I know where I want to live. (and do)
this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2026
565 points (99.3% liked)
Map Enthusiasts
6264 readers
691 users here now
For the map enthused!
Rules:
-
post relevant content: interesting, informative, and/or pretty maps
-
be nice
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
ngl I'd be happy in all 3
Yes, but also Mercator projection.
tokyo firmly believes in stacking
Tokyo demands the sharpest elbows of the three.
The more you think about it, the more insane it is, like... wow
Canada population: 41.4 million
California population: 39.4 million
Greater Tokyo Area: 37.4 million
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
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.
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.
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.
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).
California also offers an agricultural powerhouse of productivity, oceanfront tourism, and ongoing techbro circle jerks.
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.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(15 replies)
Makes you wonder why housing prices in Canada are so ridiculously high then when they have so much free land space.
Considering we have like 9% of the world's entire forests, where would you like us yo build these houses?
do you want to drive 3 hours to work every day?
You can do better than that. I'm not sure how far you have to get from Calgary or Edmonton before abandoned, falling apart farmhouses start, but it might be only 45 minutes.
And if you're in a random part of the north, it's more like weeks of offroading.
Edit: Obviously, that 45 minutes is still enough to discourage most buyers. You might still be 20 from the nearest stores of any kind. So, the point stands, most of the land isn't acceptable for most people.
The free land space: 🧊
I've known several people who would happily live in the Arctic so even that's not a complete no go.
Yeah, but do they like having a job and services, or are they okay alone in a run-down dry cabin with a rifle for the polar bears, and expensive resupply trucks whenever the iceroads are passable?
Depends on the individual. At least one of the dudes lived in Svalbard for about a year but had to leave for family reasons so he would probably be chill with either.
Oh yeah, then sure.
I guess the point is that the climate isn't actually the big issue, it's what a typical person is going to do in the middle of the arctic. If you're a digital nomad or a researcher, it makes sense. If you're from a local Native group, with unlimited legal hunting and a community, it makes sense.
FWIW even within Canada, and with funding in place, it's hard to move to the North. I know somebody who tried to retire to Whitehorse a bit ago, but couldn't, because lots of people are interested in that and it's nigh-impossible to get new housing approved.
Construction is the bottleneck.
On why construction is the bottleneck, you'll hear several theories, but just physically having land isn't the problem.
Guess noone wants to live near the polar circle
Actually, we have no trouble finding immigrants, and mostly let in ones that are doctors or something like that (who then end up working fast food anyway).
But yes, many of the people who were born here, and grew up somewhat acclimatised, still bitterly complain about the climate.
The developers sit on it and only develop the closest to [city] area they have until those sell at [high price] then they move to the next area they own until those sell.
They also feel like they can get more money building single family homes than building apartments.
You made Saddam too small.
view more: next ›