Tested, no, but it has been observed with population density and political leanings.

More government benefits and support in metro areas, a greater degree of socialism. Seems obvious.

more conservative out in the middle of nowhere. — TiredThinker

They're anti-social.

In the 2020 election, Brookings found that the 2,497 counties across the country that voted for President Donald Trump generate 29% of the U.S. GDP. Meanwhile, the 477 counties won by President-elect Joe Biden contribute 70% of the American economy.


So Trump won 2,497 counties in the U.S. but Biden only won 477 counties. Check the map and the blue areas (Biden wins) correlate to large metropolitan areas.

If you live in large cities government provides many services for you but if you live in the country or farm government mostly provides rules and regulations which interfere with your use of your land and your lively hood. The rural urban divide is real and growing.

In the future won't more rural areas inevitably become more densely packed and require more efficient infrastructures?

In the future won't more rural areas inevitably become more densely packed and require more efficient infrastructures? — TiredThinker

Actually the opposite is occurring. The population is moving towards metropolitan areas and away from rural areas. This has been going on for decades in the U.S. Many rural communities are losing businesses, jobs and young people.

The 62 U.S. Senators from the smallest (least population) states represent about 25% of the U.S. population.

What could prompt the development of new cities? Surely every city has a breaking point where it is too costly to live there, and there isn't enough space? I have seen footage of some Chinese cities and I can't imagine a more crowded way to live.

What could prompt the development of new cities? Surely every city has a breaking point where it is too costly to live there, and there isn't enough space? I have seen footage of some Chinese cities and I can't imagine a more crowded way to live. — TiredThinker

Building new cities from scratch is exactly what the Chinese have been doing. Beijing and Shanghai were too expensive for people to live in and too difficult to work with for developers so they built new ones, and they've been very successful.

That's how people here in Kentucky see it for sure.

In reality, dense coastal states pay significantly more in federal taxes than they get in back in aid. Rural states tend to be the most dependant on aid. Add on that rural counties have very high median ages (58 here) and you have economies fully dependant on transfer payments. Where I am, the economy would absolutely collapse if Social Security and disability payments stopped. Many of the "good jobs" are in the medical field, but demand (as in money chasing services) is heavily propped up by Medicare.

Now you can say people worked for those services, but it isn't really true. The Baby Boomers voted continually for lower taxes, higher expenditures, and an exploding deficit during their time in the driver seat. Trump for instance, lost voters under 55 by 7 points, a landslide electorally, and proceeded to run a trillion dollar deficit, borrowing $0.25 of every $1.00 spent, during an expansion.



The US should do more of that. Immigrants should be encouraged to move into placed like Buffalo and Detroit. Instead we have them crowding into the most expensive and desirable places to live in the country, also places with dwindling water supplies, and then demanding rent support. You can blame zoning laws, which are an issue, but the fact is that a median single family costs $260k to construct even with free land. Due to mass migration, wages for low skill workers is simply never going to by high enough to support constructing that much new housing.

Meanwhile there are houses for $100k in the Rust Belt, and an actual labor shortage.