A couple of days ago, I read a post on Futility Closet about the Nenana Ice Classic. At the beginning of every year, the people of Nenana, Alaska, set a tripod on the frozen Tanana River. They hold a contest to see who can guess the correct date and time that the tripod starts to fall due to the melting ice.
Upon hearing about this, I decided to see if there was a way to statistically predict when the tripod might fall. I found the break up log and started to look at the data.
Since 1917, the ice break has happened sometime between April 20th and May 20th. The average date is May 4th. However, as is pointed out in the Futility Closet post, the National Snow and Ice Data Center record the event to measure climate change, indicating that the date is changing over time.
The graph shows a negative trend, indicating that the date of the ice break has generally been happening earlier in recent years compared to the past. According to the trend line, the estimate for when the ice break should occur has moved forward by a week, from May 9th to May 2nd since 1917. Of course, the R-Squared is rather small, 0.12, meaning that year-to-year changes only account for 12% of the variation in ice break dates.
Of course, one doesn't just win by guessing the right date, they also have to guess the time. I included the time in the previous estimates to get the average dates, so I could just use the time they produce as the estimate. However, I noticed another pattern when looking at just the times.
The ice break rarely happens late at night or early in the morning. It's not even a normal distribution. No ice breaks have ever occurred between 7 and 9 am, but then there have been a lot just after 9. The best explanation is that the ice is most likely to break when the sun is there to warm it up. If the ice doesn't break by sunset, it is unlikely to break that night.
So my prediction for the most statistically probable date and time of the ice break is May 2nd at 2:11pm. Let's see how I do.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Monday, December 26, 2011
Presidential Election Statistics
I've played around with different ways for predicting presidential elections in the past, but recently I started thinking in a different way. One reason for is that I found that when I applied my methods for predicting elections, it produced no more accurate results than just assuming the following election was exactly the same as the previous.
With that in mind, I decided to look at past elections and based on historic swings in the vote, come up with a prediction for the chances a particular state will vote for a particular party. On average, the swing between Republican and Democrat is 8.6%, with a standard deviation of 6.6%. To put it another way, 95% of the time, the vote swing in any individual state is between 0 percentage points and 21.5 percentage points. What this means is that, if one party won a state by more than 21.5% last election, the chances that it will vote for a different party next election is less than 5%.
Based on the 2008 results, I created a map. It's a bit messy, but should be easy enough to figure out. The colors represent the party most likely to win that particular state and darkness of the colors corresponds to the chances that party will win that state assuming the 2012 result is totally random.
Looking at just the darkest states, those at a 99% confidence level, one should notice something. Some of the darkest blue states are really big, but the darkest red states are all rather small (in population at least). Democrats have done very well recently in the most populous states. An election could be won with just the 11 largest states. Of those, Obama won 9 in the last election. Basically, no matter what happens in 2012, Democrats are virtually guaranteed to win 149 electoral votes (out of 270 needed to win) and 3 of the 11 largest states. On the other hand, Republicans are only guaranteed 20 electoral votes. From the states that the Republicans have more than a 90% chance of winning, they only get 76 electoral votes, which is less than California and New York combined. Of the big states, Republicans only have an 84% chance of keeping Texas and a 65% chance of keeping Georgia. Basically, Democrats are going into the 2012 election with a huge built in lead. Also, since Democrats have such a commanding lead in the large states, they need to defend and win fewer states.
Of course, 2008 was a massive victory for the Democrats, so it seems unlikely that they will maintain the same level of support. Therefore the 2012 result won't be completely random, there will most likely be a swing to the right. So let's assume that there is an average 8.6% swing to the right.
Suddenly, a lot of states become solidly Republican, however, they reveal a weakness. Democrats still win 3 big states with 99% confidence while Republicans only win 1 big state. Even though Republicans win 19 states with 99% confidence compared to Democrats' 9 plus DC those 19 states only represent 155 electoral votes compared to 142 for the Democrats. Basically, even assuming that every state swings to the right, Republicans aren't guaranteed a win as the Democrats have too much solid support from California, Illinois, and New York.
In order for Republicans to have a solid lead over the Democrats in the electoral college, there would have to be a uniform swing to the right in excess of 9%. What's intriguing about that, is that with a 9% national swing, the Republican candidate would win 55% of the popular vote. This potentially means that in 2012, if the Republican candidate wins between 50% and 55% of the popular vote, they risk losing the electoral college.
With that in mind, I decided to look at past elections and based on historic swings in the vote, come up with a prediction for the chances a particular state will vote for a particular party. On average, the swing between Republican and Democrat is 8.6%, with a standard deviation of 6.6%. To put it another way, 95% of the time, the vote swing in any individual state is between 0 percentage points and 21.5 percentage points. What this means is that, if one party won a state by more than 21.5% last election, the chances that it will vote for a different party next election is less than 5%.
Based on the 2008 results, I created a map. It's a bit messy, but should be easy enough to figure out. The colors represent the party most likely to win that particular state and darkness of the colors corresponds to the chances that party will win that state assuming the 2012 result is totally random.
Looking at just the darkest states, those at a 99% confidence level, one should notice something. Some of the darkest blue states are really big, but the darkest red states are all rather small (in population at least). Democrats have done very well recently in the most populous states. An election could be won with just the 11 largest states. Of those, Obama won 9 in the last election. Basically, no matter what happens in 2012, Democrats are virtually guaranteed to win 149 electoral votes (out of 270 needed to win) and 3 of the 11 largest states. On the other hand, Republicans are only guaranteed 20 electoral votes. From the states that the Republicans have more than a 90% chance of winning, they only get 76 electoral votes, which is less than California and New York combined. Of the big states, Republicans only have an 84% chance of keeping Texas and a 65% chance of keeping Georgia. Basically, Democrats are going into the 2012 election with a huge built in lead. Also, since Democrats have such a commanding lead in the large states, they need to defend and win fewer states.
Of course, 2008 was a massive victory for the Democrats, so it seems unlikely that they will maintain the same level of support. Therefore the 2012 result won't be completely random, there will most likely be a swing to the right. So let's assume that there is an average 8.6% swing to the right.
Suddenly, a lot of states become solidly Republican, however, they reveal a weakness. Democrats still win 3 big states with 99% confidence while Republicans only win 1 big state. Even though Republicans win 19 states with 99% confidence compared to Democrats' 9 plus DC those 19 states only represent 155 electoral votes compared to 142 for the Democrats. Basically, even assuming that every state swings to the right, Republicans aren't guaranteed a win as the Democrats have too much solid support from California, Illinois, and New York.
In order for Republicans to have a solid lead over the Democrats in the electoral college, there would have to be a uniform swing to the right in excess of 9%. What's intriguing about that, is that with a 9% national swing, the Republican candidate would win 55% of the popular vote. This potentially means that in 2012, if the Republican candidate wins between 50% and 55% of the popular vote, they risk losing the electoral college.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Republican Flavor of the Month
Much has already been said about Republicans' brief love affairs with various candidates. First there was Romney, then anybody but Romney, which led to Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich, and now perhaps the greatest dark horse of all, Paul.
What gets me is the timeliness in the surge and sudden fall in support for each of the candidates in the polls.
Nationally, Romney led every national poll from the beginning of the year to August 9th.
Perry led from August 15th to September 25th.
Cain and Romney fought from September 25th to November 11th.
Gingrich has led since November 11th.
Broken down, that is 42 days for Perry, 48 days for Cain, and so far 39 days for Gingrich and things aren't looking good for him.
Iowa is even more interesting.
Similarly, Romney led early, but only until June 22nd.
Bachmann led from June 26th to August 4th.
Perry led from August 19th to August 31st.
There were no polls in September.
Cain led from October 7th to November 13th.
Gingrich led from November 15th to December 12th.
Paul has lead since December 18th.
That's 40 days for Bachmann, 13 days for Perry (followed by a 37 day gap in polling), 38 days for Cain, and 28 days for Gingrich.
The turnover rate for candidates appears to be just over 40 days nationally, while Iowa voters appear to be a bit more fickle. They managed to put Bachmann and Paul on top, which hasn't happened nationally, at least not yet. From December 18th to January 3rd, the date of the Iowa Caucus, is only 17 days. If the trend holds, this will be right around the apex of Paul's support.
What is interesting to note is that according the RCP average (the average of recent polls according to RealClearPolitics), Romney has stayed in first or second position nationally and only rarely fallen to third in Iowa. He often shows up as first in the polls during the transition from one fad candidate to the next. Relative to all the other candidates, his support has remained remarkably stable. This could be good or bad. He has been able to maintain steady support unlike other candidates, which will likely carry him through the primary. However, it appears he has very little soft support. Given how things have been going, it seems that Romney will second place his way to the Republican nomination.
What gets me is the timeliness in the surge and sudden fall in support for each of the candidates in the polls.
Nationally, Romney led every national poll from the beginning of the year to August 9th.
Perry led from August 15th to September 25th.
Cain and Romney fought from September 25th to November 11th.
Gingrich has led since November 11th.
Broken down, that is 42 days for Perry, 48 days for Cain, and so far 39 days for Gingrich and things aren't looking good for him.
Iowa is even more interesting.
Similarly, Romney led early, but only until June 22nd.
Bachmann led from June 26th to August 4th.
Perry led from August 19th to August 31st.
There were no polls in September.
Cain led from October 7th to November 13th.
Gingrich led from November 15th to December 12th.
Paul has lead since December 18th.
