# NYC's growth has stopped! Is this real?



## Man-from-Toronto (Aug 30, 2005)

Check this out:


http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/tables/SUB-EST2004-01.csv

Can anybody explain?


----------



## Man-from-Toronto (Aug 30, 2005)

NYC's 2003 population: Approx. 8,109,000
NYC's 2004 population: Approx. 8,102,000

It seems as if Toronto is getting most of North America's immigrants after all.


----------



## sequoias (Dec 21, 2004)

don't worry about the growth stopping in NYC, it's not end of the world and it's already BIG enough. It has grown big enough and doesn't need any more. 
It's already congested.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

The city's growing; especially the metropolitan. It's gained something like 1.1 million people over the last five years. Both it and LA are getting more immigrants than Toronto. 

Plus, the 2004 statistic is only an estimate. We'll have to wait until 2010, when the next census takes place; which I'm sure will reveal a growing NYC. Recent news articles that I've read show that the city's population has grown so far within 2005.

Different sources have different estimates--but I think most people say the city's population has grown anywhere from 100,000 to 250,000 in the last 5 years.

Another source:


----------



## United-States-of-America (Jul 19, 2005)

I have something that'll confuse you even more, Man-from-Toronto.


www.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_york_city 
Wikipedia claims that NYC's population is still increasing.


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

I guess NYC was built to house somewhere around 7.5 to 9 million people. The metro will continue to still grow way past the 22 million plus it is currently. The city will also show growth by 2010. Let's wait and see.


----------



## simadon (Sep 16, 2004)

As large as NYC is there's still a threshold to a sustainable population. I would look into NYC's metro area pop. as a measure of growth.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

A growing, revitalizing city can easily lose population. 

For example, "revitalization" tends to cause prices to go up, which tends to cause poor families to move out and be replaced by well-off couples and singles.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

The NYC metro just keeps on growing(along with the city). It actually shrunk in the '70's, and didn't grow at all in the '80's. It then grew by 9% in the 1990's and continues to grow quite well today. Like I said before, that 2004 figure is estimation. And I've read that the population has grown in 2005. By the time the 2010 census roles around, we'll see substantial growth within the city-proper area.


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

pottebaum said:


> The NYC metro just keeps on growing(along with the city). It actually shrunk in the '70's, and didn't grow at all in the '80's. It then grew by 9% in the 1990's and continues to grow quite well today. Like I said before, that 2004 figure is estimation. And I've read that the population has grown in 2005. By the time the 2010 census roles around, we'll see substantial growth within the city-proper area.


Here's a more researched data about NYC Metro's growth. As you can see the Metro actually grew during the 80's. Just by driving around the city during the last 5 years I know it has definitely grown, but by how much? We can only speculate.

50's(2.429m or 16.3%)
60's(2.073m or 11.9%)
70's(-594,000 or -3.1%)
80's(633,000 or 3.4%)
90's(1.641m or 8.4%)


----------



## shibuya_suki (Apr 24, 2005)

nyc population actually decrease from 12million to 8million in last 30 years,it is not surprise its GDp and population growth slow down---in the whole country

for its 60000USD GDP per capita,and 22million metro population,(2nd largest in the world),world larest financial centre,acceptable unempolyment rate........i find that its hard to make nyc increase its power rapidly once again,just like tokyo and many western surope city

USA is no longer best place to develop its market,you can see the terms booming is located in eastern europe,and eastern asia,not nyc


----------



## Wallbanger (Mar 8, 2005)

Booyah, San Diego up a thousand!


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

shibuya_suki said:


> nyc population actually decrease from 12million to
> 
> 8million in last 30 years,it is not surprise its GDp and population
> 
> ...


Several things here. Firstly unless there has been a major 

shrinkage of city boundaries, New York City hasn't to my knowledge 

passed the 8.2mn mark yet in its entire history. 

Secondly it is not the largest financial centre in the world - it is the 

second largest, as by most measures - London is actually the leading 

financial centre. Remember: the stock exchange is not the beginning and end of the finance sector and in reality there are many markets and services in action in the world.

Thirdly I did a few quick sums for population growth and some cities in the developed world are actually growing pretty well:


_*SINGAPORE*
2000 - 4,017,700
2005 - 4,425,720
408,020 : 5 Years = *81,604*_

*MADRID*
2001 - 2,938,723
2003 - 3,093,000
154,277 : 2 Years = *77,138*

*TOKYO*
2000 - 8,130,408
2003 - 8,340,000
209,592 : 3 Years = *69,864*

*LONDON*
2001 - 7,172,036
2005 - 7,421,228
249,192 : 4 Years = *62,298*

*LOS ANGELES*
2000 - 3,694,820
2005 - 3,957,875
263,055 : 5 Years = *52,611*

*YOKOHAMA*
2000 - 3,426,506
2003 - 3,573,588
147,082 : 3 Years = *49,027*

_*HONG KONG*
2001 - 6,708,389
2005 - 6,898,686
190,297 : 4 Years = *47,574*_

*NEW YORK*
2000 - 8,008,278
2004 - 8,104,079
95,801 : 4 Years = *23,950*

*HOUSTON*
2000 - 1,953,631
2004 - 2,012,626
58,995 : 4 Years = *14,748*

*TORONTO*
2001 - 2,481,494
2004 - 2,518,772
37,278 : 3 Years = *12,426*

*OSAKA*
2000 - 2,598,589
2003 - 2,624,129
25,540 : 3 Years = *8,513*

*BERLIN*
2000 - 3,384,499
2005 - 3,426,000
41,501 : 5 Years = *8,300*

*NAGOYA*
2000 - 2,171,378
2005 - 2,209,800
38,422 : 5 Years = *7,684*

*PARIS*
1999 - 2,125,246
2004 - 2,142,800
17,554 : 5 Years = *3,510*

*CHICAGO*
2000 - 2,896,016
2003 - 2,869,121
(26,895) : 4 Years = *(6,723)*

*SEOUL*
1999 - 10,323,448
2003 - 10,276,968
(46,480) : 4 Years = *(11,620)*

*ROME*
2001 - 2,655,970
2004 - 2,546,807
(109,163) : 3 Years = *(36,387)*

*TAIPEI*
2000 - 2,880,000
2004 - 2,625,512
(254,488) : 4 Years = *(63,622)*


The interesting thing is that while Tokyo and Yokohama are showing good signs of growth, Japan as a whole is starting to loose population (this demographic recession started late last year). I suspect the Tokyo and Yokohama increases are due to migration from the last remaining rural areas and other smaller cities in Japan. Meanwhile this contrasts to the growth in Singapore, Madrid, London and Los Angeles which is primarily due to migration from other countries.

