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.
and so on...the thing is, in 2017 when we say 'tech', we're actually talking about every industry and pretty much every adpect of daily life-hence behemoths like Google and Amazon have their fingerprints in everything from phones to movie production.
Those stats aren’t particularly meaningful for LA since the headquarters for distribution channels such as cable television and movie theaters were never heavily based in LA. People consume the productions through many different platforms and mediums and any overall loss across platforms in the US, which is unlikely, is more than made up for the massive growth in exports abroad.
It wouldn’t matter if the overall owner of the production companied were the old parent companies mostly based in NYC or the new ones coming from the Bay Area and Seattle. LA’s productions have always had this relationship where there’s some greater corporate overlord somewhere up the chain based elsewhere—it was still an LA production. The major change isn’t that. The major change has been production and development itself being shifted out of LA in the last couple decades. LA is certainly still the largest center of production but its complete primacy doesn’t exist anymore.
Greater Los Angeles was once a major banking and financial center back in the early and middle 20th Century. Today it is not a banking center as no major banks are based in the greater region anymore. The closest that would come to major today is Pasadena-based East West Bank. The major stock exchanges that were based in the area have long since either shuttered or were purchased by competitors and relocated out of the area. Greater Los Angeles was once a major O&G market as well in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. Today it is no longer a player in the energy sector, with Occidental Petroleum being the last to decamp the area in recent years. Greater Los Angeles was once the world's largest aerospace economy and while it still has a sizable presence in the region, much of the industry has hallowed out from its 1980s peak. Northrop Grumann decamped the region for Washington, D.C. a few years back. Greater Los Angeles was once the film and television production capital of the world with a monopolizing style of control over both industries, film and television, but that has changed radically in recent decades with the rise of new centers for both industries. Greater Los Angeles a few decades back had created a reputation for itself as a magnet for corporate headquarters expansions and relocations, today it finds itself somewhere on the other end of that spectrum.
Banking. Finance. Energy. Aerospace. Film. Television.
Industries of Greater Los Angeles' past that prominently shaped its economy during its rise to #2 in the United States. Some of these industries still have a presence in Los Angeles, a sizable presence no less, but their impact compared to their peak decades in the region have diminished over time. Los Angeles is still the second most important city in the United States today. The difference is that in 2000 it was by far and away second and today it is just maybe a step up from the next city in the American hierarchy. It shouldn't really be that way, given that its lead on the next place by population is enormous but this is the world of today and it's a dog-eat-dog world for every city.
Los Angeles' key advantages today include its seaport, which is probably the biggest and most important industry in all of Greater Los Angeles with the most profound impact on other major industries in the region. The city is a mega-hub aviation market as well and finally, its population and massive size will always keep it amongst the most important cities on Earth. Because of its massive population, it also has one of the largest metropolitan economies on Earth and concentration of wealth. The region also has a fine collection of educational institutions of higher learning, which is to the regions benefit. However, in the years to come, Los Angeles will increasingly find that it has other peers it needs to compete more closely with, both domestically within the United States and abroad internationally. Peers that will get the best of Los Angeles at certain things that were once well within Los Angeles' control.
The University of Oxford, based here in the United Kingdom, released their estimations on which cities will prove to be the most resilient against automation. Unsurprisingly the top two places were the San Francisco Bay Area and Washington D.C., with Boston in the mix as well. Automation cannot replace diplomatic jobs or political and governmental jobs that only humans can do (i.e. the Supreme Court, for example, is based off justices that make moral and ethical judgements - the government in general is like that) and in the case of the San Francisco Bay Area, it is the place that has the companies that will be at the forefront of this economic alteration.
Box office revenue has not "plunged." The summer season was the worst since the 90s, but the spring was also the best all time. Not only was March the highest grossing all time, but it was also the most attended March - of all time. September was also the highest grossing of all time. And February was #3 all time. Nice try.
