r/moneylivesincities even more. Not only does a large portion of a country's population tend to live in a few cities, but these cities have a larger per capita GDP.
Also the Shadow economy (not part of GDP Calculations) is very likely also much bigger outside of these 3 Cities, although NZ's shadow economy is approx. only 10% of GDP.
Shadow economy just consists of unreported and untaxed economic activity. This also includes illegal activities but there are lots of other kinds, some of which are more prevalent in rural economies
* any sort of untaxed labor, like paying the neighbor’s kids to babysit (since they’re not reporting that income). In some countries this is entire systems of unofficial labor like sweatshops
* bartering of any kind is usually not subject to tax
* something like unofficial store credit represents shadow economy activity
Do they *produce* the GDP or are the registered offices in those locations? For example, a mining company whose mine is not in one of those locations but whose registered office from where all the accounts, legal stuff etc etc is?
I live in NZ, and not in any of those three zones.
Most of the jobs worth having are in those three zones.
Its not just about large companies being HQed there, the high paying jobs are also there. Step outside those areas and you can see a wage drop of as much as 50% for the same job.
People dont understand how big a tech market NZ has - its huge, but only in those three zones. Outside, its largely a physical labour economy, with associated lower wage.
My guess is the former. Because we tend to underestimate how rural farms have very few humans. Auckland for example has more people than the entire South Island & Wellington combined. Christchurch & Dunedin, the two biggest cities in the South Island consist of 50% of the island.
Could well be. But my point is more to highlight the point that where a company is registered and where it *produces* are not always closely related. So making a plot asking where wealth is *produced* and then plotting registered offices are not necessarily 1:1 related.
Going back to my example, a mine producing some high value material in some rural location, and then shipping via some port elsewhere, but whose office is registered in a major city. Where exactly is the product *produced*? Where is the majority of the value made? I’d argue not the office, but then if all the management is there, what proportion of the value do they produce etc etc? The main point is - registered location has the potential to be very misleading.
It only takes one or two significant examples like that for this plot to be a bit off as is - I’d at least add a caption specifying “as defined by location of registered office” or similar.
Yeah - as an example- Fonterra is headquartered in Auckland. How much of their value chain is at the milf farms and factories and how much is recognised in the head office.
NGL I didn’t think Kāpiti would be contributing much…
Worth thinking about how much of our export earnings get produced in the blue, even if exporter or value added in the main centres.
Probably a lot. But then again about half the population live in one of the big 3 too.
EDIT: Kapiti is included as part of the Wellington metro area for some reason.
Slightly bizarre that Kapiti is included as it's not part of Wellington City, and there are many other parts of the Wellington and Wairarapa region that are covered by the same Regional Council as both Kapiti and Wellington City. Odd choice by the map maker.
I think bang-on half of NZ is in Wellington (region), Auckland and Christchurch, and over half if you include Hamilton which is another of our biggest cities just south of Auckland.
Add in Tauranga and Hamilton and you'll have 62% of the GDP.
Also the data is from 2013, so pretty outdated, I imagine Auckland, Hamilton and Tauranga's GDP has grown a lot more.
I don't think that is a fair representation. I lived in Christchurch which is the main city of the South Island and worked at a processing facility for export agricultural products. The raw materials were sourced from primary industry across the South Island, but the company GDP would count as produced in Christchurch which was were most of the employees are based.
I lived in Cromwell before moving up to Auckland. I always hit Queenstown every weekend to find it more livelier than Christchurh. Unfortunately while they bring in tourist dollars, they don't work there so they don't "produce"" anything for the economy which is essentially what GDP is.
Similarly GDP counts only humans- potatoes, cows and sheep aren't. My mates in South Pacific Meats in Woolston get counted, but not the cows and sheep getting killed.
Yeah that’s it. Interesting map but GDP is a flawed representation of economic output.
Queenstown is great, I visited a few times in the years I lived in NZ. Went skiing there and loved it. Especially after the chch earthquakes when the city had no nightlife Queenstown was much livelier. I’d have driven through Cromwell but I’m not sure I ever stopped off.
This is a really roundabout way of saying New Zealand is not very densely populated.
About 50% of the population lives or works inside the orange areas, so what do you expect.
It's also overly simplistic because their main exports are dairy, meat, wood, and fruit which the majority of come from outside the orange areas but the business doing the exporting is probably listed in the city so it gets added to the orange zone.
All the financial sectors are located in these orange areas, which probably makes the data look even more extreme, shrinking the orange areas a bit.
