Quote:
Originally Posted by ChelseaFC
We shouldn't be surprised by this. Lots of companies (and human beings) are moving from California to Texas (and Nevada and Arizona). It's just a more business friendly place. And has a lower cost of living.
|
Even worse for LA, being that it has no anchor for human capital that justifies companies staying here, unlike SF or Seattle, where their tech-university-research complex serves as a buffer against extensive brain-drainage.
Since its economic peak in the 80s when its economy was heavily aerospace and S&L dependent, LA has gotten comparatively poorer and poorer vs its peers.
Today, LA plays third or fourth fiddle in all the leading industries of our time: tech, biotech, finance, and LA is effectively a gigantic "regional headquarters" for first-tier economies like SF, NY, Sea, Houston, cities where global decisions are made by
high-level decisionmakers (and talent), serving as a magnet for more talent. The only industry in which LA operates at the highest-level is logistics via the port complex, which is not talent-generating or high-income. And please don't mention hollywood - LAs showbiz is worth less
in aggregate than the revenue of John Deere. I's depressing to hear someone appeal to "importance" of hollywood, because it only serves to highlight the truth of what I am saying above.
The problem with lumping exoduses from LA with SF under the umbrella of "California", is that it excuses LAs challenges by using SFs strengths. But SF can stand to lose an F100 company, because it has no shortage of educated, skilled labor at the myriad of others HQ'd there. By contrast, each time LA loses an F100, it loses like 15% of its skilled labor.