Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc
1946 - 1964. 1946 was within 9 months of many soldiers returning home from the war.
|
1945 is generally used for simplicity, and because troop drawdowns started when the end of some of the secondary fronts began and even the major fronts had writing on the wall. It wasn't only soldiers returning, but people secure in knowing that the war's end was within sight that started there baby brigades.
Anyway, I was born in Boise and my parents live there. I'm the oldest of three boys and live in Chicago. My middle brother also lived in Chicago until a few years ago when he decided to buy a home in Boise's North End neighborhood. But he travels literally 75% of the time so saying he "lives" there is kind of an overstatement. My youngest brother lives in the Seattle suburbs and is the only of us to have children - two girls and a boy due next month. My family has deep roots in Idaho, with a grandfather who was a prosecuting attorney, and a great uncle who was a working cowboy before WWII, flew as a tail gunner in B-17s during the war, and returned to be a rodeo performer and then horse and horse jumper trainer until he died. In those circles he was famous enough someone unrelated to the family wrote a biography of him after his death. His wife was English, from the war.
Boise is growing like mad, and is a quaint city. There is some old money there - the Albertson and the Simplot names fund a lot, and Simplot, famous for inventing and producing most of McDonald's French fries for decades, and the reason Idaho is famous for potatoes, used his billions to start Micron, a large semiconductor company.
But Idaho is still relatively poor overall, and outside of Boise and some of the Native reservations, deep red. The whole Treasure Valley area has a lot of growing pains, but that also made another Uncle of mine moderately wealthy, growing the second-largest concrete construction company in the state from all that immigration-driven construction. So you have mixed feelings there about the liberal Californians moving in and driving up prices - my brother's modest, ranch-style home in Boise, with about 2,000 square feet, built in the 50s or 60s but with recent renovations, cost him $650,000. But he's employed by a New York bank, so he's "part of the problem" if he didn't have family ties there (he was born in Portland, not Boise).
Anyway, I think if he didn't travel so much he'd still live in Chicago or maybe in New York for career reasons. The only reason he can get away with a home in Boise, working for the bank he does, is that he has to travel for business so much. If he gets promoted much more, he may have to establish a second home in Manhattan. But I work in the trading industry and while you can have a career as a trader from anywhere now, if you want to be the best, you should be in New York for equities, London for metals and currencies, Chicago for options or agricultural commodities and derivatives. There's some flexibility, and some can make it work in Hong Kong or Singapore or Tokyo, etc, those secondary locations are either stepping stones or self-limiting for most people who chose those locations. It's much the same in law and other industries - you can make a decent career that the vast majority of Americans would be enviable of if you're good, even in secondary markets, but the best, most competitive, most highly compensated jobs will be in the top cities for those industries. You can live as a working actor or producer or writer in Chicago or Atlanta, but if you want to be a really big star, you have to be in LA or maybe New York unless you're John Hughes or Tyler Perry type material. I can't think of too many industries where the top jobs don't concentrate up into one or two major cities, no matter how widespread the base is.
Prev
Linear Mode
