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.
NY/NJ/CT
Union City, NJ 56.4% New York
Elizabeth, NJ 44.5% New York
Passaic, NJ 44.1% New York
Stamford, CT 37.4% New York
Jersey City, NJ 36.8% New York
New York, NY 36.8% New York
Patterson, NJ 35.8% New York
Yonkers, NY 32.8% New York
Clifton, NJ 31.7% New York
New Rochelle, NY 31.7% New York
SF Bay Area
Daly City, CA 53.1% San Francisco
Milpitas, CA 51.3% San Francisco
Union City, CA 45.2% San Francisco
Sunnyvale, CA 43.6% San Francisco
Fremont, CA 43.1% San Francisco
Santa Clara, CA 41.4% San Francisco
San Jose, CA 39.8% San Francisco
Mountain View, CA 38.3% San Francisco
San Leandro, CA 37.8% San Francisco
San Francisco, CA 35.3% San Francisco
San Mateo, CA 35.2% San Francisco
Hayward, CA 35.0% San Francisco
Richmond, CA 33.1% San Francisco
Alameda, CA 31.5% San Francisco
Redwood City, CA 30.2% San Francisco
that doesn't mean that the bay area is more diverse. how many foreign born ppl are coming in from mexico and central america??
*edit*
also, remember that nyers aren't filling out the census like that at all. also, how many ppl total live in the tristate area vs the amount of ppl that live in the bay area? the numbers were probably posted awhile back and i overlooked them..
I don't know why SF is even the other option, much less why people are arguing in favor of it or have voted for it.
Yes, it has a big chinatown. However, it is still one of the whitest metros for its size in America. Chicago, Houston, Atlanta, Miami, probably even LA are all more diverse than SF.
The only places I can really see SF having a chance against are Seattle, Portland and Minneapolis.
I don't know why SF is even the other option, much less why people are arguing in favor of it or have voted for it.
Yes, it has a big chinatown. However, it is still one of the whitest metros for its size in America. Chicago, Houston, Atlanta, Miami, probably even LA are all more diverse than SF.
The only places I can really see SF having a chance against are Seattle, Portland and Minneapolis.
TOP 11 LIST OF MOST DIVERSE METROPOLITAN AREAS IN TERMS OF RACIAL GROUPS (out of the top 11 populated metro areas): 1) San Francisco (.687)
2) Houston (.676)
3) Los Angeles (.664)
4) Miami (.663)
5) Dallas (.618)
6) Chicago (.605)
7) Washington (.604)
8) Atlanta (.599)
9) New York (.595)
10) Philadelphia (.494)
11) Boston (.346)
Los Angeles: 35.4% White Non-Hispanic
Miami: 38.4% White Non-Hispanic
Houston: 43.2% White Non-Hispanic
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose: 46.2% White Non-Hispanic
New York: 54.0% White Non-Hispanic
Dallas-Fort Worth: 54.3% White Non-Hispanic
Atlanta: 54.8% White Non-Hispanic
Washington: 56.2% White Non-Hispanic
Chicago: 57.0% White Non-Hispanic
Philadelphia: 68.1% White Non-Hispanic
Boston: 80.2% White Non-Hispanic
I notice that many of the Southern posters think that if an area doesn't have a large amount of black people, it must not be diverse. Good thing that math disproves that theory
Quote:
Originally Posted by eek
that doesn't mean that the bay area is more diverse. how many foreign born ppl are coming in from mexico and central america??
*edit*
also, remember that nyers aren't filling out the census like that at all. also, how many ppl total live in the tristate area vs the amount of ppl that live in the bay area? the numbers were probably posted awhile back and i overlooked them..
27.36% of the population was foreign born; of this,
51.31% from Asia,
32.46% came from Latin America,
11.39% from Europe,
4.84% from other parts of the world
The Bay Area is 500 miles from the Mexican border. Why would they opt for a place like the Bay Area when LA is much much closer?
