Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why isn’t New Zealand richer and more productive?

marginalrevolution.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 169 posts

Re: Why isn’t New Zealand richer and more productive?

#81

Post by josai »

monochr wrote: post #38
cylinder wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Xero is a NZ startup success story but they have moved their main offices to Australia and the US. Tiny population and geographic and time-zone isolation are big obstacles for anyone trying to do things on a global scale.

As someone in Australia our decrepit internet makes it impossible to do anything resembling a startup. I can't imagine New Zealand would be so bad that they need to move here.

While as a fellow Australia I bemoan the woeful state of our internet, I don't think it makes it "impossible" to start a startup, in fact I know many startups in Sydney and elsewhere. It makes it more difficult, yes, and limits your options, but it's not impossible.

I can think of several reasons to move to AU from NZ as a startup; a greater talent pool and larger investment community for starters. It's by no means a slam dunk, but they're valid reasons.

Re: Why isn’t New Zealand richer and more productive?

#82

Post by pcrh »

ronaldx wrote: post #71
pcrh wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I went to the real source [1], which provides this data: http://i.imgur.com/d46JG8Q.png , and plotted it. The R(square) value for the fit it 0.2. The Pearson r is 0.44 with a p-value of 0.02 i.e. potentially useful. Taking out Greece, Portugal and USA changes the R(square) to 0.002, the Pearson r to 0.05 with a p-value of 0.8, i.e without the outliers there is no correlation between the values. So, indeed, the outlie…

>However, one is not permitted to cherry-pick data, so the "outliers" have to be left in. I respect why you think this, but I don't agree. Identifying points on the graph which don't fit with the pattern of the rest of the data is a reasonable way to identify outliers. Even if you choose not to exclude those, there's a greater problem: Correlation is not robust if it depends on 2 or 3 points being in just the right p…

I agree that the statistics on this association are pretty lousy, even with the outliers in. However, one would preferably find an specific reason to exclude outliers, rather than rely on intuition.

Re: Why isn’t New Zealand richer and more productive?

#83

Post by TallGuyShort »

Goosey wrote: post #28
TallGuyShort wrote: post #13

It's refreshing to click on a headline in the form of a question and have the article explain why it's the right question to be asking, and not just following Betteridge's Law. I lived in New Zealand for about 5 or 6 years, and I saw huge numbers of people just living on welfare because they could - that's probably got a lot to do with low GDP. Normally, I would see that as a bad thing, but I think New Zealand's rela…

I had not heard of Betteridge's Law, so I had to look it up [0]. Given I only just became aware of it due to your comment (thank you, by the way: good comment) it feels strange to be pedantic about it, but the question in the headline is not a yes/no question and therefore seems immune to Betteridge's Law. :) [0] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines

Right - Betteridge's Law does not apply very well. My point was more that an article that presents an open question is interesting food for thought - as opposed to articles devoid of substance that seek to answer everything in their headline. Now that you know the term, look in the comments every time you see a '?' on the front page, and you'll see the law mentioned. It is not a claim to be smart, as the peer claims, it is an indication that I spend too much time on HN.

Re: Why isn’t New Zealand richer and more productive?

#84

Post by cowsandmilk »

ThomPete wrote: post #31
TallGuyShort wrote: post #13

It's refreshing to click on a headline in the form of a question and have the article explain why it's the right question to be asking, and not just following Betteridge's Law. I lived in New Zealand for about 5 or 6 years, and I saw huge numbers of people just living on welfare because they could - that's probably got a lot to do with low GDP. Normally, I would see that as a bad thing, but I think New Zealand's rela…

Reminds me of the nordic countries. Edit: Huh? Why the down vote?

Because you are so off-base

The point of the post is that NZL has 20% below OECD average GDP per capita, when it would be predicted for them to be 20% above.

The key figure is Figure 3 from http://www.productivity.govt.nz/sites/default/files/internat...

In that, you can see NZL at the far bottom right.

On the other hand, Norway, Sweden, and Finland are all above the line, meaning they have higher GDP per capita than predicted. The only nordic country below the line is Denmark, and they are barely below the line.

So, you are saying that the nordic countries are similar, but the very paper this blog post is based on shows they are not at all economically similar.

Re: Why isn’t New Zealand richer and more productive?

