Los Angeles goes 23rd straight year with negative job growth (San Jose: apartments, daycares)

[RaymondChandlerLives]

Originally Posted by Barbarossa69

We're not talking about unemployment rates.

The population in LA has increased by nearly 1.2 million people in the past 24 years.

The total number of jobs has actually declined by 3.2% since 1990.

That means these new people are:

1. Unskilled and working off the books (not paying taxes as well)
2. On welfare
3. Committing crime

Why hasn't the same thing happened in OC/SB/Riverside?

They added people, they added jobs.

LA added people, LA lost jobs.

Simple, no?

I smell an agenda. You are aware crime in Los Angeles is at historical lows, yes?

San Bernardino/Riverside added jobs, but not enough to offset the enormous population boom they experienced. That's why their unemployment rate hovers near 10%, reaching as high as 15% during the Great Recession.

You keep bringing up the population increase as if all these people are supposed to have jobs, when much of that growth is from live births. How many Angelenos have hit retirement age in the last decade? Retiring boomers are affecting the entire nation, and since LA County is more populous than 42 states states, it stands to reason it will affect us too.

I'll repeat:

Los Angeles County is only 26k shy of the all-time jobs record set in 1990. That 3.2% decline is all but gone.

The unemployment rate in Los Angeles County is currently 8.9%, too high. No disputing that.

143,000 jobs would get us to an acceptable unemployment rate. Considering the county added 46,000 jobs in the last two months, 143k is a reachable goal by mid/late-2015. All indications are that it will hit that mark.

So why is California dead-last when it comes to business friendliness, and states with virtually zero regulation like Texas consistently stay on top?

The solution is more government? More regulation? More taxation? More of other peoples' money?

Right-wing agenda? You know those Forbes lists are BS right? California has a lot of regulations, but would you rather businesses bend us over a'la Texas? It's not worth it in the long wrong.

I'm not saying CA needs more regulation, only pointing out that lax lending practices led to the mortgage crisis that nuked the US economy.

[Gurbie]

Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives

I smell an agenda. You are aware crime in Los Angeles is at historical lows, yes?

San Bernardino/Riverside added jobs, but not enough to offset the enormous population boom they experienced. That's why their unemployment rate hovers near 10%, reaching as high as 15% during the Great Recession.

You keep bringing up the population increase as if all these people are supposed to have jobs, when much of that growth is from live births. How many Angelenos have hit retirement age in the last decade? Retiring boomers are affecting the entire nation, and since LA County is more populous than 42 states states, it stands to reason it will affect us too.

I'll repeat:

Los Angeles County is only 26k shy of the all-time jobs record set in 1990. That 3.2% decline is all but gone.

The unemployment rate in Los Angeles County is currently 8.9%, too high. No disputing that.

143,000 jobs would get us to an acceptable unemployment rate. Considering the county added 46,000 jobs in the last two months, 143k is a reachable goal by mid/late-2015. All indications are that it will hit that mark.



Right-wing agenda? You know those Forbes lists are BS right? California has a lot of regulations, but would you rather businesses bend us over a'la Texas? It's not worth it in the long wrong.

I'm not saying CA needs more regulation, only pointing out that lax lending practices led to the mortgage crisis that nuked the US economy.

Forbes' agenda (and WSJ, Business Weekly, et al) with all the "California sucks- Texas rules" content , is to apply political pressure to reduce environmental and labor laws here, so their customers (the investment class) can maximize their profits.

The conservative anti-CA agenda, is to do the same, while trying to discredit CA's liberal/socialist model, in favor of Texas' conservative/libertarian model.

In 2010, Californians had a good look at the Texas model, with Meg Whitman and Carley Fiorini, and rejected it.

I think both those carpetbaggers are back in Texas now.

[NyWriterdude]

Originally Posted by Gurbie

Forbes' agenda (and WSJ, Business Weekly, et al) with all the "California sucks- Texas rules" content , is to apply political pressure to reduce environmental and labor laws here, so their customers (the investment class) can maximize their profits.

The conservative anti-CA agenda, is to do the same, while trying to discredit CA's liberal/socialist model, in favor of Texas' conservative/libertarian model.

In 2010, Californians had a good look at the Texas model, with Meg Whitman and Carley Fiorini, and rejected it.

I think both those carpetbaggers are back in Texas now.

Carly is back in Texas. Meg (she's from the East Coast) went back to the corporate world and is the CEO of Hewlett Packard. Previously she was the CEO of Ebay. Whitman should stick to being CEO.

