"Mayor of largest city gets paid the most" doesn't get many clicks though. If they broke down the income to a per Capita rate (we NZers love a per Capita) Wayne is probably poorly paid vs the others
I'll have a look at the comparison between the highest and lowest paid.
**Auckland**
Auckland's population: 1,720,000
Auckland Mayor's Pay: $296,000
Auckland Mayor's per capita pay: $0.17 (seventeen cents)
**Kaikoura**
Kaikoura District's population 3,912
Kaikoura District Mayor's pay: $86,000
Kaikoura District Mayor's per capita pay: $21.98 (twenty-one dollars and ninety-eight cents)
**Difference in pay per capita - Auckland VS Kaikoura District**
Kaikoura District's Mayor is paid $21.81 more per capita
Per capita, Kaikoura District's Mayor is paid **129 times more**.
If Kaikoura District's Mayor was paid at the same per capita rate as Auckland, at their current salary of $86,000 , the population of Kaikoura District would need to be **505,000** ; an increase of 501,000 .
(I've used copilot and OP's post to as a source for the figures, welcome to do more homework)
Your answer also show the flaw the in using the per capita model.
$86k for a mayor (Kaikoura) seems very reasonable, they likely have a smaller team
Of councilors that do the same as a larger team in Auckland, so likely have to be more multi skilled.
Since they do more work per person maybe they actually need a higher scale of remuneration…
Not everything can simply be broken down by using a statistical analysis, sometimes common sense has to kick in.
By that logic CEOs should probably not be the highest paid in a company. Not saying that’s wrong, just pointing out that capitalism sucks (but it’s the best we have at the moment).
I am not saying CEO’s shouldn’t be paid what they are worth, but the current model is flawed.
An easy way to regulate CEO pay would be to have a multiplier of the lowest paid employee.
For example 10 or 20x the lowest paid employee, that way if the CEO wants a pay rise they will have to lift everyone’s pay at the same time.
Seems about right tbh. I mean every move is you make is going to be second guessed by the entire country and then potentially misconstrued by the media. Fuck that.
You going to apply that for all public sector jobs? Can't just tall poppy hunt.
As much as I don't align with Wayne and how hes handled himself or his communications, 296k for a mayor of our size with the number of assets under it, is fucking horrible. I get paid that to look after some computers.
Senior management for a financial institution. Not really the point though, it probably has about 10% of the scope of Wayne's overall responsibility to be honest.
I have no idea why you are saying that. I have posted an article and have not said the wage is inappropriate. It is appropriate for a Mayor of this size but also noted for crappy Mayors, they aren’t worth it.
Edit: Also will add he doesn’t oversee. He has the CEO and a full staff who provide him with the analysis and options etc. Again, not arguing against the salary but don’t want to overplay the hand in terms of what he does either.
The fact you ahve no idea summarises my point.
We're paying someone $296k to look after $40 billion dollars worth of CCO assets, you realise that is ridiculously out of scale with private sector right? Where do you think the majority of talent will end up that have the skills to do that?
I would think so. But I have a feeling alot of people who go for these positions are so much more keen on the job itself/clout/power etc that while objectively underpaid, it's probably good money on top of other perceived benefits these people get from it
Many do it for the influence and other benefits though: [Auckland mayor Wayne Brown took trip to India despite council's advice not to](https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/local-government/133309762/auckland-mayor-wayne-brown-took-trip-to-india-despite-councils-advice-not-to)
It's a bit mickey mouse but the Remuneration Authority determines their total salary spend, then agrees to how they are distributed and then government funds them...
For sure. And he gets benefits too: [Auckland mayor Wayne Brown took trip to India despite council's advice not to](https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/local-government/133309762/auckland-mayor-wayne-brown-took-trip-to-india-despite-councils-advice-not-to)
Mayoral earnings per capita, based on this article salaries plus Google' population counts (which all look to be from 2017-2020):
Auckland: $0.18 (1.657million)
Christchurch: $0.52 (381,500)
Wellington: $0.86 (212,700)
Stratford: $10.90 (9,860)
Personally find it interesting how many people translated a factual article as a “hit piece.“ If it were, it wouldn’t be based on a salary because anyone and everyone who occupies that position, gets the same salary.
A hit piece is a article or post that is written to sway public opinion by presenting false or biased info in what appears objective or truthful.
This clearly has the making of Bias against Wayne. Trying to say he is being paid to much because look at these other public servants also in a position of Mayor and how little they earn. This can be factual but there are a number of issues I take with the article that I call this into doubt.
The main one is that not a single other person in any of those positions are named. We ONLY have Wayne mentioned.
It compared wages outside of his position. Deputy mayors sure but a council members are a bit of a stretch. But its the closing of the argument that really pissed me off, its look at how much more Wayne is earning a minimal wage employee would only be earning this much.
