Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you are speaking geographically the best argument you can make for St. Louis being the geographic transition from north to south is just its latitude location.
Okay, ok, ok, ajf131, I think you are right on that one. I was a little fuzzy what I was talking about with my statement about St. Louis that I tacked on to the end of my post. I've been all over the Southwest, as well as parts of the East Coast, but I have never been in the Midwest ever. I would love to visit Missouri, whatever region it happens to be in; it sounds like a beautiful place from what I've heard.
Okay, ok, ok, ajf131, I think you are right on that one. I was a little fuzzy what I was talking about with my statement about St. Louis that I tacked on to the end of my post. I've been all over the Southwest, as well as parts of the East Coast, but I have never been in the Midwest ever. I would love to visit Missouri, whatever region it happens to be in; it sounds like a beautiful place from what I've heard.
Alright, lol. Sorry if the attack seemed extreme. Hehe....feel free to disagree honestly. Anyways...Missouri yes is a very interesting state. It is both a Midwestern state and also a state unique unto itself. The Northern half of it is pretty much your typical Midwest scene...rolling plains, hills, and cornfields. "Upper Southern" Missouri is actually very interesting as you seem to get the cornfields jumbled in with the Ozark foothills and Ozark Mountains. "Lower Southern" Missouri looks like the Midwest again only much flatter and the sky is quite big. It's an interesting state. I'll put it that way.
Alright, lol. Sorry if the attack seemed extreme. Hehe....feel free to disagree honestly. Anyways...Missouri yes is a very interesting state. It is both a Midwestern state and also a state unique unto itself. The Northern half of it is pretty much your typical Midwest scene...rolling plains, hills, and cornfields. "Upper Southern" Missouri is actually very interesting as you seem to get the cornfields jumbled in with the Ozark foothills and Ozark Mountains. "Lower Southern" Missouri looks like the Midwest again only much flatter and the sky is quite big. It's an interesting state. I'll put it that way.
The new 2006 Census Data is out and shows once again that rural counties in Missouri are doing very poor with economic development. Their are MANY counties that have over 16% of the population living below the poverty line. Northern Missouri is doing exceptionally bad economically, and has lost quite a few jobs in many rural counties the past several years. Any county south of highway 60 would qualify as being much more southern than midwestern. Also, lower Missouri does not have much at all in common with the Midwest. Lower southern/southeast Missouri has MUCH more poverty, very few non-farm jobs, cotton fields, and a substantial poor rural black population as well. Some of these counties would include Pemiscot, Dunklin, Mississippi, and New Madrid. None of these characteristics make lower southern Missouri part of the Midwest. Once you get north out of the flat agricultural area of southeast Missouri and travel to the north you run into the rugged terrain of the Ozark Mountains and also the Mark Twain National Forest. This area is also very poor and lacks a lot of non-farm jobs as well. However, the diversity in south-central Missouri is much less compared to far southeast Missouri. However, what makes southern and south-central Missouri similar to the rest of the south is that large numbers of people CONTINUE TO LIVE IN RURAL COUNTIES with very few non-farm jobs. Many of these rural counties continue to increase in population when it would be expected that more people would leave the rural counties to find jobs in urban areas.
The New 2006 Census numbers also show the percentage of Missouri residents living below poverty in the year 2004 by county:
Counties with percentages higher than 17%
Pemiscot County: 26.2% of residents below poverty
St. Louis City 24.6% of residents below poverty
Dunklin County: 23.5% of residents below poverty
Mississippi County: 23.3% of residents below poverty
Shannon County 23.2% of residents below poverty
Ripley County 21.9% of residents below poverty
Wayne County: 21.7% of residents below poverty
New Madrid County: 21.5% of residents below poverty
Washington County 20.7% of residents below poverty
Carter County 20.7% of residents below poverty
Wright County 20.3% of residents below poverty
Texas County 20.2% of residents below poverty
Ozark County 20.0% of residents below poverty
Oregon County 19.8% of residents below poverty
Iron County 19.5% of residents below poverty
Butler County: 19.3% of residents below poverty
McDonald County 19.3% of residents below poverty
Douglas County 18.8% of residents below poverty
Howell County 18.7% of residents below poverty
St. Clair County 18.4% of residents below poverty
Reynolds County 18.3% of residents below poverty
Adair County 18.2% of residents below poverty
Cedar County 17.9% of residents below poverty
Hickory County 17.8% of residents below poverty
Jasper County 17.0% of residents below poverty
Source: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/maps/missouri_map.html
The southeast Missouri counties have similar poverty rates to those found on in the Mississippi Delta area, and their are many other counties in southern and south-central Missouri that have poverty rates above 17%. No Midwest state has so many counties with high percentages of residents living below the poverty line. In fact, many economic indicators indicate increases in rural poverty in nearly all Missouri counties over the past few years.
