The relationship between urban and rural regions is also interesting.
From 1910 to 1990, rural population grew from 50m to 61m, bobbling about a bit in the process. Call it a 124% growth.
In the same period, urban populations grew from 42m to 187m, a 445% increase.
Among other things, this means that there's been a persistent shift of political power from people to land, effectively, via the Electoral College. Given the strongly conservative tendencies of rural populations, this helps explain the voting and electoral patterns of the past several decades.
Having spent my share of time in and travelling through many of these regions, the social welfare patterns are fairly easy to understand. The region has visibly sagged over the past 30 years.
From 1910 to 1990, rural population grew from 50m to 61m, bobbling about a bit in the process. Call it a 124% growth.
In the same period, urban populations grew from 42m to 187m, a 445% increase.
Among other things, this means that there's been a persistent shift of political power from people to land, effectively, via the Electoral College. Given the strongly conservative tendencies of rural populations, this helps explain the voting and electoral patterns of the past several decades.
Having spent my share of time in and travelling through many of these regions, the social welfare patterns are fairly easy to understand. The region has visibly sagged over the past 30 years.
https://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/files/table...