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.
There is one thing to be said of NYC and London- I speculate there are also a high number of foreign nationals living there who are neither US or UK citizens or that NYC or London is not their sole residence. Keep in mind, London is the capital of the UK so I suspect there are people living there as result of the Embassy of their respective country and it is also a major financial capital- similar with NYC, except it is not the capital the US, but houses the UN. As for LA, I believe many living are residents of the area, though there are a far amount of people who are foreign residents and who spend part of the time in LA and part of time in their respective country.
I agree with you. Position of NYC and London are probably special even compared to other top cities. UN HQ is NYC that means people from all over the world are there, just like London is capital of one of the most important countries so we can asume there are diplomats and employees in embassies, dipl. Missions from all over the world. Just like your point about both cities being 2 largest financial centres in the world so we can assume people from all over the world travelling there at some point (it is more temporary similar to classic tourists, but yes people spending some of the time in year in those cities, howewer i think such people are not permanent residents amd are not counted to any population statistics just like tourists).
Thanks to their renome and being famous cities they attracted people from all corners ouf our planet and than it becomes easier to immigrate there once you have established foreign communities.
To your another post, below this one, you gave links. I have seen them before,, because demography is my hobby and it is always amusing for me how every person on blogs or just websites has different ranking. Mostly people have not correct informations or simply change words.. when i always see ranking of either most diverse or most multicultural cities in the world and Dubai is top 5 or even top 3 and the reason in article is highest foreign born share i just laugh that people don t understand meaning of terms or words. If you would make ranking with highest share of foreign born and place Dubai at No.1 great, it is well known fact, there are statistics for that, but if you have Dubai at No. 2 in most diverse cities with argument being 80% or more foreign born than hard to take those authors/bloggers seriously.
To L.A. i always said very diverse city just not top tier, definitely top 10 and than it is up to statistical shares to calculate and compare with other very diverse cities.
Also it is interesting that american guys mostly think Europe is not diverse (basically US many cities, Canadian and Aussie major cities and maybe they heard London or Paris are multicultural but that s it)
No way London is more diverse than LA. Simply no way.
Miami and Los Angeles have a lot of foreign born, but as to the number of different countries, I don't think you can guess based on your own particular feelings.
Obviously if you compare the most common demographic group from both countries, LA is a much smaller percentage than Greater London
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino-28.7% < White: British-44.89%
But the "no way" comment is not justified. You would have to see the detailed statistics.
Los Angeles as of April 1, 2010 (following percentage is California):
9.6% Black or African American alone, 6.2%
11.3% Asian alone, 13.0%
48.5% Hispanic or Latino, 37.6%
28.7% White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, 40.1%
As of 2011 Greater London
44.89% White: British
2.15% White: Irish
0.10% White: Gypsy or Irish Traveller
12.65% White: Other 59.79% White: Total
6.64% Asian or Asian British: Indian
2.74% Asian or Asian British: Pakistani
2.72% Asian or Asian British: Bangladeshi
1.52% Asian or Asian British: Chinese
4.88% Asian or Asian British: Other Asian 18.49% Asian or Asian British: Total
7.02% Black or Black British: African
4.22% Black or Black British: Caribbean
2.08% Black or Black British: Other Black 13.32% Black or Black British: Total
1.46% Mixed: White and Black Caribbean
0.80% Mixed: White and Black African
1.24% Mixed: White and Asian
1.45% Mixed: Other Mixed 4.96% Mixed: Total
1.30% Other: Arab
2.14% Other: Any other ethnic group 3.44% Other: Total
100.00% Total
Also it is interesting that american guys mostly think Europe is not diverse (basically US many cities, Canadian and Aussie major cities and maybe they heard London or Paris are multicultural but that s it)
Well "not diverse" is an absolute. I would say "low diversity". Outside of London and Paris I have been to Spain four times, Portugal once, Italy three times, Sweden, Finland, Vienna, Austrian hills, Southern Germany, and Southern countryside of England (Dorset and Winchester) twice. People seem massively afraid of any diversification.
