The interests of rural people in the US are, depending on the state, protected by the electoral college and Senate allocation. Look for more attempts to abolish these things, which would be civil war-risking changes to government.
To me there's no reason that old, beautiful towns couldn't become parts of the information economy, as long as they have decent internet access and are within an hour or two of a decent airport. I also think that sheer class disdain is part of the problem with regional inequality. Many media contributors in the US -- almost always in the major cities -- have recounted the apparent economic success of these same cities with an almost gloating tone, putting themselves on the "winning" side of an inevitable historical progression.
I don't think GP's distinction between cities providing capital and rural areas providing food is really the line drawn by the article, or typically when comparing regional inequality. For example, the article notes that CoL adjusted average income is greater in Beaumont, TX and Birmingham, AL than NYC and SF.
Automation probably is what has caused farm unemployment, but trade policy can absolutely be blamed more for manufacturing unemployment in areas that aren't "big cities". The Syracuse or the Altoona metro areas aren't exactly farmland, but they definitely aren't NYC or SF, either.
To me there's no reason that old, beautiful towns couldn't become parts of the information economy, as long as they have decent internet access and are within an hour or two of a decent airport. I also think that sheer class disdain is part of the problem with regional inequality. Many media contributors in the US -- almost always in the major cities -- have recounted the apparent economic success of these same cities with an almost gloating tone, putting themselves on the "winning" side of an inevitable historical progression.