>certainly is playing a big role in the divide.

The only divide is in whether it’s something that is even a problem that needs to be addressed. Income inequality doesn’t divide people itself, just the focus on it does.

> Income inequality doesn’t divide people itself

I don't agree. We're increasingly divided along lines that are very well correlated with demographic factors. Like, age, sure, but also income, religion, race, etc.

And the link makes it pretty clear income is a pretty strong predictor of political leanings. (And when you combine income + rural/urban split, it's a very strong one).

In other nations (e.g. Mexico, Peru, Ghana, Thailand, etc.) health care is provided to all. In USA lots of people can't afford any sort of health care. The family left behind by someone who dies at 48 because he couldn't afford e.g. blood pressure medication doesn't need any sort of "focus" to see the divide.

Health care is just the starkest illustration of this. One sees the same phenomenon with any other necessity: housing, food, transportation, etc.

What is shocking about it? Rural is by nature less efficient than high-density urban. Less productive. Everything costs more and pays less because rural living isn’t as “good” (in the ways that relate to income/velocity of money) as high density living.

You trade off dollar wealth green wealth: more trees, bigger land, less crowding, cleaner air, quieter environment, private living. The costs are in Longer drives, higher prices, less selection, lower pay, greater energy use, potentially far fewer cultural/educational/social opportunities.

I don't understand how what you said here relates to what I said. I didn't say that lower income people are more rural; I said that if you look at the left leaning subset of the lowest income people, they are very urban, and the right leaning subset of the lowest income people, they are very rural.