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.
LA must have one of the strangest economies in the world.
A. Immigration issues. In other cities, like portland, or cities in the midwest, I imagine it must be much easier to live if you're a low skilled worker, simply because the cost of living is so much lower, commute times are more reasonable. And you aren't competing with so many immigrants.
B. Good schools are more evenly spread out in other cities. There may never really be a good economy in LA if you're a family looking for good close schools. It seems like the economy will never be able to catch up with the average school here.
C. Much of LA's employment is of a temp nature. Like hollywood, the entertainment industry. Can you really predict where you're going to be in 10-20 years in that industry? Or what the industry will look like.
Eventually housing will get back to an equilibrium. Isn't there a quote..."if something can not go on forever, it must stop". I'm probably butchering the quote....but, can you have families earning $50-100 k a year living in $700 k homes forever? Probably not.
Another issue with the LA economy, I would use LAX as a leading indicator. I think its the 3rd worst airport in the world or something?? It's a model for la's infrastructure, public transporation, ease of use (or lack there of), bureaucracy(or lack there of). Red tape (or lack there of). You can hide other economic statistics and fool the masses. You can underreport highschool graduation rates for example. But you can't hide how your leading airport is doing. I think its a good indicator of how the economy is running, below the surface. I would give that a D.
Where's the tax base going to come from in 20 years if you've got 15 million illegals, and 3 million working class people? Where's the tax base going to come from if the schools continue to churn out 30% dropouts? This seems like impossible math. Just keep churning out failure and poorly equiped future workers.....but expect them to pay for a 1st world city. Hmmmmmm.
I've got a question, but I hated to start a new thread, and it's relevant to what's being discussed here, so...
I'm 19 and possibly moving to the Santa Monica area for college. I want to know how hard it will be for me to find a part-time job. I'm looking for something in retail or a restaurant. I see tons of ads on Craigslist, but then I come here and people talk about how hard it is to find a job, but what about a job like this?
I've got a question, but I hated to start a new thread, and it's relevant to what's being discussed here, so...
I'm 19 and possibly moving to the Santa Monica area for college. I want to know how hard it will be for me to find a part-time job. I'm looking for something in retail or a restaurant. I see tons of ads on Craigslist, but then I come here and people talk about how hard it is to find a job, but what about a job like this?
Thanks. =)
Much easier to find a garden vareity part-time retail or restaurant job than the garden vareity 9-5pm, office or professional job.
Eventually housing will get back to an equilibrium. Isn't there a quote..."if something can not go on forever, it must stop". I'm probably butchering the quote....but, can you have families earning $50-100 k a year living in $700 k homes forever? Probably not.
The current economic disaster has discredited home ownership to many. I suspect this will only increase.
Quote:
Another issue with the LA economy, I would use LAX as a leading indicator. I think its the 3rd worst airport in the world or something??
It's awful. Don't know if it's the 3rd worst in the world. I'd suspect that Africa and the Middle East would have some terrible airports. In the US, only O'Hare and JFK are worse of airports I've been to.
Quote:
It's a model for la's infrastructure, public transporation, ease of use (or lack there of), bureaucracy(or lack there of). Red tape (or lack there of). You can hide other economic statistics and fool the masses. You can underreport highschool graduation rates for example. But you can't hide how your leading airport is doing. I think its a good indicator of how the economy is running, below the surface. I would give that a D.
LAX has been awful for years, including when L.A.'s economy has done better than at the present time.
Quote:
Where's the tax base going to come from in 20 years if you've got 15 million illegals, and 3 million working class people? Where's the tax base going to come from if the schools continue to churn out 30% dropouts?
