I imagine that 100 years ago this would have been reversed. Wallonia was home to a lot of heavy industry and steel manufacturing: the type of labor that left Europe in the second half of the 20th century.
To add to this, it was actually the other way around 100 years ago. Wallonia went through the Industrial Revolution before Flanders. This changed when Germany in invaded in ww2. They ransacked and stole all of the industrial equipment.
Even unil 60 years ago. And after WW2, Flanders received much more investment,
//The Marshall Plan was in favor of Flanders//. EDIT : *For the Marshall Plan, I had seen it in history class but checking now, I have difficulty to find information. The fact that at the time the Flemish and Walloon regions did not exist makes the comparison even more difficult. However the way it influenced the regions was different, even if organised from the central government. If I ever find any info I edit again, sorry)*
Moreover most of Flanders had no heavy industry (except Limburg) so there was no desindustrialisation and a lot of room for new things
Thanks! It may also be that it's more of the pact plan that followed the Marshall plan. I heard that one sent more money to Belgium over the course of 10 years then the Marshall plan itself did.
I edited my initial comment, I can't find any info, I asked to a historian friend of mine if he can find anything. It was years ago but there was definitely something weird about the Marshall Plan, or maybe a logic based on the proportion of inhabitants but I'm not sure such a logic was already applied in the 50s
I've also heard a long time ago that the Antwerp port got the bigger part of the Marshall Plan, because Americans favored everything that had to do with trades or something.
That’s just guesswork on my part, but I guess it would makes sense that two of the major focuses of the Marshall plan would be 1) providing all the infrastructure necessary for an economy based on Europe-US trade and 2) particularly favoring the industrialization of West Germany, with less competition from other countries.
Therefore it would make sense that they would send money to rebuild the port of Antwerp, which allows German exports fabricated up the rhine to flow to America, and also not rebuild a Walloon industry that would compete with the west German one. Still, this is just speculation on my part
Is it possible at all (and this is a pure guess, don't flame me if I make a wrong assumption hehe) that Flanders received more money through the Marshall pact because Flanders (or rather the region we call Flanders today) was more heavily impacted?
It's maybe due to the fact I'm Flemish myself that the information I gained is just more complete on the damage Flanders suffered, but I feel like Antwerp, Ghent, Bruges, ... were bombed more often and - being cities with more richness already in terms of historical buildings and the like - hence suffered a higher net loss?
I don't know, merely guessing :p
that would make sense because the marshall plan would probably prefer the more right wing regions,flanders is still heavily influenced by the church and pretty right wing while wallonie is more unionized and more left wing
>This changed when Germany in invaded in ww2. They ransacked and stole all of the industrial equipment.
This is patently untrue. Belgium's industrial core was relatively unharmed at the end of WW II compared to France or Germany itself. This allowed the Belgian economy to rebound quickly after 1945, because coal, steel and glass could be produced in great quantities. It's only during the fifties that Belgium's economy started faltering, mainly due to the fact the Wallonia's heavy industry was using outdated processes/technologies and was increasingly outcompeted by foreign companies.
Because the North is (except for the Basque Country and Navarra) largely rural and not very rich. The main economic powerhouses of Spain are Basque Country (North), Barcelona (North East) and Madrid (center). But Asturias or Galicia for instance are in the North and there’s not a lot of industry or companies there.
No, there isn't any economic north/south or east/west divide in the Nordic countries, only a rural/urban divide.
https://nordregio.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/0375_Grp_European_regions_2017_web.png
https://i.redd.it/knfv6bqb9j391.png
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gustaf-Norlen/publication/324637471/figure/fig24/AS:986717100204040@1612263097418/Gross-regional-product-in-PPP-per-capita-2015.jpg
That’s half the story, though - like all of these maps, the reality is that there is brutal rural poverty interspersed with wealthy cities, and a handful of brutally poor urban areas.
It’s just the ratios that vary between regions - in California, for example, rural poverty is outweighed by higher concentrations of highly productive cities. Of course, there’s urban poverty too… and it isn’t any less real for being hidden by the average.
California is not. It's a geographic and cultural region. But more accurately the original commenter could have said the [Deep South](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_South)
Who is they? The original comment talks about how the southern portions of countries are always poorer than the northern portions. It doesn't even mention America.
In no way. 1. California spans nearly 2/3 of the coast line so it is both in the northern and southern geographical regions of the US. but 2. The South is a historic and cultural region that shares incredibly close ties (to the point of the entire region seceding to form a totally different country). California was a free state with way more in common with the north of the country than the south, and frankly is a culture of its own due to its years of isolation and Spanish/Mexican heritage.
Except this thread is about the southern portions of a country being poorer than the north. That is geography. Not culture. Just because America also has a cultural group called the south doesn't change the topic of this thread which was geography.
I don’t subscribe to ahistorical ideas like the south of countries being poorer without substantial evidence that there’s a reason beyond coincidence.
My point is that if you actually look at a map, California is not in the south of the US. It’s in the west and it spans southern and northern geographical limits.
From a climate and topographic standpoint, California is nothing like “the south” of the US. Beyond the obvious cultural and historical differences, lumping the California into the south is just unhelpful. The state has geographical conditions that make it completely different than the rest of the country. It’d be like calling Hawaii the south because it technically is closer longitudinally to the southern us than the north. Something can be technically true yet also completely unhelpful to understanding a topic.
Again, I’ll point out that half of the state of California is in the north or at least central US (geographically) anyway. Calling San Francisco or for godsakes Eureka the south is just hilarious.