That's 40 days for Bachmann, 13 days for Perry (followed by a 37 day gap in polling), 38 days for Cain, and 28 days for Gingrich.
The turnover rate for candidates appears to be just over 40 days nationally, while Iowa voters appear to be a bit more fickle. They managed to put Bachmann and Paul on top, which hasn't happened nationally, at least not yet. From December 18th to January 3rd, the date of the Iowa Caucus, is only 17 days. If the trend holds, this will be right around the apex of Paul's support.
What is interesting to note is that according the RCP average (the average of recent polls according to RealClearPolitics), Romney has stayed in first or second position nationally and only rarely fallen to third in Iowa. He often shows up as first in the polls during the transition from one fad candidate to the next. Relative to all the other candidates, his support has remained remarkably stable. This could be good or bad. He has been able to maintain steady support unlike other candidates, which will likely carry him through the primary. However, it appears he has very little soft support. Given how things have been going, it seems that Romney will second place his way to the Republican nomination.
Monday, November 28, 2011
Why I Support OWS
As a kid, I was told to do well in school so that I could get into a good college. In high school, I took all the honors and AP classes I could and was a contender for valedictorian at my first high school. For my junior and senior years of high school, I was accepted into the North Carolina School of Science and Math, which I firmly believe is the best high school in the country. It was challenging, but I loved it.
I got into a good college, the University of Richmond. Now I was told to pick a major that would provide for a good career. I picked economics as I found it fascinating and I was told that economic majors were some of the top income earners. I finished with a respectable 3.1 GPA.
My first job out of college was teaching English in South Korea. It had nothing to do with my major, but I wanted to learn about Asia and the job paid well. Always being a frugal person, I saved nearly two-thirds of my income. I hated the job, but I did everything that was asked of me and worked there until my contract expired.
I returned to the US September 20th 2008, five days after Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy. Still, I was optimistic. I was a dedicated worker, I had gone to a good university, earned a useful degree, and had $20,000 in savings. With this attitude, I spent over $1,000 on suits for interviews and for my future job. For the next few months I filled out dozens of job applications with almost no responses. I attended job fairs where no one was hiring unless you were willing to work for free or on commission.
Eventually, I was offered a temporary job with the Census Bureau. I worked hard, I was even told to slow down at one point because I was completing work at twice the required rate. When that came to an end, I spent several more months searching for a full-time job, but ended up working with the Census Bureau again. This time, I was promoted to crew leader assistant. It didn’t pay more, but it meant I would be working more hours and had more responsibility. One week I worked 60 hours. Twice I voluntarily worked until 5 AM.
With no job prospects, I applied to graduate school and was accepted into the School of International Studies at the University of Denver. I started in the summer, taking four graduate-level classes in just four weeks. I lost around five pounds during that month due to stress and not eating properly, but I was determined, and completed all my work on time. By the end of the spring semester, I had completed all my coursework. Still, I was no more hopeful of finding a job than I was before and now I had $40,000 in student loans to repay. With no improvements in the job market, it seemed that my best option was to join the Peace Corps and delay starting a career another two years.
In three years I’ve gone from living on my own with $20,000 in the bank to being $40,000 in debt. With no job security, I was stuck living at my mom’s house. I didn’t want to be dependent on anyone else, but my circumstances left me with no better alternative. I was left wondering what had I done wrong? Why couldn’t I find a good job?
Then I looked at my friends, the same dedicated and ambitious students I went to high school and college with. Some of them had found good full-time jobs. However, many were underemployed. Several people were working at temp agencies, at fast food restaurants, as substitute teachers. Many, like me, had gone on to graduate school when they were unable to find fulfilling employment. Now I was wondering what we all had done wrong?
Then I heard about the protest on Wall Street and how it spread across the country. I heard about the people who were getting involved. They had gone to college. They had taken on student loans. Then, when they were ready to enter the job market, they were met with silence and indifference.
That’s when I realized, I had done nothing wrong. I studied and worked hard with the promise that one day I could get a full-time job and I would be independent. I took on student loans with the promise that my future income would cover my payments. I was part of a whole generation that had been made this promise. For most of us though, this promise never came to fruition. We worked hard only to achieve underemployment and debt.
Finally, after three years of underemployment, we’ve started to realized that all the things we were promised are never coming. We did everything we were told to do and received nothing in return. We feel cheated and lied to. We don’t work temporary, part-time, and other low-paying jobs because they’re easy; we do those jobs because they’re the only ones available to us. Many of us are working at unpaid internships in hope that maybe we will get a paying job out of it. We don’t live in our parents’ houses because we’re lazy; we live there because we have no job security.
The most infuriating part is that the money to provide us with jobs is there. We’ve constantly been told that businesses need tax cuts in order to create jobs. We’ve been waiting for three years for these jobs, but despite corporations reporting record profits, despite wealth becoming more and more concentrated in the hands of “job creators”, these jobs have never materialized. Unemployment has been hovering around nine percent since January, with no sign of improvement. Wages for the majority of Americans have been stagnant since at least the early 1980’s while income for the top one percent has skyrocketed. If anything, tax cuts have destroyed jobs by reducing government spending. We need more teachers, more people maintaining infrastructure. There are plenty of government departments that are chronically understaffed where we could create more jobs right now, increasing incomes and increasing consumer demand. Yet, instead, we’ve become sold on this myth that lower taxes equal more jobs that has so far failed to live up to its promises.
OWS is criticized for having no message, no demands. But why does it need to make demands? Shouldn’t the fact that thousands of young people, those who should right now be the most productive members of society, are living in tent cities around the country be enough of a sign that there’s something seriously wrong with the current system? OWS is the result of a multitude of failures in the current political, economic, and social system. Politicians have failed us by allowing themselves to be bought. Corporations have failed us by suppressing wages while giving billions to executives. Government has failed us through ineffectual and costly actions. Financial institutions have failed us by putting short-term profits before long-term sustainability.
We’ve reach a point where more and more people are realizing that they will not be better off than their parents. Despite all my academic accomplishments, despite all my hard work, I don’t see a future for myself or for many of my friends. At this point in my life, I can’t imagine ever owning a house as large as the one I grew up in. I can’t imagine ever being financially secure and independent as much as I want to be.
This is why I find OWS so exciting. Finally, something is happening in America that I can participate in, where I can contribute and help improve society. I can finally put all that I have learned, all that I have been raised to be to use and make a difference instead of wasting it on menial jobs that give me nothing but another bullet point on my oft ignored resume.
The people that are actively participating in OWS, who are putting together the general assemblies, setting up kitchens to feed people, organizing demonstrations, aren’t lazy. These people are ambitious, dedicated to their work, and highly educated, just as they were told to be. Like me, they’re not looking for hand-outs, they’re looking for jobs. They want that opportunity to contribute to society. They want to rectify the growing inequalities in our society. They want to end corporate influence over politics and media. They want to give a voice to the poor and disenfranchised. These are not divisive ideas; these are goals that I would hope all Americans could agree with. Even if we don’t agree with every idea being expunged by protesters, we should at least recognize that they want to make life better for everyone and could probably do a better job at it than the current establishment because they at least care about the people. The established system has failed me, it has failed my family, it has failed my friends, and it has failed the millions of other Americans who are unemployed, underemployed, without health insurance, living in poverty, in debt, have lost their homes, and been continuously marginalized and disenfranchised. I’ve given up on the status quo and want to support something new.
I got into a good college, the University of Richmond. Now I was told to pick a major that would provide for a good career. I picked economics as I found it fascinating and I was told that economic majors were some of the top income earners. I finished with a respectable 3.1 GPA.
My first job out of college was teaching English in South Korea. It had nothing to do with my major, but I wanted to learn about Asia and the job paid well. Always being a frugal person, I saved nearly two-thirds of my income. I hated the job, but I did everything that was asked of me and worked there until my contract expired.
I returned to the US September 20th 2008, five days after Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy. Still, I was optimistic. I was a dedicated worker, I had gone to a good university, earned a useful degree, and had $20,000 in savings. With this attitude, I spent over $1,000 on suits for interviews and for my future job. For the next few months I filled out dozens of job applications with almost no responses. I attended job fairs where no one was hiring unless you were willing to work for free or on commission.
Eventually, I was offered a temporary job with the Census Bureau. I worked hard, I was even told to slow down at one point because I was completing work at twice the required rate. When that came to an end, I spent several more months searching for a full-time job, but ended up working with the Census Bureau again. This time, I was promoted to crew leader assistant. It didn’t pay more, but it meant I would be working more hours and had more responsibility. One week I worked 60 hours. Twice I voluntarily worked until 5 AM.
With no job prospects, I applied to graduate school and was accepted into the School of International Studies at the University of Denver. I started in the summer, taking four graduate-level classes in just four weeks. I lost around five pounds during that month due to stress and not eating properly, but I was determined, and completed all my work on time. By the end of the spring semester, I had completed all my coursework. Still, I was no more hopeful of finding a job than I was before and now I had $40,000 in student loans to repay. With no improvements in the job market, it seemed that my best option was to join the Peace Corps and delay starting a career another two years.
In three years I’ve gone from living on my own with $20,000 in the bank to being $40,000 in debt. With no job security, I was stuck living at my mom’s house. I didn’t want to be dependent on anyone else, but my circumstances left me with no better alternative. I was left wondering what had I done wrong? Why couldn’t I find a good job?