Soo...it's LA's fault that consumer preferences are changing...like always? Wasn't there a time when radio and newspapers were king? So, that's a fault against Pittsburgh that radio has declined huh?...
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
That is LAs bread and butter as far as 'cultural relevance' no?
and so on...the thing is, in 2017 when we say 'tech', we're actually talking about every industry and pretty much every adpect of daily life-hence behemoths like Google and Amazon have their fingerprints in everything from phones to movie production.
Again, how does this have anything to do with LA or San Francisco???? San Francisco didn't invent or innovate anything. Your inferiority complex is ridiculous.
There's Nascar tracks all over the country and you don't hear Charlotte yelling "yeah, well, we started it." ChickFilA is #1 customer rankings, and you don't hear Atlanta going "yeah, we did that." Every time Target's shares jump, you don't hear Minneapolis say "yeah, you're welcome. That's our culture."
Goodness. The Bay has produced a lot of tech, but you act like the Bay owns it all and we wouldn't have all this technology without San Francisco. Wrong. We wouldn't have all this tech and innovation without minds like Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, Reed Hasting, etc. Where they come from is irrelevant.
You never see Atlantan's on CD using Coke as a reason why their city is better, because they know Atlanta doesn't "own" soda...
Furthermore, this is not a recent trend. Over the past 40 years, LA and the Bay Area have been headed in different directions economically. LA boomed as far as population, but eroded hundreds of thousands of white collar jobs as the region was unable to transition from defense/aerospace to other techical fields like software, hardware and so on. Instead the good jobs that left LA were replaced by lower wage, less skilled jobs-up north the opposite occurred. This is why we find ourselves where we are now, the Bay Area pretty much runs the state economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CityLab
L.A. and San Francisco are two of America’s leading urban economies. The Bay Area is the world’s leading center for startups and new technologies, and the home of companies like Intel, Apple, Genentech, Google, Twitter, and Uber, while L.A. is the center of film, entertainment, and pop culture. But when it comes to income, wages, and other key metrics for economic development, San Francisco has done far better than L.A. over the past several decades.
Los Angeles CSA: 16 Fortune 500 Companies
52 Disney
123 Amgen
156 Molina Healthcare
161 Aecom
214 CBRE Group
217 Western Digital
222 Farmer's Insurance
235 Edison International
302 Pacific Life
320 Reliance Steel
330 Live Nation
395 A-Mark Precious Metals
406 Activation Blizzard
430 Avery Dennison
464 First American Financial
474 Mattel
and so on...the thing is, in 2017 when we say 'tech', we're actually talking about every industry and pretty much every adpect of daily life-hence behemoths like Google and Amazon have their fingerprints in everything from phones to movie production.
TV Ratings/Ticket Sales are down because media consumption via streaming/online platforms is way up. Americans (and global consumers) are watching more television & film than ever. Both the Bay Area and LA are influencing/reacting to this development.
No, LA's cultural relevance is derived from a lot more than film/TV. It's a global influencer for fashion, music, media, art, architecture, cuisine, etc. It is also arguably the capitol of the fitness/wellness industry, if you consider that a component of culture. With respect to New York, no other city in the world has a larger cultural footprint.
All of the companies you listed have studios/corporate offices in LA. The content they produce is determined by the respective studio heads, not the corporate HQ; a show conceived and developed by Netflix's studios in LA is hardly a Bay Area production. No doubt tech influences culture, but that influence isn't measure by share prices or online users. I also have no idea why you're listing Amazon, I'm fairly certain they employ more people in LA than the Bay Area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facts Kill Rhetoric
Greater Los Angeles was once a major banking and financial center back in the early and middle 20th Century...
Nice article. LA's economy is certainly different nowadays than it was in the 1930s or 1960s, but you neglect to mention a lot of the positive changes/new industries forming.
