Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wasn't responding to anything except the patently false idea that "most people move to LA to be an actor, etc."
I still don't know what the size of the city in 1900 or 1930 or whatever has to do with it, I was just posting the numbers as a response.
I'm not taking any of this as a dig. This has nothing to do with the original post question (which I think was dead on arrival). You are honestly just completely wrong in your assessment of the impact of the entertainment industry on LA's history and economy.
Yes, the film industry has been very significant. No, LA would not be the same today without it. Would it still be significantly larger than, say, san diego? Undoubtedly.
Before "talkies," LA was the most productive agricultural county in the US (citrus industry), the most productive oil region, and the hub of the burgeoning aerospace industry.
During and after WWII, the region experienced incredible growth mainly due to military spending.
Hollywood was and is important, but there's so much more to the LA economy. The entertainment industry does not "trickle down" and support the nation's main point of entry for chinese consumer goods. That has nothing to do with hollywood.
San Francisco is influenced by chinese imports far more than LA. As far as saying that I am wrong (I bolded it to save you time). That is your opinion. I believe I am right, and you believe you are right. I guess we'll never know, since history has already played it's hand. Anything beyond facts, is pure speculation on anyones part. Since we cannot precisely say what would or wouldn't be, since the past has already influenced the future.
I do agree with you that the question was "dead on arrival". These versus threads are getting personal and far too subjective. Facts get skewed and twisted to suit whoever is skewing thems needs.
But I stand by my thesis. There is no way LA would be LA without the entertainment industry. This is the main reason people began moving there. Once people are there, othere services without question become needed. I really don't understand what it is that you don't want to acknowledge? How can you not think that the "entertainment industry" would not have a major impact on LA? At this point I feel like I keep rehashing the same old thing. You can have the last word, because this is going nowhere. You are entitled to your opinion, whatever that may be, and I am entitled to mine. Doesn't make either one of us a bad or (put any crappy thing to say about someone here) person.
Your probably a very nice person. I like to think that I am. Lets just agree to disagree and leave it at that.
As Fez would say, Good day...............
.....I said good day.....J/k
Last edited by supermanpansy; 01-16-2011 at 03:45 PM..
I agree with that New York City is the number 1 city in the world.
L.A is where illegal immigrants aspire to be,
Is that a good thing are a BAD THING??????
polluted beaches,
All western and east coast major cities have polluted beaches
smog capital of US,
It's getting a lot better...................
worst economy in US,
Los Angees has one of the top GDP in the worlld.........
worst transit in US,
LA has subways and EL Trains along with commuter trains ,those were the "old days that you speak of"....
expensive for nothing but endless suburban wasteland until eye cannot see further,
Noid And Void Nonesense..good talking points for the 1980's and 1990's Los Angeles is getting more Urban as we communicate... it's not a "suburban city any more"......
Hollywood,
??????..........
and uneducated failing school systems.
Some of the best Universities in the World...........
No L.A is not in same league as NY,
No LA not Equal to NYC , by it's the only city in America with the Testicles to stride to Over take NYC..."maybe in 50 years"... Maybe not , I'm chopping at the bit to find out.......What about you.
L.A is in same league as Flint, MI or Pyongyang, North Korea not world class cities like NY, CHI, PHILA, BOS, MIA, ATL, HOU, DAL, SEA, DEN, MIN, SF, DC
Now You're Being RIDICULOUS.....When is the next vacation to Los Angees going to be???????.........
How is what I said rediculous. It is fact. By saying that the "Industry" was small in NY, doesn't make sense. It is were it originated. Big-small makes no difference. I am old enough to remember when we had about ten channels on t.v. So of course our options in entertainment have increased ten fold. Just as almost every other technology has.
And yes, the main reason why people move to LA is to be an actor, screen writer, comic, etc. How can you deny that. But the reality is many who come for those reasons, leave for those reasons. I don't know what I said that you think is so untrue. Pioneering of movies came from NY. At that time LA was a dust town. This is not my opinion, it is fact. And the proximity of NY is what made NY, well NY. That's another fact,-not fiction. So I don't really get your argument. As far as everything else your saying, that's irrelevent to anything I was saying. Yes, of course as the entertainment industry increases, so will the need for other businesses. That's a trickle down effect. And btw, marketing and music are nothing in LA today compared to NY. NY still is the leader in marketing and media, so I fail to see your point.
