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.
Based on location alone Los Angeles is in one the biggest states in America /it's really apples & oranges because even though Texas and Alaska is larger in land size ,it's still not more populated than NYC ......the unseen truth when it comes to New York ,is that the metro adds population from another state and combines its counties to make the population seem bigger but in reality New York City ( manhattan ) vs Los Angeles city is what really should be the focus/and Los Angeles is clearly more bigger & populated.....than if we compare the 5 counties/boroughs to one city Los Angeles,that's where the 8 mill to 4 mill comes from but Los Angeles county at its core is about 10 million people and that's more than the 5 counties/boroughs of New York no matter how you slice and dice it .....
This is one of the worst augments I have ever heard on this forum. good job.
Not saying bigger is better because Texas is bigger and it's not better than California or Florida but everyone has their respective opinions......far as comparing manhattan 22 sq miles to Los Angeles city is not a bad thing/manhatthan is very diverse to be so small but it seems like without manhatthan New Yorkers feel inferior /than the population thing which makes New York economy grow so far over other cities is because they add other states and combine counties/the only way to make it fair is to compare 5 boroughs to L.A county .......now about which city is more expensive it depends on if your living in Beverly Hills/own multiple cars & houses vs a Wall Street business man living in a penthouse /basically it depends on a persons lifestyle ......
Your post are ridiculous. You can't make apples to apples comparisons between counties because the east coast counties are tiny and extremely dense in comparison to their west cost counterparts. In fact, the role of a county also varies greatly between states, and some states don't even have counties. Apparently your education system failed you miserably because you have no basic understanding of geography. Look at where NYC is located, then look at where LA is located. NYC is located in a narrow section of a much smaller state, near the boundaries of two other states. It's only logical that it's metro areA would include other states. LA is located far from the state border, it would be geographically impossible for its metro area to reach another state. If a city like LA had popped up near California's northern border with Oregon, that city's MetroArea would also include Oregon. It's simple geography.
Also, the economy of only the city of NY is far greater than any other city in the country, including LA, if we go solely by city limits. The city of LA's economy is heavily concentrated on its port, which when looking at the map, it's ridiculous that it's even part of LA's city limits. On the other hand, contrary to popular belief, Manhattan is not the sole source of wealth for the city. For example, take away the port of LA and just the borough of Queens has a comparable economy to the city of LA. I don't have the patience to further educate you so I'll leave it at that.
Typical east coasters lol ,and this is why I said bigger isn't better so why try to compare the 2,You can't tell someone living in Los Angeles that Santa Monica or Beverly Hills isn't L.A,even though its right in the middle of town .....fact is Los Angeles is a city and county at the same time so my point was Los Angeles at its very core ( Los Angeles county ) is more populated than New York City .....no matter if New York is smaller in land size or added its 5 counties to make it one city,it's still not bigger or more populated than Los Angeles at its very core......sorry that's just how things are in California /no need to say I'm unfair I'm just stating a simple fact/Texas is bigger than California in size also but we don't complain out west that's it's not fair,NYC is simply a city full of hype and unseen truths ....alot of people outside ny including myself for a long time thought manhatthan was a huge city full of 8 million alone until I was educated that it combined 5 counties together and once that was the case,than I believe that Brooklyn was truly the big city in New York not manhatthan ...just a bit of slice and dice no need to get upset lol
I really don't understand you east coasters smh,in another thread it was unfair to compare California to New York State because of the size so you guys compared California to 9 states alone .....like that other guy from Cali on here said ,it's you New Yorkers that keep making these threads but after learning how things are ran out west it becomes an unfair comparison ......so it's fair to compare 5 counties ( 5 cities /boroughs ) to other u.s cities and think
its even ?? If we take Brooklyn alone and compare to other u.s cities ,alone it would be comparable to Chicago based on population and economy ....just pointing out unseen truths.....
Based on location alone Los Angeles is in one the biggest states in America /it's really apples & oranges because even though Texas and Alaska is larger in land size ,it's still not more populated than NYC ......