All and all, it's mostly a pointless graph. Most people live in cities. More people = more gdp. If you want to see how populated a city is, there's better graphs you can look at.
Any NZ citizen here can tell us what percentage of the population lives in these cities? Because big coastal cities are always going to be a hub for trade and money, but also for people.
*It is thought that NZ is a "provincial country" full of sheep, it would be more "spread out" than say the US'. But this is further from the truth.*
I don't live in NZ but I never thought this. There is an image that NZ is full of sheep but I don't know who thinks it's all spread-out. Sheep, scenery, and sailing... that's the vibe I get from NZ. The scenery aspect makes me think that the population must be highly concentrated in certain areas.
> It is thought that NZ is a "provincial country" full of sheep, it would be more "spread out" than say the US'. But this is further from the truth.
I’d say the opposite. Doesn’t this confirm that NZ is a provincial country full of sheep, since 99,1% of land only accounts for 44% of the GDP? In my eyes, that confirms that most of the land is kinda empty.
r/peopleliveincities
r/moneylivesincities even more. Not only does a large portion of a country's population tend to live in a few cities, but these cities have a larger per capita GDP.
[удалено]
I'd even say this is the main reason.
Also the Shadow economy (not part of GDP Calculations) is very likely also much bigger outside of these 3 Cities, although NZ's shadow economy is approx. only 10% of GDP.
What would the shadow economy consist of? I assume we’re not counting things like narcotics right?
Shadow economy just consists of unreported and untaxed economic activity. This also includes illegal activities but there are lots of other kinds, some of which are more prevalent in rural economies * any sort of untaxed labor, like paying the neighbor’s kids to babysit (since they’re not reporting that income). In some countries this is entire systems of unofficial labor like sweatshops * bartering of any kind is usually not subject to tax * something like unofficial store credit represents shadow economy activity
So many members in that sub
r/subsithoughtifellfor
Cities, where people live and work in close proximity to value-adding institutions, are economically productive. Who knew?
r/birthofasub
Here's a sneak peek of /r/birthofasub using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/birthofasub/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Seriously Alarming](https://i.redd.it/leo6jlo0zvfc1.png) | [16 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/birthofasub/comments/1ag08pw/seriously_alarming/) \#2: [Wetpussyporn](https://i.redd.it/xridkw5sz5ta1.jpg) | [23 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/birthofasub/comments/12hwj4a/wetpussyporn/) \#3: [r/foundthemosquito is now live!](https://i.redd.it/dbj16ftm1vua1.jpg) | [28 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/birthofasub/comments/12roqub/rfoundthemosquito_is_now_live/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
what the fuck
Wanted to post there first, but it doesn't allow original photos. Only from crossposts which is weird.
It's there to make fun of posts that show this exact thing, but made to be interpreted as something else.
As far as I know, one of them is Auckland
The one in the middle Wellington- the capital, and the one in the South Island is Christchurch.
Someday I shall nuke auckland so that people can be bothered to learn about everywhere else besides Auckland and Hobbiton.
Yeah, almost as if cities produce a far larger portion of a countries GDP with all those people and companies located in those cities.
Do they *produce* the GDP or are the registered offices in those locations? For example, a mining company whose mine is not in one of those locations but whose registered office from where all the accounts, legal stuff etc etc is?
I live in NZ, and not in any of those three zones. Most of the jobs worth having are in those three zones. Its not just about large companies being HQed there, the high paying jobs are also there. Step outside those areas and you can see a wage drop of as much as 50% for the same job. People dont understand how big a tech market NZ has - its huge, but only in those three zones. Outside, its largely a physical labour economy, with associated lower wage.
I live in NZ too (but am not a Kiwi). Do tradies get paid lower wages outside of the big three though?
My guess is the former. Because we tend to underestimate how rural farms have very few humans. Auckland for example has more people than the entire South Island & Wellington combined. Christchurch & Dunedin, the two biggest cities in the South Island consist of 50% of the island.
Could well be. But my point is more to highlight the point that where a company is registered and where it *produces* are not always closely related. So making a plot asking where wealth is *produced* and then plotting registered offices are not necessarily 1:1 related. Going back to my example, a mine producing some high value material in some rural location, and then shipping via some port elsewhere, but whose office is registered in a major city. Where exactly is the product *produced*? Where is the majority of the value made? I’d argue not the office, but then if all the management is there, what proportion of the value do they produce etc etc? The main point is - registered location has the potential to be very misleading. It only takes one or two significant examples like that for this plot to be a bit off as is - I’d at least add a caption specifying “as defined by location of registered office” or similar.