In the past, the answer would be, "people would move to L.A. anyways". And that was generally correct. It didn't matter what L.A.'s schools produced since most of the population did not go to them and went to schools elsewhere, arriving as adults. And admittedly the non-LAUSD districts mostly do a decent job. However, LAUSD is a massive cancer, a blight. It is designed to fail, intentionally produces failures, is bloated with bureaucrcy, and has corruption that would shock even a Chicago politician. The focus on the comprehensive school may have been OK when the city which it covers had a smaller population and more high paying blue collar jobs but no longer works (like many things in L.A. including Areas within LAUSD are not family-friendly by definition even if they would qualify in other ways (and often WERE family-friendly in the 1980s and earlier, before LAUSD comprehensives were as uniformly horrendous as today).
However, the present is different. The last few years have seen a stabilization in the population of Los Angeles (albeit after over 60 years of massive population increase). It is not inconcievable that its population will start to decline. The threat of turning into Detroit is real, although it can be avoided. Los Angeles is already attracting fewer of the best and brightest (from all over the nation and world) because of unaddressed problems and an intentionally dysfunctional governing structure designed to make no one accountable by defusing power. While there have been a few changes for the better like the expansion of the Metro (without which Los Angeles would have absolutely zero hope for a future and without which Los Angeles might already be a dying city), there has been constant neglect of the city's human resources. LAUSD is the most blatant example of this neglect and cannot continue as it is. At the very least there needs to be a serious investigation of corruption in the district ; skimming money, graft, and "sweetheart deals" are very common (why else do you think the Kennedy Complex cost so much money to build?) and some people need to go down for it. The further spread of charters and magnets is essential ; breaking up the district into more manageable smaller districts with less bureaucracy would also be a good start. Abolishing the comprehensive is something to also be considered, even a voucher program on a limited basis for low and moderate income people with sufficient oversight might be worthwhile. (The oversight is necessary to prevent the spread of Scientology schools, South Asian-style madrassas, etc. etc. ) The end of LAUSD as we know it could further expand the creative class and really shake things up in L.A. The city DOES have a significant creative class in its favor (noted by urban planner Richard Florida) but when it comes to educational levels and current cultural infrastructure, L.A. has more in common with Riverside, Las Vegas, or Phoenix than it does with cities its population would rather compare it to like San Francisco or Seattle ; even Oakland has a significantly higher educational level than L.A. (or the rest of SoCal, or Vegas, or Phoenix). In a future where people from elsewhere aren't going to keep things running, neglecting such a huge number of kids (even if kids in other parts of the L.A. area get a better education) is a waste.
Quote:
This seems like impossible math. Just keep churning out failure and poorly equiped future workers.....but expect them to pay for a 1st world city. Hmmmmmm.
What you fail to understand is that Los Angeles government was DESIGNED to be dysfunctional - very much unlike a "1st world city", even one with many problems. The Board of Supervisors have more power than any other similar political body, and the L.A. City Council is the second most powerful body. The members of both act as mini-mayors. The L.A. City Council is an ossified and corrupt clique which votes unanimously more often than governing bodies in China do. Tony V is a charismatic puppet of big development interests without the power of a Daley or a Bloomberg, even without the power of a Newsom (who may have been worse when mayor of SF than Tony in LA just because he had real power that he failed to use). The proposed charter reforms of Riordan mostly got shot down. The reason for this intended dysfunction? It benefits the big developers and real estate interests and is an obstacle to the formation of a civil society. Every single L.A. mayor, even good ones like Bradley or decent ones like Riordan as well as inept ones like Yorty and Tony, has to some degree been in the pockets of these interests. L.A. elections always have low turnout, which is intentional. The political structures wind up affecting the economic structures.
Perhaps breaking up the city may be an option, the city of Los Angeles technically does not need to exist as the county controls most of the functions of a city. I'm all for Venice and San Pedro secession, and while I voted against Valley secession, but if I knew then what I know now I may have voted for it. (Not that the Valley City would have resulted in better government ; its supporters may have hoped for a new Burbank or Calabasas but what they would have gotten would have been a city larger than SF).
The current economic disaster has discredited home ownership to many. I suspect this will only increase.
It's awful. Don't know if it's the 3rd worst in the world. I'd suspect that Africa and the Middle East would have some terrible airports. In the US, only O'Hare and JFK are worse of airports I've been to.
