[wildman]

That is in a large part due to the fact that what is good for metro areas like NY and Cali. is usually not so good for rural communities.

True enough. But the urban-rural issue has been common throughout the developed West for 200 years now but only we here in the States seem to be stuck in the mid 19th century. I think what started out as real tangible geographic differences has calcified into abstract dogma on both sides. In any case I don't think we can claim anymore that the South is all that more "rural" than the North - i.e. Minnesota and Georgia for instance.

It's now become a profound split in worldviews.
We would appear to be paying for the crimes of our forefathers.

[seacapt]

I wouldn't say "usually." I think the belief there is also greater than the reality. When sectionalism began in the early 18th Century, 80-90 per cent of the country was engaged in agriculture. Now it it 2-3%. That means few in "rural" areas are engaged in occupations which are that much different from those in the cities and suburbs.

I'm a bit confused here. Are you really trying to say that only 2-3% of the land mass is used for agriculture? Are you saying that only 2-3% of the population make a living from agriculture? How about people in the cattle (beef and dairy), poultry and pork businesses? How about sustainable timber business which is a big one here in eastern NC? Are you including cotton , livestock feed , and tobaco? Rural seafood production areas (wild catch or farm raised)? Are you considering the large number of very rural areas that are not commercial agriculture centers where the population is employed by localized industry?

[seacapt]

True enough. But the urban-rural issue has been common throughout the developed West for 200 years now but only we here in the States seem to be stuck in the mid 19th century. I think what started out as real tangible geographic differences has calcified into abstract dogma on both sides. In any case I don't think we can claim anymore that the South is all that more "rural" than the North - i.e. Minnesota and Georgia for instance.

It's now become a profound split in worldviews.
We would appear to be paying for the crimes of our forefathers.

I really wasn't trying to make a Mason Dixon statement there are plenty of rural areas up north.. Having spent a few years in NY I saw a tremendous difference between the large rural area of the state and the Metro/ suburban areas. Granted this was in the late 70's and early 80's but many residents of the rural areas were very resentful of policies and taxes designed to benefit NYC at their expense.

[GeneV]

I'm a bit confused here. Are you really trying to say that only 2-3% of the land mass is used for agriculture? Are you saying that only 2-3% of the population make a living from agriculture? How about people in the cattle (beef and dairy), poultry and pork businesses? How about sustainable timber business which is a big one here in eastern NC? Are you including cotton , livestock feed , and tobaco? Rural seafood production areas (wild catch or farm raised)? Are you considering the large number of very rural areas that are not commercial agriculture centers where the population is employed by localized industry?

2-3% of the population is in agriculture. Agriculture was different from other ways of making a living. You were independent and self-reliant. Localized industry is not that different whether you call the area around it "rural" or "urban" or "suburban." How much different is timber or mining really from other jobs? Most of the jobs are in the processing of the products, i.e. manufacturing.

I grew up for a good part of my life in a rural area in Texas with the nearest town having a population of 2,700. There were a lot more differences there and in other towns like it and bigger cities back then. Now, not so much in reality.

Over the past 40 years, either these towns have been swallowed up as suburbs or they are full of shuttered businesses and decaying small farm houses. Everyone shops at the same Wal-mart, etc. There are definitely differences in services, but the economics are not that different. As another poster said, the attitudes seem to have calcified from the time when there was really a reason for a differences beyond the reality today.

[seacapt]

2-3% of the population is in agriculture. Agriculture was different from other ways of making a living. You were independent and self-reliant. Localized industry is not that different whether you call the area around it "rural" or "urban" or "suburban." How much different is timber or mining really from other jobs? Most of the jobs are in the processing of the products, i.e. manufacturing.

I grew up for a good part of my life in a rural area in Texas with the nearest town having a population of 2,700. There were a lot more differences there and in other towns like it and bigger cities back then. Now, not so much in reality.

Over the past 40 years, either these towns have been swallowed up as suburbs or they are full of shuttered businesses and decaying small farm houses. Everyone shops at the same Wal-mart, etc. There are definitely differences in services, but the economics are not that different. As another poster said, the attitudes seem to have calcified from the time when there was really a reason for a differences beyond the reality today.

I don't know about that Gene. Certainly the lifestyle is different but I think economics are different also. Imagine if you were forced by economics to still live in a rural area "full of shattered businesses" and lives.
I live in town , 3 doors down from the mayor but if I get in my truck and drive for 15 minutes:
North- cotton , soy and corn
South- beach , seasonal tourism
East-rural commercial fishing comunities
West- timberland and a few tiny towns
The largest single employer other than friggin Walmart is a millitary facillity.
2/3 of the county is very rural. I know many people who hunt and fish for subsistance not sport.
When I moved here to get away from a high crime area 15 years ago I took 25% cut in pay . Today the average labor rate for what I do here is $80 per hour vs. $120 back in Palm Beach county and $143 nationally. Many uninformed say that cost of living is less but that is simply not true at least in my case. Food , fuel and now housing are compareable here and in S.Florida. I live here because it is somewhay rural and a much more wholesome place to raise my kids.
So I think that there are vast differences between rural , suburban and metroplotian areas both culturally and economically.Having lived in "the city" , "the burbs" and "out in the sticks" I have to say that what works for Manhattan , Chicago and LA really isn't so great when applied to the massive expanse of rural USA.

[seacapt]

I forgot to add that a comunity does not have to be agrarian to be rural.