Then I looked at my friends, the same dedicated and ambitious students I went to high school and college with. Some of them had found good full-time jobs. However, many were underemployed. Several people were working at temp agencies, at fast food restaurants, as substitute teachers. Many, like me, had gone on to graduate school when they were unable to find fulfilling employment. Now I was wondering what we all had done wrong?
Then I heard about the protest on Wall Street and how it spread across the country. I heard about the people who were getting involved. They had gone to college. They had taken on student loans. Then, when they were ready to enter the job market, they were met with silence and indifference.
That’s when I realized, I had done nothing wrong. I studied and worked hard with the promise that one day I could get a full-time job and I would be independent. I took on student loans with the promise that my future income would cover my payments. I was part of a whole generation that had been made this promise. For most of us though, this promise never came to fruition. We worked hard only to achieve underemployment and debt.
Finally, after three years of underemployment, we’ve started to realized that all the things we were promised are never coming. We did everything we were told to do and received nothing in return. We feel cheated and lied to. We don’t work temporary, part-time, and other low-paying jobs because they’re easy; we do those jobs because they’re the only ones available to us. Many of us are working at unpaid internships in hope that maybe we will get a paying job out of it. We don’t live in our parents’ houses because we’re lazy; we live there because we have no job security.
The most infuriating part is that the money to provide us with jobs is there. We’ve constantly been told that businesses need tax cuts in order to create jobs. We’ve been waiting for three years for these jobs, but despite corporations reporting record profits, despite wealth becoming more and more concentrated in the hands of “job creators”, these jobs have never materialized. Unemployment has been hovering around nine percent since January, with no sign of improvement. Wages for the majority of Americans have been stagnant since at least the early 1980’s while income for the top one percent has skyrocketed. If anything, tax cuts have destroyed jobs by reducing government spending. We need more teachers, more people maintaining infrastructure. There are plenty of government departments that are chronically understaffed where we could create more jobs right now, increasing incomes and increasing consumer demand. Yet, instead, we’ve become sold on this myth that lower taxes equal more jobs that has so far failed to live up to its promises.
OWS is criticized for having no message, no demands. But why does it need to make demands? Shouldn’t the fact that thousands of young people, those who should right now be the most productive members of society, are living in tent cities around the country be enough of a sign that there’s something seriously wrong with the current system? OWS is the result of a multitude of failures in the current political, economic, and social system. Politicians have failed us by allowing themselves to be bought. Corporations have failed us by suppressing wages while giving billions to executives. Government has failed us through ineffectual and costly actions. Financial institutions have failed us by putting short-term profits before long-term sustainability.
We’ve reach a point where more and more people are realizing that they will not be better off than their parents. Despite all my academic accomplishments, despite all my hard work, I don’t see a future for myself or for many of my friends. At this point in my life, I can’t imagine ever owning a house as large as the one I grew up in. I can’t imagine ever being financially secure and independent as much as I want to be.
This is why I find OWS so exciting. Finally, something is happening in America that I can participate in, where I can contribute and help improve society. I can finally put all that I have learned, all that I have been raised to be to use and make a difference instead of wasting it on menial jobs that give me nothing but another bullet point on my oft ignored resume.
The people that are actively participating in OWS, who are putting together the general assemblies, setting up kitchens to feed people, organizing demonstrations, aren’t lazy. These people are ambitious, dedicated to their work, and highly educated, just as they were told to be. Like me, they’re not looking for hand-outs, they’re looking for jobs. They want that opportunity to contribute to society. They want to rectify the growing inequalities in our society. They want to end corporate influence over politics and media. They want to give a voice to the poor and disenfranchised. These are not divisive ideas; these are goals that I would hope all Americans could agree with. Even if we don’t agree with every idea being expunged by protesters, we should at least recognize that they want to make life better for everyone and could probably do a better job at it than the current establishment because they at least care about the people. The established system has failed me, it has failed my family, it has failed my friends, and it has failed the millions of other Americans who are unemployed, underemployed, without health insurance, living in poverty, in debt, have lost their homes, and been continuously marginalized and disenfranchised. I’ve given up on the status quo and want to support something new.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Odd Top 500
Top 500
This November's Top 500 Supercomputers is a little lackluster. K Computer, currently number one, got an upgrade and broke the 10 PetaFLOPS mark. However, not a single other computer in top ten change. This is the least amount of change seen in the top ten since June 2006. Overall total FLOPS calculated by all 500 supercomputers increased by 26% in the last six-months, which isn't bad but far below the 36% average. In fact, the last six updates have been below average.
This November's Top 500 Supercomputers is a little lackluster. K Computer, currently number one, got an upgrade and broke the 10 PetaFLOPS mark. However, not a single other computer in top ten change. This is the least amount of change seen in the top ten since June 2006. Overall total FLOPS calculated by all 500 supercomputers increased by 26% in the last six-months, which isn't bad but far below the 36% average. In fact, the last six updates have been below average.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Even Income Growth
Congressional Budget Office
The CBO released a study recently on the change of income distribution in the US between 1979 and 2007. Average incomes have risen by 62%. However, only the top 20% of income earners have seen that kind of income increase. Incomes for the bottom 20% have only gone up by 18%.
Income is becoming increasingly concentrated at the top, with top 1% doubling their share of overall income. It should be noted that the chart shows income after taxes and after welfare transfers.
What I wanted to see is what would incomes look like if instead all incomes rose by the average 62%. The CBO breaks income groups into quintiles. If we define those in the first and second quintile as poor, the third and fourth quintile as middle-class, and the fifth quintile as rich, we find this:
Situation as of 2007
Poor: less than $30,000
Middle: between $30,000 and $61,000
Rich: more than $61,000
Hypothetical 2007
Poor: less than $37,000
Middle: between $37,000 and $67,000
Rich: more than $67,000
If the level of income concentration had remained the same since 1979, roughly 80% of income earners would be making around $7,000 more each year.
The CBO released a study recently on the change of income distribution in the US between 1979 and 2007. Average incomes have risen by 62%. However, only the top 20% of income earners have seen that kind of income increase. Incomes for the bottom 20% have only gone up by 18%.
Income is becoming increasingly concentrated at the top, with top 1% doubling their share of overall income. It should be noted that the chart shows income after taxes and after welfare transfers.
What I wanted to see is what would incomes look like if instead all incomes rose by the average 62%. The CBO breaks income groups into quintiles. If we define those in the first and second quintile as poor, the third and fourth quintile as middle-class, and the fifth quintile as rich, we find this:
Situation as of 2007
Poor: less than $30,000
Middle: between $30,000 and $61,000
Rich: more than $61,000
Hypothetical 2007
Poor: less than $37,000
Middle: between $37,000 and $67,000
Rich: more than $67,000
If the level of income concentration had remained the same since 1979, roughly 80% of income earners would be making around $7,000 more each year.
Thursday, November 03, 2011
A Survey of TV News Websites
A survey of TV News websites around 17:30 Estonian Time (11:30 EST), November 3rd, 2011.
MSNBC: Note: Image is from Occupy Oakland
CBS:
CNN: Note: A few minutes prior to capturing this image, the main story was Occupy Oakland.
Fox:
BBC, US & Canada:
Al-Jazeera, America:
ABC: This image doesn't truly convey how pointless the ABC news site is, so here's the rest:
I thought Fox would be the odd man out, but ABC really out did itself. At least Fox is breaking a major story.
MSNBC: Note: Image is from Occupy Oakland
CBS:
CNN: Note: A few minutes prior to capturing this image, the main story was Occupy Oakland.
Fox:
BBC, US & Canada:
Al-Jazeera, America:
ABC: This image doesn't truly convey how pointless the ABC news site is, so here's the rest:
I thought Fox would be the odd man out, but ABC really out did itself. At least Fox is breaking a major story.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Occupy "City"
I've been watching the Occupy Movement from a distance as it hasn't caught on in Estonia. News has slowly been trickling to me about protests spreading around the country, and not just major cities. With a list of the largest US cities, I did a Google search for "occupy 'city'" and found references to a protest in every city I looked up excluding those cities which are basically suburbs of larger cities.
In the midst of all this, I was reminded of a very strange theory I heard years ago known as the Strauss-Howe generational theory. What Strauss and Howe proposed was that throughout US history there is this pattern of generational cycles. Each cycle consists of four archetypal generations, prophets (idealistic, Baby Boomer hippies), nomads (alienated, Generation X), heroes (confident, WWII soldiers), artists (inclusive, Silent Generation). The prophet generation sets the tone of each cycle, and it's through their actions that a crisis eventually occurs, which the hero generation eventually resolves.
The whole idea seems like a lot of pseudoscience, but still intriguing enough to be considered. I don't remember how I first came across the theory, but it was at least a couple of years after 9/11. At the time, everyone saw this as a watershed moment, but after a couple years it became clear that 9/11 didn't really change anything, it just amplified tendencies that were already there. It was in this context that I first heard about the theory as the authors argued that the major crisis that would define the current hero generation had not yet occurred.
I thought about this theory off-and-on for years, largely thinking it would never amount to anything. Then there was the 2008 financial crisis, and it echoes of the Great Depression reminded me of the theory as Strauss and Howe argued that the crisis the previous hero generation initially faced was not WWII, but the Great Depression. Obama was elected president with massive support from the Millennial generation. It was a sign of something Strauss and Howe attributed to hero generations, they are politically engaged. However, things went quiet again. For the most part, Millennials were dissatisfied, but there was no signs of further actions. But now that the economy has stagnated, what could have been small, short-lived NYC protest, as turned into a national phenomenon. And now I'll left wondering, were Strauss and Howe right?
