U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [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: Most prestigious
Los Angeles 114 44.36%
Chicago 39 15.18%
Washington, DC 44 17.12%
San Francisco 60 23.35%
Voters: 257. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 08-27-2015, 10:05 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,266 posts, read 26,258,197 times
Reputation: 11726

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonelitist View Post
San Francisco is the old time, concentrated cultural hub of the West. San Francisco Opera, the 2nd largest in the country, was founded by a neapolitan before Hollywood even came to be a part of LA. LA's current opera formed in 1986, the one prior (first one) in the late 40s (just one example of how much more established SF is than LA). SFMOMA was started in the 30s and will complete a $600M expansion next year. While two different and distinct neighborhoods, one can walk from the Beaux Artes Opera House in Civic Center to the Botta/Snohetta designed SFMOMA in Yerba Buena near Union Square, and in between pass by one of the oldest/largest theater districts in the world and shopping that rivals Beverly Hills, but with an older more established feel (old department stores and shops included).
San Francisco was also home to the Pacific Stock Exchange.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Exchange

Los Angeles had a branch of the Exchange.

Los Angeles is a much larger metro with a larger economy overall. But SF has historically had the more venerated institutions.

 
Old 08-27-2015, 10:07 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
15,470 posts, read 25,429,588 times
Reputation: 8936
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonelitist View Post
Let's put it this way, for the same reasons Real Housewives hasn't even come to the Bay Area, Million Dollar Listing just came to SF and has been struggling big time.
Such as people elsewhere simply don't find the Bay Area, its people, and its tech scene that interesting? Which isn't a bad thing at all and probably more of a positive for people that live here, but I'm just saying I can see why it doesn't appeal to the masses.
 
Old 08-27-2015, 10:17 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,266 posts, read 26,258,197 times
Reputation: 11726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Ambitious View Post
I'm not saying money equals prestige, but money is sometimes associated with prestige in some form or fashion.
Money is prestigious when it translates into power. Derrick Rose has a lot of money but I wouldn't say he has any power. There's really nothing he could do to end your career and basically destroy your livelihood (unless you work for Adidas or the Bulls organization perhaps).

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, could probably end lots of peoples' careers very easily by making a phone call.
 
Old 08-27-2015, 10:24 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,266 posts, read 26,258,197 times
Reputation: 11726
Charles Murray makes the distinction between being rich and being rich and powerful (or just powerful).

Quote:
Let’s take a guy — call him Hank — who built a successful auto-repair business and expanded it to 30 locations, and now his stake in the business is worth $100 million. He is not just in the 1%; he’s in the top fraction of the 1% — but he’s not part of the new upper class. He went to a second-tier state university, or maybe he didn’t complete college at all. He grew up in a working-class or middle-class home and married a woman who didn’t complete college. He now lives in a neighborhood with other rich people, but they’re mostly other people who got rich the same way he did. (The new upper class considers the glitzy mansions in his suburb to be déclassé.) He has a lot of money, but he doesn’t have power or influence over national culture, politics or economy, nor does he even have any particular influence over the culture, politics or economy of the city where he lives. He’s just rich.

The new upper class is different. It consists of the people who run the country. By “the people who run the country,” I mean two sets of people. The first is the small set of people — well under 100,000, by a rigorous definition — who are responsible for the films and television shows you watch, the news you see and read, the success (or failure) of the nation’s leading corporations and financial institutions and the jurisprudence, legislation and regulations produced by government. The second is the broader set, numbering a few million people, who hold comparable positions of influence in the nation’s major cities.
Charles Murray: Why We Dislike the New Upper Class | TIME.com
 
Old 08-27-2015, 10:32 AM
 
Location: MPLS/CHI
553 posts, read 482,764 times
Reputation: 389
Bajan, but influence over culture is one of his points and entertainers do influence culture, although some do more than others. They can also effect the local economy, like what LeBron James is doing for the city of Cleveland.
 