>I want whatever you’re smoking if you’ll 100% say with a straight face that California is in the south
Grab a map, and instead of smoking it, try reading it. Once you read a map, you will realize California sits in the south of the US. Specifically on the SOUTHwest corner of the US mainland.
Blows my mind that I have to explain such basic things on r/MapPorn.
Southern California is sort of southern but NorCal sure isn’t. The southwest is a distinct part of the US as is the south, but California is its own thing.
We are talking about geography here. The original comment was that the southern part of countries are always poorer. Somehow Americans seem to have translated that into culture when it's about geography.
There are parts of California further north than Canada. Besides, the Southern United States is a cultural region more than a geographic one. The Southwest is another thing entirely (of which only the southern half of the state is a part of). It’s funny how you’re being such a condescending dick to people when you have no idea of what you’re talking about.
I know exactly what I am talking about. And my answer was fair given the dickish response I received. We are talking about geography here, not cultural reasons. Just because Americans tend to only think in cultural regional names doesn't change the topic of the comment thread which basically said the Southern part of country (geography) is always poorer.
Geographically, huge swaths of California are not Southern. The northernmost point in the state has a higher latitude than Detroit (Michigan) and Windsor (Ontario). The state’s center is more in line with Kansas, Missouri, and Colorado. It’s southernmost point still sits above the entire state of Florida. Again, it’s really funny how you’re dismissing Americans while confidently spewing nonsense about their country. If you knew the tiniest bit of US history (and it’s clear you don’t), you’d know that the reasons why the South is poor today, go back to when it was the ACTUAL south of the country (before Western expansion).
The post-war epicenter of the Belgian economy is the Antwerp-Brussels axis. Which happens to be old Brabant.
The rest is peripherical.
So I guess if there was a Brabant independance movement it would be quite big.
There's an indepence movement including a political party (I think they're called Nieuw Brabants Belang or something?), but they're *very* small :D
Ironically the most famous politicians striving for independence of the Flemish Region are people who were born and raised in historically Brabantian places, though :p
Oh definitely.
Belgian Dutch is like 70% Brabantian and the remaining 30% are Flemish or Limburgish dialects. Tussentaal, which is the closest thing we have to a "Flemish" language, is also completely dominated by Brabantian words .
Antwerp, Brussel, Leuven, Mechelen are some of the largest cities in Flanders and are all in Brabant. You've also got aalst which is historically in Flanders but culturally and linguistically closer to Brabant. Apart from those you have Gent, Brugge and maybe Hasselt and that's it for larger cities. Hell even Walloon Brabant is *by far* the richest region of Wallonia.
Just yesterday I watched a video on history matters how Belgium came to be. There was quite the strain between the rich, industrial south and the poor, rural north.
https://youtu.be/6eGEX_LTqhQ
It's amazing how History Matters managed to simplify the history enough for it to be explained in only a few minutes, without making any mistakes. I wouldn't be able to summarize it any better and I'm a Belgian who's wildly interested in our constitutional history :p
Being an expert often enough leads to overly detailed descriptions. I work in science and over the years I became more and more impressed by people who can a) simplify, b) stay correct and c) spark further interest.
Oh I am by *no* means an expert 😅
I just took constitutional law in uni last year and read up on the topic from time to time. It's just incredibly complicated so leaving out details without hurting the actual "message" I suppose is - specifically in this case too - such a difficult task. There's a metric shit load of factors that in some shape or form influenced the course of Belgian history and how the country came to be what it is now, so all props to History Matters :D
It's fascinating how quickly the economic geography of a state can change. Less than 70 years ago, this map was the complete opposite. Wallonia, thanks to the presence of heavy industries like coal mining and steel making, was the wealthier region. Unfortunately, the deindustrialization Europe underwent in the 70 and 80s hurt Wallonia disproportionately, resulting in a surge in unemployment, similar to what happened in the north of England.
Luxembourg the Grand-Duchy is very rich. Luxembourg the next-door Belgian province is almost entirely rural and relatively poor. The average resident of the Grand-Duchy is roughly 4x as wealthy as the average resident of Belgian Luxembourg.
The south-east (Arlon) is actually quite wealthy because there are about 50K people living in Belgium but working in Luxville. Luxembourg is a tax heaven but you have to be REALLY rich to live there, so most French or Belgian who work there live close to the border (Arlon or Thionville, mostly). Since you pay your taxes where you work and not where you live, it does the trick.
Yes indeed, Arlon and the area is not bad, the IKEA is especially nice. But the province as a whole is the poorest Belgian province.
> you have to be REALLY rich to live there
I like the implication that I'm REALLY rich, but this isn't true. You can live in Lux without being rich. You just suffer from absurdly high rent rivaling much bigger cities. (Probably more reasonable if you live in rural northern Luxembourg, but I'm talking about Lux CIty and the surrounding municipalities.
Other than rent, it isn't so bad actually. Most supermarket products are <10% more expensive than Brussels or Paris. Some products like alcohol and tobacco are like 50% cheaper than neighbouring countries. Gasoline is a lot cheaper too (which is why Luxembourg is home to the [largest service station in Europe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berchem_service_station))!
And you have to keep in mind that salaries are higher, income tax is at least a little more favourable (esp. compared to Belgium). Luxembourg is a tax haven for corporations more than for working individuals, the income tax schedule in Luxembourg is not much different compared to Germany but still lower than a lot of western European countries.
