Which is more similar to Ontario: Michigan or Minnesota?

[King of Kensington]

Which of these two states is more similar to Ontario?

[pikachu]

Feel like the auto industry has to make it Michigan, right?

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Toronto proper probably has more similarity to MSP than to metro Detroit but I think in all other respects it has to be Michigan.

[It’s so Joever]

Southern Ontario (excluding Toronto): Michigan
Northern Ontario and Toronto: Minnesota

[mileslunn]

Probably Michigan but of three states Ontario borders, New York is one it is most like both in terms of diversity, urban/rural split and yes politics too.  Ontario only votes Conservative sometime like Michigan does GOP but unlike New York is you only need 40% to win in Canada while in US need closer to 50%.  Conservatives usually get in 30s in Ontario much like GOP does in New York, but in good elections will climb into low 40s.  In Michigan and Minnesota, GOP always gets over 40% even in bad elections. 

Now I would say more like Michigan due to manufacturing while Minnesota is more white collar but Minneapolis not nearly as large as GTA, more similar to Greater Vancouver in size.  Actually best comparison for Minnesota politically is Manitoba which it borders.

[Upper Canada Tory]

Minnesota is more reminiscent to Manitoba on the Canadian side, there I would say by default that makes Michigan more similar to Ontario.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Michigan definitely. Minnesota is more like Manitoba.

[King of Kensington]

In some ways, Michigan and Ontario do feel like long-lost cousins.  A lot of Canadians moved to Michigan in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.  A lot of Michiganders had cottages on the Ontario side of Lake Huron.  There's the Great Lakes geography and auto industry.  Similar mixed agriculture (Michigan is not as corn-dominated as the central midwestern "I" states).  A densely populated, industrialized south and resource-based, thinly populated north (though Northern Ontario is far larger and less densely populated than Upper Michigan).  

But they diverged in the latter half of the 20th century.  Canada didn't have equivalents to the rise of the sunbelt and Great Migration.  And Toronto emerged as a global city.

[mileslunn]

In some ways, Michigan and Ontario do feel like long-lost cousins.  A lot of Canadians moved to Michigan in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.  A lot of Michiganders had cottages on the Ontario side of Lake Huron.  There's the Great Lakes geography and auto industry.  Similar mixed agriculture (Michigan is not as corn-dominated as the central midwestern "I" states).  A densely populated, industrialized south and resource-based, thinly populated north (though Northern Ontario is far larger and less densely populated than Upper Michigan).  

But they diverged in the latter half of the 20th century.  Canada didn't have equivalents to the rise of the sunbelt and Great Migration.  And Toronto emerged as a global city.

Toronto is more like Canada's version of New York and Chicago especially New York City and some even refer to its a pale version of New York City.

[King of Kensington]

Toronto demographically looks like a London-Queens NY hybrid.  But has Great Lakes geography and an economic structure and global stature more in line with Chicago).

[Sol]

Toronto demographically looks like a London-Queens NY hybrid.  But has Great Lakes geography and an economic structure and global stature more in line with Chicago).

And in built form it's not much like anything; the best comparison in America is probably DC, maybe Seattle, as cities with a somewhat extant prewar core which saw heavy postwar growth and the developments of lots of edge cities with a certain degree of densification. But Toronto takes this further than even DC.

[Upper Canada Tory]

In some ways, Michigan and Ontario do feel like long-lost cousins.  A lot of Canadians moved to Michigan in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.  A lot of Michiganders had cottages on the Ontario side of Lake Huron.  There's the Great Lakes geography and auto industry.  Similar mixed agriculture (Michigan is not as corn-dominated as the central midwestern "I" states).  A densely populated, industrialized south and resource-based, thinly populated north (though Northern Ontario is far larger and less densely populated than Upper Michigan).  

But they diverged in the latter half of the 20th century.  Canada didn't have equivalents to the rise of the sunbelt and Great Migration.  And Toronto emerged as a global city.

