Why is the U.S. wealthier than Europe? Give credit to its cities. (Report)

[Misterfreeman87]

SHiRO definately had made a good point there, and this report is just a good example of the quality these reports, by consulting companies such as McKinsey, usually have.

[bgwah]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Nevermind. You're seeing what you want to see, and there's no arguing with that. Clearly all Americans are arrogant liars. And every report produced in America is just an ego stroke from the propaganda ministry.

Europe is the best, wooooo!

That's Shiro for you.

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by bgwah

That's Shiro for you.

I'd appreciate it if you would dispense with the personal attacks. Nowhere in this thread or on this forum as a whole have I said anything about "all Americans being arrogant liars", or that every report produced in the US is propaganda.

I pointed out a major flaw in this particular report and it seems that you and buntq and a few others can't deal with that. This only proves what kind of people you are and nothing else.

[pacarlson]

Originally Posted by SHiRO

This only proves what kind of people you are and nothing else.

To satisfy my curiosity, what kind of people would they be?

[SHiRO]

Or how about we get back on topic?

Thread has run its course anyway...

[599GTO]

Originally Posted by SHiRO

Seoul should be up there.

And Tokyo's GDP isn't that high. Stupid.

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Yep, just look at US health care vs. WE and Canada.

I know...it's so much better in the U.S. When I lived in London I couldn't even get a doctor appointment for several months and when I finally did it was like going to the Health Department here in the U.S. It's nice that everyone has access to health care, but it certainly lowers the standard of that care a great deal.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Minato Ku

I dont know about that.

Osaka and London seem too high compared to the data I have seen from government websites from both Japan and the UK.

London only approaches that size GDP if you combine Greater London and Southeast England with possibly another region---but just Greater London and Southeast England was USD693 Billion in 2010

For Osaka if you combine the 3 prefectures that include Osaka, Kyoto and Kobe their GDPs for 2010 converted to US Dollar using the exchange rate on Dec 31, 2010 the total comes out to $708 Billion. Perhaps I missed a prefecture? But the 3 add up to USD708 Billion

Anyway, I made this chart a while back and while I am aware of some of the errors in 'urban agglomeration' populations(that I got from citypopulation.de), and Im working on creating some uniform way of comparing metro areas around the world but the actual economic data is as close to accurate as can be ascertained through online govermental sources.


*All US Cities are by Combined Statistical Area

*I actually had to combine Greater London with Southeast England because I didnt feel that Greater London's $400-$500 Billion GDP was indicative of the reality of London's true size and scope

*Paris' data is basically the entire Ile de France region

*Yes I know, I mistakenly ommited Munich--human error, sorry.

[SHiRO]

For Osaka I have an answer ready for you...

You say 3 prefectures but the Keihanshin metro area consists of PARTS of 6 prefectures, so there's where you went wrong probably. Only Osaka prefecture is entirely part of the Keihanshin metro area. Some areas of Hyogo Prefecture (Kobe) and Kyoto prefecture are part of the MMA, but not all. And parts of Nara, Wakayama and Shiga prefectures are part of Keihanshin MMA aswell. Altogether some 19 million people on 11,170 km².


(Pink lines are the prefectures, blue coloured is the MMA)



Same for London really.

There is no official definition for a metro area for London but the rather vague one from the GLA which puts it at 18 million. If you do the calculations this is comparable to a US CSA.

Just adding Greater London and Southeast England doesn't cut it though, because you are missing a lot of parts of the East of England region and including a lot of parts of Southeast England that are not in the London metro area by any definition.



For Paris, Ile de France is not the metro area. Paris has an officially defined metro area (aire urbain) that differs in some places from IDF. It's about the same size though but is higher in population (>12 million). Probably the GDP is higher as well because it includes more urban areas and less rural.

Important to note is that French metropolitan areas are based on commuter percentages of 40% which is way more strict than the US Census definitions for MSA or CSA. Therefore, this is not really comparable to US cities even with the MSA definition or that 18 million number for London.





btw, it should be appearant that Paris with 11.5 million should not have a higher GDP than London with 16.5 million. That's a big clue that something is off...

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

As I wrote to you in a PM some time ago, it's always a pleasure when someone goes through the hard work of compiling lists like these and shares it with the rest of us.