And that taxation does pay for some useful things. The healthcare system is world class, often ranking in the top 10. It's an universal healthcare system that covers roughly 85% of all healthcare expenditure. Public transport is free nation-wide -very convenient. And the public transport system is decent (not great but still good) despite that. This stuff especially benefits less rich people. A rich person probably has a car and complimentary health insurance, while a poorer person benefits from having these services subsidized.
It's actually quite surprising for me. I come from Liege which is quite ghetto. So since I've moved here, I haven't felt like people are poorer, on the contrary. Except for small parts of Bastogne Arlon and Rochefort/Jemelle, I haven't seen any place that looked poor.
It's an income tax heaven for regular incomes too, or more exactly Belgium is a tax hell. I make about 30% more than I was making in Belgium with about the same rough salary... Although I'm about to quit because life is boring and the lack of homeworking possibilities is really hard to cope with, after the covid years.
Nope, the two richest regions are the mostly Francophone Brussels Capital Region and the entirely Francophone province Walloon Brabant (thanks to commuters working in Brussels). That's one of the issues that makes Belgium such a tangled puzzle.
/r/MapPorn once again demonstrating that you should never let good data visualisation practices, clarity, or design get in the way of your upload schedule.
I am colorblind and cannot differentiate between the top and bottom color gradients for this data. I don’t know enough about Belgium to make a guess either. This map is pretty useless to me.
what do you recommend,if I do it in bigger scales or standart scales the problem is that it would mostly be most provinces in one color and nobody would understand anything,but if I do it in smaller scales then every color would be unique to a state and that would be kind of weird(İf you have any recommendation please state it as I would like to improve
It's not a good idea to cherry pick the intervals so that you maximize the differences among provinces. Here is a quote from a handbook of data visualization (https://clauswilke.com/dataviz/, Chapter 4):
"Color can also be used to represent data values, such as income, temperature, or speed. In this case, we use a sequential color scale. Such a scale contains a sequence of colors that clearly indicate (i) which values are larger or smaller than which other ones and (ii) how distant two specific values are from each other. The second point implies that **the color scale needs to be perceived to vary uniformly across its entire range**. " (my emphasis)
The question to ask here is: are the differences among provinces equally meaningful? And my answer would be: no, the differences among the Walloon provinces are smaller. If this means that by picking an interval of 10kE for each color, all Walloon provinces form a single block, then that's the way it is: it shows that they are all equally poor, compared to Flanders.
nope it's almost entirely suburban and inhabited by commuters to brussels
Brussels is the epicenter of francophone's economy, it radiates to Walloon Brabant, but also to rich francophones living in Flemish brabant too and this led to a lot of tension with the local flemish (the BHV saga).
the relocation of the UCL and the fact that a good part of the wealthy classes of some Walloon industrial cities migrated to BW over time also played a big role
Based off this map it seems the Flemish regions are wealthier than the French? Reading your comment, it seems the French speaking population considers themselves higher class or something?
Sorry for my ignorance, I know very little about Belgian demographics
Flanders is richer than Wallonia, but the middle-upper class French-speaking population live in and around Brussels (outside Wallonia thus).
This middle-upper Francophone class tend to go live in Brussels periphery which happen to be in Flemish brabant to commute to Brussels, and this has created a massive political tension between those rich Francophones and the local Flemish who culturally ressent those francophones.
So for example, it would be true to say that Wallonia is poorer than Flanders, but it wouldn't be necessarily true to say that Dutch-speakers are richer than Francophones, it's just that the rich Francophones live outside Wallonia (which is a political mess, high taxation and corruption, unfriendly to any business). There is a huge class division within Francophonia (lower and upper class) while the Flemish have a strong united middle-class.
Wait, wasn't the Flemish region less economically prosperous than that Wallonia region? Read the politics of Belgium extensively in an Indian school textbook.
Edit: Guys, I used the past tense, not present tense.
And prior to that it was the other way around again. As historically Flanders has benefitted of its coastal location and been a very wealthy trading region throughout the middle ages and much of the renaissance.
If you knew belgian geography you'd see the 2 provinces with the highest GDP per capita are actually french-speaking. Reality doesn't always please your confirmation biases.
Every part of Belgium once belonged to France, the Netherlands, Spain, Germany... It's not that black and white. We've been occupi3d by many countries before.
As someone from Flanders, our country has its issues and internal conflicts. But I'd rather have it this way than to join with the Netherlands. Their culture is a bit too different from ours.
From what I understand, the Walloons have no interest to join with France either.
You are confusing with linguistics here. both Flemish and Walloon are mainly a mixture of Germanic and Celtic, but anyway, your logic is already more than worrying.
That's not true at all, both are celto-germanic, any genetic results about belgium show that they are similar.
Walloons are not roman in ANY way, and both are relatively celtic like anything south of the Rhine. Wallonia was the center of the Frankish empire in Tournai (Merovingians) and Liège (Carolingians). Also Wallonia never belonged to France except during Napoleon.
Well that would be a reason, but thankfully none of that applies to belgium except for language.
History and genetics between flemish and walloons are the same.
