BellSouth to be sold

[teshadoh]

Sorry unifour - you're really stretching it to suggest that Atlanta's economy is equatable to LA. LA doesn't need corporate headquarters b/c nearly every corporation has regional offices there.

Regarding 'competing' - sure we can compete with LA, just as Charlotte or Columbia can compete with any other city themselves. But let's not confuse growth rates with being 'greater', also growth rates are random...

[Unifour]

According to the lists I found, here they are for FORTUNE 500 COMPANIES ONLY for 2004:

MSA only: City center only:

1. New York 71 New York 40

2. Chicago 31 Houston 18

3. Houston 20 Atlanta 12

4. Los Angeles 18 Chicago 11

5. Minneapolis-St. Paul 18 Charlotte, Dallas, Philadelphia, Pittsburg, San Francisco 7 each

6. Dallas-Fort Worth 17 Birmingham, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Minneapolis,

7. Detroit 16 Seattle, St. Louis 6 each

8. Philadelphia 15 Boston, Omaha, Richmond, San Antonio, Stamford, Ct., Troy, Mi. 5

9. Washington 15 each

10. Atlanta 14

Size doesn't necessarliy determine business strength. These numbers will likely change faster than a list can keep up with.

[monsoon]

If we use the number of corporate HQ's as a measure of a city's importance, does that mean that Atlanta is now much less important because it lost BellSouth? Of couse not. This isn't a measure of that. It's bragging rights at best. Out of control housing construction may be an indication of bad sprawl rather than signs of a healthy city. How much of the new construction is occuring in the city itself?

A much better way to measure a city and metro's relative importance as a business center is to look at the GMP of the areas. It's been a while since I looked but the Los Angeles GMP is larger than the Chicago's and second only to NYC, and several times larger than that of ATL.

[Unifour]

Sorry unifour - you're really stretching it to suggest that Atlanta's economy is equatable to LA. LA doesn't need corporate headquarters b/c nearly every corporation has regional offices there.

Regarding 'competing' - sure we can compete with LA, just as Charlotte or Columbia can compete with any other city themselves. But let's not confuse growth rates with being 'greater', also growth rates are random...

No one said that Atlanta was equal to LA economically. I did not say that. I was talking about the presence of large companies in the city itself. I said that size doesn't equal importance in big business (in terms of corporate presence). Atlanta has many more big companies in it than LA, and nearly as many in it's metro as LA. I don't think corporate headquarters matters as much either, which is what I have been saying in previous posts about this deal with Bell South. What you just said about LA holds true for nearly all sizeable metro areas in the developed world. The VAST majority of Global Fortune 1,000 have offices in Atlanta as well (and Chicago, and Dallas, and Houston, and New York, etc.) I wonder how the list would change if you throw in the Fortune 1,000 numbers?

[monsoon]

Atlanta has many more big companies in it than LA, and nearly as many in it's metro as LA.

You have not proven that. You have only given us a count of Fortune 500 companies that is 2 years old.

[teshadoh]

Ok Unifour - sorry for misunderstanding, but you suggest that most Fortune 500 (or 1000) companies have offices in Atlanta. I can bet they have even more offices in LA / Riverside / Orange County.

[Unifour]

Since everyone seems confused by what I said, let me clarify. I meant that size scale was not the end all and be all of a city and it's influence. Los Angeles has a greater economic output because it is a larger area, but in terms of being a "center" of business decision making, other cities hold greater influence. In 2004, New York's GMP was at $901 billion, LA was at $581 billion, and Chicago was at $392 billion. Atlanta was in 10th place with $198 billion. LA isn't the largest center of business on the West Coast, the SF/SJ area are because of the influence of Silicon Valley. I guess what I should have said was business influence or the main center of decision making. Keep in mind that Atlanta is helped a great deal by the massively successful Hartsfield Airport, which employs many thousands of people, and Atlanta has emerged as a high tech area as well. I still don't think that Atlanta will be devestated in the long run by this, remember San Francisco lost Bank of America and Pacific Bell. Fort McPherson/Gillem and Naval Air Station only count for less than 0.1% of area employment according to the study conducted by the civilian board that ultimately makes the decisions. I think the US military is smart enough to know if the nation's economy isn't strong, it's military won't be either. And finally, Fortune 500 relocations are rare, so in any case, no other city will ever touch New York in that regard, unless a tsunami wipes New York away.

Another example of what I am trying to say is in Europe. In Europe, the largest urban center is Paris, however, London wields more influence in the business world than Paris.

[ironchapman]

I was just checking the paper when I found this.

