Quote:
Originally Posted by balletomane
I find this interesting, despite having the longest undefended border in the world, maybe that invisible line has created more cultural and economic division between both countries than one might assume. I'm not denying that Canada and the US are a dyad, I would just assume there would be more closely knit regions between the two.
|
In much of Canada, if you went back in time by 50 or 100 years you might have found that the share of people who had lived on both sides of the border, or had family ties on both sides, was higher. I think the two countries have been diverging for a while. Some of this is undoubtedly due to the border itself but I think two other factors might be globalization and Canada's evolution into a bigger and wealthier country with better internal travel options and communications, a more complex economy, more developed institutions (which can run things differently, e.g. by providing healthcare and other benefits), bigger cities, etc.
At the height of the 19th century cross-border migrations to places like New England, there were plentiful manufacturing jobs south of the border. If you were in, say, Quebec it was far easier to move to Massachusetts than it was to move to Alberta, not that there were similar jobs in Alberta back then anyway. An average person with limited opportunities in primary industries in Canada could just pick up and move south, get a much higher paying job, and immediately enjoy higher living standards. It's not like that at all these days. If anything I think average workers are better off in Canada. People like to focus on the top professionals, and maybe they are still likely to move to the US, but they have a smaller demographic and cultural impact.
One thing that I find really interesting is how you can pick out periods when Canadian cities were physically more similar to their American counterparts. In a lot of cases the height of the similarity dates back to around 1880-1930, and in recent years the cities have been diverging. Toronto isn't changing like an average Midwestern city and Halifax isn't changing like a New England city (which would imply ~zero change at all...). I think Vancouver is a bit closer to Seattle or Portland but there are still obvious differences in how it's developing. Lately, I get the impression that many American cities are more ossified and segregated. The urban part of the US are more likely to fit into one of three categories: high-end districts that are super expensive but where change is difficult, low-end districts with bad schools that aren't getting much investment, and low-density suburbia that is mostly detached houses. Canadian cities have more medium and high-density suburbs, fewer blighted areas, and more dynamic urban areas that are being rebuilt. Canadian cities also seem to do better when it comes to investment in transit, although they are still pretty bad. Vancouver vs. Seattle vs. Portland transit and highways are a prime example of this.
Threaded Mode