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.
Then why the world's most important cities is London followed by NYC? LA is important but not as NYC.
This thread is about states, LA is only one city in CA. CA has LA (Beta+), SF (Beta+), and SD (Gamma-). Whether all those togehter are more important than an Alpha++... who knows
This thread is about states, LA is only one city in CA. CA has LA (Beta+), SF (Beta+), and SD (Gamma-). Whether all those togehter are more important than an Alpha++... who knows
I was just quoting the person who was talking about NYC. Other than that I remained neutral to what the other posters were posting about.
Dying in California is a step above actually having to 'live' in some of the other states in this country.
Amen!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jluke65780
I think once New Yorkers realize the difference between NYC and NY. They will understand. Financially, NYC can compete with any state, but importance. Not so much.
I think NYC alone can compete with many states in terms of importance. I think that city alone offers more within its city limits than many of our states (Delaware, Rhode Island, Idaho, etc.). But there's no way any one city can compete with the importance of our mega-states like CA, TX and FL, and several others. These states could effectively be their own countries in many ways; NYC can't do that. No single city contains the infrastructure to be completely self-sufficient. So it may arguably have everything that many people would hope for a city to have, and it may be the most complete city in the nation, but its not more important than our most populous states. Too many various things come from these entire states, ranging in anything from food/agriculture to technology, for any single city to eclipse their importance (with the exception of NY state - NYC is probably more important all by itself than the rest of NY state).
Quote:
Originally Posted by LASam
This thread is about states, LA is only one city in CA. CA has LA (Beta+), SF (Beta+), and SD (Gamma-). Whether all those together are more important than an Alpha++... who knows
And even then, that's only comparing 3 of CA's cities to NYC. If you're gonna do that you might as well make it LA vs. Manhattan, SF vs. Brooklyn, and SD vs. Queens, and then maybe Oakland vs. Bronx and San Jose vs. Staten. And even then that's only a handful of our cities just to make things more even (which NYC would still be ahead by in terms of population), and then you have all the rest of CA to look at, most of which the strength lies beyond its cities. So there's really no comparison here. Its like comparing CA to Asia. Its not even approaching being an even playing field.
NYC is unequaled as the most important city in the US. CA is our most important state from many different angles (GDP, population, agriculture, you name it). Comparing a city, no matter how important, to any state is pretty ridiculous to begin with. But NYC IMO still is able to shine as being more important all by itself than several if not many of our states. That in itself is pretty amazing.
I think NYC alone can compete with many states in terms of importance. I think that city alone offers more within its city limits than many of our states (Delaware, Rhode Island, Idaho, etc.). But there's no way any one city can compete with the importance of our mega-states like CA, TX and FL, and several others. These states could effectively be their own countries in many ways; NYC can't do that. No single city contains the infrastructure to be completely self-sufficient. So it may arguably have everything that many people would hope for a city to have, and it may be the most complete city in the nation, but its not more important than our most populous states. Too many various things come from these entire states, ranging in anything from food/agriculture to technology, for any single city to eclipse their importance (with the exception of NY state - NYC is probably more important all by itself than the rest of NY state).
And even then, that's only comparing 3 of CA's cities to NYC. If you're gonna do that you might as well make it LA vs. Manhattan, SF vs. Brooklyn, and SD vs. Queens, and then maybe Oakland vs. Bronx and San Jose vs. Staten. And even then that's only a handful of our cities just to make things more even (which NYC would still be ahead by in terms of population), and then you have all the rest of CA to look at, most of which the strength lies beyond its cities. So there's really no comparison here. Its like comparing CA to Asia. Its not even approaching being an even playing field.
NYC is unequaled as the most important city in the US. CA is our most important state from many different angles (GDP, population, agriculture, you name it). Comparing a city, no matter how important, to any state is pretty ridiculous to begin with. But NYC IMO still is able to shine as being more important all by itself than several if not many of our states. That in itself is pretty amazing.
I have to disagree, it's all about how your making the money, more than how much you have. Texas has a wide variety compared to NYC, hell NYS alone.
Dying in California is a step above actually having to 'live' in some of the other states in this country.
Just kidding..I agree..I have a love/hate relationship with state politics though,but the physicality of California is simply hard to compete with.
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.