New data show fewer than half of rural Gen Z'ers believe they can find a good job in their community, compared to nearly 70% of their urban peers.

Oregon is following the national trend along with a growing rural-urban income gap.

Megan Tuck, program coordinator for the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council, grew up in St. Paul, a small town in the Willamette Valley and now lives in Bend. She said she would have liked to stay in her hometown, but there are few opportunities there for work.

"That was the options, I feel like, growing up for me and a lot of my peers was you either move away, live in St. Paul and commute somewhere, or you work on farms, which is still an amazing profession," Tuck explained.

In 1980, the average rural Oregon household earned about 10% less than an urban family. Today, the gap has widened to 25%. Trump administration cuts to the federal workforce would only worsen the situation, as federal jobs make up a larger share of employment in rural Oregon counties and tend to pay more.

Data show rural youth, like Tuck, are more likely to want to stay closer to home than city-dwellers. Tuck pointed out she and a lot of her peers found city life challenging and missed their hometown community, though many initially wanted to leave after high school.

"Then at the same time, I see a lot of my peers and I as we get older, reflecting and realizing we actually want to come back and we actually want to live here," Tuck emphasized.

Tuck noted employment is not the only challenge to come with living rurally. She stressed rental housing options are also limited. Research shows rural Oregonian incomes are on par with rural American incomes, but rents are 16% higher.

Tuck added people in rural communities are afraid of losing their young people but many have no choice but to leave to find living-wage jobs. Regardless of the challenges she and her generation face, Tuck is determined to find a solution.

"How do you transition some rural economies to still keep the character of the community but also create opportunities for young people?" Tuck asked.


get more stories like this via email

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s decision to cut a cut a majority of jobs at the federal agency responsible for worker health and safety is seen as a direct attack on Kentucky workers by labor unions in the state.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health could be trimmed from around 1,400 employees to fewer than 150. At the state level, House Bill 398 would also have dismantled Kentucky's worker protection standards and requirements.

Dustin Reinstedler, president of the Kentucky AFL-CIO, said similar proposals down the road are now more concerning.

"To think that Kentucky was supposed to fall back on the federal OSHA guidelines, and to think that it's under attack now, it's pretty alarming," Reinstedler stressed.

The federal cuts are expected to include the agency's 9/11 firefighter program, also known as the World Trade Center Health Program. The American Industrial Hygiene Association, the AFL-CIO and Laborers' International Union of North America have all launched campaigns to urge the feds to restore the agency's staff and funding.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health is part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Reinstedler explained Kentucky relies on its data, research and recommendations to protect workers. He cited personal protective equipment, respirators, and HEPA vacuum systems as standards the agency set to protect workers from silica exposure.

"Myself, as a bricklayer, any time that you're cutting masonry or anything, or cutting concrete, you're throwing up silica into the air," Reinstedler pointed out. "There are guidelines against that."

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health scientists also study Black Lung disease, which affects an estimated 20% of coal miners in Central Appalachia. The agency's mine safety research is regularly used by coal country's key regulatory agency, the Mine Safety and Health Administration.


get more stories like this via email

West Virginia lawmakers continue their inaction on improving access to child care.

House Bill 2026 would have allocated $32 million toward child care subsidies, but ultimately did not make it into the budget.

Parents of more than 25,000 kids across the state have no child care options, and at least 100 providers have closed statewide in the past year.

The $32 million would have maintained family eligibility policies and paid child care providers based on enrollment numbers, explains Kristy Ritz - the executive director of the West Virginia Association for Young Children.

"Just in the past two weeks, we've heard about a program that was closing in Whitehall," said Ritz, "another program closing in Weirton, and a program in Bridgeport closing their infant room."

The West Virginia Chamber of Commerce says more child care centers would help increase the state's workforce participation rate, which is among the lowest in the nation - at around 54%.

According to a 2024 report by the Chamber, in 29 counties, more than half of children under age six lack access to child care.

Ritz said there are plenty of opportunities across the state for public-private investments in child care.

She noted that care costs are most expensive for infants, at around $10,000 per year. That's about the same as in-state tuition at West Virginia University or Marshall University.

"I feel like businesses need to support their workers and contribute to their child care costs," said Ritz, "or support families who are having difficulty finding child care providers."

Legislation introduced earlier this year aimed to create the Employee Child Care Assistance Partnership.

It would have connected the state with child care providers to offset employees' child care costs.

An estimated 2,000 Mountain State families could lose access to child care when pandemic-era federal subsides to day care centers end on July 1.

Texas is the number one exporting state in the nation - and although tariffs with Mexico and Canada have been delayed, Texans are still uneasy about their financial future. President Donald Trump has levied a 145% tariff on products from China, with all other countries subject to a 10% tariff.

Ray Perryman, economics professor at the International Institute for Advanced Studies says as the trade wars continue, Texans can expect to pay higher prices for everything.

"When steel and aluminum cost more and lumber costs more, that means houses cost more. There's a lot of cars that are made in Texas, where various pieces of it cross the border five or six times. So, when you start levying a 25% tariff every time something crosses the border, that's when you start adding thousands of dollars to the price of a car," he said.

Mexico is the top import-export market for the Lone Star State. And Texas companies imported almost $160 billion in goods last year.

A report by the Perryman Group estimates if the tariffs with China remain in place, and tariffs with Mexico and Canada are unfrozen, Texas would lose more than $50 billion a year and more than 400,000 jobs. Perryman adds the uncertainty of the markets is crippling.

"One of the worst things for an economy is uncertainty, because if you're not sure what's going to happen, you don't know what to do. And most people respond to that by not doing anything. You don't want to bring out a new product, you don't want to build a new plant, you don't want to hire more people, you don't want to make a big purchase if you're uncertain about the future," he continued.

Perryman predicts if tariffs with Mexico and Canada go into effect, all the tariffs combined would cost each American household an additional $1,500 a year.


get more stories like this via email