[Those Who Squirm]

Originally Posted by ccm123

A better educated workforce, which attracts highly educated workers from all over the world.
The companies here in the Bay Area (Cisco, Intel, Apple, Google, Genentech, etc) because of the very businesses they are in, need well educated workers. A worker with a high school education just won't cut it
for most jobs, in these places.

These are "knowledge workers".

Quotes for emphasis are quite unnecessary here; I know what a knowledge worker is.

And in any event, how does attracting top talent from abroad help your local workforce? I'm not suggesting that it's impossible, but the H1-B visa program is not regarded as an unmixed blessing by the rank-and-file workforce of the tech industry.

[Those Who Squirm]

Originally Posted by Gnutella

I think what it means is that the Los Angeles metropolitan area has fewer jobs now than it did in 1990, and it's never gotten back to that level since.

The article does say L.A. County. Some outlying areas like the IE are still hurting, so the overall numbers don't surprise me.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Given the world geopolitical situation (most. dangerous. since. the. 1930s) the US would be insane not to turn the tide and start rearming. Yes that would mean a tax increase in some fashion. In any case, doing this could revive aerospace and other flagging defense lines of business. The decline of these has greatly harmed LA and nearby exurbs of it.

[nslander]

Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly

Given the world geopolitical situation (most. dangerous. since. the. 1930s) the US would be insane not to turn the tide and start rearming. Yes that would mean a tax increase in some fashion. In any case, doing this could revive aerospace and other flagging defense lines of business. The decline of these has greatly harmed LA and nearby exurbs of it.

It's not as if the US war machine ground to a halt- those contracts have been awarded elsewhere. The most likely beneficiaries of what you propose are the DC suburbs.

[ccm123]

Attracting top talent from all over the world helps the company develop and grow, for obvious reasons.
In a performance based culture (e.g. the best, brightest and highest skilled people have the best jobs),
the best people will eventually replace those who cannot "cut it" any longer. If the local workforce cannot provide the skills companies need, why hire them? Knowledge companies need to look elsewhere for the best talent.

After all, high tech companies are in business for one reason: profit and growth. Mediocre talent is not going to get Apple, Intel, or Google to that goal of growth.

If you were the CEO of a high tech growth company (e.g. Apple, Intel, Google, etc), would you hire just available "local talent" (without regard to qualifications, education and skills), or look for the best available?

Originally Posted by Those Who Squirm

Quotes for emphasis are quite unnecessary here; I know what a knowledge worker is.

And in any event, how does attracting top talent from abroad help your local workforce? I'm not suggesting that it's impossible, but the H1-B visa program is not regarded as an unmixed blessing by the rank-and-file workforce of the tech industry.

[Those Who Squirm]

Originally Posted by ccm123

If you were the CEO of a high tech growth company (e.g. Apple, Intel, Google, etc), would you hire just available "local talent" (without regard to qualifications, education and skills), or look for the best available?

It's a false dichotomy. If I were a CEO why would I hire anyone without regard to qualifications, education, and skills? It would be nonsense, like randomly choosing the first person I pass on the street. I was alluding to a choice between domestic and possibly local workers who have the skills, experience, and education to be in the running for a position, versus likely candidates from abroad.

If Bay Area employers have to do their recruiting abroad, then wouldn't that imply that educational attainment of the local population is deficient there as well? I don't think that's really true though, in either region. The drive for international recruitment, in my opinion, is less about how much profit can be made as it is about how much can be saved on the payroll.

[ccm123]

The educational attainment here is not deficient here in the Bay Area. There are some positions where these employers cannot find a local candidate (at the time of recruitment) with the skills, education and qualifications they need. So, they look "out of the local market". They want to find the candidate that has the qualifications to "do the job" (with the highest probability). A high school graduate working at Pep Boys or flipping burgers at In-N-Out realistically will never (unless he/she obtains further education) work at Apple, programming Apple IOS. However, a CS graduate from UC Berkeley can flip burgers at In-N-Out of he/she chooses, but would likely never have to (for obvious reasons).

The point is, there are more jobs here than suitable candidates.

H1B candidates are paid pretty close or at the same rate to what a local candidate would make, for a comparable position. I know for a fact.

Originally Posted by Those Who Squirm

It's a false dichotomy. If I were a CEO why would I hire anyone without regard to qualifications, education, and skills? It would be nonsense, like randomly choosing the first person I pass on the street. I was alluding to a choice between domestic and possibly local workers who have the skills, experience, and education to be in the running for a position, versus likely candidates from abroad.

If Bay Area employers have to do their recruiting abroad, then wouldn't that imply that educational attainment of the local population is deficient there as well? I don't think that's really true though, in either region. The drive for international recruitment, in my opinion, is less about how much profit can be made as it is about how much can be saved on the payroll.