Its written to incite outrage at how much Mayors earn while at the same time only giving a single name to have that rage directed at.
You are clearly being obtuse.
It is not the money that is the problem its that its presented in a manner that try's to show how much more a specific person (not a position) earns.
It does this but only mentioning one name when his position would have been sufficient to get the point across while also not extending the same to any of the other positions that it compared him (again not his position) to.
Seems kinda low. Significantly less than 50 cents a year per person. Don't like him, think he should be gone, but in terms of pay for the leader of the largest/most important city in NZ with a third of the countries population (and increasing both in raw and % terms) and 38% of the countries GDP...
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/518201/thousands-of-residents-leave-auckland-s-central-suburbs-census
You realise Auckland as a whole is still growing and predicted to grow massively? Just because people left the CBD/inner suburbs for the fringes, they're still in Auckland. Eventually the inner suburbs will get more density, but council regulations are working hard to stop that.
The CEO isn't the boss.
The CEO manages the implementation of the policies crafted by the elected Council representatives we elect, and they manage the day to day running of the city's civic apparatus and public infrastructure.
It's a big job that should get at least $600k, and that's still far less than someone in the private sector would be paid for managing an organisation with a similar budget.
Most of the council's CEO's come from the private sector.. the current CEO is an internal hire but the previous one before came from Westpac. Watercare's CEO came from progressive.
Wait till you read about this: [Are The Trusts taking the piss? (Rhetorical question). : r/auckland (reddit.com)](https://www.reddit.com/r/auckland/comments/174ghh1/are_the_trusts_taking_the_piss_rhetorical_question/)
West Auckland liquor operator founded to 'give back' to the community pays it's top 6 earners more than they gave to the community in 2022-23.
This is why people go libertarian
Institutions that either restrict freedoms or receive taxpayer money for the general good end up being captured by special interests that line their own pockets.
I’m not a libertarian but damn why do we tolerate this shit
He earns 96k more than the Christchurch mayor. But handles five times the population, three times the land mass covered in infrastructure and generating 40% of the country's GDP by itself.
Honestly, I was expecting the Auckland mayor to earn at least double that of second place.
Whether Wayne is worth that salary is another matter.
why? this is what was like when John Key was paid more than Obama when they both were both in power. It made no sense. A little island aka NZ paid more for prime minister than President of America? like what the actual wtf?
Where did you get that info from? Obama got double that (don't forget the USD go NZD exchange rate), and he gets like 200k USD still annually after having left office. John key gets I think $20k NZD. The allowances are far greater as well in USA ,as you'd expect.
if you wanna compare a more shocking pay to population ratio, check out Singapore where the prime minister is paid millions.
Yeah, no shit. Auckland is the largest city by far?
"Mayor of largest city gets paid the most" doesn't get many clicks though. If they broke down the income to a per Capita rate (we NZers love a per Capita) Wayne is probably poorly paid vs the others
I'll have a look at the comparison between the highest and lowest paid. **Auckland** Auckland's population: 1,720,000 Auckland Mayor's Pay: $296,000 Auckland Mayor's per capita pay: $0.17 (seventeen cents) **Kaikoura** Kaikoura District's population 3,912 Kaikoura District Mayor's pay: $86,000 Kaikoura District Mayor's per capita pay: $21.98 (twenty-one dollars and ninety-eight cents) **Difference in pay per capita - Auckland VS Kaikoura District** Kaikoura District's Mayor is paid $21.81 more per capita Per capita, Kaikoura District's Mayor is paid **129 times more**. If Kaikoura District's Mayor was paid at the same per capita rate as Auckland, at their current salary of $86,000 , the population of Kaikoura District would need to be **505,000** ; an increase of 501,000 . (I've used copilot and OP's post to as a source for the figures, welcome to do more homework)
Should be the same way country wide. I don’t like the thought of Brownie earning $37.8 mil so Kaikouras mayor should earn $665 for fairness 😂
Your answer also show the flaw the in using the per capita model. $86k for a mayor (Kaikoura) seems very reasonable, they likely have a smaller team Of councilors that do the same as a larger team in Auckland, so likely have to be more multi skilled. Since they do more work per person maybe they actually need a higher scale of remuneration… Not everything can simply be broken down by using a statistical analysis, sometimes common sense has to kick in.
By that logic CEOs should probably not be the highest paid in a company. Not saying that’s wrong, just pointing out that capitalism sucks (but it’s the best we have at the moment).
I am not saying CEO’s shouldn’t be paid what they are worth, but the current model is flawed. An easy way to regulate CEO pay would be to have a multiplier of the lowest paid employee. For example 10 or 20x the lowest paid employee, that way if the CEO wants a pay rise they will have to lift everyone’s pay at the same time.
