top 95 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 99 points 3 months ago (29 children)

Canada population: 41.4 million

California population: 39.4 million

Greater Tokyo Area: 37.4 million

  • source
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] 54 points 3 months ago (13 children)

    Almost similar GDP as well

    Canada GDP (2026): $2.51 Trillion USD

    California GDP (2025): $4.25 Trillion USD

    Greater Tokyo Area (2022): $1.82 Trillion USD

    Wide Spread but still all in the low Trillions

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 3 months ago* (12 children)

    California is inflated by Silicon Valley stuff. Maybe left-over Hollywood prestige, as well.

    Japan isn't known for it's awesome economy, but it's surprising world city Tokyo is still doing worse than all of Canada including the backwaters.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    California also offers an agricultural powerhouse of productivity, oceanfront tourism, and ongoing techbro circle jerks.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    Oh right, a lot of produce that makes it up here is from California, although we've noticeably weaned off of it over the course of the trade war.

    I did mention the techbros. If the AI bubble pops, and geopolitics breaks the walled garden monopolies, it might end up a lot closer to Canada.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    I wonder if you take out fossil fuel and logging out of Canada’s GDP if it still would be higher than Tokyo’s. Not much logging and oil drilling going on in Tokyo I reckon.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    Yes, it's a resource-based economy. Agriculture and mining are also huge. They're all kind of hard to get at resources, though, so it's not like the Persian Gulf, where there's no expenses and it's a money printer. Basically, outside of certain parts of Ontario, people work in that instead of in factories. (And forestry in particular is being imploded by the US, right now)

    Tokyo should, in theory, have all kinds of highly skilled professionals, who earn more than whatever logging grunt. But, the gap is still like 150%.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago* (3 children)

    Doing Worse is subjective.

    Higher GDP ≠ Doing Better.

    The US has some of the highest GDP per capita on earth but that doesn’t mean it (or its economy, if you don’t define economy just as stock market go brrr) is doing well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (2 children)

    As in, doing worse economically. In this context, where that's clear, it seems like the wording holds up.

    (or its economy, if you don’t define economy just as stock market go brrr)

    GDP measures actual trade more than the stock market. That being said, yes, it's a litmus test, albeit a decently well supported one. The main places it breaks down, in terms of predicting people's lifestyles, is where there's major banking hubs (Singapore, Seychelles, Ireland for a while).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    GDP is absolute values, so there's quite a bit of self reinforcement. Especially in service heavy areas, your massage cost 30$ for half an hour, elsewhere you can get a better one for 10$ an hour.

    Although the second economy delivered twice the goods at a higher quality, the economic output was 1/3rd

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    Yes, it gets called a "litmus test". If it's higher you can be reasonably sure whatever place is richer (although banking hubs break that a bit). It itself doesn't correspond to that more than empirically, though.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    It's not surprising because GDP does not reflect quality of life in any form whatsoever. GDP is not a measure of wealth it's a measure of feverish, extractive, mindless and destructive activity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago*

    Sure, when you go to the store and buy food so you don't starve, that's mindless destructive activity. /s

    It's definitely not a measure of wealth, if you know what it is, because it's more of a proxy for income and productivity. And in the end, it correlates decently well with actual lifestyles. (Quality of life is more nebulous; there's miserable rich people and happy hut-dwellers)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago (14 children)

    Biggest question.

    Who wins in a street fight.

    I wanna give it to the Canadians on sheer variety but I think California might win that one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    1000% California. So Cal is mostly LA and NorCal is a bunch of granola outdoor survival types.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (6 children)

    I mean, we have plenty of people living off the land in Canada too, and it's hard land.

    If they're allowed bringing their guns, the Americans are going to win every time, of course.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Check out gun ownership stats for Canada sometime. Might surprise you. Lotta unregistered long guns.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    I live in a rural area; I'm aware. Although didn't Trudeau bring back the long gun registry?

    There's some pretty severe restrictions, like max 5 rounds in an SKS (although plenty of people illegally use the full 10). Cali does too, but it's not clear if it's on the same level. IIRC you can still have handguns pretty much anywhere in the US, while they're almost banned here.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago*

    That's what I thought too but then I feel like California has more psychos. People don't talk about it but California is the true Florida man of the US. Florida just posts it in their newspaper more but Cali has some fucking weirdos

    And crazy beats tough any day of the weak.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Considering California has Oakland and San Bernadino... I think California takes it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    So Tokyo has 1 moose, California has 100 moose, and Canada is overrun by moose. Got it!

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Yes, but also Mercator projection.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago (9 children)

    Does that mean Canada is looking for immigrants? A lot of us can help bring that number up.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    The big map is misleading. The vast majority of us live within 100 miles of the US border.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago

    Ed, it's a startling revelation.