New AT&T will shed 10,000 jobs

AT&T plans dramatic changes for its latest acquisition, BellSouth, and will sweep away thousands of jobs in the process.

In explaining its proposed $67 billion buyout to analysts Monday, AT&T disclosed it will slice 10,000 jobs during a three-year period starting in 2007. The cuts will help the newly expanded AT&T save billions of dollars but, at the same time, could come at a heavy cost for some workers, especially in

However, a bit of good news: Perdue is considering some incentives to bring more companies to our state, so at least he is aware of this. It's a relatively small number of workers for the new company, though, as there are 317,000 employees in the new AT&T (with BellSouth and Cingular added in).

It's still sad to lose BellSouth, though.

[Andrea]

The people who hurt the most in such mergers tend to be middle and upper management.

Celeste, thanks so much for your comments -- most enlightening.

And you got 12 tickets to the BellSouth Classic? Woo-hoo!!!

[bfermanich]

I'm sorry but Duane Ackerman is a fool. Read Maria Saporta's column in the AJC,

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/business/s...ellsaporta.html

He essentially blew any chance of BellSouth becoming a major national player in telecommunications. Blown opportunity after blown opportunity to acquire companies has left BellSouth nothing more than an acquisition target. And now we don't have a major Fortune 500 headquarters in Atlanta.

Good luck with getting AT&T to move from San Antonio to Atlanta, Sonny and Shirley. Wishful thinking. Its a last minute act of desperation to undo what Duane Ackerman has done to Atlanta.

Thanks, Duane

[ironchapman]

I'm sorry but Duane Ackerman is a fool. Read Maria Saporta's column in the AJC,

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/business/s...ellsaporta.html

He essentially blew any chance of BellSouth becoming a major national player in telecommunications. Blown opportunity after blown opportunity to acquire companies has left BellSouth nothing more than an acquisition target. And now we don't have a major Fortune 500 headquarters in Atlanta.

What about Coke or Delta (assuming it gets back on its feet)?

But yes, I do agree that Duane Ackerman has made several mistakes that have now proven costly to us.

Good luck with getting AT&T to move from San Antonio to Atlanta, Sonny and Shirley. Wishful thinking. Its a last minute act of desperation to undo what Duane Ackerman has done to Atlanta.

Yeah, I don't think AT&T would leave for Atlanta unless we practically sold ourselves to them.

[teshadoh]

I think the likely reality of Franklin & Perdue's campaigning (they sure are spending a lot of time together...) for AT&T is they are hoping to get a AT&T divisional headquarter. I don't mean regional headquarter, that should be a no brainer - but I mean with Cingular (or AT&T Wireless) already in Atlanta, the hope would probably be a combined AT&T Wireless headquarter would be in Atlanta. That could be huge...

[eastsider]

Article in today's San Antonio paper stating that Atlanta may try to take the AT&T headquarters.

Atlanta is smarting from two losses this week: The NASCAR Hall of Fame is heading to Charlotte, N.C., despite an expensive local campaign, and San Antonio's AT&T Inc. is preparing to swallow BellSouth Corp.

Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue sees it as an opportunity.

The governor proposes using public money earmarked for the NASCAR project to woo the AT&T headquarters to the Peach State.

The people in San Antonio feel that as long as Ed Whitacre is the head of AT&T, the headquarters will remain there.

San Antonio Express-News: Atlanta may bid to be AT&T's headquarters

[Lady Celeste]

It's worth a try. I surely hope to see the same feverous pitch made by the Governor, Madame Mayor and the the Georgia Legislature as was made for the NASCAR HOF. This would have a far greater impact. Having said that, it will be an uphill battle.

From the article:

Jim Renzas, founder and president of Location Management Services, a site-selection consulting firm from Mission Viejo, Calif., said he would not be surprised if Atlanta made a pitch to lure AT&T. But operating costs in that city and its congestion problems might make it a hard sell.

"It's a lot cheaper to do business in San Antonio than Atlanta," Renzas said.

This is what happens when your city becomes large. It is expensive to do business here in comparison to most southern metros. We do however have a more temperate climate and an airport with a lot of direct flights. All I can say is good luck. AT&T headquartered in Atlanta would be great. I'm not thinking in terms of skyscrapers and clout, I'm thinking in terms of families having jobs. That would be my top priority as a politician. Having a HOF with 100 or so low wage jobs is nothing in comparison to a corporate headquarters with thousands of well paid workers. Can't have museums unless you have people who can afford to visit them. Do you hear me Madame Mayor?