This report, “Demographic Aspects of the Changing Rural Labor Force” by Daniel T. Lichter (1991), provides an overview of the challenges facing the rural labor force in America, particularly in the 1980s, and proposes a research agenda for the 1990s. The introduction highlights the shift from optimism in the 1970s to a “new economic reality” in the 1980s for rural America, marked by recession, the “farm crisis,” increased global competition, and a return to rural outmigration and slow employment growth. Rural areas, now less reliant on agriculture and more diversified, have become vulnerable to economic trends, technological change, and international competition, leading to stagnation in extractive and manufacturing sectors and growth in low-wage service jobs. This has resulted in rural areas falling further behind metropolitan areas in economic indicators. Key facts about rural labor force changes in the 1980s include:
- Slower employment growth in nonmetro areas compared to metro, though with some recent improvement in 1988-89.
- Faster employment growth rates for nonmetro racial minorities and women than for whites and men.
- Higher nonmetro unemployment rates (1-2 percentage points higher) than metro rates throughout the 1980s.
- Substantially higher levels of underemployment (including unemployment, involuntary part-time work, and “working poor”) in nonmetro areas.
- A decline in nonmetro per capita income relative to metro per capita income, and stagnating real wage growth.
- Higher poverty rates in nonmetro areas (16% in 1988 vs. 12% in metro areas), with a disproportionate share of nonmetro poor families having at least one employed member (“working poverty”).
- Continued industrial restructuring, with a decline in goods-producing industries and an increase in low-wage service-producing industries.
The report proposes five “axes for debate” for future rural labor force research in the 1990s:
- Quality of Jobs vs. Quality of Workers: This section debates whether rural economic struggles are primarily due to a decline in “good jobs” (e.g., de-skilling, part-time work, international competition) or to the low and declining “quality of workers” (e.g., educational deficits, lack of skills). It emphasizes the need for research on the multiple dimensions of work (beyond just wages) and the changing role of education in rural economic development.
- Equity vs. Productivity: This axis focuses on the implications of increasing demographic heterogeneity (women and minorities) in the rural workforce. It raises questions about achieving earnings and occupational equality, and whether the diverse skill sets of these groups will impact workforce competitiveness. It highlights the particular challenges faced by rural women and racial minorities in the labor market.
- Growth of earnings vs. growth of earnings inequality: The report notes the acceleration of earnings inequality at the national level and calls for more research on income and earnings inequality in rural areas, especially regarding its sources and the impact of changing demographic composition. It questions who truly benefits from rural employment growth and which economic development programs help those at the bottom of the income distribution. It also touches on the spatial dimension of inequality and the concept of a “rural underclass.”
- Family stability vs. family change: This section challenges the stereotype of “stable” rural kinship structures, highlighting the convergence of rural and urban family patterns (e.g., age at marriage, divorce). It calls for research linking rural economic change to family instability, such as delayed marriage, illegitimacy, welfare dependence, and the rise of female-headed households and child poverty.
- Old Data vs. New Ideas: This final section addresses the limitations of current data collection methods for rural labor force research. It advocates for oversampling nonmetro and rural areas in national surveys, greater geographic and spatial detail in data (e.g., updating PUMS-D files to identify specific multi-county labor market areas), and panel data that accurately track rural workers’ employment and marital/family histories.
In conclusion, the report states that understanding the interface between demography and the labor force is a research priority for rural America in the 1990s, as industrial restructuring and economic uncertainty continue to impact rural communities, raising the question of whether rural America can avoid being “left behind.”
