When it comes to jobs, rural areas experience slower recession recovery than urban ones

Employment in rural and urban areas fell by the same amount during the 2007-09 recession and rose at the same level during the 2010 recovery. But while jobs in metro areas are growing, the same cannot be said for rural areas, according to the 2013 edition of Rural America at a Glance by the Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Norma Cohen reports for the Financial Times. Population loss is one of the main reasons for the lack of job growth, Cohen writes. "Population loss has meant fewer jobs as demand for goods and services falls, which in turn encourages those with higher skills to move away. Lower population density also makes it more expensive to deliver vital services, the report adds, potentially exacerbating population loss." (Read more) (ERS graphic: Population patterns)

The report states: "Between the first halves of 2012 and 2013, the number of employed people grew in 41 percent of non-metro counties (803 of 1,976) and fell or was unchanged in the remaining 59 percent (1,173 counties). Nonmetro employment losses were especially large in Arkansas (down 4.1 percent) and in Illinois and Arizona (down 1.8 percent each). Nonmetro employment gains were more common in the Northern Plains, led by North Dakota (up 4.9 percent), and in the Southwest, led by Colorado (up 2.4 percent)." Overall, unemployment rates were 7.8 percent in non-metro areas, which is down from 10 percent in 2010. The rate is 7.5 percent in metro areas. (ERS graphic: Employment growth)

Salaries are also much lower in non-metro areas, the report states. "In 2012, median annualized weekly earnings for wage and salary workers who held full-time employment (or held a part-time job but desired full-time work) were $32,000 in non-metro areas—about 20 percent lower than in metro areas ($38,500). This disparity was more pronounced at the upper end of the earnings distribution, with the 95th percentile earning 27 percent less in non-metro areas ($91,000 versus $125,000 in metro areas). In contrast, the difference between non-metro and metro earnings was only 9 percent for the bottom 5th percentile of earners ($10,400 versus $11,300)." To read the report click here. (ERS graphic: Non-metro vs. metro salaries)