U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Americas
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Mexico City or Santiago De Chile to live abroad (learn Spanish and work)
Mexico City 10 43.48%
Santiago De Chile 13 56.52%
Voters: 23. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Old 12-08-2018, 02:17 PM
 
251 posts, read 190,824 times
Reputation: 229

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by iron_stick View Post
I think you don't understand what GDP means. I'll try explaining. Mexico’s GDP is $1,046,002 million, which may sound like a lot, but the moment you realize it took 120 million inhabitants to produce and is divided among as many people things come into perspective. For instance, Denmark’s GDP is $306,730 millions which is a lot less than Mexico's. Some might believe that Mexico must be much wealthier than Denmark. However, Denamrk’s population is barely 5 millions, 24 times less than Mexico’s. In other words, with an equal population Denmark’s GDP would be $7,361,520 millions. This means that one Danish worker produces as much as 7 Mexicans. By the same token, one Dane has as much wealth as 7 mexicans.


Even if all the Mexican wealth was arithmetically averaged and equally split among all the citizens, Mexico would be #70 between Saint Lucia and Kazakhstan, so you see that it's not just a matter of "inequality".



You're throwing your own scenario in there. People want to feel safe and search for a better life, it's only human and I don't blame them for that. Apparently they seem to believe they can achieve that in the US and not in Mexico, not an opinion just a fact.



I think that the Mexican's minimum wage being $3.94 per day shies away potential immigrants far more than corruption.
I am not trying to belittle Mexico nor Mexicans, I am just trying to be fair and have a matter of fact approach. Saying that Mexico is terrible s####hole is racist, saying that Mexico is a global superpower is chauvinistic BS.

Myself and several others before me have tried explaining to you that Mexico City alone accounts for a disproportionate amount of Mexico's wealth and development.

You taking Mexico's overall GDP and dividing on an per capita basis has no relevance nor does it refute the fact that Mexico City is a global center.

Mexico is ranked at the same level as Los Angeles, Chicago, Madrid, Milan, and Toronto according to the Global and World Cities Research Network 2018 data. https://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/world2018t.html

Mexico City, with 8 million people, accounts for a little under 20% of the nation's productivity (with the majority of that being in the services sector). According to the OECD, Mexico City's GDP alone is estimated at $421 billion usd. That is considerably larger than the size of Toronto's city GDP.

https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=CITIES

Not taking into account how that wealth is distributed, Mexico City is one of the largest urban economies in the Americas. Again, on the same tier as Los Angeles, Toronto, and Sao Paulo.

Now, when income inequality is taken into account, the disparity is disgusting. There are districts of Mexico City that are impoverished (dirt roads, no access to city services like running water, etc). And then there are the wealthy districts with a Human Development index on par with Scandinavian cities. The inhabitants of the wealthier parts of CDMX have made the city a major market in luxury goods.

While the issue of inequality is damper on social progress for Mexico City, it does not dampen the economic clout the city wields over the country and the rest of the Americas.

Last edited by sf_arkitect; 12-08-2018 at 02:59 PM..
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-12-2018, 05:14 AM
 
3,788 posts, read 3,012,559 times
Reputation: 2517
I don't have statistics on specific numbers of foreign population in Mexico City, etc. But at least in my opinion (and from what you seemed to indicate by mentioning Asia-Pacific cities that are still global to you despite their lack of diversity), that is only one part of the equation. I am sorry, but the AT Kearney list is very Euro and American Centric. The fact that Shanghai (highest GDP city in China) is outside the Top 15, and that Cairo (which not a small number would say is capital of the Arabic world) is outside of the Top 60, is laughable, and seriously removes some credibility from this list. This list isn't necessarily measuring the international nature of these cities, it's an algorithm measuring a place's size combined with affluence from what it looks like.

