Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45
... and the most important of all, oil.
California's boom (due to a bunch of things, in your words, "gorgeous coast line, your choice of pleasant, temperate and hot weather, sandy beaches, surfing, excellent growing conditions") and the current Western boom are not due to the same factors at all. The only similarity is that the booming area happens to be located in the western half of the continent.
I'd say North Dakota's boom is a better analogy than California's boom, but as it's far from played out yet, we obviously can't draw conclusions from it.
|
I'd say the social exclusion of certain people led to californias growth more than anything.
The reason Hollywood was jewish, was because they were trying to get away from certain social restraints..
Same with gays, ethnic minorities, liberals etc.
Once these people were able to establish new industries the migration was a given.
Anyhow this west vs east thing makes no sense.
Did Idaho, Wyoming, etc fair well in this western expansion.
I honestly think a large part of it economic freedoms, where with a fresh start and new territory to exploit a lot of things can be done better than they were in the old country.
growth breeds growth which breeds even more growth.
Its the snowball effect that really matters, it the same reasons cities outstrip small towns so drastically.