Getting excited about geographic average of corporate HQ is definitely geek. But, since we are on the subject, it is interesting that the 2008-17 center coincided almost exactly with the geographic center of the US, Lebanon, Kansas. Pretty sure that this does not mean that corporate wealth was evenly distributed, even if the HQ buildings were.
The linked article seems to be making a different and broader point.
I guess that I am not convinced that the geographical location of large businesses within the USA (the point of this article) is the most consequential business change in 100 years.
Interesting, yes. But surely, there are other changes that are far more important.
As for bigger changes within the last 100 years, a few come immediately to mind:
1) The rise of East Asia.
2) The rise of digital technology
3) The relative decline of European business compared to the rest of the world.
4) The rise of the fossil fuel industry.
5) The rise of global supply chains via container shipping.
All of those factors seem more important to me than a shift in the geographical location of the largest US companies.
Getting excited about geographic average of corporate HQ is definitely geek. But, since we are on the subject, it is interesting that the 2008-17 center coincided almost exactly with the geographic center of the US, Lebanon, Kansas. Pretty sure that this does not mean that corporate wealth was evenly distributed, even if the HQ buildings were.
SO GEEK. Data visualizations about changes taking place in the business world make me inordinately happy.
This is an interesting article, but is it really the “the biggest business change of the past 100 years?”
That seems like a little bit of hyperbole. The maps were fascinating, though.
Michael, here's the post I wrote defending the "biggest change..." claim:
https://geekway.substack.com/p/stranded-astronauts-and-the-biggest
If you've got a better candidate I'd love to hear about it.
The linked article seems to be making a different and broader point.
I guess that I am not convinced that the geographical location of large businesses within the USA (the point of this article) is the most consequential business change in 100 years.
Interesting, yes. But surely, there are other changes that are far more important.
As for bigger changes within the last 100 years, a few come immediately to mind:
1) The rise of East Asia.
2) The rise of digital technology
3) The relative decline of European business compared to the rest of the world.
4) The rise of the fossil fuel industry.
5) The rise of global supply chains via container shipping.
All of those factors seem more important to me than a shift in the geographical location of the largest US companies.