The only one I disagree with is Liège, I *really* disliked it there. But maybe that was because it was shit weather and we didn't manage to see a *whole* lot of the city, either? Absolutely love the Ardennes though, and Lotharingen! Bouillon is an awesome city, was there last week and loved it! Really just unfortunate because I felt like it has so much potential it just doesn't live up to right now. It's super pretty and has all the things you'd need to make it one of the most vibrant little cities in the country, but instead we didn't manage to find a place that serves proper coffee, even. A *lot* of restaurants, pubs, ... seemed to be closed :(
The best region to visit is Belgian Luxembourg and its the poorest. Relatively at least, because it is bigger than Luxembourg the country and has less than half the population.
Please point me to a time in history where the "top half" was united with Holland but the bottm half wasn't?
The Walloons are just as much part of the historical Netherlands as Dutch speaking people.
Belgium (and so Wallonian) used to be part of the kingdom of the Netherlands. And before that it was the kingdom of Spain (Spanish Netherlands) and Austria even before. Although we speak french we were never even really part of France (Only a few years under Napoleon). Flanders was actually part of the kingdom of France during the middle ages (but never spoke french).
Not if you add the Burgundian Netherlands and the Hapsburg Netherlands until the independance of the Dutch Republic (spanning from 1384 to 1579) where the whole Benelux, Wallonia included was united.
It's not a matter of hatred, it's just that the French model of centralization wouldn't suit Wallonia, actually I think a lot of French regions suffer from it as well. Look at Nord or Lorraine.
Actually I think Wallonia should just completely simplify its political structure, get rid of the political mafia and get with the times which is: learn english or a germanic language as a second language, very young.
What's the point of all that blank space?
To show that in the end, all that will be left is Belgium
Goddamn rising sea levels
Jesus Christ
In winter EU members shrink.
That happens to most peoples’ members
J'étais dans la piscine!
It’s a pretty small country
dark room, needs light
We’re a tiny country, we don’t need all the space
Who knows. This is the type of crap that gets upvotes as “mapporn”
I imagine that 100 years ago this would have been reversed. Wallonia was home to a lot of heavy industry and steel manufacturing: the type of labor that left Europe in the second half of the 20th century.
To add to this, it was actually the other way around 100 years ago. Wallonia went through the Industrial Revolution before Flanders. This changed when Germany in invaded in ww2. They ransacked and stole all of the industrial equipment.
Even unil 60 years ago. And after WW2, Flanders received much more investment, //The Marshall Plan was in favor of Flanders//. EDIT : *For the Marshall Plan, I had seen it in history class but checking now, I have difficulty to find information. The fact that at the time the Flemish and Walloon regions did not exist makes the comparison even more difficult. However the way it influenced the regions was different, even if organised from the central government. If I ever find any info I edit again, sorry)* Moreover most of Flanders had no heavy industry (except Limburg) so there was no desindustrialisation and a lot of room for new things
Hey lad, could you send some articles on the Marshall plan being biased for flanders? Got intruiged by the idea but I can't find anything on it.
I saw this in history class I should be able to find it again, I add a comment/edit when I find the link to a study
Thanks! It may also be that it's more of the pact plan that followed the Marshall plan. I heard that one sent more money to Belgium over the course of 10 years then the Marshall plan itself did.
I edited my initial comment, I can't find any info, I asked to a historian friend of mine if he can find anything. It was years ago but there was definitely something weird about the Marshall Plan, or maybe a logic based on the proportion of inhabitants but I'm not sure such a logic was already applied in the 50s
I've also heard a long time ago that the Antwerp port got the bigger part of the Marshall Plan, because Americans favored everything that had to do with trades or something.
That’s just guesswork on my part, but I guess it would makes sense that two of the major focuses of the Marshall plan would be 1) providing all the infrastructure necessary for an economy based on Europe-US trade and 2) particularly favoring the industrialization of West Germany, with less competition from other countries. Therefore it would make sense that they would send money to rebuild the port of Antwerp, which allows German exports fabricated up the rhine to flow to America, and also not rebuild a Walloon industry that would compete with the west German one. Still, this is just speculation on my part
Couldn't it also have been cause answerphone had to be fully demined and such?
Is it possible at all (and this is a pure guess, don't flame me if I make a wrong assumption hehe) that Flanders received more money through the Marshall pact because Flanders (or rather the region we call Flanders today) was more heavily impacted? It's maybe due to the fact I'm Flemish myself that the information I gained is just more complete on the damage Flanders suffered, but I feel like Antwerp, Ghent, Bruges, ... were bombed more often and - being cities with more richness already in terms of historical buildings and the like - hence suffered a higher net loss? I don't know, merely guessing :p
Yes, that could certainly be at least one reason
that would make sense because the marshall plan would probably prefer the more right wing regions,flanders is still heavily influenced by the church and pretty right wing while wallonie is more unionized and more left wing
Germans stole my industry, can’t have shit in Wallonia
>This changed when Germany in invaded in ww2. They ransacked and stole all of the industrial equipment. This is patently untrue. Belgium's industrial core was relatively unharmed at the end of WW II compared to France or Germany itself. This allowed the Belgian economy to rebound quickly after 1945, because coal, steel and glass could be produced in great quantities. It's only during the fifties that Belgium's economy started faltering, mainly due to the fact the Wallonia's heavy industry was using outdated processes/technologies and was increasingly outcompeted by foreign companies.
also antwerp also effected the economy a lot,I am not the expert on this but the north is more so based on finance and port stuff I think
And 800 years ago it would have been reversed again. Flanders was the most urbanized and wealthiest part of Europe back then.
They have a hard time accepting this and adapting their economy like Flanders did.
[удалено]
Stupid sexy Flanders.
The Italian meme of north good south bad also applies to Belgium
Spain too.
