It is a fair comparison tptacek. For years the canonical sentiment about Hong Kong in Britain (where it is relatively easy to get permission to work on the island) has been that it is an economic backwater suitable only for those who cannot make it back home. There was even a derogatory acronym in common parlance to describe the people who went to work there: F.I.L.T.H. (Failed in London, Tried Hong Kong).
Asserting that Hong Kong is a city on par with New York or London is going against years of perception to the opposite, mostly driven by the higher wages for the financial class in Western financial centers. That said, unless someone speaks mandarin these days, they are not likely to find the sorts of opportunities that previously existed in Hong Kong. One of the great things about the island is that it's always been a working city, and it is reorienting to mainland markets quickly.
This is all really interesting stuff, trevelyan, but I don't see how it buttresses Friedman's argument that the Hong Kong bullet train is a metaphor for the decline of the west, or challenges my argument that the bullet train is a just an anecdote with very little explanatory power.
Asserting that Hong Kong is a city on par with New York or London is going against years of perception to the opposite, mostly driven by the higher wages for the financial class in Western financial centers. That said, unless someone speaks mandarin these days, they are not likely to find the sorts of opportunities that previously existed in Hong Kong. One of the great things about the island is that it's always been a working city, and it is reorienting to mainland markets quickly.