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.
Im sorry, but I cant get on board with that. That isn't how diversity works. Its not a measure of how few white people exist in a place. Don't forget Arabs, Brazilians, Iranians, etc. are all considered "white".
By your argument San Antonio would shoot up the list of "diversity" when its not diverse at all.
By race alone with Simpson's Diversity Index, San Jose was 8th behind DC, San Francisco, Houston, NYC, DFW, Vegas, and Atlanta.
San Jose is also a small urban area. Diversity on scale has to be factored in addition to per capita. I did both.
As for the points scale, sure its arbitrary, but can you name a study that isn't? I tried to factor in what has solid data and what constitutes diversity. I could have awarded more points for integration, but then youd have places like Portland and Salt Lake City shoot up the list artificially because they aren't diverse so the dissimilarity index is low. I would have lessoned the amount race counts, but that is the primary thing people first see in another human being and it has the harshest history in our nation. I am happy with the point scale I came up with.
San Jose has a tiny black population and it is small relative to many other on this list. That is not a "Punishment" because data does not punish, it is what it is. But to say those things should somehow be ignored I will never be on board with.
Yes and no with regard to the 'white people' factor. I mean, obviously having El Paso and McAllen as two of the bottom three would change were 'non-whiteness' incorporated as a factor (say hello to last place, Pittsburgh!). That said, the history of this country cannot be discounted, and, fair or not, a 'majority minority' place is going to be *perceived* as 'more diverse' than, say, the hypothetical 50/16.67/16.67/16.67 metropolis I imagined above. But more to the point, purely statistically, is there any real reason to say that a 40/30/20/10 place deserves 'bonus points' over a 32/32/32/4 place? Even if the 40/30/20/10 place deserves to be considered the more diverse of the two, wouldn't that preference for the diversity of the former already he reflected in the Simpson number for each?
Arabs are actually categorized as white (grrrrrrrrrr). That is a big reason why Detroit's racial breakdown is so white.
Yeah, that really skews things for Detroit. Dearborn MI for example has ~110k people, 89% of them being classified as white, but 41.7% of the population is of Arabic descent
Yes and no with regard to the 'white people' factor. I mean, obviously having El Paso and McAllen as two of the bottom three would change were 'non-whiteness' incorporated as a factor (say hello to last place, Pittsburgh!). That said, the history of this country cannot be discounted, and, fair or not, a 'majority minority' place is going to be *perceived* as 'more diverse' than, say, the hypothetical 50/16.67/16.67/16.67 metropolis I imagined above. But more to the point, purely statistically, is there any real reason to say that a 40/30/20/10 place deserves 'bonus points' over a 32/32/32/4 place? Even if the 40/30/20/10 place deserves to be considered the more diverse of the two, wouldn't that preference for the diversity of the former already he reflected in the Simpson number for each?
If the argument is that the bonus points for percentage of smallest represented group should be taken out, Im open to considering that. Other than San Jose and Miami, it wouldnt make a huge difference across the top 20. What I would be adamantly opposed to is the idea that it should be replaced by giving points to places based on how non-white they are.
I hate the idea that diversity has somehow become a code for "not white".
If the argument is that the bonus points for percentage of smallest represented group should be taken out, Im open to considering that. Other than San Jose and Miami, it wouldnt make a huge difference across the top 20. What I would be adamantly opposed to is the idea that it should be replaced by giving points to places based on how non-white they are.
I hate the idea that diversity has somehow become a code for "not white".
'Diverse' has long been a euphemism for 'non-white' among conservatives especially. I am not a conservative but given that the historical baseline in this country is of a white-dominated populace in terms of sheer numbers, there's something to be said for paying extra attention to a given area's non-whiteness. I assume metro Miami is like 1% Asian? Hah. Just looked it up...2.6%. That's for the Miami MSA, but in Miami's case, there's almost complete overlap between the 'urban area' and the MSA. Hence Miami being 4th on the urban area population rankings despite having the ninth most populous metro
Last edited by Matt Marcinkiewicz; 02-02-2024 at 11:32 AM..