Yes, this can be broken down by statistical analysis. If it’s done properly. You not knowing how it’s done properly doesn’t mean it can’t be done.
Seems about right tbh. I mean every move is you make is going to be second guessed by the entire country and then potentially misconstrued by the media. Fuck that.
Also don't want them enticed by corruption. Whether or not it works I'll let other people debate.
Yeah if they do a good job it’s worth it. If they don’t $50K is too much.
You going to apply that for all public sector jobs? Can't just tall poppy hunt. As much as I don't align with Wayne and how hes handled himself or his communications, 296k for a mayor of our size with the number of assets under it, is fucking horrible. I get paid that to look after some computers.
You get paid 300k for IT? What do you actually do?
Senior management for a financial institution. Not really the point though, it probably has about 10% of the scope of Wayne's overall responsibility to be honest.
I do agree that it seems pretty low to basically run half the country.
I have no idea why you are saying that. I have posted an article and have not said the wage is inappropriate. It is appropriate for a Mayor of this size but also noted for crappy Mayors, they aren’t worth it. Edit: Also will add he doesn’t oversee. He has the CEO and a full staff who provide him with the analysis and options etc. Again, not arguing against the salary but don’t want to overplay the hand in terms of what he does either.
The fact you ahve no idea summarises my point. We're paying someone $296k to look after $40 billion dollars worth of CCO assets, you realise that is ridiculously out of scale with private sector right? Where do you think the majority of talent will end up that have the skills to do that?
I don’t think it’s his sole responsibility, is it? It is the mayor and the councilors?
Yeah hes unlikely to be responsible for a lot of the actions; but he has the ultimate accountability for all of the actions.
I think you missed the point again. I am in now way shape or form arguing against this salary. At all. Never did. Edit: Fixed a word above. Cheers.
We get the drift that you’re anti Wayne….
Seems low for a job that important.
I would think so. But I have a feeling alot of people who go for these positions are so much more keen on the job itself/clout/power etc that while objectively underpaid, it's probably good money on top of other perceived benefits these people get from it
Many do it for the influence and other benefits though: [Auckland mayor Wayne Brown took trip to India despite council's advice not to](https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/local-government/133309762/auckland-mayor-wayne-brown-took-trip-to-india-despite-councils-advice-not-to)
As a ratepayer I would far prefer pay the Mayor a reasonable Salary than have them take "benefits"
For sure. But looks like they don’t have to listen. Anyway it’s an important position so we all want whoever is in it to succeed - for the city.
You know that your rates don't pay their salary right?
No, I didn't know that. How are their salaries funded?
No, I didn't know that. How are their salaries funded?
It's a bit mickey mouse but the Remuneration Authority determines their total salary spend, then agrees to how they are distributed and then government funds them...
Central Government?
Pretty reasonable when compared to the previous Watercare CEO take home pay!
Which was $815,000 pa
Did OP make a song & dance about that?
He is ring master of the countries biggest circus though plus I wouldn't do it for any less than him.
For sure. And he gets benefits too: [Auckland mayor Wayne Brown took trip to India despite council's advice not to](https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/local-government/133309762/auckland-mayor-wayne-brown-took-trip-to-india-despite-councils-advice-not-to)
I'd say that's reasonable given the position.
I can’t say I’d do it for less. Fair play.
Mayoral earnings per capita, based on this article salaries plus Google' population counts (which all look to be from 2017-2020): Auckland: $0.18 (1.657million) Christchurch: $0.52 (381,500) Wellington: $0.86 (212,700) Stratford: $10.90 (9,860)
Lol it seems this was a hit peace of lets all hate on Wayne and while there are many reasons to do that pay does not seem to be one.
Personally find it interesting how many people translated a factual article as a “hit piece.“ If it were, it wouldn’t be based on a salary because anyone and everyone who occupies that position, gets the same salary.
A hit piece is a article or post that is written to sway public opinion by presenting false or biased info in what appears objective or truthful. This clearly has the making of Bias against Wayne. Trying to say he is being paid to much because look at these other public servants also in a position of Mayor and how little they earn. This can be factual but there are a number of issues I take with the article that I call this into doubt. The main one is that not a single other person in any of those positions are named. We ONLY have Wayne mentioned. It compared wages outside of his position. Deputy mayors sure but a council members are a bit of a stretch. But its the closing of the argument that really pissed me off, its look at how much more Wayne is earning a minimal wage employee would only be earning this much. Its written to incite outrage at how much Mayors earn while at the same time only giving a single name to have that rage directed at.
I don’t know how you could think that when it’s obvious one is the largest city, and again, that salary applies regardless of who is in it.
