Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone1791
I thought this news story about migration in and out of Utah was sort of interesting (particularly since I recently moved to North Idaho from Utah). More people moved to Idaho from Utah than the other way around. Most movers from Utah went to Texas. Movers from Utah to Idaho was fourth-most (behind Arizona and California).
|
The move from Idaho to Utah and Utah to Texas makes some high-tech sense.
Idaho isn't really a high-tech state yet, though it has the potential to become one.
But Utah definitely is there, in a junior-league fashion that's very good positioning for Utah. There's really a lot of high tech in the Salt Lake Valley that has fueled the Salt Lake metro's growth very successfully, and it now providing a place for all the young Idahoan hot-rods a place to move up to in technical expertise and financially.
Utah cannot compete yet with Washington or California, but it may never want to, as it's doing mighty fine being in the center between the big boys in Seattle and Cupertino and the relatively small players in the Boise environs and other scattered parts of Idaho.
Idaho is doing all right as well, as it's feeding folks upward, and receiving expertise downward from Utah. And from California and Washington as well.
And in turn, Idaho is spreading out the high-tech wealth to the more desolate states; Wyoming, Montana, and parts of Nevada and possibly the Dakotas.
I think that in a nation that is as huge and geographically diverse as the United States, staying regional may be the better strategy for a low-population state's benefit that trying to become a national power-player.
There are a lot of impediments that could prevent Idaho from ever becoming an industrial power state, but not as many for the high-tech sector in approximately 2/3 of the state. That lack in the remaining 1/3 may prove to be beneficial as well in time if it provides solutions for overcoming terrain obstacles.