Old 08-27-2015, 10:36 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,266 posts, read 26,258,197 times
Reputation: 11726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Ambitious View Post
Bajan, but influence over culture is one of his points and entertainers do influence culture, although some do more than others. They can also effect the local economy, like what LeBron James is doing for the city of Cleveland.
Soulja Boy also influences the national culture. Remember that Superman dance a few years back?

Still wouldn't put him in the same category as Alan Greenspan or Jacob Lew.
 
Old 08-27-2015, 10:39 AM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
3,512 posts, read 2,974,976 times
Reputation: 2742
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Ambitious View Post
One could argue that money is tied to prestige. Take Harvard, one of the most, if not the most prestigious university in the country. Harvard grads tend to make a lot of money, due to the fact that the school is prestigious. Harvard also has a huge endowment, but would it be as prestigious if its endowment wasn't so large or if its alumni base wasn't so wealthy? Its a fair question.

Look at museums, as many of the most prestigious ones receive donations, whether monetarily or through items exhibited in the museums, from wealthy people. Would those places still be as prestigious w/o the wealthy people backing/supporting them?

I'm not saying money equals prestige, but money is sometimes associated with prestige in some form or fashion.
Prestige creates wealth, not the other way around. America's most prestigious professions aren't poor, but they don't make obscene amounts of money, either. CEOs, bankers, celebrities--they all fall low on the prestige list when compared to scientists, priests and teachers, despite the fact that they make more money. One can be prestigious without being wealthy, and the inverse is true as well.

Harvard does have a huge endowment, you're right, but you could argue that has a lot to do with fame and popularity as well. Dartmouth, another Ivy League school that is lesser known, has a smaller endowment than less prestigious state schools like Michigan and Virginia.

Now, I do think your argument that wealth has to back prestige is intriguing. Even the Church receives a lot of donations, so there's merit to that claim. Prestige, to me, usually does become tied to wealth, but not always. Look at teachers. Look at firefighters. Look at priests. Sure, there are outliers, and the above aren't exactly starving, but generally, they're not making reality t.v. star pay. They're not making real estate broker pay. But they are more respected with the public.

I see your point, and I kind of agree with you, but I don't agree with what this thread is turning into. UHNWIs and real estate listings aren't a true measure of prestige. As Montclair loves to remind us, the Kardashian-West clan are fabulously wealthy, but prestigious? Lol. Prestige is part of that money, power, respect triangle, sure, but hinges far more on the respect angle than the others. That's why "old" money keeps being referenced. It isn't so much about the money as it is the respect earned from keeping it.
 
Old 08-27-2015, 10:41 AM
 
Location: MPLS/CHI
553 posts, read 482,764 times
Reputation: 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
Soulja Boy also influences the national culture. Remember that Superman dance a few years back?

Still wouldn't put him in the same category as Alan Greenspan or Jacob Lew.
Of course, but there are different levels of prestige. I was just using an example based on the piece you quoted. Money brings power and prestige, though its always not distributed equally. What makes the US so powerful and prestigious? Is it our economic and monetary dominance? Is New York and London prestigious because they dominate the world economically? Isn't the Bay Area so prestigious because of its affluence and economic dominance on tech, which is dominating the world? By the way, Alan Greenspan is chairman of the Federal Reserve, which happens to be tied to money.
 
Old 08-27-2015, 10:44 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,266 posts, read 26,258,197 times
Reputation: 11726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Ambitious View Post
By the way, Alan Greenspan is chairman of the Federal Reserve, which happens to be tied to money.
He was Chairman of the Fed.

And when Murray says "national culture," I think he's talking more about things like the Carnegie or Ford Foundations, which have had a far larger impact on our society than most oblivious Americans realize.
 
Old 08-27-2015, 10:46 AM
 
Location: Milwaukee
3,451 posts, read 3,399,877 times
Reputation: 2896
Quote:
Originally Posted by qworldorder View Post
Prestige creates wealth, not the other way around.
Let's face it - it goes both ways, not just one. Money can easily impress and raise your prestige. If you have prestige, you can turn it into cash. Pretty undeniable both ways - they are interconnected.

Rich guys can spend to gain high office; Highly elected officials can use their position to increase capital.
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.


Closed Thread

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 > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:29 AM.

© 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