LAX has been awful for years, including when L.A.'s economy has done better than at the present time.
In the past, the answer would be, "people would move to L.A. anyways". And that was generally correct. It didn't matter what L.A.'s schools produced since most of the population did not go to them and went to schools elsewhere, arriving as adults. And admittedly the non-LAUSD districts mostly do a decent job. However, LAUSD is a massive cancer, a blight. It is designed to fail, intentionally produces failures, is bloated with bureaucrcy, and has corruption that would shock even a Chicago politician. The focus on the comprehensive school may have been OK when the city which it covers had a smaller population and more high paying blue collar jobs but no longer works (like many things in L.A. including Areas within LAUSD are not family-friendly by definition even if they would qualify in other ways (and often WERE family-friendly in the 1980s and earlier, before LAUSD comprehensives were as uniformly horrendous as today).
However, the present is different. The last few years have seen a stabilization in the population of Los Angeles (albeit after over 60 years of massive population increase). The end of LAUSD as we know it could further expand the creative class and really shake things up in L.A. The city DOES have a significant creative class in its favor (noted by urban planner Richard Florida) but when it comes to educational levels and current cultural infrastructure, L.A. has more in common with Riverside, Las Vegas, or Phoenix than it does with cities its population would rather compare it to like San Francisco or Seattle ; even Oakland has a significantly higher educational level than L.A. (or the rest of SoCal, or Vegas, or Phoenix). In a future where people from elsewhere aren't going to keep things running, neglecting such a huge number of kids (even if kids in other parts of the L.A. area get a better education) is a waste.
Perhaps breaking up the city may be an option, the city of Los Angeles technically does not need to exist as the county controls most of the functions of a city. I'm all for Venice and San Pedro secession, and while I voted against Valley secession, but if I knew then what I know now I may have voted for it. (Not that the Valley City would have resulted in better government ; its supporters may have hoped for a new Burbank or Calabasas but what they would have gotten would have been a city larger than SF).
I don't think it's far fetched in 10-20 years, in LA you'll have....
-Massive retirement of baby boomers.
-Students of our horrendous school system supposedly entering into their prime earning years. On what? I wonder where a great base is going to come from. How can you build a great base if your graduates can hardly spell or do simple math.
-Unchecked illegal immigrant growth. This can't support an economy in the long run, can it?
-What's to stop the "wealthy" in LA from going to...San Luis Obispo. Santa Barbara. Central coast? Northern california?
It seems like competition will eventually penalize LA a great deal for the mistakes they've made.
-And a general lack of infrastructure. LAX is one example. China just broke a world record, building a 300 mph bullet train. They're going to spend $300 billion by 2020 on highspeed rail. I don't see how a city like LA, that produces 30% dropouts can compete in the long run with real 1st class cities. Either in Asia, Europe or the US.
I think the weather and climate will always save LA from being like Detroit. But I think the game is going to be up in 20 years, if not much sooner. You can't just keep under investing in your human resources, city culture, education, etc and expect everything to run smoothly.
It's not far fetched, it's almost going to look like North Korea in 20 years. A $500 million kennedy complex. And all these shiny expensive buildings. And casual observers wonder..."but why are they here?" $400 million shiny buildings don't fit the surroundings of poor peasants.
I don't think it's far fetched in 10-20 years, in LA you'll have....
-Students of our horrendous school system supposedly entering into their prime earning years. On what? I wonder where a great base is going to come from. How can you build a great base if your graduates can hardly spell or do simple math.
You didn't address what I said in my response to your post - that in the past, the answer to this question has been "there will always be people coming from somewhere else", and "they will outnumber the locals". Those are definitely NOT sure things in the future. Population declines could easily happen at some point especially if what needs to be done isn't taken care of.
One of the reasons for the lack of attention to this issue is the belief that outsiders will always come to keep things running. This is not a safe assumption to make.
Quote:
-Unchecked illegal immigrant growth. This can't support an economy in the long run, can it?
