SkyscraperCity banner

2581 - 2600 of 2805 Posts

·
All over the place
Joined
·
761 Posts
Hmmmmm......
Instead of increasing by 1 person every 5 to 6 minutes, it has now gone up to 1 person every 10 minutes :nuts:

Population clock
4,964,807

as at Thursday, 23 May 2019 at 10:19:59 a.m.
New Zealand's population is estimated to increase by one person every 10 minutes and 13 seconds.

This is based on the estimated resident population at 31 March 2019 and the following forecasts:

one birth every 8 minutes and 47 seconds
one death every 15 minutes and 43 seconds
a net migration gain of one New Zealand resident every 20 minutes and 57 seconds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,638 Posts
^^going from one every 5 to 6 minutes to one every 10 minutes & 13 seconds would be a reduction rather than an increase.

Any way both are too much our infrastructure can not keep up and GDP is spread over a greater number of people , making us poorer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,947 Posts
Yes, GDP per capita (GDP spread over the number of people in the country) has grown from 21,913.71 USD in 2003 to 40,530.716 USD in 2017.
Using USD is not the best measure to examine GDP/cap over time as it gets pushed around by the Exchange rate ( its useful for comparing between countries, although PPP is better,)

Stats NZ produce GDP stats per capita in NZD, This shows a rise from

~40K per person in 2000 to ~50K per person in 2018....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
594 Posts
New Zealand now has almost 5 million people and Australia has just over 25 million, so the combined population of Australasia is now 30 million. This seems to have been missed by the media.

On another topic, I tried to make a combined list of Australasian cities using Significant Urban Areas (SUA), which are urban areas and their surrounding fringe, similar to a metropolitan area, but couldn't find any similar stats for NZ. Does anyone know if they exist and what they are called? I don't mean Greater Cities, which in Oz are regions, almost provinces.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,638 Posts
Using USD is not the best measure to examine GDP/cap over time as it gets pushed around by the Exchange rate ( its useful for comparing between countries, although PPP is better,)

Stats NZ produce GDP stats per capita in NZD, This shows a rise from

~40K per person in 2000 to ~50K per person in 2018....
Going by your figures GDP went up 25 % and the population went up 33% since 2003, therefore GDP is not keeping up with population growth in percentage terms and as a result we are getting poorer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Going by your figures GDP went up 25 % and the population went up 33% since 2003, therefore GDP is not keeping up with population growth in percentage terms and as a result we are getting poorer.
No. Those figures are the GDP - PER CAPITA!

The overall GDP has risen more than the population since 2003:bash::baeh3:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,263 Posts
So if the population growth rate has dropped by nearly half as stated previously one person every 5 mins to one person every 10 mins. At this much slower rate of growth we might not reach 5 million till next year now. That is a significant change happening in NZ less births more deaths maybe and less immigration on top perhaps.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,484 Posts
GDP Per Capita is not a particularly good indication of the typical wealth and well-being of population at large... even when adjusting for Purchasing Power Parity.

Qatar is a good example of this where the GDP Per Capita even when adjusting for Purchase Price Parity makes it one of the wealthiest countries... But the median household income (per capita) of that country is much much lower because most of the wealth tied up in the GDP goes to very few people.

Median Household Income is a better raw measure, and then you can adjust that for PPP, and then you take the per capita amount (ie: Median Household Income PPP divided by the Average Household Size). Other methods involve various other ideas such as using Average Income Per Capita, but removing the skew factor due to the huge wealth of the elite few in the country by excluding those over the 90th percentile, and under the 10th percentile...

Personally, overall well-being of the people of a country is far better measured by things like HDI and GINI Co-efficient... Both of these mean different things, but there is a reasonably good correlation between them. Even so, there is a really good article about it here which while not authoritative, is none the less interesting anyway.
https://reykjavikstreet.wordpress.com/2013/06/19/gini-coefficient-vs-human-development-index/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,484 Posts
Sorry, this is a long post, but it's something I find interesting...

Been looking at the population of New Zealand's second and third largest Urban & Metro areas, Wellington and Christchurch to see how those cities are growing and comparing.

I find it quite remarkabe how these two urban areas seem to be tracking so close to each other in population for pretty much most of the last 50 or more years... even more so when considering that both cities are very different economically with Wellington having a predominant government/white collar economy, while Christchurch having a large blue collar economy.