Last edited by GraniteStater; 05-17-2007 at 09:45 PM..
Reason: Typo
The new 2006 Census Data is out and shows once again that rural counties in Missouri are doing very poor with economic development. Their are MANY counties that have over 16% of the population living below the poverty line. Northern Missouri is doing exceptionally bad economically, and has lost quite a few jobs in many rural counties the past several years. Any county south of highway 60 would qualify as being much more southern than midwestern. Also, lower Missouri does not have much at all in common with the Midwest. Lower southern/southeast Missouri has MUCH more poverty, very few non-farm jobs, cotton fields, and a substantial poor rural black population as well. Some of these counties would include Pemiscot, Dunklin, Mississippi, and New Madrid. None of these characteristics make lower southern Missouri part of the Midwest. Once you get north out of the flat agricultural area of southeast Missouri and travel to the north you run into the rugged terrain of the Ozark Mountains and also the Mark Twain National Forest. This area is also very poor and lacks a lot of non-farm jobs as well. However, the diversity in south-central Missouri is much less compared to far southeast Missouri. However, what makes southern and south-central Missouri similar to the rest of the south is that large numbers of people CONTINUE TO LIVE IN RURAL COUNTIES with very few non-farm jobs. Many of these rural counties continue to increase in population when it would be expected that more people would leave the rural counties to find jobs in urban areas.
The New 2006 Census numbers also show the percentage of Missouri residents living below poverty in the year 2004 by county:
Counties with percentages higher than 17%
Pemiscot County: 26.2% of residents below poverty
St. Louis City 24.6% of residents below poverty
Dunklin County: 23.5% of residents below poverty
Mississippi County: 23.3% of residents below poverty
Shannon County 23.2% of residents below poverty
Ripley County 21.9% of residents below poverty
Wayne County: 21.7% of residents below poverty
New Madrid County: 21.5% of residents below poverty
Washington County 20.7% of residents below poverty
Carter County 20.7% of residents below poverty
Wright County 20.3% of residents below poverty
Texas County 20.2% of residents below poverty
Ozark County 20.0% of residents below poverty
Oregon County 19.8% of residents below poverty
Iron County 19.5% of residents below poverty
Butler County: 19.3% of residents below poverty
McDonald County 19.3% of residents below poverty
Douglas County 18.8% of residents below poverty
Howell County 18.7% of residents below poverty
St. Clair County 18.4% of residents below poverty
Reynolds County 18.3% of residents below poverty
Adair County 18.2% of residents below poverty
Cedar County 17.9% of residents below poverty
Hickory County 17.8% of residents below poverty
Jasper County 17.0% of residents below poverty
Source: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/maps/missouri_map.html
The southeast Missouri counties have similar poverty rates to those found on in the Mississippi Delta area, and their are many other counties in southern and south-central Missouri that have poverty rates above 17%. No Midwest state has so many counties with high percentages of residents living below the poverty line. In fact, many economic indicators indicate increases in rural poverty in nearly all Missouri counties over the past few years.