How can you even say it's laughable that people move to LA for the entertainment industry? That statement alone is laughable! Everyone knows that. I hope you can be honest with yourself with this one atleast. Do you really think LA would be what it is today without the entertainment industry? And besides, a third of movies are still made in NY. This is a higher percent than ten years ago. That's fact, not opinion. Many actors are tired of LA. A third of all actors live in NY. So LA by no means is the end all or be all of the industry. In fact they better be careful, because many actors with much clout are striving to create more movie lots in NY. Many actors are also outright moving to NY. But as it stands now, LA is still the place to be if you are trying to break into the "entertainment" industry. However, this might within the next couple decades change. But what LA has going for it which makes me think it will always be the main place for film and television is that they have great weather. However, that little thing called technology, just has it has helped evolve many things and places, can also create movie lots in NY where weather would be of no effect. Who knows what the future holds.
And what economic strength of California are you talking about? Perhaps I am wrong, but I was under the impression that they have the highest unemployment rate in the country. And yes, having Mexico right there has helped to increase LA's population. That is also fact. Heck, half of their population is mexican. And I never said anything about Mexicans coming over to get into the industry, that is a whole other issue. They mainly come for work, but not because LA is some oasis for jobs, but because California and more importantly Southern California is where they first enter. But regardless of how bad Californias economy is, minimum wage is still much more than what their getting over in Mexico. So your argument doesn't really make sense to me in the least. It is not like I was dissing LA or anything. I was merely giving facts. Just as I did with NY. NY's proximity to Europe is exactly why NY grew the way it did. Ever heard of Ellis Island. Philly actually was pegged to be the biggest city in our country, but (once again) because of NY's proximity to Europe, NY overtook this position. This is not my opinion. This is fact.
And the paragraph of yours that I bolded is about as rediculous as it comes. Of course there is more t.v. today than sixty or seventy years ago. Of course there are more movies. There are also many more million people today than sixty or seventy years ago, so your reasoning does not make sense to me. Everything improves in time. That's called evolution and technology. That has nothing to do with how crappy or great a place is. And I stand by my original statement. LA would most likely be another San Diego if not for the entertainment industry. Or truth be told, it would most likely be smaller, since San Diego borders Tijuana. What was the biggest city in California in 1930? Can you answer that?
I am very confused of what it is that I said that was so wrong. It's not like I dissed LA or NY. I am simply saying that this country was bound to have some giant cities. Proximity was a major reason for almost all cities. Just as many big cities today were built by lakes and rivers. Because that was the main mode of travel for goods at that time.
I am not guesstimating (if that's a word) my opinion. I am merely stating facts. How LA became LA and NY became NY doesn't really matter anymore. Most people just see them for being what they are now. But to be so disgruntled over simple history facts is mind boggling to me. I didn't make this up. This didn't come in a dream. This just so happens to be the course that these two cities were built on.
No. The vast majority of people do not move to LA to become an actor. Not even a majority. That's just silly. I suppose you also believe the vast majority of people who move to SF is be openly gay? Or the vast majority of people moving to Florida is to retire. Lame stereotypes with no basis in reality when talking about simplistic unthoughtful generalization.
Second of all, I've already shot down your "NY had film first!!" argument. Again, it's like England saying "America belonged to England first!" We're responsible for your success!" Um No. But keep trying to say that.
third, if you didn't know, mexicans are people too. They move to LA too. They make up 1/2 of LA. It doesn't matter why they move here. the point is that they just do. Most do not move to LA become an actor. clear? And I bolded your remark because you just proved my point. LA has also the largest proportion of chinese people, thais, armenians, vietnamese, cambodians, persians, etc. When a city is a huge immigrant center, it's due to jobs. Try convincing me all those jobs are to be actors etc.
It doesn't matter California's unemployment rate. That's a recent phenomenon if you've been paying attention for the past 4 or so years. It's already the most populous state by FAR because it's historically been an attractive job center throughout the past 60 or so years. That effect trickles down to LA as well. (by the way, if you want to argue that California is economically weak while being the 8th largest economy in the world, with the highest gdp of any state, go for it)
The point about the film growth comment is that LA wasn't given a fully grown successful industry that made LA a boom town. As if it stole a mammoth industry from elsewhere. Film was insignificant in LA compared to real estate and oil. It grew like other industries in LA. That just puts my second point above in perspective. I don't know why I have to restate that. And I bolded your media/marketing comments because the point is that entertainment is a varied industry with strengths that goes beyond just film. I'm not talking about LA ruling marketing. Nor did I even say anything about media.
Finally, no. LA would likely not be smaller than San Diego. Again, you gave the film industry way too much credit for the 2nd largest metro area in the US without anything to back it up. To put that in perspective, even the Inland Empire is bigger than San Diego. And SD metro barely has a bigger population than Orange County.
And I bolded a second quote because you aren't just stating simple facts. "LA would be nothing if it weren't for NY!". Which was implied. That's where you went wrong.