New York doesn't look so good, but then neither does it look good for Taipei, Seoul, Rome, Chicago, Paris, Nagoya, Berlin and Osaka. It should be noted though that in some cities, growth isn't in the city itself, but in the surrounding urban and metropolitan area. Toronto as a city looks pretty poor compared to the likes of Singapore, but when you look at the metro area, (2001: 4,682,897; 2004: 5,203,000 = 520,103 : 3 Years = 173,367) the annual growth between 2001 and 2004 is 173,367 instead of 12,426 for the city proper - a difference of around 161,000 per annum estimated roughly. That said, Singapore doesn't have a metro area or equivalent, and with other cities (ie in Europe) which tend to have either no or a restricted and conservative metro area it makes things more complicated.

Cities though can continue to grow, they can continue to redevelop land either to loose or gain density depending on the situation and surrounding environment. Demographics and other issues affect this. I think New York will continue to grow, but its role of being an immigration destination has largely been overtaken by the likes of Los Angeles, Madrid and of course London.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

New York is a massive center for immigration. It's the financial capital of the world and the cultural capital (along with Paris). Who wouldn't want to come?

Moreover, as the U.S. is essentially the only western nation that will experience significant population growth in the next 50 years, its _de facto _ capital will continue to grow. Lastly, its metro area always grows. It has approximately 21 m people, which it did not have 10 years ago.

PS: 

Immigrant City
by Chaleampon Ritthichai
February, 2005

New York has always been a city of immigrants. Even the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 and the economic downturn that followed did not deter immigrants from moving to the city. 

New York saw a net gain of 339,000 immigrants from April 2000 to July 2003. The foreign born population in New York City is now at all time high at 3.2 million out of the city’s population of 8 million, according to a new study by the Department of City Planning.

The report attempts to examine the countries of origin of the foreign-born, their paths of entry, residential distribution, and demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. But the reason immigrants are drawn to New York remains the same.

“Immigrants keep coming here,” co-author of the report Joseph Salvo told the Daily Times. “The reason they keep coming here is opportunity.”

Countries of Origin: The Emergence of Mexican Immigrants 

In earlier decades, the overwhelming majority of the foreign-born population in New York City was from various part of Europe. But in the 2000 census European immigrants comprised only 19 percent. 

The Dominican Republic sent the most immigrants to New York City, numbering 369,220 or 13 percent of the total, followed by China (262,600), Jamaica (178,900), Guyana (130,600) and Mexico (122,600). 

Even though Mexico has long been the origin of most immigrants in the United States, in the past Mexican immigrant preferred other cities to New York City as their destination. According to the 1990 census, Mexican ranked 17th with 32,689 of population in the city. City demographers expected the actual growth of Mexican immigrants at 200,000. 

Rounding up the top ten are Ecuador, Haiti, Trinidad and Tobago, Colombia and Russia. 

Generally, immigrants from non Hispanic Caribbean countries are moving disproportionately to New York. While they account for five percent of the nation’s foreign-born population, they comprised of more than one-fifth of the city’s foreign born. 

Foreign-born Population by Country of Birth, New York City, 1990 and 2000 
2000 1990 Growth, 1990-200 
Rank Number Rank Number Number Percent 
Total/Foreign Born - 2,871,032 - 2,082,931 788,101 37.8 
Dominican Republic 1 369,186 1 225,017 144,169 64.1 
China 2 261,551 2 160,399 101,152 63.1 
Jamaica 3 178,922 3 116,128 62,794 54.1 
Guyana 4 130,647 6 76,150 54,497 71.6 
Mexico 5 122,550 17 32,689 89,861 274.9 
Ecuador 6 114,944 10 60,451 54,493 90.1 
Haiti 7 95,580 7 71,892 23,688 32.9 
Trinidad & Tobago 8 88,794 12 56,478 32,316 57.2 
Colombia 9 84,404 8 65,731 18,673 28.4 
Russia 10 81,408 * * * * 

* The USSR was ranked 5th in the 1990 with 80,815 residents. It if were a single entity in 2000, it would have ranked 4th with approximately 164,000 persons. 



Legal Pathway of Entry 

Traditionally, immigrants were admitted to the country mainly under family reunification or refugee and asylum clauses. But the 1990 Immigration Act allowed immigrants to enter the country through working visas and diversity visa (visa lottery). 

In the 1990s, only 37 percent of immigrants coming to the city entered under the family preference, down from 61 percent in the 1980s. Ten percent of immigrant, mostly Filipino, Korean and Chinese immigrants, used employment visas to stay in the country. 

While accounting for only 8 percent of immigrants entering the country, visa lottery program helped increase the numbers of immigrants from Poland, Ireland, Bangladesh, Ghana and Nigeria. 

The number of refugees in the city tripled in the 1990s due to the massive influx of refugees from the former Soviet Union countries. 

The report did not offer numbers of undocumented immigrants. 



Residential Settlement Pattern 

Over one million immigrants, around 36 percent of the total, settled in Queens, while 33 percent live in Brooklyn, 16 percent in Manhattan, 13 percent in the Bronx and 3 percent in Staten Island. 

Washington Heights has the most immigrants (90,300) followed by Flushing (86,900), Astoria (84,700), Bay Ridge-Benson hurst (78,600) and Elmhurst (74,600). Other neighborhood in the top ten included Graves-Homecrest, Flatland-Canarsie, Jackson Heights, Corona and Sunset Park Industry City. 

Some immigrants chose to settle outside of the New York City. In 2000, there were 5.2 million immigrants in the New York Metropolitan Region, which includes the city’s five counties, an inner ring of 12 counties closest to the city and outer ring of 14 counties. While the inner counties accounted for one-third of immigrants, the outer counties accounted for less than one-tenth. 

But counties close to the city have a disproportionately higher immigrant population. For example, 39 percent of population in Hudson County, New Jersey are foreign born. 



Socioeconomic Attainment of the Foreign-born 

Regardless of their income or educational background, immigrant families usually have more than one worker, making their household income close to the city median ($37,770). 