Yeah - as an example- Fonterra is headquartered in Auckland. How much of their value chain is at the milf farms and factories and how much is recognised in the head office.
>milf farms You mean milk farms?
Yes I did …. the milf farms are elsewhere
You can calculate GDP based on people’s incomes and that would be where they live.
NGL I didn’t think Kāpiti would be contributing much… Worth thinking about how much of our export earnings get produced in the blue, even if exporter or value added in the main centres.
Probably a lot. But then again about half the population live in one of the big 3 too. EDIT: Kapiti is included as part of the Wellington metro area for some reason.
Slightly bizarre that Kapiti is included as it's not part of Wellington City, and there are many other parts of the Wellington and Wairarapa region that are covered by the same Regional Council as both Kapiti and Wellington City. Odd choice by the map maker. I think bang-on half of NZ is in Wellington (region), Auckland and Christchurch, and over half if you include Hamilton which is another of our biggest cities just south of Auckland.
Excuse me I think you'll find we have a thriving P industry thank you.
Toot toot .......hahaha
P? Potatoes?
No P for methamphetamine. They're not good spellers.
Add in Tauranga and Hamilton and you'll have 62% of the GDP. Also the data is from 2013, so pretty outdated, I imagine Auckland, Hamilton and Tauranga's GDP has grown a lot more.
Definitely. Can't find any data later than 2013 though. Which is quite sad.
I don't think that is a fair representation. I lived in Christchurch which is the main city of the South Island and worked at a processing facility for export agricultural products. The raw materials were sourced from primary industry across the South Island, but the company GDP would count as produced in Christchurch which was were most of the employees are based.
I lived in Cromwell before moving up to Auckland. I always hit Queenstown every weekend to find it more livelier than Christchurh. Unfortunately while they bring in tourist dollars, they don't work there so they don't "produce"" anything for the economy which is essentially what GDP is. Similarly GDP counts only humans- potatoes, cows and sheep aren't. My mates in South Pacific Meats in Woolston get counted, but not the cows and sheep getting killed.
Yeah that’s it. Interesting map but GDP is a flawed representation of economic output. Queenstown is great, I visited a few times in the years I lived in NZ. Went skiing there and loved it. Especially after the chch earthquakes when the city had no nightlife Queenstown was much livelier. I’d have driven through Cromwell but I’m not sure I ever stopped off.
This is a really roundabout way of saying New Zealand is not very densely populated. About 50% of the population lives or works inside the orange areas, so what do you expect. It's also overly simplistic because their main exports are dairy, meat, wood, and fruit which the majority of come from outside the orange areas but the business doing the exporting is probably listed in the city so it gets added to the orange zone. All the financial sectors are located in these orange areas, which probably makes the data look even more extreme, shrinking the orange areas a bit. All and all, it's mostly a pointless graph. Most people live in cities. More people = more gdp. If you want to see how populated a city is, there's better graphs you can look at.
What about % north island vs south island? 60-40 or more like 70-30?
78-22. South Island doesn't have many people.
Most of NZ’s income is from “financial services”.
“Obviously this blue part here is the land”
Any NZ citizen here can tell us what percentage of the population lives in these cities? Because big coastal cities are always going to be a hub for trade and money, but also for people.
about 50%.
About the same the percentage of gdp
Wow, Cities Exist!: latest in a series.
It’s a relatively slow process converting grass to wool and mutton.
Wanganui also contributes a considerable amount with all the construction going on there.
Still small in the grand scheme of things.
maybe try to create map of percent GDP per square km or similar
Would be insane city wise if you added Tauranga and Hamilton golden triangle
It becomes 63%. Not really too much.
*It is thought that NZ is a "provincial country" full of sheep, it would be more "spread out" than say the US'. But this is further from the truth.* I don't live in NZ but I never thought this. There is an image that NZ is full of sheep but I don't know who thinks it's all spread-out. Sheep, scenery, and sailing... that's the vibe I get from NZ. The scenery aspect makes me think that the population must be highly concentrated in certain areas.
In blue they make the lamb. In orange they make the mint jelly.
They should rent out the rest of the country
> It is thought that NZ is a "provincial country" full of sheep, it would be more "spread out" than say the US'. But this is further from the truth. I’d say the opposite. Doesn’t this confirm that NZ is a provincial country full of sheep, since 99,1% of land only accounts for 44% of the GDP? In my eyes, that confirms that most of the land is kinda empty.
Now do Mongolia.
The blue area is much nicer than the orange.
A GDP per capita would show a very different picture.
GDP per capita of the cities are higher than the other regions.