. There may be a neat little coffee house, but again one.

Take my profession. In smaller areas we can totally flood a courthouse and crowd out the locals. Now in any county there is enough business to keep one to a few abstractors busy. If not, the next county is close enough that the person has a "route" of sorts to the next one or two over. The abstractor has usually done business for years and if there are 2-3 they may even have an arrangement of sorts to cover each other for vacations, etc. However, the chances to break-in to the biz are nil. Just not enough work. So to make said break-in you have to either travel like I do for oil and gas or move to a big county where they have a dozen people.

Repeat this cycle for everything from auto mechanics to bartenders to even doctors. Yes, they may need a good doctor, but if one is in town they may not need another.

Oh, and while country folk are friendly they are only so on a first level. They guys playing softball on the mill team have been playing together since T-Ball and all positions are filled. Hard to make friends there beyond that first level.

For some time I was into thinking city life had a lot to offer. Now less so because I am more into having my garden and being prepped for an emergency, personal or otherwise, more than just walking to the little cafe around the corner, because the nice little cafe only exists in sitcoms.

I am liking rural more than suburban because honestly many suburban ideals are confusing me logic-wise. But I do not expect them to fill up.

Remember, rural USA filled up by artificial means 1865-1945. It may be that there is still no real reason for some of these towns to exist.
The President is a fink.
April 16th, 2014 at 3:39:31 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: AZDuffman
Remember, rural USA filled up by artificial means 1865-1945. It may be that there is still no real reason for some of these towns to exist.


Urban population took 70 years (1790-1860) to climb from from 5% to 20%.
Rural population was still 43.5% of people by 1940 (down below 20% today).

I have never heard the claim of "artificial means". I thought many people wanted rural life.
April 16th, 2014 at 3:54:00 AM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18136
Quote: Pacomartin


I have never heard the claim of "artificial means". I thought many people wanted rural life.


When the frontier was first surveyed it was estimated it would take 1,000 years to settle. It took 80 more or less.

At first it was slower. Land grants were given in the late 1700s for Revolutionary War service, or were sold to pay debt. But this was nothing. Past 1865 the Homestead Act was put in place because the Feds realized we needed to settle the area fast or else the Indians would eventually be much harder to deal with. So land was given away and settlements boomed.

Land Grant Colleges were placed in the middle of nowhere (eg: State College, PA) and cities sprang up.

In WWII when a specialized factory was needed it was easier to build in the middle of nowhere.

I've had to go to many a rural place mostly in PA/UNY for business. You cannot help but many times ask, "why on earth is there a town here?"

Many people want a rural life, but more want urban IMHO. The trend for hundreds of years has been to leave the farm. A segment will always prefer rural, the majority would rather flock like sheep to the city.
The President is a fink.
April 16th, 2014 at 5:23:47 AM permalink
Fleastiff
Member since: Oct 27, 2012
Threads: 62
Posts: 7831
Many urban squatters are joining the back to the land movement because they see it as a "return on sweat equity" available in rural areas but not available when working as a wage slave in an urban convenience store or something.

There have been several articles on immigrants going to third tier cities as part of a migration pattern.
April 16th, 2014 at 5:37:14 AM permalink
Face
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 61
Posts: 3941
Quote: Pacomartin

I have never heard the claim of "artificial means". I thought many people wanted rural life.


AZD answered before I could, but yeah. Homestead Act all but bribed people to settle the country. Different resources require people to acquire them. Cities spring up around hubs, usually waterways. Half the US population lives near the coast. But the coast has no oil (this before offshore, obviously), has no gas, doesn't have the best land for crops, doesn't have the large forests needed for construction...

Then there's military. Some things need protection other than force. What better way to protect a serious military target other than burying it deep in the heartland? And that target needs people to man it, support it, operate it...

Let the cities grow. Let the citiots fill em up. It keeps them out of my woods =p
Be bold and risk defeat, or be cautious and encourage it.
April 16th, 2014 at 6:37:42 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: AZDuffman
Land grants were given in the late 1700s for Revolutionary War service, or were sold to pay debt.


One of my mother's distant ancestors was given a land grant for Revolutionary War service. As he had to move 300 miles inland to territory , he said that he chose this option as "the fishing was better". Now I wonder what his other option was.

States with the rural population over 2 million
3,847,522 Texas
3,233,727 North Carolina
2,711,092 Pennsylvania
2,546,810 Ohio
2,513,683 Michigan
2,415,502 Georgia
2,349,997 New York
2,132,860 Tennessee

States with the highest percentage of rural population (cumulative 10.3 million rural population)
Maine
Vermont
West Virginia
Mississippi
Montana
Arkansas
South Dakota
Kentucky
Alabama
North Dakota
New Hampshire

It should be noted that the Census Bureau uses the term “urban clusters” for regions of at least 2,500 and less than 50,000 people. There are 486 urbanized areas and 3,087 urban clusters nationwide. These "urban clusters" account for 12% of the urban population. Many ordinary people would think of these clusters as "small town", and would hesitate to use the term "urban".
April 16th, 2014 at 8:57:23 AM permalink
Fleastiff
Member since: Oct 27, 2012
Threads: 62
Posts: 7831
Artificial means are again being employed, I think.

Zoning code enforcement, "free" vacant buildings or in some cases free towns. (Look at that artist colony in Arizona that started with a few seized buildings and now has high rents). Kansas is offering tax rebates to young rural settlers.

California has long had The Slabs.

The Homestead Act brought settlers but the Dust Bowl finished them off since they were on marginal land to begin with and had abused it due to governmental programs.
April 16th, 2014 at 12:17:50 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 146
Posts: 25010
Urban has convenience. Water, sewer, stores and restaurants
around the corner, anything you want a few blocks away.

Rural has septic tanks and drain fields, wells and well water,
stores that are miles away, nothing is convenient. Rural is
cheaper, and you don't have to deal with living right next
to other people.

Men love rural because it means riding lawn tractors, out
buildings where they can work on projects and store whatever
they like. Big yards and BBQ pits and maybe even a pool.
My 62 yr old bro-in-law went rural 3 years ago and last year
put in a pool.

Women love convenience. Guess which one wins most of the
time.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
April 16th, 2014 at 3:18:33 PM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18136
Quote: Pacomartin
One of my mother's distant ancestors was given a land grant for Revolutionary War service. As he had to move 300 miles inland to territory , he said that he chose this option as "the fishing was better". Now I wonder what his other option was.


Maybe I will be checking the land of his descendants?

I am now running a plot of a guy who got 200 acres about 40 miles north of Pittsburgh. Guy got hit by a musket at Valley Forge. Shattered bones and for life he had to get fragments removed from time to time. One of his sleeves was so bloody they had to cut it off, they had to cut the other off to put on the wound. He had to go sleeveless for months because they did not have a replacement uniform on hand. 200 acres about 300 miles away for that.

George Washington got 2,000 acres about 40 miles south of Pittsburgh. I doubt either ever saw the land, they sold it.
The President is a fink.