I'll repeat some of my observations here so anyone reading along can also take note of them.

-Using CSA figures for American cities is problematic as it is much harder to find comparable inclusive areas for other world cities. It can be done but it would involve a lot of tweaking and adding up of areas around other cities. Even MSA figures are already much more inclusive than your typical officially defined metro area in another country. That said, I do think that for instance the Bay Area should count as one continuous area. Other exceptions apply.

-The above becomes extra problematic if you are going to split of "The Ruhr" and Rotterdam from their respective combined metro areas. If Washington and Baltimore are to be combined, there is no question that Rhein-Ruhr and Randstad Holland should count as such and not be split up.

-Some cities have ready made definitions that are more in line with CSA figures but you still have them listed by their more strict definitions comparable or more strict than US MSAs. i.e. Sao Paulo (27.6m), Barcelona (6.1m), Hamburg (4.2m), Milan (7.4m)...

-Some cities on your list have noticeble smaller populations than even their official metro areas, let alone anything that would be comparable to the US CSA figures. These include Nagoya or Rome which is listed with little over its city limit population.

-Singapore is listed 6.4 million while the whole Republic of Singapore has just 5.2 million.

[LtBk]

Originally Posted by TarHeelJ

I know...it's so much better in the U.S. When I lived in London I couldn't even get a doctor appointment for several months and when I finally did it was like going to the Health Department here in the U.S. It's nice that everyone has access to health care, but it certainly lowers the standard of that care a great deal.

The UK isn't the best representative when it comes to universal health care, but it's better than dysfunctional and high inefficient system we have in the US.
I said this before, but there is a reason why no country in the developed world has adapted the US model for health care.

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by LtBk

The UK isn't the best representative when it comes to universal health care, but it's better than dysfunctional and high inefficient system we have in the US.
I said this before, but there is a reason why no country in the developed world has adapted the US model for health care.

The UK system definitely isn't better for the individuals...it may be better for the poor and underpriviledged, but (in my experience) it's very difficult to navigate and the quality of care is far below what is available in the U.S., and you may have to wait a very long time for services. This must be the reason so many people come to the U.S. for health concerns, even if no other nations have adopted our model. Even though one is more widely available to everyone equally, the quality and useabilty in the U.S. is much higher.

Anyway, back to the GDP/population argument.

[LtBk]

From what I read, the NHS is just as good as the US even if waiting times can be long at times.

[kingsdl76]

Originally Posted by TarHeelJ

I know...it's so much better in the U.S. When I lived in London I couldn't even get a doctor appointment for several months and when I finally did it was like going to the Health Department here in the U.S. It's nice that everyone has access to health care, but it certainly lowers the standard of that care a great deal.

100% agree with you TarHeel. My experience was the same. I found the doctors and overall quality of care in the US to be vastly superior to what I've experienced in Canada, the UK and Italy. I lived in Germany as well and have traveled throughout most of Europe but I was never exposed to the healthcare system other than in the aforementioned countries, so I cant speak for them.
However, I do believe the healthcare 'system' could be improved upon in the US but the quality of care is excellent.

[dimondpark]

Thanks SHiRO,
Ive figured out that my problem is I was constrained by citypopulation.de's figures, meaning I had to find metro areas commensurate with their numbers because I thought they were going by the govt defined metros for each 'urban agglomeration'.

In the future I will try to seek help from folks here and elsewhere. Thanks

[ue]

Originally Posted by kingsdl76

100% agree with you TarHeel. My experience was the same. I found the doctors and overall quality of care in the US to be vastly superior to what I've experienced in Canada, the UK and Italy. I lived in Germany as well and have traveled throughout most of Europe but I was never exposed to the healthcare system other than in the aforementioned countries, so I cant speak for them.
However, I do believe the healthcare 'system' could be improved upon in the US but the quality of care is excellent.

The quality of care is great if you're able/willing to pay for it.

The sacrifice of having longer wait times and some hits and misses in terms of quality is that everyone is covered and no one is left behind. I'm sorry, but I'd rather take the system of every Western country outside the U.S. on this one. It does work, even if improvements could be made (improvements could always be made).

[nito]

A key problem with comparative studies such is this, is usually how definitions and thresholds are set. The literature mentions that there are 269 US cities that meet the criteria of being a large city (population in excess of 150,000), compared to 186 Western European cities.