Unfortunately, Strauss died several years ago, but Howe is still around. He hasn't said anything about the protests yet, at least nothing I can find, but it would be interesting to hear his opinion.
In the midst of all this, I was reminded of a very strange theory I heard years ago known as the Strauss-Howe generational theory. What Strauss and Howe proposed was that throughout US history there is this pattern of generational cycles. Each cycle consists of four archetypal generations, prophets (idealistic, Baby Boomer hippies), nomads (alienated, Generation X), heroes (confident, WWII soldiers), artists (inclusive, Silent Generation). The prophet generation sets the tone of each cycle, and it's through their actions that a crisis eventually occurs, which the hero generation eventually resolves.
The whole idea seems like a lot of pseudoscience, but still intriguing enough to be considered. I don't remember how I first came across the theory, but it was at least a couple of years after 9/11. At the time, everyone saw this as a watershed moment, but after a couple years it became clear that 9/11 didn't really change anything, it just amplified tendencies that were already there. It was in this context that I first heard about the theory as the authors argued that the major crisis that would define the current hero generation had not yet occurred.
I thought about this theory off-and-on for years, largely thinking it would never amount to anything. Then there was the 2008 financial crisis, and it echoes of the Great Depression reminded me of the theory as Strauss and Howe argued that the crisis the previous hero generation initially faced was not WWII, but the Great Depression. Obama was elected president with massive support from the Millennial generation. It was a sign of something Strauss and Howe attributed to hero generations, they are politically engaged. However, things went quiet again. For the most part, Millennials were dissatisfied, but there was no signs of further actions. But now that the economy has stagnated, what could have been small, short-lived NYC protest, as turned into a national phenomenon. And now I'll left wondering, were Strauss and Howe right?
Unfortunately, Strauss died several years ago, but Howe is still around. He hasn't said anything about the protests yet, at least nothing I can find, but it would be interesting to hear his opinion.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Long Time, No Music
I've been putting off making a music post as I felt like I haven't heard much no music lately. However, I realized I haven't done a post in over a year, and during that time I have heard quite a lot of new music. I also have a few things that I knew about earlier that I thought I had shared, but apparently not.
Trampled by Turtles
Bluegrass band that I first heard on WNCW. Give them a listen even if you think you don't like bluegrass. It's a fun song.
Buke and Gass
Utterly bizarre and unique. I first heard about them on RadioLab as one of the hosts liked them so much he decided to interview them on what is generally a science program. The video is from NPR's Tiny Desk Concerts which is why it's 16 minutes long. No need to listen to the whole thing. They start with one of my favorite songs.
Juana Molina
Same with Buke and Gass, I first heard her on RadioLab. Not quite as strange though, except for the video which I don't much care for, but it's my favorite song. Also, she's singing Spanish in case you didn't get that.
Ramona Falls
This video was posted in a "Favorite Music Videos" thread on Something Awful. Both the video and the song are pretty amazing. The video for Russia is also pretty great.
The Civil Wars
Some blues/folk music. I don't remember how I first heard of them, but I like them.
Janelle Monae
For a change of pace, some R&B. I saw her open for Of Montreal. It was a great show. As a sidenote, I really like her shoes in this video.
Maximum Balloon
Side project from one of the members of TV on the Radio. You can definitely hear the similarities, but this has a more electronic sound.
Trampled by Turtles
Bluegrass band that I first heard on WNCW. Give them a listen even if you think you don't like bluegrass. It's a fun song.
Buke and Gass
Utterly bizarre and unique. I first heard about them on RadioLab as one of the hosts liked them so much he decided to interview them on what is generally a science program. The video is from NPR's Tiny Desk Concerts which is why it's 16 minutes long. No need to listen to the whole thing. They start with one of my favorite songs.
Juana Molina
Same with Buke and Gass, I first heard her on RadioLab. Not quite as strange though, except for the video which I don't much care for, but it's my favorite song. Also, she's singing Spanish in case you didn't get that.
Ramona Falls
This video was posted in a "Favorite Music Videos" thread on Something Awful. Both the video and the song are pretty amazing. The video for Russia is also pretty great.
The Civil Wars
Some blues/folk music. I don't remember how I first heard of them, but I like them.
Janelle Monae
For a change of pace, some R&B. I saw her open for Of Montreal. It was a great show. As a sidenote, I really like her shoes in this video.
Maximum Balloon
Side project from one of the members of TV on the Radio. You can definitely hear the similarities, but this has a more electronic sound.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Friday, October 14, 2011
Real vs. Financial Economy
I've been taking a class with Dr. Erik Reinert and one of the theories he brought up to explain the recent financial crisis. Marx wrote that ideally capitalist take money, use it to create a product, then sell the product for more money. However, over time capitalist will try to find ways to take money and make more money without actually making a product. This is where the recent financial crisis comes in. Financial institutions were making money, but no one was actually producing anything.
Financial institutions aren't necessarily bad, manufacturing needs financial support. The problem comes when the financial institutions stop serving a supporting role and become the primary target of investment. NPR actually had an interesting interview a couple of weeks ago with a financial expert who gave a great example of this, I recommend listening to the podcast. He worked for an airline, wherein, after awhile, the only profitable department was the accounting department. But instead of investing those profits into becoming a better and more competitive airline, they essentially became a bank.
Reinert brought this up as the Real Economy versus the Financial Economy, which made me curious to see if there was a way to measure when the tipping point is reached. It's actually relatively easy to find the breakdown of contributions to the US GDP, but there's the problem of definitions. Does the Real Economy include only manufacturing or should it also include agriculture, mining, and services? Does it also include the government? Instead of looking for a definition, I'm just going to compare various different qualities I found when looking at the figures.
The data I have goes back to 1947, so it is interesting to see how things have changed over time. From 1947 until 1968, manufacturing made up over 25% of the GDP. During that same period, finance went from 10.5% to 14%. Finance surpassed manufacturing in 1986. By 2009, finance was nearly double manufacturing at 21.5% and 11.2% respectively. The numbers are a little better in 2010 and there's been some hopeful signs of an increase in manufacturing, but it's hard to call a one year improvement a trend. So overall, by 2009, finance was nearly double manufacturing, made up 25% of the private economy, and 21.5% of the total economy. It would be interesting to see if there was a similar run up in the 1920's, unfortunately there is not much information available that far back. I could look at other countries that have undergone recent financial crises, but their crises were rooted in other problems, so they might not be comparable (also Japan breaks down contributions to GDP differently than the US).
While looking at the data, I found some other interesting trends. Construction is strongly cyclical. It is currently at its lowest level ever at 3.4%, after falling from 4.9% back in 2006. Mining (includes oil) is also cyclical, but over a longer time period. The early 1980's are especially interesting as there's a sudden rise and decline in oil production. Up until 2008, all manufacturing sectors were in relative decline except for electronics, electrical equipment, and petroleum products. Transportation has been in continuous decline, but this is largely a good thing as it means that transportation costs are lower as the demand for transportation certainly isn't lower than it was in 1947. In the financial sector, the only contribution to show a relative decline over the past decade is securities, commodities, and investments, which is probably a good indication of what the financial sector wasn't doing during the 2000's. Health care has greatly increased since 1947, going from 1.5% to 7.6%.
One part I found of particular interest was government spending. Overall government spending makes up 13.4% of the GDP. A lot has been made lately of government spending, and it is going up as a portion of GDP, it is still lower than it was at any point between 1961 and 1995. Government spending peaked in 1971, during the Vietnam War, at 15.3% and was in decline up until 2001. Of course that's overall spending. State and local government spending has actually been steady around 9% since 1990 meaning most of the relative decline in government spending has come from the the federal government which has been declining from 7.8% in 1952 to 4.3% in 2010.
Financial institutions aren't necessarily bad, manufacturing needs financial support. The problem comes when the financial institutions stop serving a supporting role and become the primary target of investment. NPR actually had an interesting interview a couple of weeks ago with a financial expert who gave a great example of this, I recommend listening to the podcast. He worked for an airline, wherein, after awhile, the only profitable department was the accounting department. But instead of investing those profits into becoming a better and more competitive airline, they essentially became a bank.
Reinert brought this up as the Real Economy versus the Financial Economy, which made me curious to see if there was a way to measure when the tipping point is reached. It's actually relatively easy to find the breakdown of contributions to the US GDP, but there's the problem of definitions. Does the Real Economy include only manufacturing or should it also include agriculture, mining, and services? Does it also include the government? Instead of looking for a definition, I'm just going to compare various different qualities I found when looking at the figures.
The data I have goes back to 1947, so it is interesting to see how things have changed over time. From 1947 until 1968, manufacturing made up over 25% of the GDP. During that same period, finance went from 10.5% to 14%. Finance surpassed manufacturing in 1986. By 2009, finance was nearly double manufacturing at 21.5% and 11.2% respectively. The numbers are a little better in 2010 and there's been some hopeful signs of an increase in manufacturing, but it's hard to call a one year improvement a trend. So overall, by 2009, finance was nearly double manufacturing, made up 25% of the private economy, and 21.5% of the total economy. It would be interesting to see if there was a similar run up in the 1920's, unfortunately there is not much information available that far back. I could look at other countries that have undergone recent financial crises, but their crises were rooted in other problems, so they might not be comparable (also Japan breaks down contributions to GDP differently than the US).
