3 ms·

As my friend who works in British Government put it: If you remove London, the UK is about on par with Mississippi in terms of income and quality of life. Peo

As my friend who works in British Government put it: If you remove London, the UK is about on par with Mississippi in terms of income and quality of life. People outside of London are poor. London banking and to some extent every other industry in London is basically carrying the entire country.

gsky 2y ago
[flagged]
drumhead 2y ago
Its a first class city with a second rate country attached to it. The problem is that outside of the London and the South East the rest of the country has a very begging bowl mentality. Its all about what government can give to them.
- tharmas 2y ago
  It's attitudes like this why the UK is the way it is today. Shame on you.
maxwellsdeamons 2y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if this was true for most countries/states on this planet, also in the USA. Especially when the countries are as centralized as England and France. England without London loses like 20% of its population and probably even a higher percentage of its jobs. What is Mississippi if you remove 20% of it's population that lives in high-density urban areas?
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  It's not rural England that's poor, it's the non-London high-density urban areas.
  - maxwellsdeamons 2y ago
    This is not true for England https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_GRP_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_of_the_United_... And it's not true for Mississippi: https://mdes.ms.gov/media/8639/pci.pdf https://mdes.ms.gov/media/8639/pci.pdf http://www.usa.com/rank/mississippi-state--population-density--county-rank.htm http://www.usa.com/rank/mississippi-state--population-densit... Relatively easy to disprove. The misinformation just fits the narrative better.
    - bryanlarsen 2y ago
      Urban areas like Manchester are showing up as poor on the list.
potato3732842 2y ago
There's a fine line between "carrying the country" and "dominating things to the detriment of literally every other industry people could generate wealth from"
oliwarner 2y ago
The problem with mean averages is things like financial centres and kings pervert the data. Once you remove the outliers, the per-head domestic product is actually pretty level across the UK's regions. Now I'm not saying that finance isn't an important industry for us, but it could be anywhere. It's only inertia that keeps it in London. If it left, London would be the same as any other county. But the average Londoner isn't a banker. They aren't obscenely rich. Any wage benefit is lost to higher costs. Unless you're a property owner, you're no better off than somebody outside London.
- dxbydt 2y ago
  > but it could be anywhere. > It's only inertia that keeps it in London Not at all! Over a decade in banking, I have witnessed this argument resurface time and again in the context of the US. Indeed, it's true that two of the nation's largest banks, Wells Fargo and Bank of America, are headquartered in Charlotte. Hedge funds predominantly anchor themselves in Greenwich. GS has relocated its back-office operations to Salt Lake City. JPMorgan conducts risk analytics out of Columbus. CC processing is entirely Wilmington, commodities desk entirely Chicago. However, despite these geographic shifts in various financial functions, the heart of the financial world remains unmistakably tethered to Wall Street. For the foreseeable future, the nexus of global finance will continue to pulse through New York City. To suggest otherwise is a fundamental misreading of the industry's deeply entrenched culture. Just as in London, where finance is inextricably woven into the fabric of the city, New York represents more than just a place—it is the embodiment of finance itself. The gravitational center of this world does not and will not shift to places like Utah, Ohio, Delaware or North Carolina. It is, and will remain, rooted in global financial hubs such as New York, London, Mumbai, and Hong Kong. To imagine otherwise is an exercise in futility.
  - oliwarner 2y ago
    > Not at all! Well give them a reason to overcome that inertia (like Brexit and its regulatory mismatches) and they flee. New Financial's estimate is 10% of the sector has gone, mostly to Dublin, Frankfurt and Paris. And there's definitely a cost-driven pull towards the north of the UK too. Insurance more than banking has diversified. But that's slightly beside the point that, these are rich companies, and a few rich people. London is not Monaco, Geneva. Just 2% of London's population are liquid-millionaires (vs 35%, 15%). Other UK cities can probably beat it millionaires per capita if that's what's important. As soon as you look at median salaries, London does attract a premium, but £5k does not offset the insane costs.
bitshiftfaced 2y ago
Mississippi's GDP per capital in 2024 is 50k, and the UK's is 51k. They're nearly the same, even with London included. For reference, the EU's average is 42k.
dzhiurgis 2y ago
Unless you are working and mingling with people in City - quality of life is London is just awful. Go beyond zone 3 and it feels you are third world country.