The first point is the definition of Western Europe; the report highlights that the economy of Western Europe exceeds that of the US by circa 10%. So the report isn't looking at a focused Western Europe of just France and Germany, but a wider region encompassing Spain, the UK and Italy.

The second point is that definitions for cities differ wildly, principally due to historical reasons, yet even taking 'face-value' city populations across this Western European region, there are in excess of 200 cities with populations greater than 150,000. This figure is higher than the figure quoted in the study (186) and could be down to the exclusion of periphery countries such as Denmark, Ireland and Portugal.

The third point is that the US cities figure (259) is based on metropolitan areas; in contrast there are 160 cities in the US with a city population in excess of 150,000. So the comparison would appear a bit off.

Yet rather oddly, the study then goes on to talk about the economic dominance of London and Paris; for instance the study mentions that London accounts for 33% of the UK economy, yet the city proper economy is more in the region of 20%. This suggests that urban/metropolitan European city areas which just gets messy.

Originally Posted by TarHeelJ

I know...it's so much better in the U.S. When I lived in London I couldn't even get a doctor appointment for several months and when I finally did it was like going to the Health Department here in the U.S. It's nice that everyone has access to health care, but it certainly lowers the standard of that care a great deal.

Are you a British citizen? If not then you were most likely viewed as a ‘medical tourist’, which has become a major problem in recent years. In general the system works quite well (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/me.../Graph%203.gif).

[Miu]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Thanks SHiRO,
Ive figured out that my problem is I was constrained by citypopulation.de's figures, meaning I had to find metro areas commensurate with their numbers because I thought they were going by the govt defined metros for each 'urban agglomeration'.

In the future I will try to seek help from folks here and elsewhere. Thanks

Most of the data on citypopulation seems to be completely made up.

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by nito

A key problem with comparative studies such is this, is usually how definitions and thresholds are set. The literature mentions that there are 269 US cities that meet the criteria of being a large city (population in excess of 150,000), compared to 186 Western European cities.

The first point is the definition of Western Europe; the report highlights that the economy of Western Europe exceeds that of the US by circa 10%. So the report isn't looking at a focused Western Europe of just France and Germany, but a wider region encompassing Spain, the UK and Italy.

Actually that's one thing they do clarify in the report. Western Europe according to them is Germany, UK, Italy, France, Spain, Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Finland, Portugal, Greece, Austria, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Ireland, Iceland and Luxemburg, which is completely fair and accurate and I agree with. So far so good...

The second point is that definitions for cities differ wildly, principally due to historical reasons, yet even taking 'face-value' city populations across this Western European region, there are in excess of 200 cities with populations greater than 150,000. This figure is higher than the figure quoted in the study (186) and could be down to the exclusion of periphery countries such as Denmark, Ireland and Portugal.

Yep, as I already mentioned there are around 400 cities in Europe with >150,000 in their metro area (various definitions) and probably in excess of 500 if we used a similar inclusive definition like the US Census one for MSA's.

The third point is that the US cities figure (259) is based on metropolitan areas; in contrast there are 160 cities in the US with a city population in excess of 150,000. So the comparison would appear a bit off.

I have no problem with the MSA definition on its own, but at the very least compare to European metro areas, not city limits AND on top of that pretend that 1/2 of European cities aren't even cities. Of course US cities generate more GDP that way.

Yet rather oddly, the study then goes on to talk about the economic dominance of London and Paris; for instance the study mentions that London accounts for 33% of the UK economy, yet the city proper economy is more in the region of 20%. This suggests that urban/metropolitan European city areas which just gets messy.

Yeah I noticed something else with that but didn't mention it. They say that London and Paris account for 6% of Western European population, which adds up to 24 million people. You can't divide that number without severly undercounting one or both cities.

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by nito

Are you a British citizen? If not then you were most likely viewed as a ‘medical tourist’, which has become a major problem in recent years. In general the system works quite well (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/me.../Graph%203.gif).

I was working there for a year, so I was no tourist. It seems like in a year's time one should be able to find decent healthcare when needed. I assure you that it would be available in the U.S. for "medical tourists", which are a much larger "problem" here than in the UK.