I don't know if it would be one of the first 10 cities people would think of, but that would largely depend on where the question is being asked, and what about too. It certainly doesn't get the credit it deserves for the amount of economic and cultural clout it has, that's for sure. I will put it this way. By speakers of native tongue, Spanish is the 2nd highest volume of language in the world, only trailing Mandarin. Out of Spanish speaking cities, it would be one of the first 5 cities to come to mind for certain, if not the first, and when taking an objective look at a number of it's qualities (size, historical relevance, cultural output, business/political influence, etc.), it would be ahead of all on a number of them.

When I think of "global cities", the two at the helm would be New York and London (though, that is attributing the international element of those places perhaps a little too heavily though, I think that Washington DC, Beijing, Tokyo, Hong Kong would have at least some case to make at this point on Global Capital status. After that, I would probably think of Paris and Los Angeles first, and that would likely be my Top 8 that come to mind. With that said Mexico City would be in the group right after that, certainly in the Top 20 or 25, because, when I think about the world, I think about the major places, from the major regions of the world. Mexico City is more internationally known at this point than Lagos is, but I consider Lagos and Johannesburg (and Cairo) important world cities too because they are nexuses of the very large African continent. Including Almaty at this point would not be the most helpful, because we are talking about a much smaller regional population size which holds less influence over said region. With Latin America, we are literally talking about 600+ Million people (when thinking about foreign nationals/immigrants, like 10% of world population, a land space that takes up 1.5 continents and stretches from 33* N to 55* S), and Mexico City is perhaps only competing with Sao Paulo for economic clout and Brasilia for political clout within that space, for historical/cultural/media clout (and even entertainment clout, rivaling just Rio perhaps), Mexico City almost certainly comes out on top over that whole area.

That is why while again, it is not London or New York, but in spite of it's lack of diversity as you say with Asian cities, it most certainly is a "world city".
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2018, 05:55 AM
 
729 posts, read 382,932 times
Reputation: 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by joacocanal View Post
Not really. For one, both cities are somewhat in the same range of income, level of development, GDP per capita, etc.
Santiago does not has slums (favelas), and extremally poverty, pretty safe city and country. Only that put them in other level in Latin America. For the average Joe Santiago is better city to live than MX city, São Paulo or Buenos Aires easy, but for who are in finance and business market the last 3 are better.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2018, 06:04 AM
 
729 posts, read 382,932 times
Reputation: 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by cavsfan137 View Post
I don't have statistics on specific numbers of foreign population in Mexico City, etc. But at least in my opinion (and from what you seemed to indicate by mentioning Asia-Pacific cities that are still global to you despite their lack of diversity), that is only one part of the equation. I am sorry, but the AT Kearney list is very Euro and American Centric. The fact that Shanghai (highest GDP city in China) is outside the Top 15, and that Cairo (which not a small number would say is capital of the Arabic world) is outside of the Top 60, is laughable, and seriously removes some credibility from this list. This list isn't necessarily measuring the international nature of these cities, it's an algorithm measuring a place's size combined with affluence from what it looks like.

I don't know if it would be one of the first 10 cities people would think of, but that would largely depend on where the question is being asked, and what about too. It certainly doesn't get the credit it deserves for the amount of economic and cultural clout it has, that's for sure. I will put it this way. By speakers of native tongue, Spanish is the 2nd highest volume of language in the world, only trailing Mandarin. Out of Spanish speaking cities, it would be one of the first 5 cities to come to mind for certain, if not the first, and when taking an objective look at a number of it's qualities (size, historical relevance, cultural output, business/political influence, etc.), it would be ahead of all on a number of them.

When I think of "global cities", the two at the helm would be New York and London (though, that is attributing the international element of those places perhaps a little too heavily though, I think that Washington DC, Beijing, Tokyo, Hong Kong would have at least some case to make at this point on Global Capital status. After that, I would probably think of Paris and Los Angeles first, and that would likely be my Top 8 that come to mind. With that said Mexico City would be in the group right after that, certainly in the Top 20 or 25, because, when I think about the world, I think about the major places, from the major regions of the world. Mexico City is more internationally known at this point than Lagos is, but I consider Lagos and Johannesburg (and Cairo) important world cities too because they are nexuses of the very large African continent. Including Almaty at this point would not be the most helpful, because we are talking about a much smaller regional population size which holds less influence over said region. With Latin America, we are literally talking about 600+ Million people (when thinking about foreign nationals/immigrants, like 10% of world population, a land space that takes up 1.5 continents and stretches from 33* N to 55* S), and Mexico City is perhaps only competing with Sao Paulo for economic clout and Brasilia for political clout within that space, for historical/cultural/media clout (and even entertainment clout, rivaling just Rio perhaps), Mexico City almost certainly comes out on top over that whole area.