Toronto is more like Canada's version of New York and Chicago especially New York City and some even refer to its a pale version of New York City.

I don't think this is accurate at all. Toronto is nothing like New York City other than both cities having the status as the country's largest city.

[King of Kensington]

And in built form it's not much like anything; the best comparison in America is probably DC, maybe Seattle, as cities with a somewhat extant prewar core which saw heavy postwar growth and the developments of lots of edge cities with a certain degree of densification. But Toronto takes this further than even DC.

The metro areas of DC, Toronto and Ottawa grew at similar rates between 1950 and 2020.

[King of Kensington]

I should say suburbs in Canada and the US are rather different, perhaps reflecting cultural differences.  NIMBYism prevails in American suburbs in a way it doesn't in Canada, particularly in the eastern half of the country.  Every suburban municipality of any size in Canada wants transit and development and every major city has either fully annexed its suburbs or has metropolitan government of some sort.

[mileslunn]

In some ways, Michigan and Ontario do feel like long-lost cousins.  A lot of Canadians moved to Michigan in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.  A lot of Michiganders had cottages on the Ontario side of Lake Huron.  There's the Great Lakes geography and auto industry.  Similar mixed agriculture (Michigan is not as corn-dominated as the central midwestern "I" states).  A densely populated, industrialized south and resource-based, thinly populated north (though Northern Ontario is far larger and less densely populated than Upper Michigan).  

But they diverged in the latter half of the 20th century.  Canada didn't have equivalents to the rise of the sunbelt and Great Migration.  And Toronto emerged as a global city.

Toronto is more like Canada's version of New York and Chicago especially New York City and some even refer to its a pale version of New York City.

I don't think this is accurate at all. Toronto is nothing like New York City other than both cities having the status as the country's largest city.

Both are not just largest cities in country but also financial centers too and note TSX is 10th largest exchange globally although NYSE is biggest.  Both are most diverse cities in country with very large immigrant populations although Toronto larger due to Canada having larger per capita foreign born population and more liberal immigration policy. 

Big differences is Toronto has a lot more influence on Canada than NYC does on US as our population is less spread out than US is.  And likewise yes Toronto is smaller, but Canada is also a lot smaller than US too.  Greater Toronto area is around 6 million while Greater NYC is 21 million so per capita Greater Toronto larger share of Canadian than NYC is of US.

[King of Kensington]

I think postwar economic policies and interventions played a role in Ontario's divergence from the rust belt pattern.  People didn't simply move to Southern California for the weather..  There was a Cold War-driven economic boom in aerospace, military, research etc.  California had some of the highest wages in the US.

In Canada postwar economic policies benefitted Southern Ontario, particularly the Auto Pact, which allowed it to "catch up" to Michigan (Ontario was poorer pre-WWII) and it never got hit as hard by rust belt decline.  There was no "California" to move to (BC is very pretty but it didn't have the economic opportunities that California did).

And with rust belt decline, why not move to Arizona or the Carolinas or whatever?  Both the rust belt and non-California sunbelt have cheap housing, the latter has better weather.  In Canada, some industrial towns may have become a bit stagnant - but there's not really anywhere else to go.

[mileslunn]

I think postwar economic policies and interventions played a role in Ontario's divergence from the rust belt pattern.  People didn't simply move to Southern California for the weather..  There was a Cold War-driven economic boom in aerospace, military, research etc.  California had some of the highest wages in the US.

In Canada postwar economic policies benefitted Southern Ontario, particularly the Auto Pact, which allowed it to "catch up" to Michigan (Ontario was poorer pre-WWII) and it never got hit as hard by rust belt decline.  There was no "California" to move to (BC is very pretty but it didn't have the economic opportunities that California did).

And with rust belt decline, why not move to Arizona or the Carolinas or whatever?  Both the rust belt and non-California sunbelt have cheap housing, the latter has better weather.  In Canada, some industrial towns may have become a bit stagnant - but there's not really anywhere else to go.

