Quote:
Originally Posted by frogandtoad
Of course not, but it doesn't appear that it is city to city being compared. It's a whole state (some of which is city, some of which is suburban, some of which is rural farmland, some of which is rural mountains, etc) being compared to NYC.
|
frogandtoad,
Isn't better to compare to NYC because it has everything except for beauty? For beauty, I rather go to Vermont for beauty. We are giving it NY state alot by comparing to the City.
Okay, lets compare state to state:
California:
1. San Francisco: Biotech, and Finance
2. SF Bay area: Silicon Valley, great schools, as good as NY.
3. Wine Country: Napa/Sonoma/Monterey
4. Central Cali: agriculture
5. LA: Entertainment, fashion
6. Santa Barbara/OC: Beaches that you can swim and surf
7. SD: Biotech, Wireless, Military, beaches
8. Beauty: Lake Tahoe, Sequoia and Yosemite
9. Weather way better, not to mention better snow
10. exports $134 billions
11. 36 million people
Cali was inducted in 1850, ranked around Italy, Spain, and France in terms of economy,
New York:
1. NYC: Finance, banking, tourism, private schools, architecture, fashion, Broadway
2. Long Island: medical technology
3. Rochester: photographical imaging? What is this?
4. Albany/Hudson Valley: microchip manufacturing/nanotechnology behind Silicon Valley.
5. 19 million people
6. terrible weather, very little you can do with this weather
7. beauty, i will give you that, but Cali is as beautiful
8. export $71 billions
NY was inducted in 1788, ranked 16th while Cali ranked 9th in the world.
In conclusion, even though NY became a state way before California, why do they have less people, lower economy, less diverse in industries, and less exports?
