Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/04/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Yes, I would extend my portent to any place dominated by one industry. It's best not to wait around for the anti-climax. At 05:55 PM 4/1/2010, you wrote: >Chris, > >Great story. > >Sadly, I can not name a "Efficient company town", well Mountain View for >Google, may be. :) > >-Pasvorn > >On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Chris Saganich ><chs2018 at med.cornell.edu>wrote: > > > > > Eastman set-up that town for failure early on. Before Eastman put the > > screws to the place Rochester was one of the most successful and creative > > cities in the North East regarding technology. That's the reason Eastman > > set up shop there because of the already highly advanced work in > > precision > > manufacturing and optical work. Eastman came to complete dominate the > > Rochester economy choking off or swallowing up nearly every other > > business > > in town. Xerox, named Haloid at the time was a photo supply operation > > and > > survived the Eastman onslaught because they were so small as to go > > unnoticed. They bought the rights to a process invented by a clerk in an > > electrical machine patten office to copy diagrams for patten research and > > then developed photo-copy paper and machines to use the process. By that > > time Rochester was already a efficient company town and Xerox despite its > > innovative spirit couldn't return Rochester to its pre-Kodak dynamic > > economy. Efficient company towns are destined to stagnate and fail so if > > your living in one get-out while you can and don't look back! > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Leica Users Group. >See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information