Household Income and Poverty Status by Country of Birth, 
New York City, 2000 
Household Income Poverty Public Assistance* 
Median Ratio: Subgroup to Total Avg. workers per household Persons for whom poverty status has been determined Percent in Poverty Total Households Percent with PA income 
Total/New York City $37,700 1.00 1.1 7,853,336 21.1 3,020,980 7.5 
Native-born $39,900 1.06 1.0 4,994,540 21.5 1,816,243 7.8 
Foreign $35,000 0.93 1.2 2,858,796 20.4 1,204,737 7.0 
Dominican Republic $25,300 0.67 1.1 369,002 30.9 142,042 18.6 
China $33,320 0.88 1.5 261,002 21.7 95,086 4.5 
Jamaica $38,500 1.02 1.3 173,195 14.6 80,990 6.0 
Guyana $41,960 1.11 1.5 128,992 13.4 48,054 5.5 
Mexico $32,000 0.85 1.8 123,265 32.0 32,201 12.5 
Ecuador $36,000 0.95 1.5 111,337 21.9 37,276 8.0 
Haiti $36,000 0.95 1.3 96,032 19.1 40,694 5.9 
Trinidad & Tobago $36,300 0.96 1.3 92,737 16.5 40,036 4.9 
Colombia $35,000 0.93 1.3 83,288 20.2 31,705 6.2 
Russia $28,000 0.74 1.0 83,941 22.2 37,624 8.3 

* Households with at least one person receiving public assistance income 



While just one third of Mexican immigrants had high school degree, their household has in come that is 85 percent of the city’s median because multiple family members are in the work force. 

Generally, Latin Americans had low level of social economic attainment. Only one in ten Dominicans and Hondurans had completed high schools, and both males and females had low labor force participation. On the other hand, Jamaican, Trinidad, Haitian, Guyanese households, headed mostly by females, have one of the city’s highest female labor force participation. 

Some groups, such as Korean immigrants, have advanced education but 70 percent were not proficient in English. As a result, many chose to start their own business. Self-employment is also popular among some European immigrants such as Italians and Greeks, many of whom do not have high school education. 

Impact of Immigration of New York City 

The report concluded that immigration help to stabilize population growth and comprised for 40 percent of all city resident in labor force. Many industries such as manufacturing, construction and service industries rely heavily on immigrant laborers. Finally, immigrants also help maintain the city’s housing stock, 48 percent of recently occupied housing units are immigrant households.


----------



## edsg25 (Jul 30, 2004)

the world would be a better place with fewer useless statistics.


----------



## mad_nick (May 13, 2004)

Census estimates are worthless in NYC, they were off by about 500,000 people just prior to the 2000 census.


----------



## Sinjin P. (Jul 17, 2005)

edsg25 said:


> the world would be a better place with fewer useless statistics.


I agree  STATISTICS just confuse us.


----------



## mad_nick (May 13, 2004)

pottebaum said:


> The city's growing; especially the metropolitan. It's gained something like 1.1 million people over the last five years. Both it and LA are getting more immigrants than Toronto.
> 
> Plus, the 2004 statistic is only an estimate. We'll have to wait until 2010, when the next census takes place; which I'm sure will reveal a growing NYC. Recent news articles that I've read show that the city's population has grown so far within 2005.
> 
> ...


It looks like they're using the numbers as they were before they were revised after a succesful challenge by the city (they didn't get all they wanted though), the city has way more information to base their estimates on. They'll probably do it again this year, the census bureau estimates always undercounts urban areas.

Department of City Planning: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/census/popcur.shtml
2003 Challenges: http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/2000s/vintage_2003/03s_challenges.html


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

nick-taylor said:


> ...New York City... is not the largest financial centre in the world - it is the second largest, as by most measures - London is actually the leading financial centre.
> 
> I think New York will continue to grow, but its role of being an immigration destination has largely been overtaken by the likes of Los Angeles, Madrid and of course London.


You (along with a few other people from London) are the only people who actually believe this. It's quite humorous. You really seem to have an enormous inferiority complex vis-a-vis NY.


----------



## CAESARS-PALACe (Jul 29, 2004)

> ROME
> 2001 - 2,655,970
> 2004 - 2,546,807
> (109,163) : 3 Years = (36,387)



where is this data coming from ? 2 546 807 is the exact number of the *2001* census. For 2004 there is a dispute between ISTAT (statistical agency) and the city-council so for the moment there is no reliable data.



.


----------



## London_2006 (Feb 9, 2003)

MikeHunt said:


> You (along with a few other people from London) are the only people who actually believe this. It's quite humorous. You really seem to have an enormous inferiority complex vis-a-vis NY.


However it is the truth, London handles about 31% of all transactions in the world, and handles more money than NYC and Tokyo combined.


----------



## london-b (Jul 31, 2004)

CAESARS-PALACe said:


> where is this data coming from ? 2 546 807 is the exact number of the *2001* census. For 2004 there is a dispute between ISTAT (statistical agency) and the city-council so for the moment there is no reliable data.
> 
> 
> 
> .


Or maby it's you with the problem?


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

MikeHunt said:


> New York is a massive center for immigration. It's the financial capital of the world and the cultural capital (along with Paris). Who wouldn't want to come?


It was a massive centre for immigration. Cities such as Los Angeles and London have surpassed it.










Also since last year, London overtook Paris to the claim of the most visited city in the world. Quite simply - who isn't coming to London. :laugh:





MikeHunt said:


> You (along with a few other people from London) are the only people who actually believe this. It's quite humorous. You really seem to have an enormous inferiority complex vis-a-vis NY.


I have no inferiority complex, but a more a realistic view on the situation at hand. 

I think the easiest way to explain on this skyscraper forum is to take the skylines of Hong Kong and New York City. Hong Kong has more skyscrapers and a larger skyline, but the most famous skyscraper out of both cities are the Empire State Building and/or the Chrysler. The Hong Kong skyline would be London - the larger skyline being the larger financial centre, while the ESM/Chrysler represent the stock market which is what the common person thinks finance is about.

Now that is reality, you only have to look at the number employed, average salaries, pulling power of international banks, markets dominated and sectors developed to note this. This isn't to say New York isn't important - it is, but you can thank: 
- Location (the location of London in the EU and in-between New York and Tokyo)
- Historical background, knowledge and expertise in finance
- The Big Bang (ie de-regulation of the UK financial markets)
- Further EU integration (and the development of London as the dominant financial centre for the EU) 
- Sarbanes-Oxley (for pushing foreigners away from New York and into London)

...for the way that London re-took the financial title in the 90's after loosing it to New York in the 30's. London's position and relation with multiple foreign and rapidly developing markets and the larger the EU grows will only go to strengthen London's position in the forseeable future.




*CAESARS-PALACe* - As a geographer I don't know any statistical agency which hasn't had complaints over measuring populations of cities. London has had them with the ONS for example. I though had trouble using the ISTAT website and general figures from various websites indicated towards the two figures I produced. That said its was a rough look at various sites and statistical agencies to get the figures - nobody should cry/laugh to much over them. 