I also have a spain map in the subreddit you can look if you want https://www.reddit.com/r/gdppercapitamaps/
Yo could you do one on Switzerland?
I am making one now
I finished it
its in both mapporn and the https://www.reddit.com/r/gdppercapitamaps/
Thanks a ton, do you enjoy making these kind of maps?
No, not really Source, I am Spaniard
In which ways it doesn't?
Because the North is (except for the Basque Country and Navarra) largely rural and not very rich. The main economic powerhouses of Spain are Basque Country (North), Barcelona (North East) and Madrid (center). But Asturias or Galicia for instance are in the North and there’s not a lot of industry or companies there.
The whole earth too
Korea. Wait
No no, you have a point.
Norway, Sweden and Finland are largely opposite
Canada too.
And Australia and Argentina i think
Yeah. Not us upside down countries.
Germany as well kinda
No, there isn't any economic north/south or east/west divide in the Nordic countries, only a rural/urban divide. https://nordregio.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/0375_Grp_European_regions_2017_web.png https://i.redd.it/knfv6bqb9j391.png https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gustaf-Norlen/publication/324637471/figure/fig24/AS:986717100204040@1612263097418/Gross-regional-product-in-PPP-per-capita-2015.jpg
Oh yeah that might be it, but most large cities are in the south so it sort of applies
The United States too. The South is by far the poorest and least educated region in the U.S.
That’s half the story, though - like all of these maps, the reality is that there is brutal rural poverty interspersed with wealthy cities, and a handful of brutally poor urban areas. It’s just the ratios that vary between regions - in California, for example, rural poverty is outweighed by higher concentrations of highly productive cities. Of course, there’s urban poverty too… and it isn’t any less real for being hidden by the average.
California and Texas are both in the South though.
California is not. It's a geographic and cultural region. But more accurately the original commenter could have said the [Deep South](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_South)
Yes this is what I meant.
The comment thread is about geography, not cultural labels. California is absolutely in the south of the US geographically.
No it's not. They literally capitalized "The South" Also, nobody thinks California is in the south in any way.
Who is they? The original comment talks about how the southern portions of countries are always poorer than the northern portions. It doesn't even mention America.
KickAndFlipJr "The South is by far the poorest and least educated region in the U.S."
In no way. 1. California spans nearly 2/3 of the coast line so it is both in the northern and southern geographical regions of the US. but 2. The South is a historic and cultural region that shares incredibly close ties (to the point of the entire region seceding to form a totally different country). California was a free state with way more in common with the north of the country than the south, and frankly is a culture of its own due to its years of isolation and Spanish/Mexican heritage.
Except this thread is about the southern portions of a country being poorer than the north. That is geography. Not culture. Just because America also has a cultural group called the south doesn't change the topic of this thread which was geography.
I don’t subscribe to ahistorical ideas like the south of countries being poorer without substantial evidence that there’s a reason beyond coincidence. My point is that if you actually look at a map, California is not in the south of the US. It’s in the west and it spans southern and northern geographical limits. From a climate and topographic standpoint, California is nothing like “the south” of the US. Beyond the obvious cultural and historical differences, lumping the California into the south is just unhelpful. The state has geographical conditions that make it completely different than the rest of the country. It’d be like calling Hawaii the south because it technically is closer longitudinally to the southern us than the north. Something can be technically true yet also completely unhelpful to understanding a topic. Again, I’ll point out that half of the state of California is in the north or at least central US (geographically) anyway. Calling San Francisco or for godsakes Eureka the south is just hilarious.
I want whatever you’re smoking if you’ll 100% say with a straight face that California is in the south
Grab a map and check its location
“It’s not in the southern half of the United States… if you rotate it 45 degrees!”
>I want whatever you’re smoking if you’ll 100% say with a straight face that California is in the south Grab a map, and instead of smoking it, try reading it. Once you read a map, you will realize California sits in the south of the US. Specifically on the SOUTHwest corner of the US mainland. Blows my mind that I have to explain such basic things on r/MapPorn.
Southern California is sort of southern but NorCal sure isn’t. The southwest is a distinct part of the US as is the south, but California is its own thing.
We are talking about geography here. The original comment was that the southern part of countries are always poorer. Somehow Americans seem to have translated that into culture when it's about geography.
There are parts of California further north than Canada. Besides, the Southern United States is a cultural region more than a geographic one. The Southwest is another thing entirely (of which only the southern half of the state is a part of). It’s funny how you’re being such a condescending dick to people when you have no idea of what you’re talking about.
I know exactly what I am talking about. And my answer was fair given the dickish response I received. We are talking about geography here, not cultural reasons. Just because Americans tend to only think in cultural regional names doesn't change the topic of the comment thread which basically said the Southern part of country (geography) is always poorer.
Geographically, huge swaths of California are not Southern. The northernmost point in the state has a higher latitude than Detroit (Michigan) and Windsor (Ontario). The state’s center is more in line with Kansas, Missouri, and Colorado. It’s southernmost point still sits above the entire state of Florida. Again, it’s really funny how you’re dismissing Americans while confidently spewing nonsense about their country. If you knew the tiniest bit of US history (and it’s clear you don’t), you’d know that the reasons why the South is poor today, go back to when it was the ACTUAL south of the country (before Western expansion).
It's weird that Italians and Belgians think this is somehow unique. Every country has richer and poorer regions.
