No Huckleberry. You can't compare Calgary with a population of 1 million with a country of 330 million people. Why don't we compare Calgary then with Marin county, CA. You lose then. How do you like them apples.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Economist - Most Liveable Cities 2011
- Thread starter Kassz007
- Start date
No Huckleberry. You can't compare Calgary with a population of 1 million with a country of 330 million people. Why don't we compare Calgary then with Marin county, CA. You lose then. How do you like them apples.
Quote from Ghost of Cutten:
Look, there are only a few places worth living in long-term, if you actually want to live life, as opposed to vegetating.
Canada, Australia, and other countries like that are provincial backwaters with tiny populations. Where is close to Canada - the USA, that's it. Why not just live in the important country rather than the minor one. Where's close to Australia? New Zealand, lol. No ambitious or adventurous person in their right mind would move to these places, they are countries you move to in order to have a dull but easy life, not places you go to change the world or experience all that life has to offer. The only people that live there are the locals, people fleeing desperate 3rd world shitholes, and the occasional retired person taking advantage of PPP (which no longer works for Oz and Canada).
The only places that matter are the leading global cities in the key parts of the world: the Americas, Europe, Asia. Africa and S America are just too backward to be considered. That leaves NYC, London, and Hong Kong as the only serious candidates.
Second tier alternatives, especially if you are into the industry that predominates there, would be places like LA, San Francisco, Chicago, Paris, possibly Tokyo and Shanghai. I could understand an Italian futures trading moving to Chicago, or a Spanish actor moving to LA, or an American chef moving to Paris. I can't imagine why anyone would take a look at their career and life plan, and think "Aha - Canada here we come! Vancouver or bust!"
Everywhere else is an irrelevance. No one with prospects moves to cities like Calgary, Auckland, or Vienna and says 10 years later "wow, moving here really changed my life!" These places aren't even on the radar for anyone who wants to make something of themselves. If I was an employee and got posted to somewhere like Adelaide or Helsinki, I would seriously contemplate suicide. These are dull, lifeless backwaters with little to do, most people don't even know where they are.
Spoken truly as someone who has likely never traveled outside of his own backyard. Some of the places you bash in this post are some of the most beautiful, exciting places on the Earth.
But of course, you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how biased it may be.
Quote from Maverick74:
No Huckleberry. You can't compare Calgary with a population of 1 million with a country of 330 million people. Why don't we compare Calgary then with Marin county, CA. You lose then. How do you like them apples.
We are comparing cities to cities not cities to countries or cities to counties. Please try to keep up with the thread topic, you are losing focus.
Quote from Maverick74:
This is total bullshit and I'll tell you why. At risk of sounding like a raging racist, I'm going to say this anyway. How many poor blacks live in Calgary? How many poor latinos? How many illegals of any kind? OK, thank you. Look, Canada has the same demographics as most of Scandinavia. Same white people. Same stats. The US is a cultural meting pot. At least that is what we like to call it. Far more diverse and I guess you could say, far more interesting then Canada.
If you look at our upper middle class suburbs and nice urban areas, they blow Canada out of the water. Just as clean, low crime, good schools, nice people, doors unlocked at night, all that jazz. Oh and one more thing, there are far more Canadians coming down here then Americans going up there. Things that make you go hmm...
This is the last post I will waste in this pissing contest. Read carefully. You are the one who started comparing USA vs. CANADA demographics, middle class and nice urban areas vs. CANADA, CANADIANS immigrating to USA.
Apart from the brief mention of Calgary being predominitely white, you then began ranting on the differences between USA and Canada.
Quote from Kassz007:
This is the last post I will waste in this pissing contest. Read carefully. You are the one who started comparing USA vs. CANADA demographics, middle class and nice urban areas vs. CANADA, CANADIANS immigrating to USA.
Apart from the brief mention of Calgary being predominitely white, you then began ranting on the differences between USA and Canada.
Correct, you cannot compare the small white demographic of Canada with a country with 330 million people and 50 different races and cultures. It just doesn't work man.
Quote from Kassz007:
Spoken truly as someone who has likely never traveled outside of his own backyard. Some of the places you bash in this post are some of the most beautiful, exciting places on the Earth.
But of course, you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how biased it may be.
Wrong, I've lived in (not just visited for 2 weeks as a tourist) and done business in several different countries over 3 continents - Europe, Africa, America. And we can quickly test who is more stuck in their backyard - I am posting this from Eastern Europe, not my home country. Where are you living at the moment?
The places I 'bashed' are NOT exciting compared to the world's top few cities, or anywhere near as varied, or have anything close to the opportunities. Alberta, Adelaide, Vienna etc are not shitholes, and not boring compared to most places, but compared to NYC, London, Hong Kong etc they definitely are. Just like a boxer ranked 30th in the world is one of the best in the world and could beat a normal person in a few seconds, but compared to a world champion he is hopelessly outclassed.