While looking at the data, I found some other interesting trends. Construction is strongly cyclical. It is currently at its lowest level ever at 3.4%, after falling from 4.9% back in 2006. Mining (includes oil) is also cyclical, but over a longer time period. The early 1980's are especially interesting as there's a sudden rise and decline in oil production. Up until 2008, all manufacturing sectors were in relative decline except for electronics, electrical equipment, and petroleum products. Transportation has been in continuous decline, but this is largely a good thing as it means that transportation costs are lower as the demand for transportation certainly isn't lower than it was in 1947. In the financial sector, the only contribution to show a relative decline over the past decade is securities, commodities, and investments, which is probably a good indication of what the financial sector wasn't doing during the 2000's. Health care has greatly increased since 1947, going from 1.5% to 7.6%.
One part I found of particular interest was government spending. Overall government spending makes up 13.4% of the GDP. A lot has been made lately of government spending, and it is going up as a portion of GDP, it is still lower than it was at any point between 1961 and 1995. Government spending peaked in 1971, during the Vietnam War, at 15.3% and was in decline up until 2001. Of course that's overall spending. State and local government spending has actually been steady around 9% since 1990 meaning most of the relative decline in government spending has come from the the federal government which has been declining from 7.8% in 1952 to 4.3% in 2010.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
End of the German Year of Elections
2011 has become known as Germany's Year of Elections due to the number of state elections that took place. The last election took place in Berlin on Sunday, and the somewhat odd results there prompted me to make a post about them. Having studied a bit about Green politics, I've come to view Germany as a kind of barometer for future politics. There are five major parties in Germany, each representing a major political ideology, which in some ways makes interpreting German election results a bit cleaner. It's not like Sweden's eight party parliament wherein the four "Alliance" parties are hardly distinguishable.
The recent run of elections paints a very different picture of the political landscape than the 2009 federal election offered. As expected, SPD recovered from its abyssal 2009 results (23%) thanks to being part of the opposition to an unpopular government. However, its recovery has been nothing like what one would expect. In polls, SPD only gets 29%, which is historically very low.
Of course, the other consideration from the 2009 election was that the three smaller parties, FDP, Greens, and Linke, all showed their best results ever, and it seemed at the time that this trend would continue if the SPD didn't gain momentum. However, their fortunes have drastically changed in just two years. Die Linke's results are probably the most understandable as many of the SPD voters who switched to Die Linke as a protest vote are again supporting SPD. Die Linke was also hurt by the resignation of Lafontaine, who helped popularize Die Linke in the western states. Recent controversies such as several Die Linke members refusing to stand up in honor of those that died trying to escape over the Berlin Wall have also shown Die Linke to be a relic of the past. While the incident appears to not have had much affect on the results of the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Berlin state elections, it probably solidified distaste for Die Linke in western states.
FDP saw probably the largest reversal in fortunes. It went its best result ever to polling below the 5% threshold. FDP lost representation in several states this year. Truthfully, I don't have much of an idea of why this happened. The party leader, Westerwelle, certainly became unpopular, but that alone doesn't explain the total collapse of the party in just two years. Between the 2005 and 2009 election, FDP went from 10% to 15% of the vote. It now regularly polls below 5% nationwide. FDP didn't just lose the soft support in gained in 2009 due to protest votes, it has lost a large chuck of its core voters. However, FDP seems to fit into a larger pattern. FDP is a classical liberal party, supporting both economic and social liberalism. Other liberal parties, such as the Lib-Dems in the UK and the Liberal Party in Canada have taken massive hits in recent years.
The big winners this year are the Greens who have greatly increased their support throughout Germany. Support has dropped off a bit since its highs earlier this year, but it still polling at 20%, which is nearly twice what they received in 2009 and is a higher level of support than any party outside of the CDU and SPD has received since 1949. While the Greens are not immune to an FDP style collapse, they do not seem as likely to face one. The trend throughout the world is one of green parties continuously gaining in popularity.
What Germany seems to present is a generational shift in political ideology. A lot of questions have been raised about the failure of social democratic parties to regain the dominance they once had in northern Europe. One theory is that social democracy is no longer relevant in modern welfare states. The working-class union members that made up their traditional base have greatly diminished in numbers as manufacturing declines. It's also at odds with post-materialist culture, wherein a whole generation of people that grew up with all the material wealth they could ever want are now approaching majority and are no longer swayed by an ideology that at its core is materialist, seeking to provide more for the state and its citizenry. Certainly the SPD has recovered since 2009, but it hasn't return to its historical levels of support.
One interesting story from the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern election is the Rügen I election which highlights some of the characteristics of contemporary party relations in Germany. The election in this district had to be delayed for two weeks when the CDU candidate died. A new candidate was selected, but it was discovered that he was a former NPD (far-right) member. The election went ahead, but CDU officially dropped their support for their own candidate. Since the election was delayed, the results from the rest of the state were already known and it was found that if the Greens got over 18.5% of the vote, they could cause the NPD to lose one of their predicted seats. This information was advertised throughout the district, so as to encourage people to vote for the Greens in a district where they somewhat limited support. The campaign worked, but too well. The Greens ended up receiving 25%, which depressed the vote for the SPD so much that SPD ended up losing a seat instead of NPD. The vote shows not only how much the majority of Germans dislike the far-right, but also how willing people are to vote for the Greens even if it's not their first choice.
A more shocking result is the 9% the Pirate Party received in Berlin. It is hard to dismiss this as a protest vote due to just how high the support was and how well spread the support was throughout the city. The district with the least support still gave them 4.7%. While there is a lot of overlap between Pirate Party and Green Party supporters (poll on shift in party support in German), there are some difference. Most Pirate Party supporters had either voted for a minor party or not voted at all in the previous election as well as gaining a lot of former Die Linke and SPD voters. Pirate Party support appears to be coming more from East Berlin as well, particularly in areas with large immigrant populations.
At the moment, it's hard to say if the Pirate Party is part of the same generational shift in political ideology as the Greens. While they both certainly appeal to the younger generation, they may overlap too much to truly distinguish themselves. The Greens could easily incorporate the Pirate Party platform into their own, but the same may not be said of the Pirate Party. It will be interesting to watch their results in the future.
The recent run of elections paints a very different picture of the political landscape than the 2009 federal election offered. As expected, SPD recovered from its abyssal 2009 results (23%) thanks to being part of the opposition to an unpopular government. However, its recovery has been nothing like what one would expect. In polls, SPD only gets 29%, which is historically very low.
Of course, the other consideration from the 2009 election was that the three smaller parties, FDP, Greens, and Linke, all showed their best results ever, and it seemed at the time that this trend would continue if the SPD didn't gain momentum. However, their fortunes have drastically changed in just two years. Die Linke's results are probably the most understandable as many of the SPD voters who switched to Die Linke as a protest vote are again supporting SPD. Die Linke was also hurt by the resignation of Lafontaine, who helped popularize Die Linke in the western states. Recent controversies such as several Die Linke members refusing to stand up in honor of those that died trying to escape over the Berlin Wall have also shown Die Linke to be a relic of the past. While the incident appears to not have had much affect on the results of the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Berlin state elections, it probably solidified distaste for Die Linke in western states.
FDP saw probably the largest reversal in fortunes. It went its best result ever to polling below the 5% threshold. FDP lost representation in several states this year. Truthfully, I don't have much of an idea of why this happened. The party leader, Westerwelle, certainly became unpopular, but that alone doesn't explain the total collapse of the party in just two years. Between the 2005 and 2009 election, FDP went from 10% to 15% of the vote. It now regularly polls below 5% nationwide. FDP didn't just lose the soft support in gained in 2009 due to protest votes, it has lost a large chuck of its core voters. However, FDP seems to fit into a larger pattern. FDP is a classical liberal party, supporting both economic and social liberalism. Other liberal parties, such as the Lib-Dems in the UK and the Liberal Party in Canada have taken massive hits in recent years.
The big winners this year are the Greens who have greatly increased their support throughout Germany. Support has dropped off a bit since its highs earlier this year, but it still polling at 20%, which is nearly twice what they received in 2009 and is a higher level of support than any party outside of the CDU and SPD has received since 1949. While the Greens are not immune to an FDP style collapse, they do not seem as likely to face one. The trend throughout the world is one of green parties continuously gaining in popularity.
What Germany seems to present is a generational shift in political ideology. A lot of questions have been raised about the failure of social democratic parties to regain the dominance they once had in northern Europe. One theory is that social democracy is no longer relevant in modern welfare states. The working-class union members that made up their traditional base have greatly diminished in numbers as manufacturing declines. It's also at odds with post-materialist culture, wherein a whole generation of people that grew up with all the material wealth they could ever want are now approaching majority and are no longer swayed by an ideology that at its core is materialist, seeking to provide more for the state and its citizenry. Certainly the SPD has recovered since 2009, but it hasn't return to its historical levels of support.
One interesting story from the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern election is the Rügen I election which highlights some of the characteristics of contemporary party relations in Germany. The election in this district had to be delayed for two weeks when the CDU candidate died. A new candidate was selected, but it was discovered that he was a former NPD (far-right) member. The election went ahead, but CDU officially dropped their support for their own candidate. Since the election was delayed, the results from the rest of the state were already known and it was found that if the Greens got over 18.5% of the vote, they could cause the NPD to lose one of their predicted seats. This information was advertised throughout the district, so as to encourage people to vote for the Greens in a district where they somewhat limited support. The campaign worked, but too well. The Greens ended up receiving 25%, which depressed the vote for the SPD so much that SPD ended up losing a seat instead of NPD. The vote shows not only how much the majority of Germans dislike the far-right, but also how willing people are to vote for the Greens even if it's not their first choice.