With respect to tech, Silicon Beach is expanding rapidly. By some metrics it is the second largest 'tech hub' after SF/SJ, although I consider Seattle and New York ahead of it right now. There are a lot of tech companies here with the potential to grow into Fortune 500 companies and it will be interesting to see if any U.S. city out of NY, LA, Boston, Austin, etc can grow its tech sector to match that of the Bay Area's over the upcoming decades.
LA's best bet for tech lies with its social media startups (Snap, Hulu, Tinder, Whisper, etc) and several other companies with potential for major industry disruption (Hyperloop One, SpaceX, The Boring Company etc). The startup scene still has a ways to go before it matures and it may look very different by the time it does.
As far as other industries; aerospace is a tricky one. LA has lost a lot of ground here since its heydey, but there is promise with newer companies (SpaceX, etc) that may reshape/reinvigorate the industry. LA is also poised to be the cannabis capitol of the world (once legalization takes effect January 1st) given the significant infrastructure & high number of companies already operating here. I am semi-involved in this industry and there is a lot of gearing up for expansion/increased hiring right now. It will be comparable to the alcohol beverage industry once it matures.
LA's fashion industry is now larger than New York's in terms of employment numbers and continues to grow in influence/importance, although New York still has an edge here. The health/fitness/wellness industry is primarily based in SoCal and I envision it becoming more significant as it integrates with some of the aforementioned industries (tech, fashion ,etc).
Finance and petroleum are still present and if anything LA's finance industry is re-emerging with the massive construction boom (largest since the 1920s) and the need for tech VC. By some measurements it's not far behind SF/SJ. There is simply too much investment (foreign and domestic) pouring in right now for it not to expand.
None of this relates to the entertainment industry, which isn't 'declining' nearly as much as some want to portray. Certainly film/television production has migrated to regions with lower operating costs, but this is akin to Apple manufacturing iphones in China or anyplace with cheaper labor. Most film/television production is still conceived, financed, casted, edited, marketed and distributed in LA/by LA-based companies. The best way to sum it up is with a conversation I had with an actor friend who recently moved back here from Atlanta (which is where a lot of film production has moved too). He's from Atlanta and was hoping to live there permanently after working in LA briefly but couldn't find any work, despite the large number of movies being filmed there. He said it's impossible to get casted for these movies unless you're a friend of the director/producer/etc, because the casts are devised months in advance in LA where the all major agencies/guilds/etc are based. With Netflix, Amazon, HBO, Google/Youtube etc all opening/expanding studios here, in addition to the Big Six and established indie studios, that's not changing anytime soon.
edit: If LA wants to retain/garner white-collar employment, it needs to to prioritize increasing urbanization & public transit. Recent legislative initiatives are a step in the right direction, but there's still a lot of opposition to development and that's not helping bring down the COL. There's plenty of talent in the universities and research institutions to fulfill employment needs; it's more a question of ensuring those workers can live in/access the regions where employers are.
Last edited by westbymidwest; 10-13-2017 at 01:33 PM..
I'm still really curious to know why you think we should be thanking the Bay Area to be having these companies, and why you think box office receipts and TV ratings have anything to do with LA itself.
With respect to tech, Silicon Beach is expanding rapidly. By some metrics it is the second largest 'tech hub' after SF/SJ, although I consider Seattle and New York ahead of it right now.
Personally I preferred what Greater Los Angeles called its tech industry in the 1990s and 2000s more, it was referred to as the Tech Coast. Unfortunate that the name didn't stick and a generic Silicon (insert geographical feature here) is what it is referred to as today.