    Canada, getting ready to invade, has amassed 90% of its population along its border with the United States.

    The longest unprotected border in the world, stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to that other one.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    That depends on whom you ask. 🤷 And how eager are you to live in a remote community?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago

    Canada is in desperate need of immigrants but simultaneously suffering some growing pains from fumbled immigration programs and policy it’s the old you won’t make everyone happy shenanigans

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    More than pretty much anywhere else, yes. It still manages to be heavily selective, though, mostly for highly educated/skilled workers and their families.

    But also, yes, the population is heavily in the south. If you showed just the non-remote part, it'd be horizontal Chile.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago

    tokyo firmly believes in stacking

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 3 months ago (8 children)

    there are too many people in Tokyo. like come on guys. there are other cities.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago

    I doubt you've been or lived here if you think it's very dense for a large city. Frankly its extremely spread out. Most buildings are quite short or single family homes. Compared to the skyscrapers of Chinese cities, its a lot closer to American suburbs.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago* (3 children)

    *there is other city. Singular.

    Supposedly there is a third city, but it's too boring to be worth checking.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Hey, now, you're both right - the Japanese language doesn't distinguish between singular and plural.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    lol that's not true at all dog

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    Please explain how that's wrong?

    Japanese nouns don't have grammatical number. The closest you can get is adding an affix like -tachi, but even then it's almost exclusively for people and means more like "and company" rather than a true plural.

    The noun for "city" is 市 ("ichi"), and it can mean either one city, two cities, or many cities. You can specify how many by adding a number, but the word itself doesn't change.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    The problem is, the best educational institutions, best-paying jobs, and most quantity of open positions are in that area. Without spreading that out, you won't get the people who would rather live elsewhere out. We do have worker shortages here in the countryside, but they're often manual labor which people are less keen on.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago

    The more you think about it, the more insane it is, like... wow

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago

    You made Saddam too small.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago

    Tokyo demands the sharpest elbows of the three.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    I know where I want to live. (and do)

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 42 points 3 months ago (20 children)

    80% of þe population of Canada lives South of Minneapolis, MN., USA.

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 46 points 3 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (10 children)
  • [+] -8 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    Oh, right, I forgotten about you. The moron who doesn’t use “th”.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Why is Sxan a moron for that? It's not hurting anyone

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago* (11 children)

    And people wonder why Japan's population is shrinking. (Wait, is it shrinking or did it stop growing?) Disinterest in breeding may be an innate response to overpopulation. In any case, Tokyo's population is fucking crazy and decreasing the number of people voluntarily and peacefully is a GOOD thing.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 3 months ago* (4 children)

    COL in Japan in general is about as unhealthy as it is in California.

    people are working themselves to death just to scrape by.

    if governments want population growth, they have to siphon wealth away from their corporate overlords and nurture the working class.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 3 months ago* (3 children)

    Japan's population decline isn't really about cost of living so much as it is about poor quality of life/a stiflingly conservative culture. Terrible work/life balance, women still largely being expected to quit work when they have kids (and it being assumed that women will have kids, leading to discrimination in the workplace and limited career promotion opportunities), men still largely being expected to be salarymen who are forced to prioritize their company and social expectations at work above all else, etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Tokyo isn't having population decline, its the countryside.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    There are plenty of people living in Tokyo because it has the highest wages, best educational institutions, and most job opportunities but not because they want to. However, I'd honestly say that's more of a minority.

    Greater Tokyo also include places that look like (of course slightly more compact) US suburbs. Sure, the further toward central Tokyo itself you go (particularly inside the Yamanote line), the density increases a lot, but it's also not some hellscape. I moved to the countryside to farm, but I otherwise mostly enjoyed my life in Tokyo. I could have found farmland closer to Tokyo itself, but I wanted to get north before it gets any hotter, so not a problem of Tokyo itself.

    Don't get me wrong; I wish there were investment to split things up some more and get the people who want to be out of Tokyo out of it. This would require having those job opportunities and educational institutions split up as well. This isn't going to happen.

    The hardest part about raising a family in Tokyo, from those I know who are doing it, is childcare. There are free and subsidized options, but they're hard to qualify for and having waiting lists and lottery systems. That part sucks. It's not impossible for most families, but it does sometimes end with one parent not working for a time. Better childcare leave policies have helped here, but not enough (and some shit companies still try to pressure women to quit instead, but that's another issue).

    Up here, we have more availability and my village actively pays people to move here (I was one of them, but those with families get even more benefits) and offers free or heavily-subsidized childcare. Still, while the incentives are nice, they're not bringing those mountains of job opportunities or educational institutions with them on their own.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›