From the WaPo's Wonkblog:
There's been a lot of chatter in recent years about the ascendance of cities: They're more fertile places for innovation and productivity, have higher-skilled and more remunerative employment bases, and they've started to network with one another and the international world to trade in goods and services.
There's been less talk, however, about the flip side of that equation: the rural areas that are being left behind.
Last week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture released its annual survey
of rural America, which puts the divergence in stark relief.
Non-metropolitan areas experienced their first recorded period of
population loss, and a decline in the labor force participation rate
pushed unemployment down slightly (though the jobless rate surpassed the
urban unemployment rate earlier this year). But even as the rest of the
country entered a tepid recovery, and some rural areas gained jobs from
the natural gas boom, net employment didn't budge rural regions:
The bifurcation adds another dimension to the widening political and social urban-rural divide....MORE
On a related note I still haven't figured out the purpose of Presidential Executive Order 13575 - Establishment of the White House Rural Council from back in June 2011:
Section 1. Policy. Sixteen percent of the American
population lives in rural counties. Strong, sustainable rural
communities are essential to winning the future and ensuring American
competitiveness in the years ahead. These communities supply our food,
fiber, and energy, safeguard our natural resources, and are essential in
the development of science and innovation. Though rural communities
face numerous challenges, they also present enormous economic potential.
The Federal Government has an important role to play in order to expand
access to the capital necessary for economic growth, promote
innovation, improve access to health care and education, and expand
outdoor recreational activities on public lands....
It doesn't seem to be working.