That is why while again, it is not London or New York, but in spite of it's lack of diversity as you say with Asian cities, it most certainly is a "world city".
I am really impressed how MX city concentrates all in a such big country like Mexico. So MX city has half of Mexican GDP and concentrate the power of the 3 main Brazilian states share??
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2018, 09:37 AM
 
3,788 posts, read 3,012,559 times
Reputation: 2517
Quote:
Originally Posted by EVANGELISTTI View Post
I am really impressed how MX city concentrates all in a such big country like Mexico. So MX city has half of Mexican GDP and concentrate the power of the 3 main Brazilian states share??
I think it kinda just happened that way, historically. Literally, Mexico City was the center point of the Aztec Empire, and then the Spanish Empire, and then Modern Mexico, so it has been basically a center point of culture and commerce in the Spanish empire for 500 years and more beyond that considering the indigenous civilizations. Brazil on the other hand, I think Rio had a pretty similar prominence within the Portugese Empire as Mexico City had within the Spanish Empire. However, Sao Paulo then gained economic prominence for reasons listed here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNEeY_gXFBc

And of course, the choice to build Brasilia in the 60s made sure political ramifications took place there, further muddling things, though Rio still remains Brazil's most recognizable center.

Another factor would be that so many have continue to emigrate into Mexico City, especially from about the 1930's on. Mexico City having opportunities helped this, but also I think the fact that all roads run through/towards it, where this is much less true in the case of Rio.

Mexico City's biggest challenges moving forward could be increasing temperatures due to climate change which could lead to more immigration than the city could handle, and the shortage of access to drinkable water at present which could lead to strife/anarchy/chaos. However, hopefully bright problem solvers will come up with solutions before it gets to that.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2018, 11:27 AM
 
Location: Clifton, Cincinnati
124 posts, read 62,788 times
Reputation: 161
^ The nice thing with Brazil is they never had a primate city like Mexico or Chile do. They made sure they spread around the cities so one place wasn't the end-all be-all for running the country.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2018, 02:48 PM
 
3,788 posts, read 3,012,559 times
Reputation: 2517
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenseofPlace View Post
^ The nice thing with Brazil is they never had a primate city like Mexico or Chile do. They made sure they spread around the cities so one place wasn't the end-all be-all for running the country.
I see what you’re saying, but at the same time I’m not sure that something like that ends up having that much of an impact on the QOL of country’s residents.

Chile generally speaking I think has QOL advantage over Brazil which seems to really have major issues to sort out. And, while this may not be the best example, Scandinavian countries like Copenhagen/Denmark, Finland/Helsinki, etc, all have very high capital-national ratios yet people outside still have high standard of life.

I suppose there are certainly advantages, if you have multiple economic hubs that is generally good, but perhaps what some of these other places have is a certain economies of scale that helps commerce, governance, communicate more effectively and less corruptly.

That said, Brazil’s ability to have multiple major centers is why it and not Mexico is the largest economy in the LatAm region.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2018, 05:17 AM
 
729 posts, read 382,932 times
Reputation: 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by cavsfan137 View Post
I think it kinda just happened that way, historically. Literally, Mexico City was the center point of the Aztec Empire, and then the Spanish Empire, and then Modern Mexico, so it has been basically a center point of culture and commerce in the Spanish empire for 500 years and more beyond that considering the indigenous civilizations. Brazil on the other hand, I think Rio had a pretty similar prominence within the Portugese Empire as Mexico City had within the Spanish Empire. However, Sao Paulo then gained economic prominence for reasons listed here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNEeY_gXFBc

And of course, the choice to build Brasilia in the 60s made sure political ramifications took place there, further muddling things, though Rio still remains Brazil's most recognizable center.