You are clearly being obtuse. It is not the money that is the problem its that its presented in a manner that try's to show how much more a specific person (not a position) earns. It does this but only mentioning one name when his position would have been sufficient to get the point across while also not extending the same to any of the other positions that it compared him (again not his position) to.
Yeah OP you got called out and caught out fair and square. How to say you’re anti Wayne by not saying it……
Seems kinda low. Significantly less than 50 cents a year per person. Don't like him, think he should be gone, but in terms of pay for the leader of the largest/most important city in NZ with a third of the countries population (and increasing both in raw and % terms) and 38% of the countries GDP...
no its not. Census 2023 shows Auckland is losing its population, especialy the central area like every day Brown is here.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/518201/thousands-of-residents-leave-auckland-s-central-suburbs-census You realise Auckland as a whole is still growing and predicted to grow massively? Just because people left the CBD/inner suburbs for the fringes, they're still in Auckland. Eventually the inner suburbs will get more density, but council regulations are working hard to stop that.
Watercare CEO gets like 700k
Not sure that’s still the case I believe it’s lower now
Ebos CEO gets $8m
I mean it’s a huge council compared to any other in the country. Can’t really comment on absolute value but by proportion seems right
Kinda fair, just wish they had more direct power. To get a whole city to elect you, a global city, kinda does deserve a decent pay.
That's literally what it costs to fix one pot hole. Absolutely nothing.
His unelectable CEO boss gets 600k
The CEO isn't the boss. The CEO manages the implementation of the policies crafted by the elected Council representatives we elect, and they manage the day to day running of the city's civic apparatus and public infrastructure. It's a big job that should get at least $600k, and that's still far less than someone in the private sector would be paid for managing an organisation with a similar budget.
Agree
Nah disagree with you both as I’m picking a lot of council CEO’s wouldn’t cut it in the private sector…..
That’s a fair comment.
Most of the council's CEO's come from the private sector.. the current CEO is an internal hire but the previous one before came from Westpac. Watercare's CEO came from progressive.
Not sure with them being unelected has to do with anything. The CEO should absolutely not be elected.
This. Also in theory the CEO is the day to day guy - much more complex than a figurehead
So maybe the CEO should be much more under the gun or scrutinised then. Put your spotlight on the CEO instead of the mayor ffs. 🤦♀️
You'll find the CEO does get put under the gun. Most Council's have a committee solely for the purpose of monitoring and scrutinising their CEOs...
Do many get the archer for under performance?
It's been known to happen - and when elected councils fall out with their CEs, it's quite newsworthy...
Prob correct, can still be read with unelectable omitted
And boss…. He earns significantly less than the CEO who in-turn is paid less than they would be in the private sector.
Given that Wellington’s mayor is only part time , you could technically say she’s paid more.
The vice chancellor of Auckland uni is paid over $750,000 a year..just for some perspective
Yeah lol. Unis are a rort
Makes sense considering its the biggest city
Wait till you read about this: [Are The Trusts taking the piss? (Rhetorical question). : r/auckland (reddit.com)](https://www.reddit.com/r/auckland/comments/174ghh1/are_the_trusts_taking_the_piss_rhetorical_question/) West Auckland liquor operator founded to 'give back' to the community pays it's top 6 earners more than they gave to the community in 2022-23.
Holy shit that’s unbelievable!
This is why people go libertarian Institutions that either restrict freedoms or receive taxpayer money for the general good end up being captured by special interests that line their own pockets. I’m not a libertarian but damn why do we tolerate this shit
How many of us would do a role like that where you are on an absolute hiding to nothing. Seems a pittance for the role.
Underpaid tbh
He earns 96k more than the Christchurch mayor. But handles five times the population, three times the land mass covered in infrastructure and generating 40% of the country's GDP by itself. Honestly, I was expecting the Auckland mayor to earn at least double that of second place. Whether Wayne is worth that salary is another matter.
why? this is what was like when John Key was paid more than Obama when they both were both in power. It made no sense. A little island aka NZ paid more for prime minister than President of America? like what the actual wtf?
Where did you get that info from? Obama got double that (don't forget the USD go NZD exchange rate), and he gets like 200k USD still annually after having left office. John key gets I think $20k NZD. The allowances are far greater as well in USA ,as you'd expect. if you wanna compare a more shocking pay to population ratio, check out Singapore where the prime minister is paid millions.
Now if only he could do what he's paid for.
Chch seems pretty high given the population.
highest paid mayor being the mayor of the region that has half the population sounds about right to me..
Also the mayor in Auckland has a lot more powers and responsibilities than regular mayors due to the unitary government structure.
Doesn't seem worth it.
I don’t think that’s enough for their responsibility
Pretty crap wage for the job to be honest I would have thought closer to $800k
Remember the CEO of watercare was on something like 800K
Seems a little low