*London_2006* - Its more than just currency that London dominates in, law, OTC derivatives, marine + aviation insurance, diligation, etc...


----------



## edsg25 (Jul 30, 2004)

Pure observation and commentary and not at all factual. Just how NYC comes across to me:

New York is a great city. That it will always be a great city is no issue. And that it will always be able to offer something uniquely New York to the world is no question either.

But in my mind I preceive one fatal flaw in New York. I've mentioned before and I'll mention it here because I think it is relevant to the current conversation:

*NEW YORK, ALONE AMONG THE CITIES OF THE WORLD AND UNPARALLELED IN TIME SINCE ANCIENT ROME, IS PREDICATED ON BEING THE # 1 CITY ON THE PLANET*

How much of what New York is about is being above the rest: if I can make it there, I'd make it anywhere, those little town blues are melting away, the Big Apple, the biggest, the best.

Yet a mere 100 years ago, NYC was not even included among the world's great metropolises and much of what the city would become had not yet developed.

Who is to say that NYC will hold its current exhalted position in another 100 years (or less, since technology makes changes take place in shorter and shorter increments).

And if it were preceived at any point by New York that that #1 title no longer is its own, I suspect that it would have a traumatic effect on a city that is about being # 1 as much as it is about being anything.

Again, folks, strictly obeservation and not factual. others will understandably and justifiably see things far differently. 

In fact, I'm sure few will agree with me here.


----------



## CAESARS-PALACe (Jul 29, 2004)

> As a geographer I don't know any statistical agency which hasn't had complaints over measuring populations of cities. London has had them with the ONS for example. I though had trouble using the ISTAT website



the fastest way to get population-data for italian cities with an easy to use interface is the Demo-module of ISTAT :

http://demo.istat.it/bil2004/index_e.html


Rome 2004 for example :

http://demo.istat.it/bil2004/query.php?Rip=S3&Reg=R12&Pro=P058&Com=91&submit=Table 


.


----------



## Nick in Atlanta (Nov 5, 2003)

London_2006 said:


> However it is the truth, London handles about 31% of all transactions in the world, and handles more money than NYC and Tokyo combined.


Your right. About two dozen mega money management firms are located mostly in converted houses in west London. Together they handle a tremendous amount of money in all sort of extremely exotic and innovative investments. But these two dozen firms probably don't have more than 500 people working for them, if that, and the decision makers are about a tenth of that.

London is the center of Foreign Currency buying and selling, which is handled by a worldwide intrabank system. London, however, has a very large number of traders in this market (both the spot market and futures market.) However, this mainly has to do with London's location/time zone. It's daytime hours are basically the same as the major financial centers on the Continent. Around noon in London, the East Coast of the US starts to get active (7 am EST). The only major markets that London is out of sync with is Asia's Pacific Rim.

It's very difficult to say whether NYC or London are more powerful in finance because, there are so many markets and different forms of trading that go on.


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

I remeber reading, I believe in the NYT, that if NY restructured its land use, it could pack an addition 2 million people within the city boundaries.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

nick-taylor said:


> ...*London_2006* - Its more than just currency that London dominates in, law, OTC derivatives, marine + aviation insurance, diligation, etc...


Your lack of knowledge regarding finance is demonstrated by your reference to insurance which is a low-end, unprofitable business. People who work in investment banks attended from Harvard, Princeton, Yale, etc. People who work in insurance (other than CEO's) attended mediocre universities (if, for that matter, they attended any at all). 

Aren't you a student? That would explain your ingenuous and uninformed statements.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

edsg25 said:


> ....Yet a mere 100 years ago, NYC was not even included among the world's great metropolises and much of what the city would become had not yet developed....


Not true. NY was among the world's largest cities 150 years ago. Moreover, every square inch of it was developed 150 years ago, and scores of early and mid nineteenth century buildings still exist.


----------



## sbarn (Mar 19, 2004)

nick-taylor said:


> New York doesn't look so good... its role of being an immigration destination has largely been overtaken by the likes of Los Angeles, Madrid and of course London.


New York has been the center of immigration into the United States for centuries, and still remains the same. Your chart from 2001 doesn't really reflect anything... that was nearly 5 years ago.


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

Wait til 2010 for results that are not just estimates. Does it really matter anyway? Between 1970 and 80, the metro shrunk, and after that, it ballooned again.


----------



## clive330 (Nov 10, 2003)

Nick in Atlanta said:


> Your right. About two dozen mega money management firms are located mostly in converted houses in west London. Together they handle a tremendous amount of money in all sort of extremely exotic and innovative investments. But these two dozen firms probably don't have more than 500 people working for them, if that, and the decision makers are about a tenth of that.


What?!! Coverted houses? London has branches of over 500 different banks, dozens of which are huge investment banks with thousands or even tens of thousands of employees JUST IN LONDON. Many of the high rises in Canary wharf are investment banks and the City's apparent flatness belies its miles of 10 storey buildings largely devoted to high finance. 

There are boutique and private banks, funds etc which may be small but they are certainly not the whole market. There are probably upwards of 1/2 million people in high finance in inner London.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

samsonyuen said:


> Wait til 2010 for results that are not just estimates. Does it really matter anyway? Between 1970 and 80, the metro shrunk, and after that, it ballooned again.


Are you referring to the NY or London metro? While NYC'S population shrunk durimg the 70's, its metro population never shrunk and has grown continuously.


----------



## edsg25 (Jul 30, 2004)

MikeHunt said:


> Not true. NY was among the world's largest cities 150 years ago. Moreover, every square inch of it was developed 150 years ago, and scores of early and mid nineteenth century buildings still exist.


I said GREATEST, not LARGEST. Nobody's arguing about its huge size after the consolidation that created Greater NY


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

He's talking about New York, Mikehunt. It shrunk in the '70s, stayed the same throughout the 80's, but has continued to grow ever since. That 2004 figure is just an estimation, and a wrong estimation at that. 

And the metropolitan area has grown by 1.1 million since 2000, which is about the equivalent of all the residents of Birmingham, UK (Britain's second largest city) moving into the area. 




Mikehunt said:


> Your lack of knowledge regarding finance is demonstrated by your reference to insurance which is a low-end, unprofitable business.


Hey, shut up!  My father's a life insurer; he works with investments and retirement, too, and sure enough, his business revolves around New York. 