Your mistake was in this sentence. It may apply to Alaska, but Texas is more populated than NYC, hell New York altogether.
It's been that way since the early-mid 90s (1994ish). I'm surprised alot of people still don't know that.
Typical east coasters lol ,and this is why I said bigger isn't better so why try to compare the 2,You can't tell someone living in Los Angeles that Santa Monica or Beverly Hills isn't L.A,even though its right in the middle of town .....fact is Los Angeles is a city and county at the same time so my point was Los Angeles at its very core ( Los Angeles county ) is more populated than New York City .....no matter if New York is smaller in land size or added its 5 counties to make it one city,it's still not bigger or more populated than Los Angeles at its very core......sorry that's just how things are in California /no need to say I'm unfair I'm just stating a simple fact/Texas is bigger than California in size also but we don't complain out west that's it's not fair,NYC is simply a city full of hype and unseen truths ....alot of people outside ny including myself for a long time thought manhatthan was a huge city full of 8 million alone until I was educated that it combined 5 counties together and once that was the case,than I believe that Brooklyn was truly the big city in New York not manhatthan ...just a bit of slice and dice no need to get upset lol
The difference you don't seem to get is that NYC counties where created in a different manner than Californian counties. NYC is the only city in the country that is composed of counties rather than part of one, but there exists no county government. There is no separate government in each county, rather its all just ONE city government. The county distinction serves no purpose other than directing mail. The only reason NYC doesn't consolidate into one county is that this way, each borough gets their own district attorney.
Brooklyn was larger in size, but not in population to NYC when it was annexed. It no longer functions as its own city, this is why your posts make ZERO sense. Manhattan is part of NYC, not all of it. All the five boroughs operate as one city, the county distinctions are meaningless in NYC.
I really don't understand you east coasters smh,in another thread it was unfair to compare California to New York State because of the size so you guys compared California to 9 states alone .....like that other guy from Cali on here said ,it's you New Yorkers that keep making these threads but after learning how things are ran out west it becomes an unfair comparison ......so it's fair to compare 5 counties ( 5 cities /boroughs ) to other u.s cities and think
its even ?? If we take Brooklyn alone and compare to other u.s cities ,alone it would be comparable to Chicago based on population and economy ....just pointing out unseen truths.....
What does this have to do with the thread? I don't understand what population size has to do with cost of living.
I really don't understand you east coasters smh,in another thread it was unfair to compare California to New York State because of the size so you guys compared California to 9 states alone .....like that other guy from Cali on here said ,it's you New Yorkers that keep making these threads but after learning how things are ran out west it becomes an unfair comparison ......so it's fair to compare 5 counties ( 5 cities /boroughs ) to other u.s cities and think
its even ?? If we take Brooklyn alone and compare to other u.s cities ,alone it would be comparable to Chicago based on population and economy ....just pointing out unseen truths.....
What unseen truths? The counties in NYC serve no purpose other than to provide each borough its own district attorney. There no separate county government, its just one city government. Why is that such a hard concept for your mind to grasp? Counties in each state serve a different purpose, that is why you can't make an apple to apple comparisons between different state counties. Either compare using city limits or compare using Metro-Areas, otherwise you're trying to compare two different things. NYC is the largest and most economically powerful city in the country by a ridiculously large margin, end of story.
I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to as far as comparing NY state and California but my guess is that you're ignorant as to how the states formed. All of the original thirteen colonies had their borders drawn up in England at the fancy of the King. There was no thought or economic reason, just whatever the King wanted.Thats why you get ridiculous states like Rhode Island and Delaware. California on the other hand, exploded due to the gold rush and when it gained entry to union, it strategically made sure to retain its large size in order to have access to the mountains up North and the Colorado river down south. California knew its large size gave it access to plethora of natural resources that would allow it to grow economically and thats why it refused to break up like congress wanted it to. The other states in east had no such luck in defining their own borders for their economic benefit. Did you not take US history at all while in school? It's sad that Americans don't even know their own history.
Yes your correct Texas is more populated than New York State ....
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.
