Cities, Districts and states of India by GDP

[Indiadreams]

Originally Posted by UDHL

I didn't say Delhi doesn't have government jobs...running a country of 1.2 billion people requires a lot of government based positions.
And yes, Mumbai is falling behind...too many sources have pointed out this fact. Now you can keep arguing that all of 'em are wrong and only the government data is right (that only govt can collect the data for gdp output), thats fine...but what bothers me is that if all of 'em are using govt data then how are they quoting statistics that are different from that of govt? Could you please provide your sources for Mumbai gdp data?

Dont want to get into this again. But yes, thanks for understanding that the ultimate source for all of this is Govt data (If you dont, good for you, and I remember you saying you are an economist)

Go through last 15 pages of Indian Economy thread to understand the glaring discrepancies of the data of those agencies. It is upto you to believe what you want to.

And ofcourse Mumbai cant do anything to increase its GDP contribution from Govt jobs and consumption. Afterall, it is just a commercial and financial capital and it still holds as many top companies as it held during 1990s.

[engineer.akash]

Originally Posted by Indiadreams

Go through last 15 pages of Indian Economy thread to understand the glaring discrepancies of the data of those agencies. It is upto you to believe what you want to.

+1

[UDHL]

Originally Posted by Indiadreams

Dont want to get into this again. But yes, thanks for understanding that the ultimate source for all of this is Govt data (If you dont, good for you, and I remember you saying you are an economist)

Go through last 15 pages of Indian Economy thread to understand the glaring discrepancies of the data of those agencies. It is upto you to believe what you want to.

And ofcourse Mumbai cant do anything to increase its GDP contribution from Govt jobs and consumption. Afterall, it is just a commercial and financial capital and it still holds as many top companies as it held during 1990s.

I don't need to go through all that if you could simply provide me a link to a govt source for mumbai gdp output.
Thanks in advance.

[Indiadreams]

Here you go:

The pdf files have district wise GDP and NDP at both constant price (2004-05) and current price.

http://mahades.maharashtra.gov.in/fi...010-11_eng.pdf

http://mahades.maharashtra.gov.in/fi...011-12_eng.pdf

Thanks to Suncity and AdamIndia for the link in thr discussion in Indian Economy thread

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showth...=#post91082983

There are lot of discussions (and extracted relevant statistics) on this in that thread. Hope we dont reinvent the wheel here.

[Cosmicbliss]

Originally Posted by Indiadreams

Dont want to get into this again. But yes, thanks for understanding that the ultimate source for all of this is Govt data (If you dont, good for you, and I remember you saying you are an economist)

Go through last 15 pages of Indian Economy thread to understand the glaring discrepancies of the data of those agencies. It is upto you to believe what you want to.

And ofcourse Mumbai cant do anything to increase its GDP contribution from Govt jobs and consumption. Afterall, it is just a commercial and financial capital and it still holds as many top companies as it held during 1990s.

Some guys just want to believe Mumbai is falling behind. I'll believe Mumbai is falling behind only and only when people in Mumbai start moving out the city for jobs elsewhere and migration to the city falls substantially. Also, this decline aspect which is discussed in media and elsewhere is based on superficial impressions often. How clean, green or well maintained a city is has little to do with its economic vibrancy. You can have a clean city which is economically DEAD or you can have a slum filled city which is very vibrant, choice is-do you look at where people migrate to or how well-maintained a city is?

[karkal]

By the above measure, even slavery can be justified.

If having more than 50% of its population who contribute greatly to the city's GDP and its vibrancy have to live in in-human slum conditions is insulting to the people and the city of Mumbai.

[Indiadreams]

Yes slums are an eyesore. But inhuman?

Do you even know their living conditions? The text book definitions don't mean that they are worse off than their counterparts in other cities. They generally are far wealthier than many of us here could imagine. And that explains their resistance to move out of those slums.

Due to space shortage in Mumbai, everyone lives in smaller space than their counterparts in other cities including millionaires and billionaire. Since, Maharashtra defines slums as a group of 25 houses with common toilet facilities and a non-concrete roof, all the chawls get into tha category of slums. Most of thse people have far better lifestyle than 90% of people in rural areas and lower middle class/poor in other urban areas of India. A concrete roof and individual toilets (actually means one toilet for less than 25 or 60 households as defined by the state) don't make lifestyle better, when the sanitary conditions are very poor with open drainage and inadequate water/electricity supply in all the urban areas in India where poor and lower middle class reside.


But yes, Mumbai needs to get rid of the slums and it is slowly happening. See the number of slum rehabilitation projects currently underway in island city.

[afako]

Originally Posted by karkal

By the above measure, even slavery can be justified.

If having more than 50% of its population who contribute greatly to the city's GDP and its vibrancy have to live in in-human slum conditions is insulting to the people and the city of Mumbai.

It's Bombay Capitalism!

The below guy is Richer than Upper Middle Class of outside Mumbai.

Hafiz Mohammed* is a taxi driver.

his 10-by-10 feet shanty

he is within touching distance of Rs1 crore.

It is money a builder will eventually pay Mohammed and each of scores of hutment owners to obtain their land for development.

“He has offered us Rs90 lakh each. But we are waiting for the sum to reach a crore,” Mohammed says smugly.