Anyhow, I'm not sure why he (Nick-taylor) is bragging about that either:

*World's 50 Largest Insurance Companies*









*United States: 19/50
which includes: New York 7/50*

*United Kingdom: 4/50
Which includes: London 4/50*


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

pottebaum said:


> He's talking about New York, Mikehunt. It shrunk in the '70s, stayed the same throughout the 80's, but has continued to grow ever since. That 2004 figure is just an estimation, and a wrong estimation at that.


While the city's population shrunk (like all other US cities during that time), I have never seen a statistic showing that the metro area shrunk. If you have any, please post them.

P.S.: Sorry -- I didn't mean to "diss" your dad.


----------



## ChinaboyUSA (May 10, 2005)

I think that it is more important to maintain New York's current position in the world. 

An American friend told me that New York is not the center of the world anymore. I told him that at least it is one of the centers.

The world is going to be a multiple sides one and it is forming,
it is doesn't matter that New York is growing or not, it depends.
New York needs growing, more spiritual then economy.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

^MikeHunt
:lol: I was just joking. Diss him all you want; he won't mind. 

And I was actually talking about the city-proper population, too. I don't know much about the metros population trends in the 1980's.


----------



## ChinaboyUSA (May 10, 2005)

^ you feel something is missing?


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

What do you mean, Chinaboy?


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

pottebaum said:


> ^MikeHunt
> :lol: I was just joking. Diss him all you want; he won't mind.
> 
> And I was actually talking about the city-proper population, too. I don't know much about the metros population trends in the 1980's.


I thought that you might be joking, but I did not want to be rude anyway. I thought that you were talking about the actual city population, which, like basically all other US cities, shrunk during the late 60's and 70's as people moved to the suburbs. However, NYC's metro population never shrunk.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

^Exactly, and like I said, the metro is growing quite a bit--along with the city. It has increased by around 1.1 million people since 2000.


----------



## ChinaboyUSA (May 10, 2005)

I am in NYC now, I know what's going on.


----------



## Azn_chi_boi (Mar 11, 2005)

MikeHunt said:


> While the city's population shrunk (like all other US cities during that time), I have never seen a statistic showing that the metro area shrunk. If you have any, please post them.


One metro would be Pittsburgh= 

http://www.censusscope.org/us/m6280/chart_popl.html










Anyways... dont trust the estimates... trust the census that comes out in 5 years... 

One example would be, Chicago's number will be wrong as always.


----------



## mad_nick (May 13, 2004)

^ Do you know if Chicago is going to challenge the estimates? Funding from federal and state governments often rely on population estimates, so the incompetence of the census bureau has probably cost NYC millions of dollars in funding for various projects.


----------



## Jaye101 (Feb 16, 2005)

NYC has 100,000 Jamaicans, and Toronto has 70,000. Percapita, BIG difference.

Over 43% of Toronto's population is visable minority, and in 1960 the visable minority was at 3%!!! (I never knew that!). 50% of Torontonians were not born in Canada. 6.1% of Toronto residents cannot speak any English.

Languages by rank:

1.English
2.Chinese
3.Italian 
4.Portuguese 
5.Tamil 
6.Spanish 
7.Polish 
8.Tagalog 
9.Greek 
10.Vietnamese 
11.Punjabi 
*I hope you've noticed french isnt on this list.


While 40% of NYC is foreign born, 50% of Toronto is foreign born.


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

:bash:


----------



## Effer (Jun 9, 2005)

I'm not suprised!


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

^Not surprised by what, effer? I thought we'd cleared things up; read the thread.


----------



## HirakataShi (Feb 8, 2004)

JayeTheOnly said:


> Over 43% of Toronto's population is visable minority, and in 1960 the visable minority was at 3%!!! (I never knew that!).


Canada used to have a whites-only immigration policy. 

http://www.web.net/~ccr/ccp.htm

"Until the 1960's Canada chose its immigrants on the basis of their racial categorization, not on an assessment of the individual merits of applicants. What set Canada apart form the U.S.A. and Australia was that our "whites only" policy was never publicly acknowledged. Aside from the exclusion of the Chinese, which was an overt legislative action, the exclusion of other racial groups was accomplished through a combination of regulatory Orders in Council, policy directives, and the rigid enforcement of seemingly neutral immigration, health and money requirements against specific racial groups."


----------



## Jaye101 (Feb 16, 2005)

Wow, I didn't know that.


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

MikeHunt said:


> Your lack of knowledge regarding finance is demonstrated by your reference to insurance which is a low-end, unprofitable business. People who work in investment banks attended from Harvard, Princeton, Yale, etc. People who work in insurance (other than CEO's) attended mediocre universities (if, for that matter, they attended any at all).
> 
> Aren't you a student? That would explain your ingenuous and uninformed statements.


Where simply stated that London dominated in several spheres and markets, which is something altogether different from the efficiency or profitability of each individual in various markets in finance. At least get your accusations right before attempting to flank my points.

Also I am a student who so happens to be doing his dissertation in world cities and their linkages. I also happen to be embedded within the finance sector myself as I am currently working for a small, but rapidly growing financial services company based just






sbarn said:


> New York has been the center of immigration into the United States for centuries, and still remains the same. Your chart from 2001 doesn't really reflect anything... that was nearly 5 years ago.


I wasn't questioning the immigration history of New York, but its current situation of immigration in relation to other developed world cities such as Los Angeles, London and Madrid.






Pottebaum said:


> Anyhow, I'm not sure why he (Nick-taylor) is bragging about that either:


Bragging is different from telling a fact and the fact is London dominates the aviation and marine insurance business - there is a difference. Infact if you have a plane or a ship, the paper work for it is most likely done through London.

Also you list actually reads for both _cities_:
New York - 5
London - 4


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

nick-taylor said:


> ...doing his dissertation in world cities and their linkages. I also happen to be embedded within the finance sector myself as I am currently working for a small, but rapidly growing financial services company based just....
> 
> Also you list actually reads for both _cities_:
> New York - 5
> London - 4


Being a student at a third-rate "uni" in the middle of nowhere doing a "dissertation in world cities and their linkages" certainly makes you an expert on finance!"   

Kid, you have such a pathetic hang-up and inferiority complex vis-a-vis NY. Moreover, if you're a student, how much time could you possibly have spent here? (Unless, of course, you're a 35 year old student, which would be sad...) Nonetheless, you amusingly claim to be an authority on NYC. Your insight into NYC is about as superficial and flawed as your insight into the finance industry!

