The last place you want to be in when a recession hits is Steubenville, Ohio. Recent studies show that the rate of unemployment in the metropolitan area of Steubenville is still high despite eight years of steady growth since the 2009 recession. At the same time, the studies showed that this area has few jobs than the ones that were there at the beginning of the Great Recession. Also, the hourly wages of this area are lower compared to what was offered 10 years ago. In fact, the labor force in the area has been reduced by 14 percent in a decade. Nothing is surprising with the dismissal performance. This city together with Weirton has been losing population for the last 37 years as people relocate to more promising areas. These are cities that were as a result of coal and steel industries. At the same time, they were built in a way that they could respond to the growing demands of globalization. While these two cities may be too small to adapt to the shock, it has become apparent that they might also be too small for them to survive. They have a population of approximately 120,000 people combined. In fact, these cities are some of the few that have been unable to bounce back from recession.
It has also become clear that the two cities are losing more than their ability to adapt. Geographical inequality is also on the rise in these two fallen cities. This is regardless of what people rely on, it could be a steel mine, coal mine, manufacturing plants and even hospitals. What’s more shocking about these two cities is that they are also being left behind in the field of technology. They are struggling in making the transition from retail and energy to transportation and healthcare. Brooking Institution Metropolitan Policy Program executive Mark Muro says that this is a dangerous place for people with goals and ambitions. At the moment, a good number of Americans dwell in metropolitan clusters. Despite this progress, one thing that has become inconsequential is the stagnation of small cities. This is the reason why frustrated voters from these regions settled for Donald Trump rather than Hillary Clinton. The margin was quite big as Trump won by 58 percent while Clinton received only 38 percent of the vote. When it came to the midsize cities, Clinton lost to Donald Trump by 52 percent.