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.
I'd wager Shanghai if current trends continue. 25 years is a long period over which to speculate, especially when unprecedented growth levels are concerned, but Japan has real issues such as an aging population that are fact, rather than speculation. Even if they turned it around tomorrow, you'd have a period of over a decade where this new workforce was still too young to contribute in real numbers. Lots of Japanese manufacturing has already shifted to China... as is the case with the US, you're basically looking at a situation where the lower level jobs that previously ensured that lower class members of society still had real money to put back into the economy aren't there and you've got a portion of the population that's floundering. Basically, Tokyo is poised to stagnate, if not decline.
China's got the male/female disparity looming, but that's more a problem in its rural interior that will have mitigated effects in the urban areas where the money is in the first place.
Hong Kong's main reasons for becoming a financial center was its status as a British-owned state in a Western-dominated world. I wouldn't necessarily say its peaked, but its reacquisition by a now much-more-open China and the growth of Chinese cities mitigates some of the special status it once held.
I'd wager Shanghai if current trends continue. 25 years is a long period over which to speculate, especially when unprecedented growth levels are concerned, but Japan has real issues such as an aging population that are fact, rather than speculation. Even if they turned it around tomorrow, you'd have a period of over a decade where this new workforce was still too young to contribute in real numbers. Lots of Japanese manufacturing has already shifted to China... as is the case with the US, you're basically looking at a situation where the lower level jobs that previously ensured that lower class members of society still had real money to put back into the economy aren't there and you've got a portion of the population that's floundering. Basically, Tokyo is poised to stagnate, if not decline.
China's got the male/female disparity looming, but that's more a problem in its rural interior that will have mitigated effects in the urban areas where the money is in the first place.
Hong Kong's main reasons for becoming a financial center was its status as a British-owned state in a Western-dominated world. I wouldn't necessarily say its peaked, but its reacquisition by a now much-more-open China and the growth of Chinese cities mitigates some of the special status it once held.
Yes, the decline in Japanese manufactured or Japanese-branded products is quite noticeable. Whereas in the 90s the market was dominated by Sony, Panasonic, now Samsung and LG seem the top dogs. Japan still exports a lot of vehicles, or manufactures them elsewhere, but Hyundai is no longer the second-rate car it was. Now the Chinese are coming up. In a word, China and South Korea are challenging Japanese hegemony in Asia. Of and don't forget Taiwan.
I think the disparity will equalise due to changing social conditions.
Yes, it's true, although Hong Kong has already established itself, I suppose. It's position is no longer unique in Asia, many expats are flocking to Shanghai, Shenzhen.etc.
According to the ranking of its air passengers, which I think is a good indicator of how busy/big/international a city is, Tokyo is No.1 today. BJ is No. 2 (This year, SH probably will overtake BJ), SH is No. 3, Seoul No.4, then HK and Singapore
According to the ranking of its air passengers, which I think is a good indicator of how busy/big/international a city is, Tokyo is No.1 today. BJ is No. 2 (This year, SH probably will overtake BJ), SH is No. 3, Seoul No.4, then HK and Singapore
This is far more telling in terms of how international an airport is. Total stats include domestic passengers. Not surprisingly Atlanta isn't even in the top 30.
I really don't think it is a good gauge. For example, the HK airport, being a small special region, all of its air passengers are counted as international (including those from Mainland). So all the airports in small countries rank very high in this list.
Why for SH airport, a traveller from BJ is less important than a guy from Bankok? it does not make sense.
Atlanta is an exception. It has huge air traffic just because of its transfer status.
All the other cities in my list are huge cities with the biggest economies in the world.
This is far more telling in terms of how international an airport is. Total stats include domestic passengers. Not surprisingly Atlanta isn't even in the top 30.
I really don't think it is a good gauge. For example, the HK airport, being a small special region, all of its air passengers are counted as international (including those from Mainland). So all the airports in small countries rank very high in this list.
Why for SH airport, a traveller from BJ is less important than a guy from Bankok? it does not make sense.
Atlanta is an exception. It has huge air traffic just because of its transfer status.
All the other cities in my list are huge cities with the biggest economies in the world.
Well it measures how international that city is. I think few can dispute Hong Kong is more international than Beijing or Shanghai. Sure, 54 million international tourists visit China annually, but how many arrive in Beijing by air? HK's location is of course a great asset too.
Well it measures how international that city is. I think few can dispute Hong Kong is more international than Beijing or Shanghai. Sure, 54 million international tourists visit China annually, but how many arrive in Beijing by air? HK's location is of course a great asset too.
I don't think HK's location is good in terms of air travel. Most travellers are from the northen hemisphere, and HK's southern location definitely doesn't make it convenient. unless one is travelling to south/southeast Asia, why the hell will you ever transfer in HK?
I don't how busy an airport is is a good measure of a city's internationalness. Especially in the case of city state like HK/Singapore, the number is meaningless because any flight is considered international. For HK, how many of those passengers are actually from mainland China? I guess a Chinese passenger who flies to Shenzhen is domestic and to HK is all of a sudden "international".
And speaking of internationalness, Singapore is more so than New York city. Right.
HK does lack a good railway connection. The majority of its visitors has to come through air, except travellers from Shenzhen.
For SH, billions of visitors each year actually come by railways. Some travellers even prefer railway between BJ and SH, which is more than 1000 kilo metres away. The highspeed train is very convenient
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli
I don't think HK's location is good in terms of air travel. Most travellers are from the northen hemisphere, and HK's southern location definitely doesn't make it convenient. unless one is travelling to south/southeast Asia, why the hell will you ever transfer in HK?
I don't how busy an airport is is a good measure of a city's internationalness. Especially in the case of city state like HK/Singapore, the number is meaningless because any flight is considered international. For HK, how many of those passengers are actually from mainland China? I guess a Chinese passenger who flies to Shenzhen is domestic and to HK is all of a sudden "international".
And speaking of internationalness, Singapore is more so than New York city. Right.
I don't think HK's location is good in terms of air travel. Most travellers are from the northen hemisphere, and HK's southern location definitely doesn't make it convenient. unless one is travelling to south/southeast Asia, why the hell will you ever transfer in HK?
I don't how busy an airport is is a good measure of a city's internationalness. Especially in the case of city state like HK/Singapore, the number is meaningless because any flight is considered international. For HK, how many of those passengers are actually from mainland China? I guess a Chinese passenger who flies to Shenzhen is domestic and to HK is all of a sudden "international".
And speaking of internationalness, Singapore is more so than New York city. Right.
HK has direct flights to every continent, there's even a direct fight from HK to NYC. On a world scale it's location isn't much different to Shanghai.
Well, Singapore is very international regardless. It was the second most visited city in the world by international tourists after Hong Kong last year, above NY, London, Paris, Bangkok. Yes, in many ways it is more international than NYC. 41% of it's population are foreigners (which isn't entirely good), it gets tons of tourists, is a huge transportation (shipping and air) hub, very globalised, very much part of the international economy. It's very culture is like Asia in one city.
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.