Another factor would be that so many have continue to emigrate into Mexico City, especially from about the 1930's on. Mexico City having opportunities helped this, but also I think the fact that all roads run through/towards it, where this is much less true in the case of Rio.

Mexico City's biggest challenges moving forward could be increasing temperatures due to climate change which could lead to more immigration than the city could handle, and the shortage of access to drinkable water at present which could lead to strife/anarchy/chaos. However, hopefully bright problem solvers will come up with solutions before it gets to that.
Don’t you guys Mexican think that Mexico needs build a new capital for not overload anymore MX city??

First capital of Brasil was Salvador for a couple centuries after moved to Rio de Janeiro, Recife was (is) pretty important also, it was the capital in the Dutch colonization of northeast epoch.

During Napoleon attacks to Portugal the Portuguese Kingdom moved from Lisbon to Rio de Janeiro. Portugal a small country has two main cities Porto and Lisbon… So I think Portugal / Brazil always were more descentralized administration than Spanish America with MX city, Buenos Aires, Santiago, Lima that concentrate all in its country. Many Brazilians capital state like Belo Horizonte, Fortaleza, Manaus, Palmas in Brazil were planned, created cities to lead development to empty areas of Brazil.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cavsfan137 View Post
I see what you’re saying, but at the same time I’m not sure that something like that ends up having that much of an impact on the QOL of country’s residents.

Chile generally speaking I think has QOL advantage over Brazil which seems to really have major issues to sort out. And, while this may not be the best example, Scandinavian countries like Copenhagen/Denmark, Finland/Helsinki, etc, all have very high capital-national ratios yet people outside still have high standard of life.

I suppose there are certainly advantages, if you have multiple economic hubs that is generally good, but perhaps what some of these other places have is a certain economies of scale that helps commerce, governance, communicate more effectively and less corruptly.

That said, Brazil’s ability to have multiple major centers is why it and not Mexico is the largest economy in the LatAm region.
Is different thing countries with small population like the Scandinavians or Chile with 18 millions were concentrate people make sense to gain scale, than continental Brazil with 210 millions. we can’t have only 1 or 2 main cities, but the big Brazilians cities are always 500 km apart from one another what helps when is needed scale. Only in the north Manaus and Belem are isolated.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2018, 08:41 AM
 
718 posts, read 478,994 times
Reputation: 401
Quote:
Originally Posted by EVANGELISTTI View Post
Santiago does not has slums (favelas), and extremally poverty, pretty safe city and country. Only that put them in other level in Latin America. For the average Joe Santiago is better city to live than MX city, São Paulo or Buenos Aires easy, but for who are in finance and business market the last 3 are better.

Chile and Mexico have very different national poverty lines, but both countries have a similar % of people living under 2 USD PPP/day (México slightly over 2%, Chile, under 2%). And Mexico is dragged down because it has a lot of indigenous population and poor regions. Mexico City is well above average within the country. Both cities probably have very similar levels of poverty and personal income.



For the average Joe, Santiago has probably only a slightly better standard of living than Mexico City.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2018, 09:17 AM
 
729 posts, read 382,932 times
Reputation: 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by joacocanal View Post
Chile and Mexico have very different national poverty lines, but both countries have a similar % of people living under 2 USD PPP/day (México slightly over 2%, Chile, under 2%). And Mexico is dragged down because it has a lot of indigenous population and poor regions. Mexico City is well above average within the country. Both cities probably have very similar levels of poverty and personal income.



For the average Joe, Santiago has probably only a slightly better standard of living than Mexico City.
People living with USD 2 PPP / day are beggars man! All countries have beggars including the most richers.
People living with USD 10 day are still poor! I am Brazilian not Chilean, and I reconize the simple fact they don’t have slums areas what is common in most big Latin America cities put them in another level of development, in Chile the poorest is the low middle class in the Latin America standard.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Americas
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top