#85

Post by TallGuyShort »

atmosx wrote: post #22
TallGuyShort wrote: post #13

It's refreshing to click on a headline in the form of a question and have the article explain why it's the right question to be asking, and not just following Betteridge's Law. I lived in New Zealand for about 5 or 6 years, and I saw huge numbers of people just living on welfare because they could - that's probably got a lot to do with low GDP. Normally, I would see that as a bad thing, but I think New Zealand's rela…

So what you're saying basically is that although the avg income is low, the quality of life is generally (way?) higher than the OECD?

Right. I used to criticize New Zealand a lot because it doesn't jive with my mind's ideas of how government should work, until a friend pointed out how much New Zealand was #1 in many areas that are considered signs of an ideal society. Makes me question my ideas :)

Re: Why isn’t New Zealand richer and more productive?

#86

Post by hyperbovine »

bronson wrote: post #72
thesimpsons1022 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the other person is wrong, the poor are definitely hated in america. they are villianized as lazy welfare queens. remember the 47 percent thing with Romney? turn on fox news for 10 minutes, John Stossel even villianizes the homeless. they also try to get rid of school lunches/food assistance for the poor.

Fox News does not represent America.

Not all of it, but not none of it either.

Re: Why isn’t New Zealand richer and more productive?

#87

Post by FragleRock »

Varcht wrote: post #48
cryoshon wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also the related phenomenon that in the US, the rich are in the spotlight of society and the poor are decidedly disliked.

I would disagree that "poor are decidedly disliked" here as a rule. There are plenty of "poor" that are accepted, liked and even esteemed. Think of the starving artists, musicians, olympic athletes, working class poor, the startup set, etc. There is dislike for the poor that resort to crime, thuggery, drugs etc. At least this is how I see it from my middle class perspective.

Nonsense. Starving artists and athletes like who? The esteemed poor? like the people who get lambasted for buying red bull with food stamps? Americans idolize thugs who make money (biggie smalls, chris brown, dick cheney)

I think your perspective may be out of focus.

Re: Why isn’t New Zealand richer and more productive?

#88

Post by TrainedMonkey »

ScottBurson wrote: post #75
JPKab wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good friend of mine studied abroad in Australia, and then met and moved in with a Kiwi and then lived in New Zealand with him for a while. He has now moved to the US with her. Her brother is a good friend of mine, and is incredibly irritated with his lack of drive and motivation. I've hiked with the guy, and I don't think he's lazy at all. He just doesn't value money, and his view on life is that he's going to teac…

Fuck your family. Make money for your own reasons, or don't. It has to come from you or you'll never feel successful.

If your family invested tremendous amount to raise you and send you to a good school, is it bad that they want you to be successful[0]?

[0] I think part of the issue is that in U.S. success is judged by how much money you have.

Re: Why isn’t New Zealand richer and more productive?

#89

Post by zhemao »

awda wrote: post #68
HarryHirsch wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and those who realize they have enough ignore the rich If you only could. The problem is that in the US a great portion of taxes are locally raised and spent, and the way of dealing with poverty is to price the poor out of areas where they aren't wanted. To get access to halfway decent schools you need to move to the suburbs, and what's available there in housing is hugely outsized. You cannot save on heating, coolin…

I'm not sure you can't get halfway decent public schools in the cities, but they tend to be local to wealthier neighborhoods. And suburbs in the area I'm from tend to at least have apartments and townhomes, which are a nice middle ground (at least as far as saving on heating, cooling, cleaning, space, cost). The commute still sucks, of course.

In NYC at least, you don't have to live in a pricey neighborhood in order to get your kid into a good public high school. Your kid will, however, have to do well on a standardized test.

Re: Why isn’t New Zealand richer and more productive?

#90

Post by ThomPete »

cowsandmilk wrote: post #84
ThomPete wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds me of the nordic countries. Edit: Huh? Why the down vote?

Because you are so off-base The point of the post is that NZL has 20% below OECD average GDP per capita, when it would be predicted for them to be 20% above. The key figure is Figure 3 from http://www.productivity.govt.nz/sites/default/files/internat... In that, you can see NZL at the far bottom right. On the other hand, Norway, Sweden, and Finland are all above the line, meaning they have higher GDP per capita than…

I was saying that NZ sounds like the Nordic countries. With that I meant the way it's structured.
Post reply on HN