PS: Your uninformed claim that "if you have a plane or a ship, the paper work for it is most likely done through London" further demonstrates that you have no idea what you're talking about. No single insurer takes on a risk as large as a commercial aircraft or vessel even if he reinsured the whole risk. Insurance on commercial aircraft and vessels are underwitten by a consortium of insurers who then reinsure their portions of the risk. Therefore, 1/3 of the risk might be written by the London market, 1/3 by the NY market and 1/3 by other markets (whether in Paris, Germany, Italy or Tokyo). You are amusing! Perhaps you should take finance and insurance courses at your "uni"!


----------



## A42251 (Sep 13, 2004)

edsg25 said:


> Pure observation and commentary and not at all factual. Just how NYC comes across to me:
> 
> New York is a great city. That it will always be a great city is no issue. And that it will always be able to offer something uniquely New York to the world is no question either.
> 
> ...


Traumatic effect? Most average New Yorkers have families, jobs, and lives. Their self-esteem certainly does not depend upon living in the "world's greatest city". Most people who go on and on with this "NY is the world's greatest city" stuff are politicans and media, not regular people. 

For what its worth, I personally think New York really is the greatest city, but it is all subjective I can definitely see an argument for London or Tokyo.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

edsg25 said:


> I said GREATEST, not LARGEST. Nobody's arguing about its huge size after the consolidation that created Greater NY


It was among the greatest cities in the world 150 years ago.


----------



## Nick in Atlanta (Nov 5, 2003)

clive330 said:


> There are boutique and private banks, funds etc which may be small but they are certainly not the whole market.


These boutique investment managers are numerically very small in number, but they handle enourmous amounts of money, much of it in hedge funds.

Here in the US, George Soros and his management team took up very little office space in a nondescript building on Midtown's west side, but they managed his and other billionaires' money.


----------



## ROCguy (Aug 15, 2005)

shibuya_suki said:


> nyc population actually decrease from 12million to 8million in last 30 years,it is not surprise its GDp and population growth slow down---in the whole country
> 
> for its 60000USD GDP per capita,and 22million metro population,(2nd largest in the world),world larest financial centre,acceptable unempolyment rate........i find that its hard to make nyc increase its power rapidly once again,just like tokyo and many western surope city
> 
> USA is no longer best place to develop its market,you can see the terms booming is located in eastern europe,and eastern asia,not nyc


That is so bogus. First of all, NYC was NEVER 12million, It is at it's peak population now and growing. It has gained more people from 2000-2005 than ony other city east of the Mississippi river. The only two cities to gain more people were Phoenix and Las Vegas.


----------



## Monkey (Oct 1, 2002)

MikeHunt said:


> Being a student at a third-rate "uni" in the middle of nowhere doing a "dissertation in world cities and their linkages" certainly makes you an expert on finance!"
> 
> Kid, you have such a pathetic hang-up and inferiority complex vis-a-vis NY. Moreover, if you're a student, how much time could you possibly have spent here? (Unless, of course, you're a 35 year old student, which would be sad...) Nonetheless, you amusingly claim to be an authority on NYC. Your insight into NYC is about as superficial and flawed as your insight into the finance industry!
> 
> PS: Your uninformed claim that "if you have a plane or a ship, the paper work for it is most likely done through London" further demonstrates that you have no idea what you're talking about. No single insurer takes on a risk as large as a commercial aircraft or vessel even if he reinsured the whole risk. Insurance on commercial aircraft and vessels are underwitten by a consortium of insurers who then reinsure their portions of the risk. Therefore, 1/3 of the risk might be written by the London market, 1/3 by the NY market and 1/3 by other markets (whether in Paris, Germany, Italy or Tokyo). You are amusing! Perhaps you should take finance and insurance courses at your "uni"!


You are just being insulting and presenting zero evidence to support your claims. London's markets do handle far more tunrnover than New York's simply because the FX market (dominated by London) has much higher turnover than stock markets in which New York is the biggest player:
http://fxtrade.oanda.com/currency_trading/intro_currency_exchange.shtml

_"The major dealing centers today are: London, with about 30% of the market, New York, with 20%, Tokyo, with 12%, Zurich, Frankfurt, Hong Kong and Singapore, with about 7% each, followed by Paris and Sydney with 3% each.

In terms of trading volume, the currency exchange market is the worlds largest market, with daily trading volumes in excess of $1.5 trillion US dollars. This is orders of magnitude larger than the bond or stock market. For example, the New York Stock Exchange has a daily trading volume of approximately $60 billion. Thus, the currency exchange market is by far the most liquid market in the world today. Because of the volume in trading, it is impossible for individuals or companies to affect the exchange rates. In fact, even central banks and governments find it increasingly difficult to affect the exchange rates of the most liquid currencies."_

London's 30% of the global FX market represents a daily turnover of $450 billion - totally dwarfing the NYSE's $60 million daily turnover.

I believe London's financial sector also employs more and pays more than New York's. Certainly the world's largest global law firms have a greater precense in London than any other city. Bloomberg, a New York based financial news company, agrees that London is pulling decisively ahead:


*London on a roll as global financial hub*

April 8, 2004

Print this article
Email to a friend

Some London bankers are now earning more than their New York counterparts, writes Matthew Lynn.

Before the launch of the euro, the British spent a lot of time worrying about whether the City of London financial district would lose out to Frankfurt and Paris.

But the people who should have been worrying were not Londoners but New Yorkers. For what has actually been happening is more interesting, and less expected, than a battle between European financial markets.

It is this: since the euro was introduced in 1999, London has consolidated its position as the main European financial centre and turned itself into the hub of international markets.

And as the centre of global finance, London may be starting to creep ahead of New York.

The evidence? Some top London bankers are getting paid more than their New York counterparts.

A salary and bonus survey published last week by Napier Scott Executive Search, a British recruiting firm, made just that point. "The 7 per cent lead of US packages over the UK equivalents in 2002 has been reversed, with the UK exceeding the US by as much as 15 per cent," it said.

The British lead over the Americans was the result of carving out a leading position in some specific, niche financial products. In what it calls "exotic credit trading and credit structuring", for example, the city is paying significantly more than Wall Street.

Exotic credit trading covers the most innovative and unusual derivatives contracts.

According to the survey of remuneration for work completed in 2003, an average London managing director in exotic trading at a top-tier bank makes £125,000 ($A302,000) in basic salary, plus a £1.5 million bonus. The American counterpart would be making the equivalent of £108,000, plus a £1 million bonus.