Look, I think Greater Los Angeles is more important than the San Francisco Bay Area but definitely not by leagues or even by far. You missed the point of my post, it wasn't to make it out to be all doom and gloom in Los Angeles, anyone with common sense can see that it is an economically important and thriving city. I even went out my way to say just that in my post. My post was to illustrate how a city went from the top place or a top two or so place in every single one of those industries to having diminishing impact from all of those industries. The only industries of those that it is still #1 in are Film and Television. Los Angeles is a bit more important than the San Francisco Bay Area and an argument can be made that they are 1B to Los Angeles' 1A for both California and the Western United States. Or 1 and 1A if you prefer that classification more than the 1A and 1B one. Or even #1 and a close #2. Any of these three classifications would be appropriate in depicting things as they are now. The West isn't the Midwest or Northeast, where there is a #1 city and then a steep as heck drop down to #2 and beyond. I would say that is really my only point here.
New York, Seattle, Boston, and London are all more important tech sectors than Los Angeles. Same goes for a couple of Japanese and South Korean cities when talking globally.
If you had to look for a self-admission of that, just look at what you've decided to name your tech cluster as "Silicon Beach". That's a self-admission if I ever saw one that you're in Silicon Valley's shadows in this industry. We are talking about Greater Los Angeles versus the San Francisco Bay Area here, so that is an important point of delineation between the two. Personally I preferred what Greater Los Angeles called its tech industry in the 1990s and 2000s more, it was referred to as the Tech Coast. Unfortunate that the name didn't stick and a generic Silicon (insert geographical feature here) is what it is referred to as today.
Look, I think Greater Los Angeles is more important than the San Francisco Bay Area but definitely not by leagues or by far. You missed the point of my post, it wasn't to make it out to be all doom and gloom in Los Angeles, it was to illustrate how a city went from the top place or a top two or so place in every single one of those industries to having diminishing impact from all of those industries. Of course aerospace is still in Los Angeles with SpaceX, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and others but it isn't anywhere near as sizable a cluster as it was in 1980 and other American cities have built up an aerospace industry of their own now. That's a sector that has decentralized significantly and decentralized out of Los Angeles and into other cities across the globe. That didn't matter before in 1980 when Los Angeles was by far the #1 aerospace center but it isn't by far that anymore. Los Angeles is a bit more important than the San Francisco Bay Area and an argument can be made that they are 1B to Los Angeles' 1A for both California and the Western United States. Or 1 and 1A if you prefer that classification more than the 1A and 1B one.
Measuring the importance of tech hub's isn't clear cut because they're multiple metrics to consider. None of those cities have had a tech IPO as large as LA in recent years, for instance. You can look at the # of startups, VC raised, incubators, etc and each will have a different list. I already acknowledged New York and Seattle (more of a mature tech industry than a 'startup centric' one); Boston is primarily bio-tech based and it's difficult to qualify a 'tech' versus a 'bio-tech' company. I'm admittedly not as familiar with London's tech scene but if were including non-American cities then Tel-Aviv surpasses it and LA's.
I don't dispute anything you've said. My point is that as LA's ceded ground in these industries, new ones have developed/are developing. The exact same thing happened to the Bay Area with the tech sector; it arose in the post WWII era and supplanted some of SF/SJ's established industries/employers. The difference is 'Silicon Valley' has been around since the 1950s and has origins in earlier times, where as LA's newer industries are younger/just beginning to mature.
I referenced Silicon Beach because it's generally understood to comprise LA's tech scene. 'The Tech Coast' includes San Diego's and the rest SoCal's tech industry. They (and Silicon Valley) are all interconnected of course and will become even more so with time, especially once the high-speed rail project is complete. Of course Silicon Valley>>>Silicon Beach; that's a given. But again tech is the most significant industry in the Bay Area, it is a minor (but growing) one in LA.
I really have no problems with that classification whatsoever. If I didn't live in LA I would likely live in SF fwiw. I only responded to this thread because some SF booster said it was inconceivable that LA was ranked ahead of SF and went off on a tangent insulting LA. I don't particularly care about wealth metrics or the like, I'm just tired of seeing Bay Area residents taking potshots at LA whenever a thread involving the two is created.
Last edited by westbymidwest; 10-13-2017 at 02:12 PM..
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.