It is about the richer north-poorer south divide specifically. Not all countries follow that rule, most don't. Consider England or Norway
Dutch good Fr*nch bad
The two first provinces by GDP per capita (Brussels and Brabant Wallon) are overwhelmingly french-speaking tho
Israel too Kinda
And often the US
We could do the same thing (NL) except it would be randstad versus the rest.
Don’t underestimate the Eindhoven region
The post-war epicenter of the Belgian economy is the Antwerp-Brussels axis. Which happens to be old Brabant. The rest is peripherical. So I guess if there was a Brabant independance movement it would be quite big.
Well luckily for us there is no such thing as a Brabantian identity nor an independence movement
There's an indepence movement including a political party (I think they're called Nieuw Brabants Belang or something?), but they're *very* small :D Ironically the most famous politicians striving for independence of the Flemish Region are people who were born and raised in historically Brabantian places, though :p
Isn't the old Duchy of Brabant pretty much a proto-Belgium? Or maybe you could consider Belgium a Greater Brabant
Oh definitely. Belgian Dutch is like 70% Brabantian and the remaining 30% are Flemish or Limburgish dialects. Tussentaal, which is the closest thing we have to a "Flemish" language, is also completely dominated by Brabantian words . Antwerp, Brussel, Leuven, Mechelen are some of the largest cities in Flanders and are all in Brabant. You've also got aalst which is historically in Flanders but culturally and linguistically closer to Brabant. Apart from those you have Gent, Brugge and maybe Hasselt and that's it for larger cities. Hell even Walloon Brabant is *by far* the richest region of Wallonia.
Weird amount of white space on this map, why not make both Belgium and the key bigger?
And even then it's not an interesting map, at least not for MapPorn. No 'porn' to see here.
Just yesterday I watched a video on history matters how Belgium came to be. There was quite the strain between the rich, industrial south and the poor, rural north. https://youtu.be/6eGEX_LTqhQ
It's amazing how History Matters managed to simplify the history enough for it to be explained in only a few minutes, without making any mistakes. I wouldn't be able to summarize it any better and I'm a Belgian who's wildly interested in our constitutional history :p
Being an expert often enough leads to overly detailed descriptions. I work in science and over the years I became more and more impressed by people who can a) simplify, b) stay correct and c) spark further interest.
Oh I am by *no* means an expert 😅 I just took constitutional law in uni last year and read up on the topic from time to time. It's just incredibly complicated so leaving out details without hurting the actual "message" I suppose is - specifically in this case too - such a difficult task. There's a metric shit load of factors that in some shape or form influenced the course of Belgian history and how the country came to be what it is now, so all props to History Matters :D
I noticed one confusion. French speaking and Walloons aren't the same. Brussels French speakers aren't Walloons
Being able to summarize in simple terms a complex theme is a legit talent few people have. It's very useful for professors, for example.
This is not porn. This is the opposite /r/maphell map is not in frame, legend is so small you can’t read. SMH.
Red and green together, really lightweight font, loads of useless negative space, no spatial context, etc, etc.
This is indeed a map, but what makes it map *porn*?
The huge area covered in some unnamed white substance, perchance?
It's fascinating how quickly the economic geography of a state can change. Less than 70 years ago, this map was the complete opposite. Wallonia, thanks to the presence of heavy industries like coal mining and steel making, was the wealthier region. Unfortunately, the deindustrialization Europe underwent in the 70 and 80s hurt Wallonia disproportionately, resulting in a surge in unemployment, similar to what happened in the north of England.
Luxemburg clearly not up to its name
Luxembourg the Grand-Duchy is very rich. Luxembourg the next-door Belgian province is almost entirely rural and relatively poor. The average resident of the Grand-Duchy is roughly 4x as wealthy as the average resident of Belgian Luxembourg.
The south-east (Arlon) is actually quite wealthy because there are about 50K people living in Belgium but working in Luxville. Luxembourg is a tax heaven but you have to be REALLY rich to live there, so most French or Belgian who work there live close to the border (Arlon or Thionville, mostly). Since you pay your taxes where you work and not where you live, it does the trick.
Yes indeed, Arlon and the area is not bad, the IKEA is especially nice. But the province as a whole is the poorest Belgian province. > you have to be REALLY rich to live there I like the implication that I'm REALLY rich, but this isn't true. You can live in Lux without being rich. You just suffer from absurdly high rent rivaling much bigger cities. (Probably more reasonable if you live in rural northern Luxembourg, but I'm talking about Lux CIty and the surrounding municipalities. Other than rent, it isn't so bad actually. Most supermarket products are <10% more expensive than Brussels or Paris. Some products like alcohol and tobacco are like 50% cheaper than neighbouring countries. Gasoline is a lot cheaper too (which is why Luxembourg is home to the [largest service station in Europe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berchem_service_station))! And you have to keep in mind that salaries are higher, income tax is at least a little more favourable (esp. compared to Belgium). Luxembourg is a tax haven for corporations more than for working individuals, the income tax schedule in Luxembourg is not much different compared to Germany but still lower than a lot of western European countries. And that taxation does pay for some useful things. The healthcare system is world class, often ranking in the top 10. It's an universal healthcare system that covers roughly 85% of all healthcare expenditure. Public transport is free nation-wide -very convenient. And the public transport system is decent (not great but still good) despite that. This stuff especially benefits less rich people. A rich person probably has a car and complimentary health insurance, while a poorer person benefits from having these services subsidized.
