Hillary Clinton carried counties that “accounted for nearly three-fourths of the nation’s increased economic output and almost two-thirds of its new jobs in the years leading up to [Donald Trump’s] election,” Ron Brownstein reminds us. The Brookings Institution’s Metropolitan Policy Program provides a wealth of data:
On population growth, for example, the 53 very largest metro areas (those with populations over one million residents) have accounted for fully 93.3 percent of the nation’s population growth since the [financial] crisis, but an incredible 96.4 percent of it since 2014 (though they account for just 56 percent of the overall population). Even more significantly, the biggest metros generated fully two-thirds of output growth on the economic front and 73 percent of employment gains between 2010 and 2016—figures that actually have increased since 2014, when they reached nearly 72 and 74 percent.
So if voters in Trump country feel as though they are losing, they likely are. “By contrast, smaller metropolitan areas with less than 250,000 people—representing 9 percent of the nation’s population—have lost ground. Since 2010, in fact, these communities made a negative contribution of -6.5 percent to the nation’s growth.” In rural America where President Trump drew large number of votes, “national population growth had turned negative.” The divide is getting more pronounced with time:
Trump is making life worse for red America.