27.36% of the population was foreign born; of this,
51.31% from Asia,
32.46% came from Latin America,
11.39% from Europe,
4.84% from other parts of the world
The Bay Area is 500 miles from the Mexican border. Why would they opt for a place like the Bay Area when LA is much much closer?
this still doesn't say much given how diverse ny is as far as ppl that come from said regions.
also, mexicans are all over ny and the rest of the east coast. thats like 342343424 miles from the mexican border.
mexicans live wherever they want to live. it has nothing to do with whats closer. maybe they prefer other cities.
TOP 11 LIST OF MOST DIVERSE METROPOLITAN AREAS IN TERMS OF RACIAL GROUPS (out of the top 11 populated metro areas): 1) San Francisco (.687) 2) Houston (.676) 3) Los Angeles (.664) 4) Miami (.663) 5) Dallas (.618) 6) Chicago (.605) 7) Washington (.604) 8) Atlanta (.599) 9) New York (.595) 10) Philadelphia (.494) 11) Boston (.346)
Los Angeles: 35.4% White Non-Hispanic
Miami: 38.4% White Non-Hispanic
Houston: 43.2% White Non-Hispanic
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose: 46.2% White Non-Hispanic
New York: 54.0% White Non-Hispanic
Dallas-Fort Worth: 54.3% White Non-Hispanic
Atlanta: 54.8% White Non-Hispanic
Washington: 56.2% White Non-Hispanic
Chicago: 57.0% White Non-Hispanic
Philadelphia: 68.1% White Non-Hispanic
Boston: 80.2% White Non-Hispanic
I notice that many of the Southern posters think that if an area doesn't have a large amount of black people, it must not be diverse. Good thing that math disproves that theory
27.36% of the population was foreign born; of this,
51.31% from Asia,
32.46% came from Latin America,
11.39% from Europe,
4.84% from other parts of the world
The Bay Area is 500 miles from the Mexican border. Why would they opt for a place like the Bay Area when LA is much much closer?
This "diversity index" is so mis-leading. It assumes that all black, asian, white and hispanic groups are racially and ethnically homogenous.
Someone needs to create this whilst breaking up the groups, i.e., Asian (Chinese, Indian, Pakistani, Korean, etc.); Black (African American, Sub-Saharan African, West Indian), White (US born, European born, Arab, Persian); and then the index will be far more accurate. And i'd wager that NYC (both the city and metro) would come out on top.
this still doesn't say much given how diverse ny is as far as ppl that come from said regions.
also, mexicans are all over ny and the rest of the east coast. thats like 342343424 miles from the mexican border.
mexicans live wherever they want to live. it has nothing to do with whats closer. maybe they prefer other cities.
Non sequitur.
Quote:
that doesn't mean that the bay area is more diverse. how many foreign born ppl are coming in from mexico and central america??
You asked how many of the foreign born people are coming from Mexico and Central America. I answered back with:
Quote:
27.36% of the population was foreign born; of this,
51.31% from Asia,
32.46% came from Latin America,
11.39% from Europe,
4.84% from other parts of the world
Then offered an explanation about why. Then you come up with some half hearted explanation, and another rah rah for NYC.
Anyways, more of the Tri-state area's foreign born comes from Latin America than the Bay Area's, but I already know how you're going to respond (the Carribean is made up of more nations, and therefore more cultures, than the Central America.)
Why don't YOU guys post any data, instead of wasting time speculating. It would save us hours and hours having this retarded back and forth. The Bay Area posters and I already posted tons and tons of data, but no one else is. Why is that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mraza9
This "diversity index" is so mis-leading. It assumes that all black, asian, white and hispanic groups are racially and ethnically homogenous.
Someone needs to create this whilst breaking up the groups, i.e., Asian (Chinese, Indian, Pakistani, Korean, etc.); Black (African American, Sub-Saharan African, West Indian), White (US born, European born, Arab, Persian); and then the index will be far more accurate. And i'd wager that NYC (both the city and metro) would come out on top.
