7 ms·

But population doesn't (in my opinion) determine importance. For example, the capital is a very important city even if not the most populous. That said, I'm ba

by 333c 8y ago

But population doesn't (in my opinion) determine importance. For example, the capital is a very important city even if not the most populous. That said, I'm basically questioning an off-the-cuff quote made by a friend of someone who was in the elevator. The speaker should be forgiven for being imprecise…

gsich 8y ago
In this case it does. The author used population as criteria for importance. Which is fine. You might have a different criteria.
- adjkant 8y ago
  > The author used population as criteria for importance. There's no evidence for that anywhere, nor is this the author. This is a quote from a friend of someone in the elevator and there's no given criteria, so we can only speculate.
thaumasiotes 8y ago
> But population doesn't (in my opinion) determine importance. For example, the capital is a very important city even if not the most populous. It goes the other way. Importance determines population. If the capital is not populous, that reflects the fact that the capital isn't especially important. But assuming you're in a more or less steady state, that effect has already happened, so it's perfectly valid to just assume that importance and population are tightly correlated. The directionality doesn't really matter to the result.
- adjkant 8y ago
  > Importance determines population. Does it though? You still have provided no supporting arguments for that. People live in places for reasons beyond importance. In fact, "importance" really isn't a factor people consider when they decide to live somewhere at all really in my experience.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
close04 8y ago
> For example, the capital is a very important city even if not the most populous. > and either San Francisco or Los Angeles (or both) also rank above Chicago Wouldn't it be Sacramento in this case, as the capital but not most populous city? The most important city is a combination of multiple factors: size, economic or political power, and probably some more (like cultural).
- ashelmire 8y ago
  No, Sacramento is pretty insignificant in terms of population and economic power compared to SF and LA (and cultural aspects). Political power is also tied to population - LA and SF decide who sits in power in Sacramento. DC is an exception because it draws lobbyists and politicians there; state capitals usually don't.
  - close04 8y ago
    That was my point, just being a capital doesn't say much and it's not a real factor when it comes to the importance of a city.

by 333c 8y ago

gsich 8y ago

In this case it does. The author used population as criteria for importance. Which is fine. You might have a different criteria.

adjkant 8y ago
> The author used population as criteria for importance. There's no evidence for that anywhere, nor is this the author. This is a quote from a friend of someone in the elevator and there's no given criteria, so we can only speculate.

thaumasiotes 8y ago

> But population doesn't (in my opinion) determine importance. For example, the capital is a very important city even if not the most populous. It goes the other way. Importance determines population. If the capital is not populous, that reflects the fact that the capital isn't especially important. But assuming you're in a more or less steady state, that effect has already happened, so it's perfectly valid to just assume that importance and population are tightly correlated. The directionality doesn't really matter to the result.

adjkant 8y ago
> Importance determines population. Does it though? You still have provided no supporting arguments for that. People live in places for reasons beyond importance. In fact, "importance" really isn't a factor people consider when they decide to live somewhere at all really in my experience.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

close04 8y ago

> For example, the capital is a very important city even if not the most populous. > and either San Francisco or Los Angeles (or both) also rank above Chicago Wouldn't it be Sacramento in this case, as the capital but not most populous city? The most important city is a combination of multiple factors: size, economic or political power, and probably some more (like cultural).

ashelmire 8y ago
No, Sacramento is pretty insignificant in terms of population and economic power compared to SF and LA (and cultural aspects). Political power is also tied to population - LA and SF decide who sits in power in Sacramento. DC is an exception because it draws lobbyists and politicians there; state capitals usually don't.
- close04 8y ago
  That was my point, just being a capital doesn't say much and it's not a real factor when it comes to the importance of a city.