Very true although Washington state is only slightly larger than BC, yet Seattle has become a hub for tech and has headquarters of multiple fortune 500 companies so Washington State suggests BC could do a lot better.  On economics, BC is probably more like Oregon except more expensive than it is Washington or California.  Now there is Alberta which many moved to but unlike say Texas which has large energy sector, it lacks warmer climate.  In addition as climate change becomes a more serious issue some wonder whether Alberta will remain significantly richer than rest of country or not.  Likewise I find people moving for lower taxes is less prevalent in Canada than US.  For starters we don't have as many wealthy people who are impacted by higher brackets but also I think in Canada idea that if you do well you should pay quite a bit enjoys more support than does in US.  Even back when Alberta had the flat tax, you didn't see the same degree of people moving there as you do from California and New York to Texas and Florida to avoid state taxes.  Not sure what it is like in other countries with regional taxes like Nordic, Belgium, Switzerland, Italy and Spain whether people move to lower to pay less tax or not.  Switzerland and to lesser extent Spain I believe get a fair bit of it.  Scotland will be interesting as until a few years ago top rates were same throughout UK, but Scotland is now 3% higher but probably not enough to see big exodus or if people do move likely better opportunities, particularly in London is probably reason.

The other province Quebec was never an option for many moving to due to language barrier although Ontario did benefit quite a bit in late 70s and early 80s when many Anglophones from Quebec moved to Ontario after PQ won in 1976.  Montreal used to have more headquarters than Toronto, now Toronto is by far highest and Calgary is almost as high as Montreal today.  In US, you don't have a state that is non English speaking that threatened to separate and thus scared away many from English speaking minority and top talent. 

I believe in terms of interprovincial mobility, generally speaking Ontario has lost more to BC & Alberta than gained but gained more from Quebec and Atlantic Canada than lost although in last few years in case of Atlantic Canada it has reversed itself.  Partly due to boomers retiring and most moving there originated from there and just returning home when they retire.  Other is with remote working people can go anywhere so lower house prices probably make it more attractive.  In case of Saskatchewan, almost all out movement has been to Alberta, very little to any other province so out movement from there didn't really help Ontario that much. 

Still in last 10 years, if exclude immigration and look at strictly interprovincial migration, Ontario has been very negative much like New York and California.  Like those two states only growing as very popular amongst immigrants and gains from immigrants has more than offset internal losses.  And BC despite being seen as diverse, most minorities are Chinese or Sikh whereas in Toronto you see people from every corner of the globe so non-white population may be similar to BC, but its a lot more diverse than BC is.  And even amongst white immigrants way more diverse too as in BC most white immigrants have been British nationals whereas in Ontario you have many from Mediterranean countries and Eastern Europe which BC doesn't.  Prairies may have more of Eastern European ancestry than Ontario, but most came almost a century ago whereas in Ontario most Eastern European immigrants came post WWII.  I believe for Ukrainians and Polish, those 4th generation or more largely in Prairies while those born or parents born in those two more likely to live in Ontario. 

[King of Kensington]

On Toronto's emergence as a "global city":  https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=582159.0

[King of Kensington]

Both are not just largest cities in country but also financial centers too and note TSX is 10th largest exchange globally although NYSE is biggest.  Both are most diverse cities in country with very large immigrant populations although Toronto larger due to Canada having larger per capita foreign born population and more liberal immigration policy. 

Big differences is Toronto has a lot more influence on Canada than NYC does on US as our population is less spread out than US is.  And likewise yes Toronto is smaller, but Canada is also a lot smaller than US too.  Greater Toronto area is around 6 million while Greater NYC is 21 million so per capita Greater Toronto larger share of Canadian than NYC is of US.

The Northeast US has only 17% of the population and it's a low-growth/high-wealth region which looks very different from the national average in terms of incomes, educational attainment, religion, politics.

Ontario does happen to be where the power lies but it's also the industrial belt and very much "middle Canada."  It has nearly 40% of the population and about half of all Canadians outside Quebec, so it's very much "the average."