Eighteen months ago, the builder offered Rs45 lakh per hutment, of which there were 486. More than half the hutment owners accepted the amount and moved out. But to persuade the ones who did not, the builder kept increasing the amount till it touched Rs80 lakh. Still, 60 hutment owners remained, for whom he has jacked up the sum by Rs10 lakh. Going by the trend, Rs1 crore might be some months away.

http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/repor...omplex_1421172

Bombay is Top 10 in Terms of Global Cash Flows. It is already in Trillions of Dollars and Increasing in Double Digits every year.

It will Break into Top 5 very easily.

Everyone is Damm Well Off in Bombay!

[MeMumbaikar]

Originally Posted by karkal

By the above measure, even slavery can be justified.

If having more than 50% of its population who contribute greatly to the city's GDP and its vibrancy have to live in in-human slum conditions is insulting to the people and the city of Mumbai.

Its a geographic issue. As mumbai is an island it cannot expand.

Secondly, the shanties of mumbai have better connections to water electricity and quality of build than most places in other cities. Its the classification that matters. Chennai's house is mumbai's slum. I have to be honest, I recent did visit parts of Haryana in the NCR. These houses would be classified as slums in mumbai. They were not pukka houses with no access to water. The villages in question were near faridabad. The definition of a shanty in mumbai is some place which is settled on illegally and not a mutli story building. Does not mean the quality of construction etc is not good.

If you use the mumbai classification some 70-80% of rural india lives in slums based on construction quality because if this was the case in Haryana, one of the richest states in the union I shudder to think what the situation in in other parts of the country.

[Indiadreams]

Some images form this article

http://www.mumbaimirror.com/printart...7e213&subsite=

Mumbai's five star slums

Outside


Inside




Outside


Inside

[Indiadreams]

Outside



Inside





Outside



Inside

[karkal]

Dharavi is not the only slum that Mumbai has and not all slums are 5 star with all facilities.

It is not just money (or) an eye sore problem,for me it also looks like an attitude problem of the people living in it and for the others who think it is acceptable.

[Indiadreams]

So you agree it is not inhuman , but their preferred lifestyle /attitude. Btw, it is very common to see TV and dish in most of the slums and various other amenities. And unlike the people in other cities, they have 24-hour power and water to enjoy those amenities

And ofcouse, a normal Mumbaikar wants to see those slums to be rehabilated

ps: the pics cover many areas not only Dharavi

[karkal]

The above article is nothing but glorification of slums and in a way succeeds in creating an illusion for a normal Mumbaikar that it is ok to have so many large slums.

[Indiadreams]

There is no need to create an illusion, because Mumbaikars see them everyday, from maids, drivers, office boys to casting agents and small time entrepreneurs, everyone lives in a place classified as slum. We know their lifestyle. I posted that article, because I don't want to give anecdotes.

Not every slum dweller is happy and gets all basic amenities; but what most of us say here is that the opposite is not true either. The slum statistics just gives an idea of space and housing shortage in the city, but not really lifestyle / amenities. It is very difficult to define a slum based on lifestyle /amenities.

[Indiadreams]

A Govt study on the characteristics of slums and poor households of selected 8 cities, as defined in the census. The study clearly says how slums is just a relative phenomenon within a city and need not be correlated to poverty or poor social indicators. There lot of interesting statistics on social indicators of slum and poor household. Expectedly, Mumbai's slums (and even poor) have better living conditions and social indicators like infant mortality rate, vaccination, social awareness on diseases etc compared to other cities

Imporatnt Ones:
Households classifed as slums (as on 2005-06)

Mumbai -56%
Delhi - 20%
Kolkata -33%
Chennai -18%
Hyderabad -18%
Meerut -43%
Indore-20%
Nagpur -34%

Households classified as poor (not necessarily from slums, can be outside slums too)

Mumbai -8%
Delhi -14%
Kolkata-14%
Chennai-17%
Hyderabad-13%
Meerut-16%
Indore -12%
Nagpur -21%
Total Urban India-25%

The study says that though slums are higher in these cities, their living conditions and wealth are far better than the non slum areas of other urban areas.

http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/OD58/OD58.pdf

[Cygnus-X1]

Originally Posted by Indiadreams

Expectedly, Mumbai's slums (and even poor) have better living conditions and social indicators like infant mortality rate, vaccination, social awareness on diseases etc compared to other cities

The study says that though slums are higher in these cities, their living conditions and wealth are far better than the non slum areas of other urban areas.

This is also my observation & seems correct - though Mumbai has some 60% living in slums, slum dwellers there are integrated with the city's economy in many ways, including some entrepreneurs. Compared to say slums in Kolkata or Chennai, Mumbai slums appear better off, economically. So, it's no wonder that social indicators are also better.

[Master of Disguise]

India dreams keep on defending.....!!!!

Slums will be slum may be 5 star or 7 star...

[Indiadreams]

A slum is a slum is a slum. It is an eyesore. None ever denied or defended it. Happy?

Next time, read the discussion completely, comprehend it and post your views.

[MeMumbaikar]

Originally Posted by Master of Disguise

India dreams keep on defending.....!!!!

Slums will be slum may be 5 star or 7 star...

and poverty is poverty.

so we can all agree that mumbai has more slums but Delhi has more poverty