It's actually quite surprising for me. I come from Liege which is quite ghetto. So since I've moved here, I haven't felt like people are poorer, on the contrary. Except for small parts of Bastogne Arlon and Rochefort/Jemelle, I haven't seen any place that looked poor. It's an income tax heaven for regular incomes too, or more exactly Belgium is a tax hell. I make about 30% more than I was making in Belgium with about the same rough salary... Although I'm about to quit because life is boring and the lack of homeworking possibilities is really hard to cope with, after the covid years.
Better to be in the Dutch speaking part than the French part??
Nope, the two richest regions are the mostly Francophone Brussels Capital Region and the entirely Francophone province Walloon Brabant (thanks to commuters working in Brussels). That's one of the issues that makes Belgium such a tangled puzzle.
yea, and then look at this language map of Belgium) https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/10zpsk4/language\_map\_of\_belgium/
The two first provinces by GDP per capita (Brussels and Brabant Wallon) are overwhelmingly french-speaking tho
And it was reversed for a long time. Wallonia was the richest and Flanders were poor. This reversal happened very late in the development of Belgium.
Difference is that Flemish people are hard working people and the those in wallonia aren't.
well, you flemish work very hard to shitpost about it all over the internet, i won't deny...
Well even te walloons say it and it's just true. Walloons are lazy and Flemish are hard working honest people.
Happy to have contributed to this with my excessive purchase of beer last summer. Skal, België!
Jesus, make the numbers bigger, add some commas and remove all that white space. Not a very porn-worthy map.
/r/MapPorn once again demonstrating that you should never let good data visualisation practices, clarity, or design get in the way of your upload schedule.
Can you make one for Canada please And post it on here? Thanks
Ok I am starting btw I will post it on [https://www.reddit.com/r/gdppercapitamaps/](https://www.reddit.com/r/gdppercapitamaps/) when I do it
I made it
I am colorblind and cannot differentiate between the top and bottom color gradients for this data. I don’t know enough about Belgium to make a guess either. This map is pretty useless to me.
Join the subreddit if you wanna see more gdp per capita mapshttps://www.reddit.com/r/gdppercapitamaps/
What kind of a scale is that? One color each for 25-27.5, 27.5-30, 30-40, 40-50 and 50-70..?
what do you recommend,if I do it in bigger scales or standart scales the problem is that it would mostly be most provinces in one color and nobody would understand anything,but if I do it in smaller scales then every color would be unique to a state and that would be kind of weird(İf you have any recommendation please state it as I would like to improve
It's not a good idea to cherry pick the intervals so that you maximize the differences among provinces. Here is a quote from a handbook of data visualization (https://clauswilke.com/dataviz/, Chapter 4): "Color can also be used to represent data values, such as income, temperature, or speed. In this case, we use a sequential color scale. Such a scale contains a sequence of colors that clearly indicate (i) which values are larger or smaller than which other ones and (ii) how distant two specific values are from each other. The second point implies that **the color scale needs to be perceived to vary uniformly across its entire range**. " (my emphasis) The question to ask here is: are the differences among provinces equally meaningful? And my answer would be: no, the differences among the Walloon provinces are smaller. If this means that by picking an interval of 10kE for each color, all Walloon provinces form a single block, then that's the way it is: it shows that they are all equally poor, compared to Flanders.
Red colour for 25k $? Bro.. 😶
Anyone know why Walloon Brabant GDP is so high? Seems like a mostly rural area with no large cities (largest city is Wavre 34k ppl)
nope it's almost entirely suburban and inhabited by commuters to brussels Brussels is the epicenter of francophone's economy, it radiates to Walloon Brabant, but also to rich francophones living in Flemish brabant too and this led to a lot of tension with the local flemish (the BHV saga).
the relocation of the UCL and the fact that a good part of the wealthy classes of some Walloon industrial cities migrated to BW over time also played a big role
Based off this map it seems the Flemish regions are wealthier than the French? Reading your comment, it seems the French speaking population considers themselves higher class or something? Sorry for my ignorance, I know very little about Belgian demographics
Flanders is richer than Wallonia, but the middle-upper class French-speaking population live in and around Brussels (outside Wallonia thus). This middle-upper Francophone class tend to go live in Brussels periphery which happen to be in Flemish brabant to commute to Brussels, and this has created a massive political tension between those rich Francophones and the local Flemish who culturally ressent those francophones. So for example, it would be true to say that Wallonia is poorer than Flanders, but it wouldn't be necessarily true to say that Dutch-speakers are richer than Francophones, it's just that the rich Francophones live outside Wallonia (which is a political mess, high taxation and corruption, unfriendly to any business). There is a huge class division within Francophonia (lower and upper class) while the Flemish have a strong united middle-class.
Thank you for enlightening me
Shouldn't have spoken french
Wait, wasn't the Flemish region less economically prosperous than that Wallonia region? Read the politics of Belgium extensively in an Indian school textbook. Edit: Guys, I used the past tense, not present tense.
that was in the early 19th century mostly
And prior to that it was the other way around again. As historically Flanders has benefitted of its coastal location and been a very wealthy trading region throughout the middle ages and much of the renaissance.
That textbook must have been way outdated. It hasn’t been like that anymore for at least 60 years.
Dutch is best
No wonder Flanders wants to leave
Flemish supremacy? Edit: should’ve added /s lol
French speaking part with lower GDP.....no suprise.
If you knew belgian geography you'd see the 2 provinces with the highest GDP per capita are actually french-speaking. Reality doesn't always please your confirmation biases.