Even so, Wellington Urban has typically been slightly more populous of the two cities, with Christchurch Urban only edging ahead of Wellington for the first time in recent history in 2007 before losing ground to them again in 2011 after the Canterbury earthquakes. On the Metro Area metric however, Wellington was still trumps as the closest Christchurch got was in 2010 which sat about 8000 short only to slip further behind in the following few years.

So how are the two cities faring now?

My analysis investigates the two cities using TWO sets of comparisons... Urban Area, and Metro Area... and is based on the Estimated Residential Population statistics that are published by Stats NZ for 30th June each year.

For Urban Area, I compare Christchurch (which includes Kaiapoi) and Wellington (which includes Wellington, Porirua, Lower & Upper Hutt).

For Metro Area, in addition to the above, I include Kapiti Coast (in Wellington), and Rolleston, Lincoln, Woodend and Rangiora (in Christchurch)

I know this isn't scientific and some might argue including Wairarapa towns into Wellingtons metro area, and the Christchurch metro area doesn't include large swathes of lifestyle sprawl in between the towns listed above either. But my aim was to include any urban area recognised by Stats NZ whose population has a heavy reliance on employment/commuting to the primary urban centre... In this case, I'd argue that for say Rangiora, a very large proportion of population commutes to Christchurch, but the same isn't true for those in Masterton which a comparatively small number commute to Wellington.

On the urban area front, in 2018, Christchurch sat at 404,600, while Wellington sat at 418,500. It seems that Christchurch is still to reclaim its second place that it lost in 2011.

But if we look at growth rates of both urban areas, in the 20 years 1996-2016, Wellingtons growth annually averaged 3000 people, while Christchurch's in the same period was alightly lower at 2755.

But as we know, in the years 1996-2010 (prior to the quakes), Christchurch was actually growing faster than Wellington which is why it overtook that city in 2007... In that period, Wellingtons growth was only 2821pa, while Christchurch was 3957pa...

However, the last 3-5 years tell a different picture...

Firstly both urban areas are seeing strong growth... Wellington growing at 6767pa average over the last 3 years, and Christchurch at 7600. A similar ratio occurs when measuring the average over the last 5 years too.

How does that project into the future?

Based on the above average growth over 3 years continuing, then Christchurch won't overtake Wellington until the year 2035!... Yep, we're still a long way from that, and the urban area populations of both places will sit about 533,000 apiece.

Now Metro areas...

This is where things do get more interesting...

In 2018, Wellington's metro area stood at 461200, while Christchurch was at 448420.

The growth rates of both metro areas averaged over the last 3 years are Wellington growing at 7233 people, while Christchurch is growing at a more aggressive 10000... This indeed is the evidence that much of the expected "depopulation" that many expected simply didn't materialise with a good percentage of the people who migrated away from the Chch urban area simply moved to surrounding satellite areas such as Rangiora and Rolleston etc.

At these growth rates, Christchurch will once again catch up to Wellington in 2023 when both metro areas will sit at about 498000... and the following year, in 2024, both metro areas will hit the 500k mark.

What will be interesting however is whether the growth of the metro areas will continue at this slightly aggressive rate compared to the overall rate seen over the last 20 years.. I personally think it will continue, largely driven by continued strong immigration into NZ, and many existing people being pushed out of Auckland due to housing costs.

What is also interesting is that it can be assumed that some of Christchurch's strong growth may be due to the rebuild, however the rebuild has largely peaked already, yet the rate of population increase in the Chch metro area is still accelerating with 2018 the highest single year of growth ever with 10300 people.

So in summary, it does appear that Christchurch will once again take the crown of the second largest urban or metro area in NZ, but on the urban area metric which is what the official stats go by, it's going to take the best part of 2 decades to get there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,638 Posts
What i find concerning is our population increase over recent years.

3 March 2013 4,242,048.
5 May 2019 4,964,807

increase in just over 6 years of 722,759 well in excess of ChristChurch or Wellington's Metro or Urban populations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
237 Posts
Yes, no wonder we are having problems with schools, hospitals and especially housing. Where does our governments, both coalition and national think they are going to be housed?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
237 Posts
7.2 persons for every new house. Can't see that working, probably need another 100,000 houses on top of that....and then we'll probably bring in another 600,000 people in the next 10 years, as immigration is still running at 60,000 per year so we'll need another 200,000 houses. Hospitals, schools, roads etc. Try telling me that this population growth is good for New Zealand.
 
2581 - 2600 of 2805 Posts
Top