If New York and New Jersey became apart of Pennsylvania, would Pennsylvania be a better state than California? (people, size)

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

Why switch to cities here rather than using metros? NYC's metro (and the city itself) is much more important than Los Angeles's by almost any metric.

The topic of this thread is 'better'. not 'more important'.

[nslander]

If my aunt had huevos, she'd be my uncle.

Of course, here my aunt is PA, my uncle is CA, and NY & NJ would be...

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Maintainschaos said that PA would then have better cities with CA under such a combination of states and that is simply NOT true.

Many of California's 100,000+ have an incredibly HIGH quality of life compared to those 100,000+ cities in NY/PA/NJ...its really not close.

The quality of life in NY, NJ, and PA is incredibly high

You notion is just foolish about the two areas.

If you are limiting to within city borders then lets see a quick list of top populations of wealthy if that is your criteria which I would assume


NYC
LA
SF
Philly
etc

But are you really suggesting that there is some by any means superior QOL in CA in this regard? To you maybe, to the next person maybe not

These two would contain most of the wealthiest enclaves inAmerica between them

And riddle me this; is the quality of life in making 100+K (or use 200 or 500 dont care) in Oxnard better than makeing 100+K in Bryn Mawr, Livingston, Moorestown, Montclair, or wherver because they are part of smaller town.

Again this notion to me is stupid and extremely idealistic.

You prefer CA, and that is great but on QOL these are about the two best areas of the country; the rest is subjective

this list of 100K population cities is humorous. Irvine, Anaheim, Thousand Oaks etc.

All are fine but would hardly call most of these anything more than either suburban or coll small towns further away from a city

Both CA and the new state would have much rural and much urban poverty as well

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by kidphilly

The quality of life in NY, NJ, and PA is incredibly high

I have never seen a quality of life ranking that puts Pennsylvania above California, and even New York and New Jersey are only a little higher.

Here a many QOL rankings:
HDI Map

News Headlines

Human development: Nation states | The Economist

The Map Scroll: Is Part of the United States in the Third World?

You notion is just foolish about the two areas.

No not really.

California has far more high quality cities with 100,000+ persons than NY/NJ/PA.

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

I have never seen a quality of life ranking that puts Pennsylvania above California, and even New York and New Jersey are only a little higher.

Here a many QOL rankings:
HDI Map

News Headlines

Human development: Nation states | The Economist

The Map Scroll: Is Part of the United States in the Third World?


No not really.

California has far more high quality cities with 100,000+ persons than NY/NJ/PA.

As I said these markers dont play so well in the reality of place but whatever, you will hang to the beloved lists

on PA, is a a dichotomy of QOL (Gladwyn vs Centralia etc.) on the whole the two regions would be extremely well matched

[chanel63]

Originally Posted by 415_s2k

For me, no; you could include PA, NJ, and NY into one state but they'd never have California's geography, climate, culture, etc. These things are the main draw for me.

I agree with you. The California would be always the best!
I would like to move in that country from the Italy....

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

The topic of this thread is 'better'. not 'more important'.

Which makes you posting a list of city populations kind of silly, right? At least stick with metros because generally that line of thought benefits the Bay Area significantly.

Anyhow, both are good. I would take the expanded NY/NJ/PE state because I generally live in a single city not an entire state and I prefer NYC over SF, LA, or SD.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

Which makes you posting a list of city populations kind of silly, right? At least stick with metros because generally that line of thought benefits the Bay Area significantly.

Anyhow, both are good. I would take the expanded NY/NJ/PE state because I generally live in a single city not an entire state and I prefer NYC over SF, LA, or SD.

Well, I was responding to a comment 'better' cities but when we look at the number of cities with 100,000+ people, CA has quite a bit more cities in that population range with very high quality of life.

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Well, I was responding to a comment 'better' cities but when we look at the number of cities with 100,000+ people, CA has quite a bit more cities in that population range with very high quality of life.

What.

[cpomp]

Originally Posted by NJ Brazen_3133

NNJ would never be able to get along with PA. And a lot of PA wants to do away with Philly, and give it to Jersey. I dont think NY state can mix with PA. I actually find upstate to be more agreeable with NNJ, and that might sound strange. Plus Califas is still larger than PA, NY and Jerz put together in area.

First off Pennsylvania is already a better state.

Next, regarding the comment about Pa wanting to get rid of philly, the people who say that are the extreme rednecks who live in between harrisburg and pittsburgh. They are very republican and backward and have misconceptions about philadelphia. Also, that is like a fraction of a decimal of pennsylvanias population. Half of the state lives within 90 minutes of philadelphia.