A more shocking result is the 9% the Pirate Party received in Berlin. It is hard to dismiss this as a protest vote due to just how high the support was and how well spread the support was throughout the city. The district with the least support still gave them 4.7%. While there is a lot of overlap between Pirate Party and Green Party supporters (poll on shift in party support in German), there are some difference. Most Pirate Party supporters had either voted for a minor party or not voted at all in the previous election as well as gaining a lot of former Die Linke and SPD voters. Pirate Party support appears to be coming more from East Berlin as well, particularly in areas with large immigrant populations.
At the moment, it's hard to say if the Pirate Party is part of the same generational shift in political ideology as the Greens. While they both certainly appeal to the younger generation, they may overlap too much to truly distinguish themselves. The Greens could easily incorporate the Pirate Party platform into their own, but the same may not be said of the Pirate Party. It will be interesting to watch their results in the future.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Why Texting is Annoying
The phone I currently have is Estonian, and as such, it doesn't have predictive text for English. While sending a recent text, it seemed to me that the letter that I wanted was always the third letter on the key. So I decided to test if it's true that the most used letters are in a poor position or if it was just a selection bias (i.e. I only notice when the letter is poorly placed).
I found a list of letter frequencies on Wikipedia and decided to compare it to the lay out of letters on a phone number pad. It turns out my assumption was true, the most used letters are in English are in the third position.
All things being equal, with 26 letters distributed across eight buttons, letters in the first, second, and third position should each be used 31% of the time, with those in the fourth position (S and Z) should be used 8% of the time. Instead, letters in first position are used 30% of the time, second position 31%, third position 32%, and fourth position 6%.
So not a huge difference, but it would seem that the speed and ease of texting could be greatly improved by placing the most frequently used letters in the first position. If the letters were arranged in this pattern, instead of alphabetically, first position would be used 64% of the time, second 27%, third 9%, and fourth 0.2%.
I wanted to see how other languages compared, which are the best and worst for texting. However, most have additional characters and I'm not sure how they are used in texting or if replacements are used, such as "ue" replacing "ü" in German texting.
I found a list of letter frequencies on Wikipedia and decided to compare it to the lay out of letters on a phone number pad. It turns out my assumption was true, the most used letters are in English are in the third position.
All things being equal, with 26 letters distributed across eight buttons, letters in the first, second, and third position should each be used 31% of the time, with those in the fourth position (S and Z) should be used 8% of the time. Instead, letters in first position are used 30% of the time, second position 31%, third position 32%, and fourth position 6%.
So not a huge difference, but it would seem that the speed and ease of texting could be greatly improved by placing the most frequently used letters in the first position. If the letters were arranged in this pattern, instead of alphabetically, first position would be used 64% of the time, second 27%, third 9%, and fourth 0.2%.
I wanted to see how other languages compared, which are the best and worst for texting. However, most have additional characters and I'm not sure how they are used in texting or if replacements are used, such as "ue" replacing "ü" in German texting.
Monday, August 29, 2011
What is Poor?
I been thinking lately about the fact that Estonia doesn't really seem poor, even though by every measure it's the poorest country I've ever lived in. Of course, in many ways it's obviously not a wealthy country, with aged infrastructure and abandoned buildings here and there, but there's little evidence of poverty that I remember seeing in places like China and Russia or even in the US for that matter.
Using GDP per capita as an approximation of wealth, it is estimated that GDP per capita in the US is about 2.5 times that in Estonia. But what does that really look like? Part of the problem of visualizing it is that wealth varies so much within a country. I've spent most of my time in Tallinn, the wealthiest city in Estonia. So I found statistics on the GDP contribution of various metropolitan areas in the US and Europe and compared them and found some interesting numbers.
As a whole, Estonia's GDP per capita is similar to that of cities along the Texas-Mexico border. So it's poor, but not something that would be unfamiliar to Americans. By itself, Tallinn is comparable in wealth to Yuba City. Once again poor, but something Americans are accustomed to. I think that's why I don't really see it. I've been to cities in the US that are of comparable wealth, so it doesn't seem that much different.
Another difference in Estonia is that wealth is more evenly distributed, so there's fewer people that are super wealthy, but there are also fewer people that are a lot poorer than the general population. In fact, I've not seen a single beggar since coming to Tallinn. That said, I've also seen very little expressions of great wealth with the exceptions of tourists in the old town.
Anyway, after finding these numbers, I became fascinated by how much wealth is actually in a lot of Eastern European cities, so what follows is a list of major Eastern European cities and a US metro area to which they are comparable.
Prague, Czechia - Sacramento, CA
Warsaw, Poland - Rochester, NY
Bratislava, Slovakia - Charleston, SC
Ljubljana, Slovenia - Fort Collins, CO
Berlin, Germany - Winchester, VA
Zagreb, Croatia - Riverside, CA
Budapest, Hungary - Eugene, OR
Tallinn, Estonia - Yuba City, CA
Riga, Latvia - Pueblo, CO
Bucharest, Romania - Ocala, FL
Vilnius, Lithuania - Prescott, AZ
While these comparisons might seem surprising, it's important to remember, these are the wealthiest cities within their respective countries (except Berlin). In most cases, the rest of the country was so poor they could not be compared to any US metro area. In case you were curious, Asheville sits between Budapest and Tallinn.
Using GDP per capita as an approximation of wealth, it is estimated that GDP per capita in the US is about 2.5 times that in Estonia. But what does that really look like? Part of the problem of visualizing it is that wealth varies so much within a country. I've spent most of my time in Tallinn, the wealthiest city in Estonia. So I found statistics on the GDP contribution of various metropolitan areas in the US and Europe and compared them and found some interesting numbers.
As a whole, Estonia's GDP per capita is similar to that of cities along the Texas-Mexico border. So it's poor, but not something that would be unfamiliar to Americans. By itself, Tallinn is comparable in wealth to Yuba City. Once again poor, but something Americans are accustomed to. I think that's why I don't really see it. I've been to cities in the US that are of comparable wealth, so it doesn't seem that much different.
Another difference in Estonia is that wealth is more evenly distributed, so there's fewer people that are super wealthy, but there are also fewer people that are a lot poorer than the general population. In fact, I've not seen a single beggar since coming to Tallinn. That said, I've also seen very little expressions of great wealth with the exceptions of tourists in the old town.
Anyway, after finding these numbers, I became fascinated by how much wealth is actually in a lot of Eastern European cities, so what follows is a list of major Eastern European cities and a US metro area to which they are comparable.
Prague, Czechia - Sacramento, CA
Warsaw, Poland - Rochester, NY
Bratislava, Slovakia - Charleston, SC
Ljubljana, Slovenia - Fort Collins, CO
Berlin, Germany - Winchester, VA
Zagreb, Croatia - Riverside, CA
Budapest, Hungary - Eugene, OR
Tallinn, Estonia - Yuba City, CA
Riga, Latvia - Pueblo, CO
Bucharest, Romania - Ocala, FL
Vilnius, Lithuania - Prescott, AZ
While these comparisons might seem surprising, it's important to remember, these are the wealthiest cities within their respective countries (except Berlin). In most cases, the rest of the country was so poor they could not be compared to any US metro area. In case you were curious, Asheville sits between Budapest and Tallinn.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
So few terrorists
Foreign Policy
A friend of mine recently shared this on Facebook. I thought it was a fascinating article, so I wanted to share it here. The writer, Charles Kurzman, a professor at UNC, puts forward the premise that if there are over one billion Muslims in the world who supposedly hate America and the West, why are there so few terrorist attacks? It would seem that there would be attacks all the time with such numbers. He uses the example of a "terrorist attack" in Chapel Hill back in 2006 to make his point.
While the attacker was a Muslim and he professed to be part of a jihad against America, the details of the case reveal that he was really just some sadly deranged man who used the language of jihad to justify his attempts to kill. He was incredibly incompetent in executing the attack, failing to even purchase a gun, and was sorrowfully lacking in knowledge about Islam, the very religion he claimed to be fighting for.
In looking at other recent attacks in the US, this seems to be the rule rather than the exception. They typically work alone, are mentally unstable, and generally incompetent. Where are the well-organized attacks that we all came to fear after 9/11? These attackers fit the profile of school shooters and Eric Rudolf types more than Islamic terrorists.
One of the goals of the 9/11 attacks was to actually get the US to fight, which is what happened. The US even went so far as to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, and in fact was an enemy of Al-Qaeda. By getting the US to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, Al-Qaeda hoped that the Muslim world would become enraged and fight back. However, that hasn't happened, in fact, since 9/11 recruitment of militants has dropped. The vast majority of Muslim simply don't share Al-Qaeda's views or vision.
Kurzman lists a number of reasons for this, but the biggest one to me is that the victims of most Islamic terrorists attacks are other Muslims. Al-Qaeda isn't just fighting a war against the West, but also against other factions within Islam that are opposed to their goals. While the US invasions may have hurt the US's reputation among Muslims, these Muslims didn't turn to Al-Qaeda and other such groups because they were also killing fellow Muslims.