Again, generally most of the counties counties that you listed are confined to the very far Southern parts of the state. Poverty alone, even if it parallels certain other states, I think should not be used to indicate a state's Southerness. Culture, dialect, etc. still make Missouri more of a Midwestern state than a Southern one, and differences in landscape I think also should be taken into account. I also don't think differences in landscape should not be used as a way to exclude or include a state with the Midwest, because no one state looks the same as the other and honestly parts of Southern Illinois, Southern Indiana, and Southern Ohio resemble Southern Missouri, sweet tea dominates more of Illinois and Indiana than any of Missouri. So I guess my point is if you can't include Missouri in the Midwest, then I think you cannot Illinois or Indiana because as a whole they aren't purely Midwestern either and also exhibit Southern influence. Missouri is still by majority a Midwestern state. end of discussion. If this is an argument that Missouri as a whole doesn't belong in the Midwest based on poverty alone and that St. Louis and Missouri aren't Midwestern and should be grouped in with the South and are even half-Southern, I don't buy that for even one second and it's not based on speculation. Southern Illinois, Southern Indiana, and Southern Ohio for the most part to me still appear like much of the rest of the Midwest, as pittnurse said. St. Louis City's poverty rate...please. St. Louis is Midwestern to the core, and that is fact, and the surrounding counties don't seem Southern at all to me. Nobody would likely draw that conclusion without knowing the poverty stuff and even then I'm pretty sure they still wouldn't say that it makes them more Southern than Midwestern. Below highway 60, yes I agree that Missouri is far more Southern than Midwestern. I'm a little unclear of the area you refer to as South Central Missouri. Does this mean the entire Southern half of the state...I guess I'm unsure of the upper boundary you are trying to establish. Clarity would be appreciated. Whatever the case, I still think poverty characteritics alone do not make a state Southern. Lower Southeastern Missouri and Lower Southern Missouri I agree do not meet the definition of Midwestern. I'm not sure how much higher i'd put the line above that...I certainly would not include anything near the entire Southern half of the state.
Let's talk about specific towns: how would you describe the culture of, say... Joplin, Springfield, Branson, Cape Girardeau, KC, St Joseph, Columbia, Jefferson City, Hannibal, St Louis? Are certain of these towns grouped together different, or is every single one just as midwest as the others?
Parts of MO are very midwestern, others very southern (ever been to Gainesville? LOL), it all depends on where you are in the state. St. Louis is definitely a midwestern style city, not southern whatsoever.
Again, generally most of the counties counties that you listed are confined to the very far Southern parts of the state. Poverty alone, even if it parallels certain other states, I think should not be used to indicate a state's Southerness. Culture, dialect, etc. still make Missouri more of a Midwestern state than a Southern one, and differences in landscape I think also should be taken into account. I also don't think differences in landscape should not be used as a way to exclude or include a state with the Midwest, because no one state looks the same as the other and honestly parts of Southern Illinois, Southern Indiana, and Southern Ohio resemble Southern Missouri, sweet tea dominates more of Illinois and Indiana than any of Missouri. So I guess my point is if you can't include Missouri in the Midwest, then I think you cannot Illinois or Indiana because as a whole they aren't purely Midwestern either and also exhibit Southern influence. Missouri is still by majority a Midwestern state. end of discussion. If this is an argument that Missouri as a whole doesn't belong in the Midwest based on poverty alone and that St. Louis and Missouri aren't Midwestern and should be grouped in with the South and are even half-Southern, I don't buy that for even one second and it's not based on speculation. Southern Illinois, Southern Indiana, and Southern Ohio for the most part to me still appear like much of the rest of the Midwest, as pittnurse said. St. Louis City's poverty rate...please. St. Louis is Midwestern to the core, and that is fact, and the surrounding counties don't seem Southern at all to me. Nobody would likely draw that conclusion without knowing the poverty stuff and even then I'm pretty sure they still wouldn't say that it makes them more Southern than Midwestern. Below highway 60, yes I agree that Missouri is far more Southern than Midwestern. I'm a little unclear of the area you refer to as South Central Missouri. Does this mean the entire Southern half of the state...I guess I'm unsure of the upper boundary you are trying to establish. Clarity would be appreciated. Whatever the case, I still think poverty characteritics alone do not make a state Southern. Lower Southeastern Missouri and Lower Southern Missouri I agree do not meet the definition of Midwestern. I'm not sure how much higher i'd put the line above that...I certainly would not include anything near the entire Southern half of the state.
Yes, the outliers in the data would be St. Louis city and Adair County. Adair County is home to Kirksville, which is a college town. I already agreed that most areas of Missouri meet the definitions of being a part of Midwest. Culture, dialect, and political views in most areas of southern Missouri are fairly similar to areas that are directly south of that area. Also, southern Illinois, southern Indiana, and southern Ohio do not even compare when it comes to poverty rates. In fact, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Indiana do not have any counties at all with poverty rates above 20%. Once again, you did not address your reasoning behind why so many people continue to live in rural counties with very little non-farm employment. That characteristic alone makes rural counties in southern Missouri similar to rural areas in the south. Missouri has 12 counties with over 20% poverty and many states in the Midwest have no counties at all that are over that 20% level. Missouri also has 12 counties that have poverty rates above 17%, and many of those counties have population increases. It sure seems like a lot of people continue to stay in poor areas of Missouri with few jobs instead of moving to more urban areas with better job opportunities in the state or other states. South-central Missouri refers to any of the counties that are in the Ozarks region or close to the Mark Twain National Forest. The areas in south-central Missouri might have more rugged terrain, less agriculture, and fewer jobs, but might not completely be the south. However, this region of Missouri is poorer overall than any other region in the Midwest core. Its a combination of extremely poor economic development efforts in rural counties in Missouri and the continuation of population growth in rural areas that lack good non-farm employment.
