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.
You need a reality check if you think poll results are more accurate than statistics that prove which city's residents are healthier, wealthier, better educated and have a higher quality of life overall.
Right, as in which city (or metro, but I'm sure you'll flit in between whatever looks best for the moment) is less diverse, less broad. Take any income level--NYC will have more of that bracket by an order of magnitude when talking city vs city and by some multiple when talking metro to metro. The reality check is that if we're talking about clout or power or anything like that, NYC is a separate tier and easily so. If we're talking about personal preference, SF is great and I'm sure there are many who prefer it.
Right, as in which cityThe reality check is that if we're talking about clout or power or anything like that, NYC is a separate tier and easily so.
Hahaha. And you talk to me about living in the 1980s?
Welcome to 2014:
Quote:
Originally Posted by New York Magazine
It’s hard to pinpoint the exact moment that
San Francisco morphed into bizarro-world
New York, when it went from being the
city’s dorky, behoodied West Coast cousin
to being, in many ways, more New York–ish
than New York itself—its wealth more
impressive, its infatuation with power and
status more blinding. Maybe it was this past
November, when New York elected a tax-the-rich progressive as mayor and, two
days later, Twitter, a company that had been
courted by San Francisco politicians with a
Bloombergian combination of municipal tax
breaks and mayoral flattery, went public at
around a $25 billion valuation. Maybe it was
when, after the crash, bonus-starved Wall
Street bankers started quitting their jobs
and heading to the Bay Area in droves to
join the start-up gold rush. Or maybe it was
when San Francisco became the new
American capital of real-estate kvetching,
thanks to supra-Manhattan rents and
gentrification at a pace that would make
Bushwick blush...
In 2014, NYC is less powerful, less influential and less important than it's been in a century. The unstoppable rise of not only SF, but also DC, Houston, Dallas, Seattle etc all eat away at NYCs clout. munch. munch. munch.
The fact that San Franciscan's are so delusional that they can even believe for one moment that San Francisco comes anywhere close to the colossal that is NYC, is absolutely astonishing yet hilarious to me. And not unbelievable for one second.
Proves how bad these boosters really are.
You can post median household income numbers all you want. The fact of the matter is that San Francisco will never approach NYC in wealth or any other statistic. There are over 700,000 millionaires in NYC. That's nearly as much as the ENTIRE city population of San Francisco. In San Francisco Bay Area there are about 150,000. Over 200,000 if you add in San Jose. Still nowhere close to NYC's numbers.
Yawns and Nope. Bubble bursting time. New York is largely working class compared to SF. There's nothing wrong with that btw, but it's true.
NYC is gigantic and encompasses huge areas of immigrants, which SF doesn't. And "more working class" doesn't make a city worse.
SF is "more working class" than almost every soulless sprawlburb in America. You are saying SF is inferior to Frisco, TX or Troy, MI or Cupertino, CA because it's "more working class"?
And if you only care about ultra rich d-bags, NYC has like 10 times more than SF, and is the #1 wealth center on the planet. Not sure why this makes a city "better", though. Are Beverly Hills or Calabassas "better" than Florence or Venice? I don't think so.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,175,298 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
haha@"check the poll"
You need a reality check if you think poll results are more accurate than statistics that prove which city's residents are healthier, wealthier, better educated and have a higher quality of life overall.
I'm not relying on poll results--I was simply pointing out the people's choice. I'm relying on facts here, darling, and not ungrounded hyperbole.
You keep trotting out the quality over quantity argument--except for the fact that NYC has both quantity and quality over SF. Median averages, really? Because that's a super accurate statistic. Sigh. Really, I'd stick with the nature argument at this point--it's probably the strongest suit SF has over NYC. NYC has a much higher GDP, more millionaires, more billionaires, and more wealth in general. NYC is the financial capital of the world. SF isn't in the same league. Go ahead, trot out the venture capital/tech stats to show some sort of victory. Not in the same league.
I just saw the trailer for Jurassic World so I'll use this analogy--SF is velociraptor. NYC is a T-Rex. No competition.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,175,298 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
NYC is gigantic and encompasses huge areas of immigrants, which SF doesn't. And "more working class" doesn't make a city worse.
SF is "more working class" than almost every soulless sprawlburb in America. You are saying SF is inferior to Frisco, TX or Troy, MI or Cupertino, CA because it's "more working class"?
And if you only care about ultra rich d-bags, NYC has like 10 times more than SF, and is the #1 wealth center on the planet. Not sure why this makes a city "better", though. Are Beverly Hills or Calabassas "better" than Florence or Venice? I don't think so.
In 2014, NYC is less powerful, less influential and less important than it's been in a century. The unstoppable rise of not only SF, but also DC, Houston, Dallas, Seattle etc all eat away at NYCs clout. munch. munch. munch.
Absolutely--the US is large and fairly multipolar with its spread of influence. Energy in Houston, entertainment and media in LA, higher education/biotech in Boston, tech in the Bay Area, automotive in Detroit, politics in DC, strong second contenders in multiple fields in many other cities and this can go on and on for a bit. There's no doubt the US has its eggs distributed in more baskets (it also has a lot more and larger eggs than most other nations do). However, that doesn't logically contradict anything I've said. NYC has the most overall of everything and in aggregate by a massive margin. There is no argument to be brooked here. Absolutely none. The only possible argument, and it'd be a roundabout one which I don't buy, is that DC is the capital of the nation and therefore just maybe you can argue it's more important for the US, but that'd be putting massive weight on a single category. Now if you want to pit several cities in aggregate against NYC, then you'll be getting somewhere--but the whole reason NYC is a different tier is because you'd be aggregating several other major cities to be able to contend.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 11-29-2014 at 09:06 AM..
two of my favorite cities....too hard to choose. I'd prefer to live somewhere between the two...like in Chicago.
You are much more diplomatic than I am when it comes to Northeasterners expecting the rest of us to worship their golden calf aka New York.
They arent aware that once you get to the other side of the Appalachians, no one cares.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oy Crumbler
However, that doesn't logically
contradict anything I've said. NYC has the
most overall of everything and in aggregate
by a massive margin.
But this^ does NOT invalidate this:
In 2014, NYC is less powerful, less
influential and less important than it's been
in a century. The unstoppable rise of not
only SF, but also DC, Houston, Dallas,
Seattle etc all eat away at NYCs clout.
munch. munch. munch.
Not to mention other massive cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, Miami, Atlanta etc.
New York is the largest, but it does not dominate the country-at all.
And so I can understand the misguided misconceptions to the contrary, in reality, NYis one of many very large urban agglomerations.
You are much more diplomatic than I am when it comes to Northeasterners expecting the rest of us to worship their golden calf aka New York.
They arent aware that once you get to the other side of the Appalachians, no one cares.
But this^ does NOT invalidate this:
In 2014, NYC is less powerful, less
influential and less important than it's been
in a century. The unstoppable rise of not
only SF, but also DC, Houston, Dallas,
Seattle etc all eat away at NYCs clout.
munch. munch. munch.
Not to mention other massive cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, Miami, Atlanta etc.
New York is the largest, but it does not dominate the country-at all.
And so I can understand the misguided misconceptions to the contrary, in reality, NYis one of many very large urban agglomerations.
Are you illiterate?
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.