While I doubt I'll find it now, years ago I read an article that compared the Islamic terrorists of today to Anarchist terrorists of the early-20th Century. Anarchists were a major bogeyman of that time period, assassinating President McKinley as well as playing a role in setting off WWI. However, by the time WWII came around, Anarchists were largely forgotten. The author proposed the same would happen to Radical Islam. By attacking civilians, Anarchists damaged their image which hurt recruitment. Also, the conditions in which the Anarchist movement was created were changing. Anarchy was no longer a relevant ideology.
Radical Islam appears to be going the same route. As they continue to kill other Muslims, their support and recruitment numbers will drop. Also conditions in the Muslim world are changing. Most Islamic countries are former colonies, so they harbor resentment to their former colonizers as well as elements of neo-colonialism. However, as colonization becomes a more distant memory and the Western countries slowly decline in relative power, Muslims have gone from blaming the former colonizers to blaming their own governments for their relatively poor condition. The ideology of Al-Qaeda is no longer relevant to the average Muslim, if it ever was.
A friend of mine recently shared this on Facebook. I thought it was a fascinating article, so I wanted to share it here. The writer, Charles Kurzman, a professor at UNC, puts forward the premise that if there are over one billion Muslims in the world who supposedly hate America and the West, why are there so few terrorist attacks? It would seem that there would be attacks all the time with such numbers. He uses the example of a "terrorist attack" in Chapel Hill back in 2006 to make his point.
While the attacker was a Muslim and he professed to be part of a jihad against America, the details of the case reveal that he was really just some sadly deranged man who used the language of jihad to justify his attempts to kill. He was incredibly incompetent in executing the attack, failing to even purchase a gun, and was sorrowfully lacking in knowledge about Islam, the very religion he claimed to be fighting for.
In looking at other recent attacks in the US, this seems to be the rule rather than the exception. They typically work alone, are mentally unstable, and generally incompetent. Where are the well-organized attacks that we all came to fear after 9/11? These attackers fit the profile of school shooters and Eric Rudolf types more than Islamic terrorists.
One of the goals of the 9/11 attacks was to actually get the US to fight, which is what happened. The US even went so far as to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, and in fact was an enemy of Al-Qaeda. By getting the US to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, Al-Qaeda hoped that the Muslim world would become enraged and fight back. However, that hasn't happened, in fact, since 9/11 recruitment of militants has dropped. The vast majority of Muslim simply don't share Al-Qaeda's views or vision.
Kurzman lists a number of reasons for this, but the biggest one to me is that the victims of most Islamic terrorists attacks are other Muslims. Al-Qaeda isn't just fighting a war against the West, but also against other factions within Islam that are opposed to their goals. While the US invasions may have hurt the US's reputation among Muslims, these Muslims didn't turn to Al-Qaeda and other such groups because they were also killing fellow Muslims.
While I doubt I'll find it now, years ago I read an article that compared the Islamic terrorists of today to Anarchist terrorists of the early-20th Century. Anarchists were a major bogeyman of that time period, assassinating President McKinley as well as playing a role in setting off WWI. However, by the time WWII came around, Anarchists were largely forgotten. The author proposed the same would happen to Radical Islam. By attacking civilians, Anarchists damaged their image which hurt recruitment. Also, the conditions in which the Anarchist movement was created were changing. Anarchy was no longer a relevant ideology.
Radical Islam appears to be going the same route. As they continue to kill other Muslims, their support and recruitment numbers will drop. Also conditions in the Muslim world are changing. Most Islamic countries are former colonies, so they harbor resentment to their former colonizers as well as elements of neo-colonialism. However, as colonization becomes a more distant memory and the Western countries slowly decline in relative power, Muslims have gone from blaming the former colonizers to blaming their own governments for their relatively poor condition. The ideology of Al-Qaeda is no longer relevant to the average Muslim, if it ever was.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Economic Patterns
Yesterday I did a comparison of economic growth in various countries. I was curious to see how much of the world's economy is being gabbled up by China each year. I have a listing of the GDP (PPP) of 123 countries, representing pretty much the entire global economy (the 70-odd countries left out are all very small or poor). Looking at this, I found that China gained around 8% of the global economy during the past decade, a little less than 1% a year. India, another massive and rapidly growing economy, has gained less than 2% of the global economy. China isn't the fastest growing economy, but it is large and therefore its growth has a lot of consequence.
Looking at the numbers of the other countries, I decided to see which countries were growing relative to the global mean and which were declining. I should note, declining in this sense is just relative. Nearly all countries have seen economic growth, but some more slowly than others. I started at 1989 because it's starting from that date that I have the most information but also because it's historically interesting. I went through each country and labelled their peak in relative economic size and their nadir. However, I found much more than just some countries decline and some incline, but nearly all countries fit into some category just by looking at when their peaks and nadirs were.
General growth (continuous growth since 1989): Dark Green
General decline (continuous decline since 1989): Purple
Momentum gained (decline followed by growth): Green
Momentum lost (growth followed by decline): Pink
Post-Soviet recovery (Peaks in 1989 followed by nadirs and gradual growth): Red
Virtually no change: Blue
Senegal is the only blue country. I don't know if it's just lack of information, but its position barely changed from 1989 to 2010.
I found it interesting that so much can be interpreted by just looking at relative economic figures. Post-Soviet states definitely stood out in the data. It also brings up questions such as why does virtually all of South American fall into the "momentum gained" category? What prevented their collective growth in the 1990's and why are they growing now? You might also notice that not all the former communist states are in the "Post-Soviet recovery" category. This is because while they did recover slightly at first, they have since lost relative economic position. They may in fact be wealthier now than in the 1990's, but their growth has been relatively slow.
Another pattern I found in the data was what I called the Post-Soviet Bump. While the economies of the former Communist Bloc collapsed, several countries that fall into the "general decline" category saw a temporary rise in their relative economic position.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Alternate East Germany
The Local
It recently came up in German news that the chancellor of West Germany from 1949-1963 proposed a deal to swap West Berlin for the state of Thuringia and a few other border territories with East Germany. This brings up an interesting alternate history scenario.
Symbolically, the biggest difference would have been the lack of the Berlin Wall. Depending on the timing of the proposal, the Berlin Wall would have either never existed, or been unceremoniously removed soon after its construction.
The integration of Thuringia into West Germany would have gone much more smoothly than full reunification as the population being integrated would have been much smaller relative to the overall size of West Germany. While already by the 1960's East Germany was much poorer than West Germany, it probably wouldn't have been as economically painful for Thuringia as it industries wouldn't have been as out-dated as they were during the 1990's. Also, During the 1960's West Germany was at the height of its economic recovery and the integration of Thuringia would have brought in much welcomed additional labor, land for industrial expansion, and a new consumer market.
More in the dark though are the events of 1989. The disintegration of the Communist Bloc didn't start in East Germany. Before the fall of the Berlin Wall, East Germans were already escaping through the open border in Hungary, so that may have still happened. It was these events in Hungary that eventually led to East Germany opening its borders, but the process would have gone much slower had it not been for a misunderstanding as to when this would take place and the immediate flood of people at East and West Berlin border crossings. People would instead have to go out to the largely unpopulated East-West German border to cross. While many thousands probably would, it wouldn't have had the same psychological effect that the collapse of the Berlin Wall brought.
Reunification would probably be inevitability with the collapse of the Communist Bloc. It is difficult to say if it would have gone more smoothly though. In terms of population, not much would have been different, the population of West Berlin was not much different than Thuringia. The main difference probably would have been that West Germany would have already had experience with integrating new states.
In the end, the major difference it would make today would be that Thuringia would be much better off, but Berlin would be in a much worse position. Even now, Berlin is a surprisingly poor city, but was at least an oasis of development within East Germany during the 1990's. Instead, Berlin would have been much like all other East German cities in the 1990's and its population would have dropped significantly.
It recently came up in German news that the chancellor of West Germany from 1949-1963 proposed a deal to swap West Berlin for the state of Thuringia and a few other border territories with East Germany. This brings up an interesting alternate history scenario.
Symbolically, the biggest difference would have been the lack of the Berlin Wall. Depending on the timing of the proposal, the Berlin Wall would have either never existed, or been unceremoniously removed soon after its construction.
The integration of Thuringia into West Germany would have gone much more smoothly than full reunification as the population being integrated would have been much smaller relative to the overall size of West Germany. While already by the 1960's East Germany was much poorer than West Germany, it probably wouldn't have been as economically painful for Thuringia as it industries wouldn't have been as out-dated as they were during the 1990's. Also, During the 1960's West Germany was at the height of its economic recovery and the integration of Thuringia would have brought in much welcomed additional labor, land for industrial expansion, and a new consumer market.
More in the dark though are the events of 1989. The disintegration of the Communist Bloc didn't start in East Germany. Before the fall of the Berlin Wall, East Germans were already escaping through the open border in Hungary, so that may have still happened. It was these events in Hungary that eventually led to East Germany opening its borders, but the process would have gone much slower had it not been for a misunderstanding as to when this would take place and the immediate flood of people at East and West Berlin border crossings. People would instead have to go out to the largely unpopulated East-West German border to cross. While many thousands probably would, it wouldn't have had the same psychological effect that the collapse of the Berlin Wall brought.
Reunification would probably be inevitability with the collapse of the Communist Bloc. It is difficult to say if it would have gone more smoothly though. In terms of population, not much would have been different, the population of West Berlin was not much different than Thuringia. The main difference probably would have been that West Germany would have already had experience with integrating new states.