Pemiscot County: 26.2% of residents below poverty (southeast Missouri, -4.4% population loss between 2000-2006)
St. Louis City 24.6% of residents below poverty (eastern Missouri, -0.3% population loss between 2000-2006)
Dunklin County: 23.5% of residents below poverty (southeast Missouri, -2.7% population loss between 2000-2006)
Mississippi County: 23.3% of residents below poverty (southeast Missouri, 2.6% population gain between 2000-2006)
Shannon County 23.2% of residents below poverty (south-central Missouri, 2.2% population gain between 2000-2006)
Ripley County 21.9% of residents below poverty (southern Missouri, 3.2% population gain between 2000-2006)
Wayne County: 21.7% of residents below poverty (southeast Missouri, -2.0% population loss between 2000-2006)
New Madrid County: 21.5% of residents below poverty (southeast Missouri, -7.3% population loss between 2000-2006)
Washington County 20.7% of residents below poverty (south-central Missouri, 3.6% population gain between 2000-2006)
Carter County 20.7% of residents below poverty (southern Missouri, 0.3% population gain between 2000-2006)
Wright County 20.3% of residents below poverty (south-central Missouri, 2.5% population gain between 2000-2006)
Texas County 20.2% of residents below poverty (south-central Missouri, 2.4% population gain between 2000-2006)
Ozark County 20.0% of residents below poverty (southern Missouri, -1.6% population loss between 2000-2006)
Oregon County 19.8% of residents below poverty (southern Missouri, 0.6% population gain between 2000-2006)
Iron County 19.5% of residents below poverty (south-central Missouri, -3.9% population loss between 2000-2006)
Butler County: 19.3% of residents below poverty (southern Missouri, 1.7% population gain between 2000-2006)
McDonald County 19.3% of residents below poverty (southwest Missouri, 5.8% population gain between 2000-2006)
Douglas County 18.8% of residents below poverty (southern Missouri, 4.4% population gain between 2000-2006)
Howell County 18.7% of residents below poverty (southern Missouri, 4.0% population gain between 2000-2006)
St. Clair County 18.4% of residents below poverty (western Missouri, -0.7% population loss between 2000-2006)
Reynolds County 18.3% of residents below poverty (south-central Missouri, -2.1% population loss between 2000-2006)
Adair County 18.2% of residents below poverty (northern Missouri, -2.1% population loss between 2000-2006)
Cedar County 17.9% of residents below poverty (southwest Missouri, 1.9% population gain between 2000-2006)
Hickory County 17.8% of residents below poverty (south-central Missouri, 3.4% population gain between 2000-2006)
Jasper County 17.0% of residents below poverty (southwest Missouri, 7.5% population gain between 2000-2006)
It looks like 15 counties out of the 25 that I analyzed are increasing in population, even with the relative lack of non-farm jobs and poverty rates at or above 17%. In the Midwest core I can find absolutely no comparison to the Missouri figures because none exist at all.
It's simple: the difference between the Midwest and the Plains are proximity to major bodies of water. The states that are along the Great Lakes, Mississippi River, and Ohio River are considered to be the Midwest. Some areas of certain states might be a "hybrid" of the Midwest and Plains (namely, the far western portions of Iowa and Missouri), but proximity to a major body of water is a general indicator.
Also, look at college conferences:
Big Ten = Midwest
Big 12 = Plains (other than Missouri and Iowa State)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was a little fuzzy what I was talking about with my statement about St. Louis that I tacked on to the end of my post. I've been all over the Southwest, as well as parts of the East Coast, but I have never been in the Midwest ever. I would love to visit Missouri, whatever region it happens to be in; it sounds like a beautiful place from what I've heard.
Rural Missouri
