San Francisco surpassing L.A in Global Influence? (cost, highest, Boston)
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.
DistrictDirt, my impression is that you seem to be overvaluing this content that you think is super important to many people in and outside of LA while also being somewhat hypocritical. We are in agreement that where Google and YouTube are HQ'd is pretty meaningless in the grand scheme of things, but to then turn around and try to sell us on this LA centric greater influence of whatever it is you are talking about while also downplaying SV seems weird.
Perhaps we should clearly define what kind of influence we're talking about.
In terms of cultural influence, I don't think I'm overvaluing LA's contribution as a generator of content at all. But sure, if you want define influence in terms of money, of course places like NYC and SF will be more influential. Or if you want to define it in terms of power, DC has no equal in this country.
Again, there's a difference between cat videos and professionally produced and marketed content that actually gets millions of views.
Why do you think Google elected to build their Youtube studios in Los Angeles, New York, and London, as opposed to San Francisco? Sure, Youtube has democratized video content generation to a degree and anyone can get lucky and go viral, but certain cities are going to dominate in the content that is actually watched because they already have the infrastructure to produce it: actors, sets, videographers, crew, big studios to partner with, etc.
Say what you will about places like Buzzfeed, Cracked, Break Media (now Defy media), College Humor, etc, but that kind of stuff represents a huge proportion of the content that actually gets watched on Youtube, and all their studios are located in LA. That's what I mean about ubiquitous influence. How many Buzzfeed videos have the average American watched? Those are all LA-based actors and employees, filming in LA-based sets, coffee shops, restaurants, neighborhoods, etc, perpetuating styles and trends that are popular here. Of course you'll shrug it off as meaningless compared to the all-mighty Bay Area metro where the Youtube platform was born, but in a thread about influence you'd be wrong.
Once again,
The notion that LA is a major contributor to Youtube is quite ridiculous considering the size and scope of it's user base.
If we're really being honest, LA's content on youtube amounts to little more than breadcrumbs against the gigantic mass of content that originates elsewhere.
And that is a testament to the largesse of youtube.
LA is less educated and poorer than the Bay Area because foe the past 40 years, LA has been losing educated people toother cities and those workers have been replaced by low wage, low skilled positions.
This is well documented.
I think you're missing a portion of things in your argument. LA did lose quite a few professional jobs especially in terms of the defense and aerospace industry. However, LA still does have a lot of jobs that require higher education or very technical skill sets. The more general statement of LA being less educated and poorer stems just as much, if not more so, from its massive population growth over the last 40 years that consisted of less educated and poorer immigrants which also meant that many lower paid manufacturing jobs, as well as some service industry jobs, were able to stay profitable in Los Angeles. This isn't really a direct replacement of the higher-paying jobs so much as a massive change in proportions of low wage, low skilled positions. Think of it as the numerator staying the same or only slightly increasing for high wage, high skill positions while the denominator keeps on increasing.
Once again,
The notion that LA is a major contributor to Youtube is quite ridiculous considering the size and scope of it's user base.
If we're really being honest, LA's content on youtube amounts to little more than breadcrumbs against the gigantic mass of content that originates elsewhere.
And that is a testament to the largesse of youtube.
Youtube video views/channels roughly follow a power law, so it's not really that ridiculous.
I have been considering starting a small internet start-up next year and I have been reading up on a bunch of other start-ups. I have just finished "The Facebook Effect" which chronicles the origins, growth, and influence of Facebook. It really is quite astonishing how their company and companies like it have come to be and the role they play in lives around the globe.
One point made in the book is how Facebook gained such popular game abroad is that what the user saw was driven by the user's network. This insulated companies like Italy, Germany, and Spain from ever seeing anything American on the site.
To think these internet companies simply regurgitate what is produced in Los Angeles is simply naive. They are global vehicles used by people, companies, governments, and the entertainment industry. The platforms are helping to launch revolutions like the Arab Spring, while Los Angeles is concerned about the transition of an Olympic Decathlete.
This may be an oversimplification, but it underscores the point of the thread that while maybe Los Angeles media may still have greater influence over the average American presence (and even this is debatable), the global influence of transparency and connectivity is being pushed by the ideals emanating from the Bay Area.
The OP is playing slow pitch softball with Montclair. Seriously, San Francisco is a major global player. Its a huge tourist, immigrant, and cultural draw with a massive economy and the world wide leader in technology. But its not Los Angeles. LA has more global influence than any other North American city except NYC.
This is definitely how I see it also. The OP's wishful thinking is quaint at best.
I think you're missing a portion of things in your argument. LA did lose quite a few professional jobs especially in terms of the defense and aerospace industry. However, LA still does have a lot of jobs that require higher education or very technical skill sets. The more general statement of LA being less educated and poorer stems just as much, if not more so, from its massive population growth over the last 40 years that consisted of less educated and poorer immigrants which also meant that many lower paid manufacturing jobs, as well as some service industry jobs, were able to stay profitable in Los Angeles. This isn't really a direct replacement of the higher-paying jobs so much as a massive change in proportions of low wage, low skilled positions. Think of it as the numerator staying the same or only slightly increasing for high wage, high skill positions while the denominator keeps on increasing.
What kind of poll questions are these? San Francisco can still continue to become more influential globally than it currently is while LA can still be more influential globally.
I guess it goes down to what is meant by influence and how much of this can be attached to a city or metropolitan area.
It's clear to anyone that companies like Facebook, Google, and Apple (to name just a few) have a far bigger influence on people than Hollywood or all sorted industries concentrated in LA.
What's not clear is how much we can give this to the Bay Area. When someone thinks Hollywood, LA is inseparable. When someone thinks about their iPhone, the Bay Area doesn't pop into their head at all.
Not to say that silent influence is no influence. But then again just how much of this influence comes from the Bay Area? Tech is a flat world, and people living across the globe are making the products used by Bay Area companies. And what does Bay Area companies even mean? Where they're headquartered? Is this even the most important thing. McDonalds is headquartered in some suburb of Chicago numbering under 8,000 inhabitants. Who cares, the fact McDonalds is headquartered there doesn't make Oak Brook one of the most influential small towns in America.
People on this website really need to start being intelligent for a change. I really feel like I'm in the special classroom reading some of these posts.
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.
Seriously, San Francisco is a major global player. Its a huge tourist, immigrant, and cultural draw with a massive economy and the world wide leader in technology. But its not Los Angeles. LA has more global influence than any other North American city except NYC.