San Francisco is influenced by chinese imports far more than LA. As far as saying that I am wrong (I bolded it to save you time). That is your opinion. I believe I am right, and you believe you are right. I guess we'll never know, since history has already played it's hand. Anything beyond facts, is pure speculation on anyones part. Since we cannot precisely say what would or wouldn't be, since the past has already influenced the future.
I do agree with you that the question was "dead on arrival". These versus threads are getting personal and far too subjective. Facts get skewed and twisted to suit whoever is skewing thems needs.
But I stand by my thesis. There is no way LA would be LA without the entertainment industry. This is the main reason people began moving there. Once people are there, othere services without question become needed. I really don't understand what it is that you don't want to acknowledge? How can you not think that the "entertainment industry" would not have a major impact on LA? At this point I feel like I keep rehashing the same old thing. You can have the last word, because this is going nowhere. You are entitled to your opinion, whatever that may be, and I am entitled to mine. Doesn't make either one of us a bad or (put any crappy thing to say about someone here) person.
Your probably a very nice person. I like to think that I am. Lets just agree to disagree and leave it at that.
As Fez would say, Good day...............
.....I said good day.....J/k
He's talking about LA's strength as being America's largest center of international trade and porting (LAX and LA ports) with a lot of goods coming from China, not about chinese immigrants.
And to make his and my point again, "New York would be absolutely NOTHING without the financial industry. Chicago would be the financial center of the world." You don't see that as an absurd illogical statement? Apply that to LA and it's the same thing. Still illogical.
I know. I'm not really a fan of "dense" and urban cities per se. I like cities for all and any redeeming qualities they have. And can openly accept something unique about every single city. My point was this though, there isn't any point in using any ranking, especially an opinion based one as a basis for anything. The general public which includes 310 Million people in the United States did not respond to the question or criteria. So therefore in my opinion it is not even the closest to being scientific.
I just generally don't get people who use these "most favorite" & "least favorite" city rankings as a "scientific" method of reasoning when its not. There's like 10 rankings that came out in 2010, and all of them had different cities for "desirability", "wealthy", and everything else and none of that was scientific. 3,000 people do not speak for the general public, they didn't speak for me and my Top 10, they did not speak for the other 310 Million Americans. They make up 0.0001% of America's population, and they speak only for themselves.
Frankly, Los Angeles knew what it was going to be, and it didn't want to be like New York City, many have a hard time accepting that and it turns into the classic Sunbelt is weak and feeble contest as seen so much on these boards. I like Los Angeles the way it is right now, and would love to see more improvements happen, despite Los Angeles already shedding a lot of negativity already, this is the safest (crime wise) Los Angeles has ever been, the cleanest its ever been, the most active its ever been.
Harris Poll Interactive, GaWC, and all these other rankings are just that, rankings. People who climb to them are gullible people in my opinion, too easily impressed and too easily entertained to have their own views. Scientifically, no 310 Million people including men, women, children, elderly, young, and incarcerated, and infants (Infants cant cast their ballet either way, lol) didn't cast their vote for their Top 10. It is not scientific, its almost as bad as every Forbes list to come out in the last 5 years, completely attractive to those who cant fend for themselves and need to be told what prime destinations are.
Simply put, I am not at war with rankings, I don't go by rankings even when it comes to prominence if I did I would not think Bay Area & DMV would be Top 3. I am at war with the common American generalization that rankings from unscientific sources speak for a general populace as a whole, in which case a country with a population of 310 Million people, the 3rd largest country in the world, and the most powerful country in the world. I refuse to believe that people could be as gullible, what people like is up to them. Hell, I want to see Nashville myself, I'm curious to see it, but lets be real, unscientific measurement of 3,000 people of any demographical background and location will tend to lean much one way than another, in no representation of periodical light is it a sound reasoning for any justified ranking.
Look, I didn't mean to rag on Chicago when I posted that poll but I was posting to show that just because Chicago is widely known doesn't mean everyone wants to live there.
I get so annoyed with the constant snobbyness on this site from the posters who think life is only good if a city is really urban. I posted that survey to show that most Americans don't care about how urban places are. It seems to just be delusional pretentious posters on here.
It's not a scientific poll but I would still take it for what it is. The people at Harris did ask those people and those were the top choices. Maybe it sucks for you that Chicago or Houston wasn't on the list, but this shows how people desire cities that aren't dense.
This site is super cliqueish and clannish. You and I know that to be true very well.
Location: The land of sugar... previously Houston and Austin
5,429 posts, read 14,836,889 times
Reputation: 3672
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxposure
Without a doubt, disguised in your hatred towards LA, you are actually envious of it in ways even you don't understand.
Really? Wow! You must be envious of a whole slew of cities then (especially Texas ones), if envy is disguised in hatred/bashing.
Your theory, not mine...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Last Response To This Thread.............