I don't think that's a good thing, but illegals are motivated by the same thing that motivates others - they'll go where they can find jobs. Joel Kotkin (whom I often disagree with, although I sometimes agree with him - I lean more towards his nemesis Florida, but Kotkin's right about some things) wrote last year that Mexican illegals are now heading to Texas more than California due to more jobs being available, and if Los Angeles continues to suffer from its current economic problems the illegals and legals will go somewhere else. This may sound like a good thing, but remember there are reasons why some American cities, once major immigrant destinations, now recieve few immigrants, like Cleveland or Detroit. Who in 1960 could've guessed what Detroit would turn into?
Quote:
What's to stop the "wealthy" in LA from going to...San Luis Obispo. Santa Barbara. Central coast?
All very anti-development places which do not want to be the center of anything. Santa Barbara at the beginning of the 20th century had just as much of a chance of being SoCal's major city as Los Angeles, but they chose quality of life over growth.
Quote:
Northern california?
The Bay Area is holding up better than SoCal, that's for sure. In fact the Bay Area is the only part of the state adding jobs not losing jobs. This could very well happen. (And one of the reasons I'm here and NOT in my hometown of L.A.)
Don't forget Seattle. Or Portland. Or Vancouver (the real "entertainment capital of the world")
Quote:
-And a general lack of infrastructure. LAX is one example. China just broke a world record, building a 300 mph bullet train. They're going to spend $300 billion by 2020 on highspeed rail. I don't see how a city like LA, that produces 30% dropouts can compete in the long run with real 1st class cities. Either in Asia, Europe or the US.
Well, not all those kids are in LAUSD. Although this is still a real problem.
L.A. has always been run poorly as I pointed out, although more so at some times than others. When the population was smaller it wasn't as much of an impediment. The structure of government has a great deal to do with how a city, state, or nation turns out. And Los Angeles' structure of government is extremely dysfunctional, even in a state that has an excessively high tolerance for dysfunctional structures of government.
Quote:
I think the weather and climate will always save LA from being like Detroit.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
There is one looming problem for Los Angeles which is going to make all of its current problems look petty and trivial by comparison - water.
I think businesses realize this already, and global warming as well, and that's an underplayed factor in why they're leaving. Why invest money somewhere which has very serious resource problems?
The lack of water could EASILY turn L.A. into Detroit. And turn Phoenix, Vegas, SD, etc. into Detroit. (Ironically, Detroit and the other Great Lakes cities abound in water supply, which is why I think some of the Rust Belt cities have a future. Not the D, because it's too far gone. But Pittsburgh, Rochester, Buffalo, Milwaukee, maybe even Cleveland. And Chicago's always going to be with us.)
Quote:
But I think the game is going to be up in 20 years, if not much sooner. You can't just keep under investing in your human resources, city culture, education, etc and expect everything to run smoothly.
I don't know when the water problems or climate change problems will really hit in a big way. If I knew the answers to those questions, I'd be heading a think tank not posting on C-D.
As it is right now L.A. can still be saved. The question is, how many people care about saving it? It would take some pretty major changes, but all it takes is for enough people to care. L.A. area city and county elections have small voter turnouts. Drawing more people to vote can help throw the bums out and shake things up. As said before there is no need for a City of Los Angeles since the county has more power and handles most of the functions that cities do elsewhere. It could easily be broken up into smaller and more manageable cities. (One of the reasons why I want to come back is that I'd like to be part of the positive change.)
Quote:
It's not far fetched, it's almost going to look like North Korea in 20 years.
So, you don't think it could be Detroit, but you think it could be WORSE than Detroit? Doesn't make sense.
Quote:
A $500 million kennedy complex. And all these shiny expensive buildings. And casual observers wonder..."but why are they here?" $400 million shiny buildings don't fit the surroundings of poor peasants.
If things go to complete crap only the worst off will be left. I sense you don't have any experience with seeing actual cities which have gone through decades of deep decline. Besides Detroit, Baltimore also comes to mind.
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.
