COVID-19 has had dramatic impacts on economic outcomes across the United States, yet most research on the pandemic’s labor-market impacts has had a national or urban focus. We overcome this limitation using data from the U.S. Current Population Survey’s COVID-19 supplement to study pandemic-related labor-force outcomes in rural and urban areas from May 2020 through February 2021. We find the pandemic has generally had more severe labor-force impacts on urban adults than their rural counterparts. Urban adults were more often to go unpaid for missed hours, to be unable to work, and to be unable to look for work due to COVID-19. However, rural workers were less likely to work remotely than urban workers. These differences persist even when adjusting for adults’ socioeconomic characteristics and state-level factors. Our results suggest that rural-urban differences in the nature of work during the pandemic cannot be explained by well-known demographic and political differences between rural and urban America.

Objectives. To demonstrate how inferences about rural–urban disparities in age-adjusted mortality are affected by the reclassification of rural and urban counties in the United States from 1970 to 2018. Methods. We compared estimates of rural–urban mortality disparities over time, produced through a time-varying classification of rural and urban counties, with counterfactual estimates of rural–urban disparities, assuming no changes in rural–urban classification since 1970. We evaluated mortality rates by decade of reclassification to assess selectivity in reclassification. Results. We found that reclassification amplified rural–urban mortality disparities and accounted for more than 25% of the rural disadvantage observed from 1970 to 2018. Mortality rates were lower in counties that reclassified from rural to urban than in counties that remained rural. Conclusions. Estimates of changing rural–urban mortality differentials are significantly influenced by rural–urban reclassification. On average, counties that have remained classified as rural over time have elevated mortality. Longitudinal research on rural–urban health disparities must consider the methodological and substantive implications of reclassification. Public Health Implications. Attention to rural–urban reclassification is necessary when evaluating or justifying policy interventions focusing on geographic health disparities. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print October 15, 2020: e1–e3. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2020.305895 )

BACKGROUND Recent increases in ethno-racial diversity in the United States are paralleled by growing representation of first-and second-generation immigrants, especially among children. Socioeconomic inequalities along the lines of immigrant generation, race, and ethnicity suggest such demographic changes may result in greater disparities among recent, more-diverse cohorts of children. OBJECTIVE Describe poverty rates among US children across five immigrant generation groups, using the US government's official poverty measure (OPM) and a supplemental poverty measure (SPM), which accounts for government transfers and costs of living. METHODS Using data from the Current Population Survey and historical SPM estimates from 1993-2016, we describe trends in child poverty, stratified by immigrant generation. We compare estimates of inter-generational differences and temporal changes based on the OPM and SPM, and we conduct stratified analyses for Hispanic and Asian children. RESULTS We find persistent differences in poverty rates between immigrant generations. Firstgeneration non-citizens and second-generation children with two foreign-born parents have consistently higher poverty rates than other generations, between which there are minimal disparities. Differences between OPM-and SPM-based estimates suggest public supports and costs of living have differential welfare effects across groups. CONTRIBUTION We provide a historical record of child poverty differentials across immigrant

The transition towards renewable energy is likely to be uneven across social and spatial dimensions. To ensure this transition is equitable and just, energy injustice has become the key framework for analyzing and interpreting the distribution of energy infrastructure. Wind energy development has experienced a significant gap between broad public support for increased development but persistent localized opposition to proposed projects, indicating that wind represents a locally unwanted land use. We present the theoretical argument that although the negative impacts of wind energy infrastructure are less extreme than those posed by other, more toxic, unwanted land uses, their status as a locally unwanted land use will produce similar distributional injustices as have been found throughout the environmental injustice literature.