In the last post, I outlined some of the major causes for rural America’s decline during the last 200+ years. America’s rural population actually grew steadily until the turn of the 20th century, though at nowhere near the pace of cities. By the 1920s, however, a number of political, social, and economic factors combined to begin draining the countryside of its population. Today, rural Americans comprise a mere fraction of the total population, and the region as a whole is in crisis.
An interesting analysis of rural America’s decline can be found in the work of two sociologists who happen to be based in the urban East: Patrick Carr (Rutgers) and Maria Kefalas (St. Josephs). Among other things, they have noted certain similarities between rural decay and the much more studied and talked about urban decay of the post-WWII era. Both areas are plagued by high rates of unemployment, poverty, crime, drug use and sales, high school drop outs, and teenage pregnancy. General causes for these and other problems are also eerily similar, including the loss of industrial jobs, middle-class flight, and global market shifts.
In their book Hollowing Out the Middle, Carr and Kefalas point out several causes that are specific to rural America’s economic collapse: the rise of agribusiness and big box retail, the decline of unions and blue collar wages, a growing reliance on undocumented workers, and an under-investment in younger workers who enter the workforce without college degrees.
The result has been a sharp drop in small business ownership (both farmers and retailers), quality wage jobs, and income. Economic decline has been followed by population loss and social decay, much as it has with many cities. For example, for the first time in history, rural Americans are now just as likely as 
their urban and suburban counterparts to be divorced.
Carr and Kefalas spent a year living in Ellis, Iowa and conducted an extensive study of that small town. They concluded that Ellis is in many ways emblematic of the problems afflicting rural America at large. In particular, the town suffers from an ongoing exodus of its most promising young people. As one high school guidance counselor put it: “The best kids go while the ones with the biggest problems stay, and then we have to deal with their kids in the schools in the next generation.”
Instead of being encouraged to stay and build up the community, many of the most promising kids are actually encouraged by their families, teachers, and others adults to leave. Why? Because the town’s economy is in decline and job opportunities simply aren’t there. Meanwhile, kids who feel alienated and/or do not develop marketable job skills are often trapped by their limited options and remain behind.
One of the fundamental results of all this has been a substantial brain drain for rural states. For example, even during the economic boom years of 1995-2000, Iowa endured a net loss of nearly 20,000 
college educated people. This occurred despite the fact that Iowa does an excellent job of recruiting and developing college students, both from among its own ranks and by drawing them from out of state. It has a respected state college system, two elite public research universities, and a bevy of small, private liberal arts colleges. The problem is, many students leave Iowa after graduating. And many of those who remain in-state move to cities such as Des Moines or the Quad Cities area. This phenomenon has repeated itself over and over throughout the country. As a result, just one in six rural residents has a college degree, far fewer than in cities, where the rate is one in three.
What does this all mean for rural America and the nation at large? Next week, we’ll look at how so-called “brain drain” leads to shifts in American culture, and how those cultural changes manifest themselves through politics. We’ll also examine how the United States is managing issues surrounding the more traditional, international brain drain that involves the movement of highly skilled workers from the developing world.