If you want it done so badly, why don't you do it yourself instead of wasting the US taxpayer dollar on something that takes a few minutes to do? (Think about how much it costs to analyze something like this) I mean, the equation is there:
If you want it done so badly, why don't you do it yourself instead of wasting the US taxpayer dollar on something that takes a few minutes to do? (Think about how much it costs to analyze something like this) I mean, the equation is there:
Anyone want to waste a few hours and do it? I bet not. So lets just blast away for the next few days.
Oh I understand perfectly. And I really do not want to do it "so badly" (not sure your point vis a vis wasting US tax dollar money, but um, okay). I'm just making a point that the numbers you plugged are misleading and entirely inaccurate given the variables I explained in my last post.
Oh I understand perfectly. And I really do not want to do it "so badly" (not sure your point vis a vis wasting US tax dollar money, but um, okay). I'm just making a point that the numbers you plugged are misleading and entirely inaccurate given the variables I explained in my last post.
Something like that doesn't necessitate the US government spending time on it, aside from curiosity. What good would that help the average person looking for a job, or getting public services? Absolutely none!
Do you want to know why something like that would waste time? Because the index only measures the chance that any two random things in a sample would be of different groups. If you have more than 20 groups, then the chances that any two objects or people would be of the same group would decrease to 2%. Then the index loses all meaning, and we are back to doing this again. That's why doing something like that would be meaningless and a waste of time.
Anyways, where's the data for that anyways? It doesn't exist, or if it does, it would be rife with inconsistencies. What if someone is Irish-Italian, but is 4th generation? Would they mark "Irish" "Italian" or "American". Sometimes all 3, sometimes 1, sometimes none. See how that doesn't make sense in a society that is predicated on assimilation and mixing with each other?
Something like that doesn't necessitate the US government spending time on it, aside from curiosity. What good would that help the average person looking for a job, or getting public services? Absolutely none!
Do you want to know why something like that would waste time? Because the index only measures the chance that any two random things in a sample would be of different groups. If you have more than 20 groups, then the chances that any two objects or people would be of the same group would decrease to 2%. Then the index loses all meaning, and we are back to doing this again. That's why doing something like that would be meaningless and a waste of time.
Anyways, where's the data for that anyways? It doesn't exist, or if it does, it would be rife with inconsistencies. What if someone is Irish-Italian, but is 4th generation? Would they mark "Irish" "Italian" or "American". Sometimes all 3, sometimes 1, sometimes none. See how that doesn't make sense in a society that is predicated on assimilation and mixing with each other?
So I took you up on your offer and created newer variables and plugged in your diversity index, and will concede, SF still beats out NY metro - but barely: 0.755 vs. 0.736.
I broke up the White non-Hispanic into three groups:
White non-Hispanic US born
White foreign born (in Europe and Canada)
and Arab.
I broke the Black category into:
Black non-Hispanic US born
Black West Indian Ancestry
Black Sub-Saharan African Ancestry
Hispanic I broke into:
Mexican
Puerto Rican
Cuban
Other
And finally Asian into:
East Asian
South Asian
I used the 2006-2008 ACS Census estimates to come up with these numbers.
I think it paints a slightly more accurate picture.
I don't know why SF is even the other option, much less why people are arguing in favor of it or have voted for it.
Yes, it has a big chinatown. However, it is still one of the whitest metros for its size in America. Chicago, Houston, Atlanta, Miami, probably even LA are all more diverse than SF.
The only places I can really see SF having a chance against are Seattle, Portland and Minneapolis.
You do realize that we are talking about the whole Bay Area and just not SF right? The thread is the Tri State Area vs The Bay Area. Not New York vs San Francsico.
How about you actually take the time to read the thread and look at the data posted on just how diverse the Bay Area is.
Ohh and the Bay Area as one of the whitest metros? haha Thats a good one. Thanks for the laugh.
Oh yea by the way Alameda County (located in the East Bay) which is in SF's metro is the 2nd most diverse county in the entire country, only behind Queens in New York.
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.