Statistically, I look at numbers in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and I think they make Maine and Vermont look like melting pots.
Now I know that countries that traditionally exported labor like Spain and Portugal joined the EU thirty years ago, and they didn't start getting immigration in large numbers until a decade after that. So their are whole generations that can't get used to someone who looks different living in their country.
It's sort of like me telling kids today that half a century ago people used to tell Polish jokes. In Sweden they tell Norwegian jokes, which seem preposterous to an American.
Most American cities are largely American and their diversity is vastly based on people recalling their ancestors 3 or 4 generations ago. Even in NYC it's not as common to meet many nationalities, you'll meet however Americans who tell you their grandpa was from X country and then it suddenly counts towards NYC diversity.
Most immigrants in many American cities are almost entirely from Either Mexico or some Asian countries, mostly China, Indian, Philippines. The rest of the population is vastly white/black english speaking Americans.
I spent time in Geneva Switzerland and I was impressed by the multicultural way of the city. I assisted a party and every single one of the guests was from a different country. 24 guests, 24 different countries which included Africa, Asia, the Americas and Europe, not even the Swiss were at a majority. That is hard to find in the US, even in NYC!
Huh? 37% of New York City residents are foreign born.
Well "not diverse" is an absolute. I would say "low diversity". Outside of London and Paris I have been to Spain four times, Portugal once, Italy three times, Sweden, Finland, Vienna, Austrian hills, Southern Germany, and Southern countryside of England (Dorset and Winchester) twice. People seem massively afraid of any diversification.
Statistically, I look at numbers in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and I think they make Maine and Vermont look like melting pots.
Now I know that countries that traditionally exported labor like Spain and Portugal joined the EU thirty years ago, and they didn't start getting immigration in large numbers until a decade after that. So their are whole generations that can't get used to someone who looks different living in their country.
It's sort of like me telling kids today that half a century ago people used to tell Polish jokes. In Sweden they tell Norwegian jokes, which seem preposterous to an American.
I meant cities. I was reacting to most diverse cities and pointed out that most Americans know their cities are diverse and about Canada and Australia as both being countries based on immigration (with some exceptions, Aussies had that white Australia policy and so on).
But average American most likely has no idea about diversity in Europe (except cities like London or Paris that are logical choice) at least that was my impression from Americans when i was there and from comments on internet.
So i was not talking about diversity of countries, but larger cities. In this case many western european larger cities are pretty diverse. Major dutch, belgian, german cities are pretty diverse for decades and other major cities in Scandinavia, Italy, Spain, Portugal and so on became immigration destination since 80s. Yes if you go to rural Italy or Austria you will see locals, speaking local dialects and minimum people of foreign descent, but if you go to major cities (different story.)
It is true that most of those cities are not on the level of most diverse US cities, but still very diverse for our standards. Great example is Scandinavia, they had some immigrants like other european states thanks to labour treaties (guest workers) long time ago, but in last 2 decades Oslo, Copenhagen,Stockholm and Malmo became much more diverse and if we would go down to number of countries represented there(nationalities) and so on they can match any US city except of really the few biggest
To your another post, below this one, you gave links. I have seen them before,, because demography is my hobby and it is always amusing for me how every person on blogs or just websites has different ranking. Mostly people have not correct informations or simply change words.. when i always see ranking of either most diverse or most multicultural cities in the world and Dubai is top 5 or even top 3 and the reason in article is highest foreign born share i just laugh that people don t understand meaning of terms or words. If you would make ranking with highest share of foreign born and place Dubai at No.1 great, it is well known fact, there are statistics for that, but if you have Dubai at No. 2 in most diverse cities with argument being 80% or more foreign born than hard to take those authors/bloggers seriously.
To L.A. i always said very diverse city just not top tier, definitely top 10 and than it is up to statistical shares to calculate and compare with other very diverse cities.
I am not disagreeing with you, but define "top tier". There can be many definitions and interpretations of "top tier." As I wrote earlier, I don't make a claim that LA is the most diverse city and metropolitan area in the world, but it is among the top in the world. We can agree it is at least in the Top 10 and some rankings I have posted places it in the Top 5. I have been London, New York and of course LA, as well as some of the other the major cities of the world. So, I have seen the diversity in these cities firsthand.