Or take private banking, another big growth area. The head of private banking at a top-tier bank in London could expect to make £175,000. His North American equivalent would be making £160,000, while his Swiss colleague would have to struggle to make ends meet on a mere £150,000. It would be best to treat the figures cautiously. The numbers cover only a selection of jobs. Finance is a very broad church, and there will be some areas where Wall Street pays better than London. And the dollar's exchange rate movements - the currency is now sitting at more than $US1.80 to the pound, close to a 10-year low - should be considered, too.

The people who should have been worrying were not Londoners but New Yorkers.

Even so, the figures are significant because salaries are an accurate indicator of the way business is moving.

Bankers are good at putting prices on things - most of all on themselves. The reason they are getting paid more in London is because they are bringing in business and ensuring higher profits than their equivalents in New York.

"Certain individuals in the UK markets were able to command a bigger remuneration than their American counterparts because they were able to generate greater profits," said Napier Scott chief executive Shaun Springer.

The dominance of London as Europe's finance centre is well documented, and that has grown with the euro.

"Over the four years since the start of EMU, the UK has attracted a significant level of wholesale financial services business," according to a study by the British Treasury last year on the impact of the euro on the British financial industry.

What is significant is that London may be becoming the world's financial centre.

In some respects, London already has a striking lead over the US. According to last year's Treasury study, Britain accounts for 19 per cent of cross-border bank lending, compared with 10 per cent for the US and Germany. London accounts for more than half the world's foreign equities turnover, compared with 26 per cent for the US, and 31 per cent of foreign exchange dealing, compared with 16 per cent for the US.

No other financial centre comes close.

- Bloomberg


----------



## Nick in Atlanta (Nov 5, 2003)

I worked in the foreign exchange spot market for a number of years and there is no one with a brain who will deny that London is the center of the foreign exchange market, which is the largest "market" in the world by far. It's all done intrabank, as far as the spot market is concerned, but the greatest mover of currencies is London.


----------



## Nick in Atlanta (Nov 5, 2003)

JayeTheOnly said:


> Over 43% of Toronto's population is visable minority, and in 1960 the visable minority was at 3%!!! (I never knew that!). 50% of Torontonians were not born in Canada. 6.1% of Toronto residents cannot speak any English.
> 
> Languages by rank:
> 
> ...


I'm amazed that of all the Indian languages Hindi is not listed before more regional languages like Tamil and Punjabi. I thought that most of the extremely populous northern India heartland spoke Hindi.


----------



## Jaye101 (Feb 16, 2005)

Interesting observation lol..... No idea why.


----------



## Jaye101 (Feb 16, 2005)

Can someone tell me what Tagalog is?


----------



## Monkey (Oct 1, 2002)

^ The most important Filipino langauge.


----------



## Nick in Atlanta (Nov 5, 2003)

JayeTheOnly said:


> Can someone tell me what Tagalog is?


I'm sure you know what a tagalong is because I'm sure you've been called that many times!!  :runaway:


----------



## GVNY (Feb 16, 2004)

I knew Londoners would parade their city in this thread, dedicated to New York. Typical.

And New York stopped growing? No way.


----------



## Jaye101 (Feb 16, 2005)

Nick in Atlanta said:


> I'm sure you know what a tagalong is because I'm sure you've been called that many times!!  :runaway:


HaHaHa, hilarious. :cheers:


----------



## I'mBack (Jan 15, 2005)

nick-taylor said:


> Also you list actually reads for both _cities_:
> New York - 5
> London - 4


well, I would rather say, or better I read:

New York (city and Metro) : *7*
London (city and Metro): 4


----------



## Monkey (Oct 1, 2002)

GVNY said:


> I knew Londoners would parade their city in this thread, dedicated to New York. Typical.
> 
> And New York stopped growing? No way.


Not "parading" - merely responding to inaccurate and frankly insulting comments from Mike Hunt - and why the hell shouldn't we?


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

MikeHunt said:


> Being a student at a third-rate "uni" in the middle of nowhere doing a "dissertation in world cities and their linkages" certainly makes you an expert on finance!"
> 
> Kid, you have such a pathetic hang-up and inferiority complex vis-a-vis NY. Moreover, if you're a student, how much time could you possibly have spent here? Nonetheless, you amusingly claim to be an authority on NYC. Your insight into NYC is about as superficial and flawed as your insight into the finance industry!


Oh no, the 'couldn't prove him wrong, so lets insult him' approach comes into play I see!

Where did I state that I am an authority of New York? The funny thing is, you make these claims that I either know nothing or claim that I stated I am somehow an authority, yet where have I said anything like this from what you are telling us? You criticise me, but in the process manage to fabricate claims to things I have not said! To top off this cake that you've made for me, you haven't proved that London is not the premier financial centre.

Then again I'm unsure with what my university background has to do with proving you right? The likes of Richard Branson never went to university to study business, yet would he be called a failure at business? Albert Einstein was sacked from teaching jobs because of his writing troubles, but did that make him anything less of who is famous for? I believe in the principle that you can do anything within what you think you can do and that is why there have been people of these backgrounds that have managed to achieve so much. So what if the university I attend isn't Oxford! It doesn't mean that I won't be either successful (or unsuccessful) as everyone has their ways and there are so many niches that are unknown and yet to be exploited. Same goes for anyone else. Either way, as long as I have a happy life then I'd consider myself succesful - with all the built up angst you have, I'd find that doubtful!

At the end of all this, you've still yet to prove otherwise to what I've been saying regarding London's role in finance! Afterall if you believe so strongly that I am wrong, how comes you have the need to attack my background rather than prove otherwise to London's position in finance? You've managed this by dodging the issue at hand, by screwing the debate and attempting a crude character assassination attempt - you'd make a perfect lawyer. By the way your use of smilies was rather crude.




I'mBack - Still haven't proved that the UN has sovereignty over Rome, Paris, Washington, Tokyo or London have you! Come back to me on that one when you've read some books!


----------



## london-b (Jul 31, 2004)

GVNY said:


> I knew Londoners would parade their city in this thread, dedicated to New York. Typical.
> 
> And New York stopped growing? No way.


I knew some fool would come out and say some totally ignorant shit


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

nick-taylor said:


> Oh no, the 'couldn't prove him wrong, so lets insult him' approach comes into play I see!
> 
> Where did I state that I am an authority of New York? The funny thing is, you make these claims that I either know nothing or claim that I stated I am somehow an authority, yet where have I said anything like this from what you are telling us? You criticise me, but in the process manage to fabricate claims to things I have not said! To top off this cake that you've made for me, you haven't proved that London is not the premier financial centre.
> 
> ...


Wow! Did I touch a sore spot. That's ok, kid. Take a deep breath and relax. You are quite funny though!


