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.
DC has the third largest economy, SF is fourth, and Chicago is fifth.
Chicago used to have the third largest economy, but DC and SF surpassed it beginning in 2009.
You sure bro, last time I checked, dc ( which was 4th after chicago)
was behind Chicago in gpd by over
$100 billion. Are You counting CSA area or metros or the region.
Keep in mind that the GaWC rankings are NOT a ranking of cities. They are only a ranking of global interconnectivity. They do NOT rank relative economic size.
If you're going to rank based on economic size, here's the 5 largest metro economies in the U.S. per the 2011 federal numbers-
1. NYC
2. LA
3. DC
4. SF
5. Chicago
I don't know where Mexico City and Toronto fall, but probably somewhere around Chicago.
It actually does take relative size of a metro economy into account, but that is one of several factors. While GDP is an important factor, the OP if looking at more than just GDP. Also, for the sake if comparison you would actually have to go by international rates for collating GDP among these different countries. So you would need the GDP in ppp for a fair comparison. Such as the WorldBank or IMF.
I think you're missing the overall picture. You understand that Toronto became so diverse fairly recently, right? Its foreign born population is huge and diverse, but the native born population is much less diverse than that of US cities. It's not really a Canada versus US patriotism battle, but different demographic/immigration patterns. Also, why do you sound like you have such a chip on your shoulder?
Toronto's native-born population is less diverse than American cities? Really? Do you have a link to prove this so we know you're not lying? I suspect you are.
And Toronto has not become diverse fairly recently either. It's been diverse for many, many decades.
Toronto's native-born population is less diverse than American cities? Really? Do you have a link to prove this so we know you're not lying? I suspect you are.
And Toronto has not become diverse fairly recently either. It's been diverse for many, many decades.
One quick look is the visible minorities criteria for both cities. Despite having a far larger foreign born population than most US cities, Toronto actually has a lower visible minorities percentage. Think about this for a bit--if Toronto has a much larger foreign born population, an immigrant population that is majority visible minority and yet has a smaller proportion of visible minorities compared to several US cities, then ____? You could also just look at the current and historical demographic makeup of Canada and the US by their census results.
And it's a difference between Canada and the US by a couple or few decades usually, then coupled with the larger existent Hispanic and African-American population the US has had for a long time and Canada for the most part did not.
this is the order of global cities in north America
1. New York city
2. Chicago and Los angeles (these cities are ranked as top global cities in the us. They are ranked Side by side to each other and are ranked only behind new York, Tokyo, London, and hong kong as far as global cities in the world. Also they are both economic, financial, and industrial powerhouses of the u.s.)
3. Washington was ranked third in the u.s. because of it's gpd and because of politics of course
4. San Francisco, Boston, and Toronto, are ranked here
5. Mexico city
1. New York city(alpha ++)
2. Chicago(alpha+)
3. Los Angeles, San Francisco, mexico city,Toronto, Washington dc( alpha)
4. Boston( alpha-)
One quick look is the visible minorities criteria for both cities. Despite having a far larger foreign born population than most US cities, Toronto actually has a lower visible minorities percentage. Think about this for a bit--if Toronto has a much larger foreign born population, an immigrant population that is majority visible minority and yet has a smaller proportion of visible minorities compared to several US cities, then ____? You could also just look at the current and historical demographic makeup of Canada and the US by their census results.
And it's a difference between Canada and the US by a couple or few decades usually, then coupled with the larger existent Hispanic and African-American population the US has had for a long time and Canada for the most part did not.
Visible minority percentage has nothing to do with diversity. Detroit city is over 80% black, but is one of the least diverse cities on the continent. Diversity has to do with having people of many different nationalities and ethnicities. Having American-born black people doesn't add more diversity to a city than having American-born white people.
Visible minority percentage has nothing to do with diversity. Detroit city is over 80% black, but is one of the least diverse cities on the continent. Diversity has to do with having people of many different nationalities and ethnicities. Having American-born black people doesn't add more diversity to a city than having American-born white people.
Of course it has something to do with it--because visible minorities consist of pretty much anyone who is not white by the census definition (well, and aboriginal/native/first nation/etc.). It's true that in cases such as Detroit or any city where there is a single group majority that it matters little, but you can break it down further into the spread of minorities.
Also, I'm not sure if you haven't noticed this, but did you realize there's actually a distinct African American culture? Also, ethnicity (which you're including) can include African American as a fairly coherent group.
I think you're bulldozing over a lot of what diversity includes. Also, the point sort of stands that if you're saying American-born this or that when the argument is over native-born versus foreign-born which is really adorable. I feel we should all hold you for a bit.
Visible minority percentage has nothing to do with diversity. Detroit city is over 80% black, but is one of the least diverse cities on the continent. Diversity has to do with having people of many different nationalities and ethnicities. Having American-born black people doesn't add more diversity to a city than having American-born white people.
Agreed, but foreign born percentage is not the best way to measure diversity either.
This can be argued, but personally I am more interested in the amount of languages spoken in a city rather than what percentage of the population is foreign born. Which is why even though Toronto has a percentage of foreign born I view both NYC and London as more diverse because of the linguistic diversity. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/ny...pagewanted=all)
Cities like Boston, San Francisco, Chicago, Seattle are close to or exceed Toronto in languages spoken as well. So despite not being born in another country, if someone holds onto the native language of their Parents or Grandparents they have as much of an impact on diversity as someone who was born overseas.
Agreed, but foreign born percentage is not the best way to measure diversity either.
This can be argued, but personally I am more interested in the amount of languages spoken in a city rather than what percentage of the population is foreign born. Which is why even though Toronto has a percentage of foreign born I view both NYC and London as more diverse because of the linguistic diversity. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/ny...pagewanted=all)
Cities like Boston, San Francisco, Chicago, Seattle are close to or exceed Toronto in languages spoken as well. So despite not being born in another country, if someone holds onto the native language of their Parents or Grandparents they have as much of an impact on diversity as someone who was born overseas.
I could not find any statistics for LA, but I would imagine they would be up there as well.
While I am certainly willing to believe that NYC has more languages spoken in it than any other city (including Toronto), I am not sure that the claim of 800 languages is really a figure that can be accurately compared to those of other cities here. It seems to me the NYC figure (800) is based on something completely different from the way languages have been counted in the other cities.
The reason we are even having an argument is that somewhere, sometime, there was a rumour (or an article) that stated that the United Nations somehow had officially declared Toronto to be the world's most (culturally/ethnically) diverse city. Of course, when the facts were checked, it was discovered that the UN never made such a statement.
The problem of course is that many Torontonians and Canadians still believe this, and seem willing to argue almost to the death that no city on earth matches the human diversity of Toronto.
Of course, Toronto is a tremendously diverse city. No one questions that. But so are a number of other places in the world, and it would be nice of the pro-Toronto set stopped denying that, based on what is basically an urban legend.
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 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.
