Arrun r&Go.

GROWTH PATTERN: IHE DYNAMIC LOS ANGELES

'IiETR,OPOLITAN AR.EA

Continued population increases and higher personal incomes are among the highlights of an optimistic forecast for the future of the Los Angeles metrbpolitan area rel_ease_d by Union Bank. The study, which was prepared by Dr. Robert R. Dockson, professor in the school-of commerce at University of Southern California and Union Bank consulting.economist, looks ahead through 1975.

Following are excerpts from the study:

Population Trends:

1. One of the maior reasons why markets have mushroomed in the Los Angeles Area has been the rapid increase in population.

2. It is expected the T os Angeles Area will have a popu- lation approximating 7,700,000 by 1965,8,700,000 by 1970, and 10,300,000 by 1975.

3. For the most part, (approx. 85/o) the population explosion in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area has been clue to in-migration rather than to an increase in births.

4. In-migration is expected to continue in large numbers and a large number of the in-migrants will be in the childbearing age bracket between twenty and thirty-five years.

5. The sections in the Metropolitan area with the greatest amdunt of undeveloped land (such as East San Gabriel Valley, North Los Angeles County, West San Fernando Valley and Orange County) will absorb a large part of the new ln-mlgrants.

Employment:

1. Those who endeavor to challenge the economic stability of the Los Angeles Metropolitan area often base their contentions upon an alleged imbalance in the area's economy.

2. The distribution of the Los Angeles Metropolitan area's non-agricultural employment compares favorably with the distribution of such emplovment in tl-re entire United States.

3. The Los Angeles Metropolitan area has a smaller share of its wage and salary workers employed by all levels of government than does the United States as a whole. On the other hand, it has a larger share of the non-agricultural employment in the manufacturing and service industries than does the entire country. The differences in the distribution of employment are minor and have little economic significance, and therefore tend to discredit the statement tl-rat the Los Angeles economy is out of balance as compared to the nation, as a whole. When compared with nonagricultural employment found in other metropolitan areas, a more meaningful comparison, the Los Angeles area appears to fit the pattern of the entire country as well, if not better. than manv of the other centers.

4. If and when the dav arrives that international tensions have been eased to ihe extent that defense expenditures can be drastically reduced, the problem of maintaining full employment in the absence of such expenditures will be a problem of the nation as a whole, not of the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area alone.

Personal Income:

1. Since 1950, personal income in the Los Angeles Are:r expanded at the rate of approximately 2/o f.or each 1/o change in Gross National Product.

2. For the entire period from 1935 through7957, personal income in the Los Angeles area increased, on the average, 1.6/o for every l/o change in the national output.

3. It can be expected that business activity in the metropolitan area will accelerate at a faster rate thin G.N.P. during periods of an upturn in the national economy and it will decline more. slowly than G.N.P. when the national economy is experiencing a downturn.

4. Total personal income in the Los Angeles Metropolitan area is likely to increase from approximately 120/o to 148/o over the next 17 years.

(Continued on Page 80)