gsky 2y ago

[flagged]

drumhead 2y ago

Its a first class city with a second rate country attached to it. The problem is that outside of the London and the South East the rest of the country has a very begging bowl mentality. Its all about what government can give to them.

tharmas 2y ago
It's attitudes like this why the UK is the way it is today. Shame on you.

maxwellsdeamons 2y ago

I wouldn't be surprised if this was true for most countries/states on this planet, also in the USA. Especially when the countries are as centralized as England and France. England without London loses like 20% of its population and probably even a higher percentage of its jobs. What is Mississippi if you remove 20% of it's population that lives in high-density urban areas?

bryanlarsen 2y ago
It's not rural England that's poor, it's the non-London high-density urban areas.
- maxwellsdeamons 2y ago
  This is not true for England https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_GRP_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_of_the_United_... And it's not true for Mississippi: https://mdes.ms.gov/media/8639/pci.pdf https://mdes.ms.gov/media/8639/pci.pdf http://www.usa.com/rank/mississippi-state--population-density--county-rank.htm http://www.usa.com/rank/mississippi-state--population-densit... Relatively easy to disprove. The misinformation just fits the narrative better.
  - bryanlarsen 2y ago
    Urban areas like Manchester are showing up as poor on the list.

potato3732842 2y ago

There's a fine line between "carrying the country" and "dominating things to the detriment of literally every other industry people could generate wealth from"

oliwarner 2y ago

The problem with mean averages is things like financial centres and kings pervert the data. Once you remove the outliers, the per-head domestic product is actually pretty level across the UK's regions. Now I'm not saying that finance isn't an important industry for us, but it could be anywhere. It's only inertia that keeps it in London. If it left, London would be the same as any other county. But the average Londoner isn't a banker. They aren't obscenely rich. Any wage benefit is lost to higher costs. Unless you're a property owner, you're no better off than somebody outside London.

dxbydt 2y ago
> but it could be anywhere. > It's only inertia that keeps it in London Not at all! Over a decade in banking, I have witnessed this argument resurface time and again in the context of the US. Indeed, it's true that two of the nation's largest banks, Wells Fargo and Bank of America, are headquartered in Charlotte. Hedge funds predominantly anchor themselves in Greenwich. GS has relocated its back-office operations to Salt Lake City. JPMorgan conducts risk analytics out of Columbus. CC processing is entirely Wilmington, commodities desk entirely Chicago. However, despite these geographic shifts in various financial functions, the heart of the financial world remains unmistakably tethered to Wall Street. For the foreseeable future, the nexus of global finance will continue to pulse through New York City. To suggest otherwise is a fundamental misreading of the industry's deeply entrenched culture. Just as in London, where finance is inextricably woven into the fabric of the city, New York represents more than just a place—it is the embodiment of finance itself. The gravitational center of this world does not and will not shift to places like Utah, Ohio, Delaware or North Carolina. It is, and will remain, rooted in global financial hubs such as New York, London, Mumbai, and Hong Kong. To imagine otherwise is an exercise in futility.
- oliwarner 2y ago
  > Not at all! Well give them a reason to overcome that inertia (like Brexit and its regulatory mismatches) and they flee. New Financial's estimate is 10% of the sector has gone, mostly to Dublin, Frankfurt and Paris. And there's definitely a cost-driven pull towards the north of the UK too. Insurance more than banking has diversified. But that's slightly beside the point that, these are rich companies, and a few rich people. London is not Monaco, Geneva. Just 2% of London's population are liquid-millionaires (vs 35%, 15%). Other UK cities can probably beat it millionaires per capita if that's what's important. As soon as you look at median salaries, London does attract a premium, but £5k does not offset the insane costs.

bitshiftfaced 2y ago

Mississippi's GDP per capital in 2024 is 50k, and the UK's is 51k. They're nearly the same, even with London included. For reference, the EU's average is 42k.

dzhiurgis 2y ago

Unless you are working and mingling with people in City - quality of life is London is just awful. Go beyond zone 3 and it feels you are third world country.