'Diverse' has long been a euphemism for 'non-white' among conservatives especially. I am not a conservative but given that the historical baseline in this country is of a white-dominated populace in terms of sheer numbers, there's something to be said for paying extra attention to a given area's non-whiteness. I assume metro Miami is like 1% Asian? Hah. Just looked it up...2.6%
I wasn't accusing you of that but I just hate that some view the term that way. White people are diverse among themselves and their diversity deserves to be counted just as it does for any race or ethnicity.
Ill rework the numbers by taking out the smallest group and we can compare the two lists.
I wasn't accusing you of that but I just hate that some view the term that way. White people are diverse among themselves and their diversity deserves to be counted just as it does for any race or ethnicity.
Ill rework the numbers by taking out the smallest group and we can compare the two lists.
I appreciate the hard work. As someone that has compiled lists for the sake of sharing findings---I say kudos.
At the same time...
Well, that's because total percent matters. It's one thing to count the number of groups that meet a certain threshold, but as far as proportion, I'd like to know what percent of the total population they represent because that speaks to their prevalence in the area. Languages for example, this is from 2021:
Metro Areas(MSA) by Percentage of Population that Speaks a Language Other than English or Spanish, 2021:
San Jose, CA 35.5%(657,921)
San Francisco, CA 26.6%(1,165,136)
New York, NY-NJ-PA 19.7%(3,667,949)
Seattle, WA 18.6%(701,601)
Los Angeles, CA 18.2%(2,236,840)
Sacramento, CA 16.6%(377,313)
Boston, MA-NH 16.3%(761,231)
Washington, DC-VA-MD-WV 16.1%(962,625)
San Diego, CA 12.8%(394,756)
Miami, FL 12.2%(704,985)
Chicago, IL-IN-WI 11.9%(698,149)
Detroit, MI 11.4%(470,453)
Las Vegas, NV 10.7%(230,800)
Minneapolis, MN-WI 10.4%(358,354)
Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD 9.9%(583,088)
Houston, TX 9.8%(658,625)
Atlanta, GA 9.6%(556,267)
Dallas, TX 9.5%(693,344)
Orlando, FL 8.8%(228,439)
Austin, TX 8.3%(184,011)
Riverside, CA 7.6%(331,356)
Tampa, FL 7.4%(223,052)
Denver, CO 7.1%(199,050)
Phoenix, AZ 5.9%(277,437)
San Antonio, TX 3.7%(89,571)
El Paso, TX 1.5%(12,829)
San Jose is literally in a class by itself when it comes to this regard. A full third of the population speak a language other than the 2 most widely spoken in the US. SF is a distant second.
But I digress.
Really is nice to see the Boston area so high on these lists, given its reputation as very white / lacking diversity.
Really is nice to see the Boston area so high on these lists, given its reputation as very white / lacking diversity.
Yeah, I was probably guilty of this in an earlier post when I casually referenced Boston and Atlanta as places that I thought should rank below SJ. My dad's sister and mom's brother both live in the same suburb of Boston, so I was there a lot as a kid, formed a perception of it as very white. My first-hand impressions are outdated
Given this analysis, SJ should be higher on the list. Your point totals are somewhat arbitrary. No way SJ should be behind Atlanta for example. I'd argue that, rather than assigning additional points according to how well-represented a given area's least common race is, you could've simply awarded points for how 'non-white' a given area is. Here, SJ is being punished relative to other cities for its black population being only 2.3%, but the fact that its white population is below 30% should elevate it over the Atlantas and Bostons of the world. Some (purely hypothetical) place that's 50% white, 17% black, 17% Asian, 17% Latino doesn't deserve 15ish bonus points on that criterion over SJ, sorry. The Simpson Diversity Index scores would presumably be a more accurate reflection had those scores simply remained untouched
Not to be too critical, but my initial reaction to reading this was definitely 'wtf'. Appreciate the effort however
If the criteria focused on which is the least like the rest of America, then I'd say SJ is definitely 1st or thereabouts.
At every level it's just different imo.
That said this thread has criteria that is calculated using data so the results using the set parameters are what they are.
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.