This list is not "10 fairly liveable cities". It is the 10 MOST liveable cities. That means the competition is the best in the world. And by any objective measure, the places on this list get totally destroyed by the genuinely top world cities. That is why no one in their right mind goes trying to make it big in Vienna or Auckland, and swarms of people from these 'top 10' cities emigrate to go to where the real opportunities, power, money and influence lie.
My opinion is based on simple facts:
FACT: London, NYC, and HK are much more wealthy than any of the cities on the list.
FACT: London, NYC and HK are much more visited each year than any of the cities on the list.
FACT: London, NYC and HK have far more of the world's top businessmen, celebrities, athletes, artists, intellectuals than any of the cities on the list.
FACT: net migration from the cities on the list is far greater to London, NYC, HK etc than the other way round.
FACT: London, NYC, and HK have far more diverse populations, goods and services, cultural attractions
FACT: London has the entirity of Europe on its doorstep, Russia and N Africa are 3 hours away, the arab world a bit further. Canada is 3 hours from a few US border towns, and desolate arctic wastelands. Australia is surrounded by water and deserted outback. They are literally in the middle of nowhere - perfect for people who never travel, not so good if you like being close to different cultures. That is why only 20-30 million people live in these countries, both of which are bigger than the whole European continent, which has more than 10 times the population. People vote with their feet.
All these OBJECTIVE FACTS support my opinion 100%.
Now, if you honestly think the economist list represents the world's most liveable cities, then back it up like I just have done. State your criteria and show how Adelaide beats out NYC or London. You won't, because there are literally no reasons that justify it, apart from pathetic hometown bias.
Quote from Ghost of Cutten:
Wrong, I've lived in (not just visited for 2 weeks as a tourist) and done business in several different countries over 3 continents - Europe, Africa, America. And we can quickly test who is more stuck in their backyard - I am posting this from Eastern Europe, not my home country. Where are you living at the moment?
The places I 'bashed' are NOT exciting compared to the world's top few cities, or anywhere near as varied, or have anything close to the opportunities. Alberta, Adelaide, Vienna etc are not shitholes, and not boring compared to most places, but compared to NYC, London, Hong Kong etc they definitely are. Just like a boxer ranked 30th in the world is one of the best in the world and could beat a normal person in a few seconds, but compared to a world champion he is hopelessly outclassed.
This list is not "10 fairly liveable cities". It is the 10 MOST liveable cities. That means the competition is the best in the world. And by any objective measure, the places on this list get totally destroyed by the genuinely top world cities. That is why no one in their right mind goes trying to make it big in Vienna or Auckland, and swarms of people from these 'top 10' cities emigrate to go to where the real opportunities, power, money and influence lie.
My opinion is based on simple facts:
FACT: London, NYC, and HK are much more wealthy than any of the cities on the list.
FACT: London, NYC and HK are much more visited each year than any of the cities on the list.
FACT: London, NYC and HK have far more of the world's top businessmen, celebrities, athletes, artists, intellectuals than any of the cities on the list.
FACT: net migration from the cities on the list is far greater to London, NYC, HK etc than the other way round.
FACT: London, NYC, and HK have far more diverse populations, goods and services, cultural attractions
FACT: London has the entirity of Europe on its doorstep, Russia and N Africa are 3 hours away, the arab world a bit further. Canada is 3 hours from a few US border towns, and desolate arctic wastelands. Australia is surrounded by water and deserted outback. They are literally in the middle of nowhere - perfect for people who never travel, not so good if you like being close to different cultures. That is why only 20-30 million people live in these countries, both of which are bigger than the whole European continent, which has more than 10 times the population. People vote with their feet.
All these OBJECTIVE FACTS support my opinion 100%.
Now, if you honestly think the economist list represents the world's most liveable cities, then back it up like I just have done. State your criteria and show how Adelaide beats out NYC or London. You won't, because there are literally no reasons that justify it, apart from pathetic hometown bias.
This is where we disagree. You seem to be basing your criteria for the most liveable cities as being the most wealthy, or the most opportunity to accumulate the most wealth. You also mention cities with the most power and influence. The facts you list do indeed support your theory that cities such as London, NYC, Hong Kong are the wealthiest and hold the most influence. However, the article that this thread is based on takes into account many other factors.
So if the Economist created a list of wealthy, powerful, influential cities, then London, NYC, Hong Kong would surely be up there. But that is a different topic altogether. When I think of a "liveable" city, I also take into account factors such as crime, tolerance, cleanliness, etc. In which case, the cities on the Economist's list should indeed rank higher.