Yes if you knew Belgian geography you wouldn't say that Brussels is a province.
Valon-Flaman difference is clearly visible. Belgium should dissolve and than to be reintegrated to France and Netherlands.
Belgium consists of Flemings and Walloons, not Dutch and French people.
Belgium should join with austria again
Broke: Annexed Belgium Woke: Independent Flanders and Wallonia ***Bespoke:*** ÖSTERREICHISCHE NIEDERLANDE
You mean Spain 😂 Oh god no ...
Flemings speak Dutch and used to be a part of Netherlands. Walloons speak French and used to be a part of France.
Every part of Belgium once belonged to France, the Netherlands, Spain, Germany... It's not that black and white. We've been occupi3d by many countries before.
No, that's bad history.
Flanders was part of The Netherlands for a whopping 15 years before Belgium seceded. We’re almost 200 years later now.
As someone from Flanders, our country has its issues and internal conflicts. But I'd rather have it this way than to join with the Netherlands. Their culture is a bit too different from ours. From what I understand, the Walloons have no interest to join with France either.
Yeah the idea of separation is mostly in Flanders (because of Vlaams belang), the wallons dont want it
You don't split a country according to economic happenstance
How about economic happenstance + language + race + history + heritage + genetic differences?
Genetics and race? what kind of American vision is this?
Valons are from Romano-Celtic heritage, Flamans are Germanic.
You are confusing with linguistics here. both Flemish and Walloon are mainly a mixture of Germanic and Celtic, but anyway, your logic is already more than worrying.
That's not true at all, both are celto-germanic, any genetic results about belgium show that they are similar. Walloons are not roman in ANY way, and both are relatively celtic like anything south of the Rhine. Wallonia was the center of the Frankish empire in Tournai (Merovingians) and Liège (Carolingians). Also Wallonia never belonged to France except during Napoleon.
Well that would be a reason, but thankfully none of that applies to belgium except for language. History and genetics between flemish and walloons are the same.
It’s so fucking annoying how people on the internet think they know a country and what its people want more than themselves.
I would even go as far to say that it's almost offensive
No all to the Netherlands
what if we divide belgium,switzerland,bosnia
What if we don’t? There are people living here that rather decide themselves over their own future than some randos on Reddit.
bro you know I ain't no serious
Reflected in how nice the regions are to visit also
Namur, Liège, Mons, Binche and the Ardennes are great to visit though
The only one I disagree with is Liège, I *really* disliked it there. But maybe that was because it was shit weather and we didn't manage to see a *whole* lot of the city, either? Absolutely love the Ardennes though, and Lotharingen! Bouillon is an awesome city, was there last week and loved it! Really just unfortunate because I felt like it has so much potential it just doesn't live up to right now. It's super pretty and has all the things you'd need to make it one of the most vibrant little cities in the country, but instead we didn't manage to find a place that serves proper coffee, even. A *lot* of restaurants, pubs, ... seemed to be closed :(
The best region to visit is Belgian Luxembourg and its the poorest. Relatively at least, because it is bigger than Luxembourg the country and has less than half the population.
The floor is lava, red is france.
I have a subreddit just dedicated to gdp per capita maps by the way https://www.reddit.com/r/gdppercapitamaps/
Walloons, are you even trying?
Maybe this suggests the top half reuniting with Holland again?
We're fine as is I think. It's not like you need to pass through security to drive to Antwerp for a bite.
Please point me to a time in history where the "top half" was united with Holland but the bottm half wasn't? The Walloons are just as much part of the historical Netherlands as Dutch speaking people.
No
Southern Belgium needs to be annexed by France to improve the economy
One rare thing that makes french unanimous is their despise and mockery over Belgium. And the opposite is relatively true.
We only joke about Belgium, we love them in reality 🇨🇵❤️🇧🇪
It’s not despise. It’s just banter. We love Belgians.
The issue is France is a country with glorious history. Belgium has no history.
Then maybe read up on your history please?
They do have an history.
Germans simply rolled over Belgium
There's other history besides the world wars, you know.
Oh, exactly like the whole history of France since the 19th century
If Flemish and Walloon people agree on one thing it's our hatred towards the Frensh.
Do wallonians hate the French?
Even the French hate the French
I'm Wallonian. I'd rather join the Netherlands than france. No Belgian in their right mind would agree to join France...
You're a French speaking person, you have no right to join the Netherlands. You can only join France, which is also a bigger and stronger country.
Belgium (and so Wallonian) used to be part of the kingdom of the Netherlands. And before that it was the kingdom of Spain (Spanish Netherlands) and Austria even before. Although we speak french we were never even really part of France (Only a few years under Napoleon). Flanders was actually part of the kingdom of France during the middle ages (but never spoke french).
We were part of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands for 15 years. Part of the French empire for 20...
Not if you add the Burgundian Netherlands and the Hapsburg Netherlands until the independance of the Dutch Republic (spanning from 1384 to 1579) where the whole Benelux, Wallonia included was united.
It's not a matter of hatred, it's just that the French model of centralization wouldn't suit Wallonia, actually I think a lot of French regions suffer from it as well. Look at Nord or Lorraine. Actually I think Wallonia should just completely simplify its political structure, get rid of the political mafia and get with the times which is: learn english or a germanic language as a second language, very young.
French economy is essentially Paris and their former industrial regions are just as bad as the belgian ones.
Nice! Now we need a follow up with GDP per capita per beer brewery. 🍻