I think my point was media companies don’t need to be in a city to do business - they are in a panic to find revenue to stay afloat - thus why not relocate to someplace cheap.
There is no reason a media company needs to be located in one of the most expensive places to do business - cut the costs and thus there is less need to try and wring every cent from your customer to meet rent - etc. It’s inter-related.
The rebuttal was - “thats where people are to hire” - my rebuttal was “you can get people to move to cheaper areas if you are willing to incentivize” the rebuttal was “show proof” my rebuttal was “look here is an industry that literally gets people to move to a shit area with shit conditions in a shit job because money” - look if you can get someone to work a dangerous shitty job for cash in cowtown USA - then sure as hell if you find a nicer place that is still depressed and thus cheap - you could really get people to buy into it when you are talking a nice office job.
No - as seen above not everyone would take the move - but enough would. I went through this entire post to point out why ‘media’ wasn’t important to the previous conversation - it really doesn’t make any new point.
