Appalachia and the Ozarks

Seattle is very different from Appalachia and the Ozarks. In our book "The mountains continue to create problems for transportation, and this affects the pattern, pace and forms of regional economic development". Seattle in this way is very different, because Seattle has a very well economy that flourishes every year. The mountains are not a problem for Seattle and do not obstruct their transportation. For Seattle their very important transportation route, in terms of economic growth, is the ocean, this is where they import and export goods. Another thing is "In a nation where immigration, education, and commerce added more and more disparate elements to the total population, Appalachia became increasingly unusual because it simply remained unchaged until well past the middle of the twentieth century". Seattle has its share of migration that dates back to the early settlement but it was not late on it like the Appalachia. I'm sure that they can both have the commonality of immigration, education, commerce adding a little disparement, at first, but Seattle has its share of culture and from the looks of it it is doing just fine as a city. From reading this chapter, Seattle is not in the same problem as the Appalachia. Appalachia is defined as "The term Appalachia widely connotes isolation and poverty". Seattle is not isolated nor poor, like I said before its economic development has grown an is doing very well. The Seattle MSA accounts for 1.93 million jobs and has an estimated gross metropolitan product of $218.77 billion. Seattle is clearly not like the Appalachia and the Ozarks.

Text Source: http://www.seattle.gov/oir/datasheet/Datasheet2010.pdf
Textbook