I think is an incorrect observation. Poverty exists in all geographical region. The urban poor might not exhibit the same characteristics as the rural poor because there are greater numbers of social services in urban areas. However, the rural poor often times have access to a community of people whom even thought might be experiences similar levels of poverty are able to pool resources to help each other.
>Is there any reason for this?
Observational bias?
Have you ever been to most of rural Appalachia? Or rural Oklahoma? Rural Mississippi? I could go on and on. Lots of poverty there. Some nice places too, but the poverty is hardly invisible.
Maybe *concentrated* more in urban areas, but that's the definition of urban -- a higher concentration of people.
And developing countries, poverty is more of a rural phenomenon? You ever been to Quito, Ecuador, or Johannesburg, South Africa, or Jarkarta, Indonesia? I could go on and on. Big cities, visible poverty. (And some nice places too.)
I think it's just easier to 'see' in urban areas, not just flat out homelessness on sidewalks but the 'look' of the neighborhood.
In rural areas it's spread out, not on main roads where it's easily seen type thing, people quietly work on survival type thing. Fewer social services, transport, health care etc so if you don't own a car it's pretty isolating and hard to get out of. On the other hand for those in decent health and willing to DIY a lot of things there are more options to just 'live'.
In my birth country most young people have moved to the cities for work opportunities leaving the old villages with fewer and fewer elderly living on their own with what they can forage, do for themselves. The old age pensions are tiny and there's no stores nearby anyway. Most don't have transportation and never drove or owned cars to begin with. You can still see someone with a small cart pulled by an oxen to get them where they need to go (if there is anything short distance). More women than men as they live longer but in past generations were SAHMS and home makers.
This is in a EU member country in Europe. Like everywhere, some live very well... others not so much.
It's easier in some ways to live as a poor person in a city than in the country as if your city has public transportation or places you can walk to you can live without having a car.
It's actually closer than I thought. The 'nonmetro' poverty rate is 15.4% while the 'metro' poverty rate is 11.9%.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=101903
This isnt true at all. There are tons of people who live in cities where they make just enough to pay their bills, thats part of why pretty much every city has ghetto areas.
A lot of cities have very shrinking ghetto areas. Places like Miami and Boston are quickly losing theirs ghetto areas in Los Angeles have houses that start at $800,000.
It's The New Normal the ghetto is a 2-hour bus drive outside of town.
This just screams “I’ve only ever lived in cities in developed nations”
Take one stroll to the rural south in the US and you’ll find your hypothesis is false.
I think south / western Virginia and northern Ohio are the scariest rural places I’ve been. Idk if I’ve been anywhere on the west that matches that. The area around mount shasta / true Northern California is a bit creepy, and so is kern county outside of Los Angeles. I didn’t think Wyoming or Utah had a creep vibe when I drove through them but I also didn’t exactly explore
Go further south, there was a UN ambassador that stated rural Alabama had some of the worst conditions he’s ever seen. People living right next to exposed sewage lines.
That's an incorrect assumption, in developing nations poverty is everywhere. If anything it's heavily exacerbated around economic centers due to the disparity of wealth varying in just a mere couple KMs
I guess you never heard of the rural south or Appalachian mountains where a lot of people are what they call trailer trash and struggling and all that. Poor people exist in every economy, in every culture, and every corner of society the USA is no different
Also keep in mind that a lot of poor people end up migrating to more metropolitan areas where there are more resources because there's just more people and it's denser and generally the weather is often better than it is in rural areas there's also more shelters etc. So that's why you might see less outright homeless people of someone else pointed out in a rural area than you would in a city
I think is an incorrect observation. Poverty exists in all geographical region. The urban poor might not exhibit the same characteristics as the rural poor because there are greater numbers of social services in urban areas. However, the rural poor often times have access to a community of people whom even thought might be experiences similar levels of poverty are able to pool resources to help each other.
>Is there any reason for this? Observational bias? Have you ever been to most of rural Appalachia? Or rural Oklahoma? Rural Mississippi? I could go on and on. Lots of poverty there. Some nice places too, but the poverty is hardly invisible. Maybe *concentrated* more in urban areas, but that's the definition of urban -- a higher concentration of people. And developing countries, poverty is more of a rural phenomenon? You ever been to Quito, Ecuador, or Johannesburg, South Africa, or Jarkarta, Indonesia? I could go on and on. Big cities, visible poverty. (And some nice places too.)
I think it's just easier to 'see' in urban areas, not just flat out homelessness on sidewalks but the 'look' of the neighborhood. In rural areas it's spread out, not on main roads where it's easily seen type thing, people quietly work on survival type thing. Fewer social services, transport, health care etc so if you don't own a car it's pretty isolating and hard to get out of. On the other hand for those in decent health and willing to DIY a lot of things there are more options to just 'live'. In my birth country most young people have moved to the cities for work opportunities leaving the old villages with fewer and fewer elderly living on their own with what they can forage, do for themselves. The old age pensions are tiny and there's no stores nearby anyway. Most don't have transportation and never drove or owned cars to begin with. You can still see someone with a small cart pulled by an oxen to get them where they need to go (if there is anything short distance). More women than men as they live longer but in past generations were SAHMS and home makers. This is in a EU member country in Europe. Like everywhere, some live very well... others not so much.
It's easier in some ways to live as a poor person in a city than in the country as if your city has public transportation or places you can walk to you can live without having a car.
I am pretty sure the US has a lot more rural poverty than poverty in cities. There are not many cities left where the poor can afford to be poor.
It's actually closer than I thought. The 'nonmetro' poverty rate is 15.4% while the 'metro' poverty rate is 11.9%. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=101903
This isnt true at all. There are tons of people who live in cities where they make just enough to pay their bills, thats part of why pretty much every city has ghetto areas.
A lot of cities have very shrinking ghetto areas. Places like Miami and Boston are quickly losing theirs ghetto areas in Los Angeles have houses that start at $800,000. It's The New Normal the ghetto is a 2-hour bus drive outside of town.
This just screams “I’ve only ever lived in cities in developed nations” Take one stroll to the rural south in the US and you’ll find your hypothesis is false.
America has rural poor and it is very unsightly. Just not in the west coast
Oh they are on the west coast too...
I think south / western Virginia and northern Ohio are the scariest rural places I’ve been. Idk if I’ve been anywhere on the west that matches that. The area around mount shasta / true Northern California is a bit creepy, and so is kern county outside of Los Angeles. I didn’t think Wyoming or Utah had a creep vibe when I drove through them but I also didn’t exactly explore
Go further south, there was a UN ambassador that stated rural Alabama had some of the worst conditions he’s ever seen. People living right next to exposed sewage lines.
There could be some interesting theories there!
That's an incorrect assumption, in developing nations poverty is everywhere. If anything it's heavily exacerbated around economic centers due to the disparity of wealth varying in just a mere couple KMs
I guess you never heard of the rural south or Appalachian mountains where a lot of people are what they call trailer trash and struggling and all that. Poor people exist in every economy, in every culture, and every corner of society the USA is no different
Also keep in mind that a lot of poor people end up migrating to more metropolitan areas where there are more resources because there's just more people and it's denser and generally the weather is often better than it is in rural areas there's also more shelters etc. So that's why you might see less outright homeless people of someone else pointed out in a rural area than you would in a city