As for Dubai, I would say a large percentage as foreign workers there and not really true permanent residents.
I am not making the claim that Los Angeles is the most diverse city in the world, but it is probably up there. But, if expand and talk about the Los Angeles area meaning surrounding areas outside of the city limit, you will find the area fairly diverse (not necessarily integrated). The Los Angeles metro area (not city limit) has a very large Hispanic/Latino population (Mexicans, Salvadorians); and as I understand the largest Armenian population outside of Armenia; largest Korean population outside of Korea; largest Taiwanese population outside of Taiwan; a very sizable Chinese population; it has a fairly sizable Persian population; sizable Filipino population; sizable Vietnamese population (perhaps one of the largest outside of Vietnam); there are also pockets of Russians, Ethiopians, Thais. There are communities of Japanese. Pockets of Cambodians. Pockets of East Indians. And of course the "white" population and African-Americans; There are probably other groups I have not mentioned.
I am not disagreeing with you, but define "top tier". There can be many definitions and interpretations of "top tier." As I wrote earlier, I don't make a claim that LA is the most diverse city and metropolitan area in the world, but it is among the top in the world. We can agree it is at least in the Top 10 and some rankings I have posted places it in the Top 5. I have been London, New York and of course LA, as well as some of the other the major cities of the world. So, I have seen the diversity in these cities firsthand.
As for Dubai, I would say a large percentage as foreign workers there and not really true permanent residents.
Top tier for me are NYC, London and Toronto
L.A is 2nd tier with Sydney, Melbourne, Amsterdam, Paris,Brussels, SF metro, D.C. metro, Houston, maybe Chicago. I can t really decide on ranking from 4th to 10th but how i said i would place it to top 10, maybe 5th after Sydney, but i need to do more calculations (for my personal ranking)
To Dubai (that s what i said earlier that i don t understand people who place Dubai in top 5 or even top 3 argumenting with highest share of foreign borns among major world cities) 1st fact foreign workers from 15 countries from 35 maybe if we include westerners (who are like 1/10 th from manual labour workers from South Asia, SE Asia and other muslim countries)
The fact they will not get citizenship in 99% cases and are treated like 3rd class inhabitants in majority of cases Dubai has similar kind of diversity as Moscow(also millions of people from certain region/s not really whole world)
L.A is 2nd tier with Sydney, Melbourne, Amsterdam, Paris,Brussels, SF metro, D.C. metro, Houston, maybe Chicago. I can t really decide on ranking from 4th to 10th but how i said i would place it to top 10, maybe 5th after Sydney, but i need to do more calculations (for my personal ranking)
To Dubai (that s what i said earlier that i don t understand people who place Dubai in top 5 or even top 3 argumenting with highest share of foreign borns among major world cities) 1st fact foreign workers from 15 countries from 35 maybe if we include westerners (who are like 1/10 th from manual labour workers from South Asia, SE Asia and other muslim countries)
The fact they will not get citizenship in 99% cases and are treated like 3rd class inhabitants in majority of cases Dubai has similar kind of diversity as Moscow(also millions of people from certain region/s not really whole world)
In terms of referring to "tiers" I often see tiers including more than 3 items.
One thing that needs to be clarified in the discussions regarding diversity includes distinction between made in terms of diversity of ethnicities (e.g. they could be US, Canadian or UK citizens, but of vary ethnicities) vs. mulitnationals livings in say New York or London where there are US or UK citizens of varying background, but also multinational (non-US or non-UK citizens who are posted in New York or London for work, but may also reside in other cities outside of New York or London). In that respect, I believe New York and London are a bit above Toronto as I believe they also have higher degree of multinationals than Toronto given that New York and London are rated as an "Alpha ++ World City" while Toronto is listed as an "Alpha + World City" (in part, I believe there are a higher degree of multinationals in New York and London). See: Alpha, Beta and Gamma cities (updated 2015) – Spotted by Locals
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.