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

Monkey said:


> You are just being insulting and presenting zero evidence to support your claims.... London's markets do handle far more tunrnover than New York's simply because the FX market (dominated by London) has much higher turnover than stock markets in which New York is the biggest player:
> ....[/QUOTE]
> Another London moron ...ompensation in NY dwarfs London compensation.


----------



## VansTripp (Sep 29, 2004)

GVNY said:


> I knew Londoners would parade their city in this thread, dedicated to New York. Typical.
> 
> And New York stopped growing? No way.


Well. Growth rate in NYC will be more slower than in London and LA.


----------



## moving to London (Aug 31, 2005)

To be honest with you guys I really don't think that anyone here is qualified to work out something as complicated and vast as the entire financial sector in a place like NY or London. I do feel ashamed to be British when I see what some people post here, they do let us down. However I should point out that much of this does also apply to Americans, they go into some sort of aggresive denial when you even suggest they're not the biggest or best at something. The fact is London may well be financially important then NYC I've seen evidence supporting claims either way. Im sorry to tell all the yanks out there but China will become richer than you (there's 1.5 billion of them for Christs sake) America has only been so dominant in the world since the collapse of the USSR and won't stay there forever, just come to terms with it (we did), your not gonna end up as a third world country but your not gonna be up there on your own for much longer.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

I agree that China probably will be the richest and most powerful country in 50 years. I also agree that all cities are represented here by forum members who are good and ones who are tossers.


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

MikeHunt said:


> Wow! Did I touch a sore spot. That's ok, kid. Take a deep breath and relax. You are quite funny though!


Still not proven otherwise have you? Your quite simply only proving me and others here right that you can only insult others that you disagree with. Yet at the same time you're incapable of coming up with a hard definitive argument to state otherwise to our claims, so you continue with the insults. I also don't see anyone here claiming that London has more history than Rome or that London is larger than Tokyo - statements which have no basis in reality here.

What a guess though that you're a lawyer.... that could explain a lot here!


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

Monkey said:


> Not "parading" - merely responding to inaccurate and frankly insulting comments from Mike Hunt - and why the hell shouldn't we?


Actually, it started out as Nick-Taylor barging in here to put New York in negative spotlight and to battle somebody, who never even mentioned London, for stating that New York is the worlds' financial capital. He's a bit silly and very desperate---bad combination. 

I'm shocked that this thread hasn't been locked, though. It's either an over-sight, or we have some very biased moderators.


----------



## ROCguy (Aug 15, 2005)

LA Lover said:


> Well. Growth rate in NYC will be more slower than in London and LA.


LOL LA lover, you just couldn't resist could you. LA is brought up on every thread this guy leaves a review on. Give it a rest.


----------



## Jaye101 (Feb 16, 2005)

ROCguy said:


> LOL LA lover, you just couldn't resist could you. LA is brought up on every thread this guy leaves a review on. Give it a rest.


LoL, I bring up Toronto in any thread, and Scarborough (a borough) in any thread about Toronto.


----------



## Monkey (Oct 1, 2002)

MikeHunt said:


> Another London moron who has no idea what he's talking about and whose only mission is to proclaim (falsely) that London is the best city! Next some fool from the UK will state that London is more historic than Rome, has a better skyline than New York and is larger than Tokyo! May I ask if your delusions are attributed to dementia or to drugs?
> 
> Having lived in London for several years, I have many friends there and find them to be among the best people that I know. Sadly, this forum has a handful of young, uneducated morons from the UK who make idiotic statements about London. Sadly, they detract from the English forum members who make meaningful contributions.
> 
> PS: People in finance make way more money in NYC than they do in London. I have tons of friends who work in finance in London, and they uniformly confirm that. Similarly, as a lawyer who worked in NY and London, I know that compensation in NY dwarfs London compensation.


Bloomberg, a New York based financial media firm, states that Londoners make more in finance. My own flatmates who work in the City say the same. My South African flatmate chose to based in London rather than New York for precisely that reason. I'll take Bloomberg's word over yours anyday. And BTW I am 28 years old, my degree is from one of the top law schools in Britain, and I have travelled all over the world on every continent - some 50 countries now. I am no-one's ignorant kid. Having lost the arguments you now resort to personal attacks with equally little credibility.... :|


----------



## VansTripp (Sep 29, 2004)

ROCguy said:


> LOL LA lover, you just couldn't resist could you. LA is brought up on every thread this guy leaves a review on. Give it a rest.


Newbie, Shut up. I'm not talking to you, you always annoying and all anti-LA comment.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

Monkey said:


> Bloomberg, a New York based financial media firm, states that Londoners make more in finance. My own flatmates who work in the City say the same. My South African flatmate chose to based in London rather than New York for precisely that reason. I'll take Bloomberg's word over yours anyday. And BTW I am 28 years old, my degree is from one of the top law schools in Britain, and I have travelled all over the world on every continent - some 50 countries now. I am no-one's ignorant kid. Having lost the arguments you now resort to personal attacks with equally little credibility.... :|


You didn't "win any arguments," you dim wit. All that you've demonstrated is that you are one of the archetypical English morons (notwithstanding your claims to the contrary) who foolishly assert that London is the best. I do believe that you were one of the buffoons who argued that London is among the world's five most historic cities! Good one! The Brits were picking their noses and grunting in the years BC when Greece, Rome, Egypt, etc. thrived! 

PS: If, as you claim, your "flatmate" is a successful business person and you are a successful lawyer, you would not be sharing a flat with someone at 28 years old. That's really quite pathetic, "governor"! 

PPS: Read the article from Bloomberg. It says "some" jobs pay better in London. In case you don't have a solid grasp of rudimentary vocabulary, "some" means "less than all"! Moreover, that article strikes me as nothing but hyperbole and was probably written by a young dult with limited knowledge of finance. If that were not the case, the author would be managing a hedge fund -- not writing a random (and inane) piece that happened to be published by Bloomberg.

Lastly, while I'm sure that you'll draft an "artful and witty" response to this post, I will ignore any further posts by you and your equally moronic cohort "Nicky boy," as I have better things to do than to argue with two dull-witted fools. You really do a disservice to your countrymen, the overwhelming majority of whom are spectacular people.


----------



## Jay (Oct 7, 2004)

NY has not stopped growing, no one even knows if those are accurate, By 2015-2020 NY is supposedly to expect 10 million residents and more than 25 million in the metropolitan area.

City population goes up and down every now and then, but look at the huge demand for condos in the city.


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

Right that's enough.


----------