In the end, the major difference it would make today would be that Thuringia would be much better off, but Berlin would be in a much worse position. Even now, Berlin is a surprisingly poor city, but was at least an oasis of development within East Germany during the 1990's. Instead, Berlin would have been much like all other East German cities in the 1990's and its population would have dropped significantly.
Sunday, August 07, 2011
Historical Memory
Rough estimate of the percentage of the current US population alive during:
2001 - WTC attack - 86%
1989 - Fall of the Berlin Wall - 73%
1969 - Moon landing - 46%
1945 - End of WWII - 24%
1929 - Start of the Great Depression - 4%
1918 - End of WWI - 0.6%
2001 - WTC attack - 86%
1989 - Fall of the Berlin Wall - 73%
1969 - Moon landing - 46%
1945 - End of WWII - 24%
1929 - Start of the Great Depression - 4%
1918 - End of WWI - 0.6%
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Top 500 (What the hell Japan?)
Top 500
After a few slow updates, Japan absolutely crushes the competition with the release of K Computer. Six months again the Chinese introduced their first number one computer, Tianhe-1A, which could perform 2.6 PetaFLOPS. K Computer can do over 8 PetaFLOPS. This is the biggest change in the top computer since Japan introduced the Earth Simulator back in June 2002. Ironically, the current list is the first one on which the Earth Simulator would not appear for being too slow.
This is particularly odd list though because despite the introduction of such a fast computer, the overall speed of all 500 computers increased by about average. It's not that the list didn't move much, nearly half the computers are new, but that other than K Computer, the other new computers entered the list towards the bottom. K Computer accounted for over half the overall change in computing speed of the top 500. Much like its Japanese predecessor, the Earth Simulator, such a large lead over the other top computers means that K Computer will likely remain the fastest computer for a while. Which in the world of supercomputers is about two years.
After a few slow updates, Japan absolutely crushes the competition with the release of K Computer. Six months again the Chinese introduced their first number one computer, Tianhe-1A, which could perform 2.6 PetaFLOPS. K Computer can do over 8 PetaFLOPS. This is the biggest change in the top computer since Japan introduced the Earth Simulator back in June 2002. Ironically, the current list is the first one on which the Earth Simulator would not appear for being too slow.
This is particularly odd list though because despite the introduction of such a fast computer, the overall speed of all 500 computers increased by about average. It's not that the list didn't move much, nearly half the computers are new, but that other than K Computer, the other new computers entered the list towards the bottom. K Computer accounted for over half the overall change in computing speed of the top 500. Much like its Japanese predecessor, the Earth Simulator, such a large lead over the other top computers means that K Computer will likely remain the fastest computer for a while. Which in the world of supercomputers is about two years.
Friday, May 27, 2011
Unemployment Update
Back in March, I posted some maps about unemployment in the US. While for the most part it looked good, several states showed a worrying "double-dip" trend. It appears that these concerns were unfounded as March and April turned out to be very good months for employment figures.
Now 37 states are showing improvement, while only 4 show unemployment getting worse. While there are 3 states double-dipping, they are totally different from the ones that appeared to double-dip earlier indicating that it's probably just a temporary set back.
I decided to do another type of map for this update. I was curious to see how much better states have gotten since the peak in unemployment to see if some are doing better than others. However, to give it more context, I had to see how bad they got in the first place. So for each state I compared their lowest unemployment rate prior to the recession to their highest unemployment during the recession.
The scale is done by multiples, so Florida, Idaho, and Nevada had an unemployment more than 3.5 times higher than prior to the recession while Alaska's unemployment increased by less than 1.5 times or 50%. Florida saw the most dramatic increase, going from 3.3% unemployment in 2006 to 12% in 2010.
Since then though, conditions have improved in every state but Louisiana, so comparing their pre-recession best to their current, the map looks like this:
So none of the states are doing better than they were prior to the recession, but Alaska, New Hampshire, and North Dakota are getting closer. Nevada and Illinois have shown a lot of improvement, having changed two ranks.
Now 37 states are showing improvement, while only 4 show unemployment getting worse. While there are 3 states double-dipping, they are totally different from the ones that appeared to double-dip earlier indicating that it's probably just a temporary set back.
I decided to do another type of map for this update. I was curious to see how much better states have gotten since the peak in unemployment to see if some are doing better than others. However, to give it more context, I had to see how bad they got in the first place. So for each state I compared their lowest unemployment rate prior to the recession to their highest unemployment during the recession.
The scale is done by multiples, so Florida, Idaho, and Nevada had an unemployment more than 3.5 times higher than prior to the recession while Alaska's unemployment increased by less than 1.5 times or 50%. Florida saw the most dramatic increase, going from 3.3% unemployment in 2006 to 12% in 2010.
Since then though, conditions have improved in every state but Louisiana, so comparing their pre-recession best to their current, the map looks like this:
So none of the states are doing better than they were prior to the recession, but Alaska, New Hampshire, and North Dakota are getting closer. Nevada and Illinois have shown a lot of improvement, having changed two ranks.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Peace Corps
Since I don't know where I'm going yet I decided to do some speculating. Based on my qualifications, out of the 70 "countries" Peace Corps sends volunteers to, there are 32 that I'm likely to end up. I say "countries" because they list Eastern Caribbean as one entity as well as Micronesia and Palau. The count also includes 3 countries where there are currently no volunteers.
Many countries only have education and health programs, which I am not qualified for. Also much of the Americas is off limits as I don't speak Spanish.
Dark Gray-Countries I'm not qualified for
Light Blue-Countries I'm likely to go to
Dark Blue-The 10 countries with the most volunteers that I'm likely to go to
Based on the current level of volunteers, my estimate for where I'll end up:
Ukraine (the country with the most volunteers) 11%
Africa 53%
Vanuatu 2%
Any Pacific island 4%
Any island nation 10%
Many countries only have education and health programs, which I am not qualified for. Also much of the Americas is off limits as I don't speak Spanish.
Dark Gray-Countries I'm not qualified for
Light Blue-Countries I'm likely to go to
Dark Blue-The 10 countries with the most volunteers that I'm likely to go to
Based on the current level of volunteers, my estimate for where I'll end up:
Ukraine (the country with the most volunteers) 11%
Africa 53%
Vanuatu 2%
Any Pacific island 4%
Any island nation 10%
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
How Azerbaijan Won
There has been a lot of discussion lately about how Azerbaijan won the recent Eurovision Song Contest. It seems that the general opinion was that it was a bland, forgettable song. So who voted for it? Actually, not all that many people.
Eurovision voting rules are a perfect example of one of the problems of first-pass-the-post voting. It makes it possible that a minority choice ends up winning. In the Eurovision Final there are 25 choices. This theoretically makes it possible that an entry could win the coveted 12 points with just over 4% of the overall vote.
Eurovision's scoring system also distorts the results. The winning song in a country could receive 20% of the vote while the second place song got 10%. Even though the second place song got half as many votes, it will receive 10 points while the winning song got 12. This makes the contest more competitive by handicapping the best performers. Now consider that Azerbaijan averaged 6th place and its easy to see that they could have received a lot of points while not actually receiving all that many votes.
Statistics on ESC Chat reveal more. Azerbaijan won with smallest amount of possible votes of any winning act under the current voting system, which has been in place since 1975. Overall, Azerbaijan won only 9% of the points assigned while back in 2009 Norway won with a landslide of 16%. That might not seem like a big difference, but the thing to consider is that Norway won first place in 16 countries while Azerbaijan only won in 3. Since the scoring system effectively handicaps entries that do really well by limiting the number of points it can get to a maximum of 12, Norway likely did much better its 16% would imply while Azerbaijan did worse than its 9% implies.
What does this all mean? When there isn't a clear favorite like in 2009 and 2010, the winner of Eurovision is really just a matter of chance. A relatively small number of votes can drastically change the outcome. It will be interesting to see the separated jury and televote scores once they become available as it's completely possible that Azerbaijan could have won the combined scores without actually winning the jury vote or the televote.
Eurovision voting rules are a perfect example of one of the problems of first-pass-the-post voting. It makes it possible that a minority choice ends up winning. In the Eurovision Final there are 25 choices. This theoretically makes it possible that an entry could win the coveted 12 points with just over 4% of the overall vote.
Eurovision's scoring system also distorts the results. The winning song in a country could receive 20% of the vote while the second place song got 10%. Even though the second place song got half as many votes, it will receive 10 points while the winning song got 12. This makes the contest more competitive by handicapping the best performers. Now consider that Azerbaijan averaged 6th place and its easy to see that they could have received a lot of points while not actually receiving all that many votes.
Statistics on ESC Chat reveal more. Azerbaijan won with smallest amount of possible votes of any winning act under the current voting system, which has been in place since 1975. Overall, Azerbaijan won only 9% of the points assigned while back in 2009 Norway won with a landslide of 16%. That might not seem like a big difference, but the thing to consider is that Norway won first place in 16 countries while Azerbaijan only won in 3. Since the scoring system effectively handicaps entries that do really well by limiting the number of points it can get to a maximum of 12, Norway likely did much better its 16% would imply while Azerbaijan did worse than its 9% implies.
What does this all mean? When there isn't a clear favorite like in 2009 and 2010, the winner of Eurovision is really just a matter of chance. A relatively small number of votes can drastically change the outcome. It will be interesting to see the separated jury and televote scores once they become available as it's completely possible that Azerbaijan could have won the combined scores without actually winning the jury vote or the televote.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
More Demographics
Interactive Map of Census Data from the New York Times
I was browsing Census data, as I'm wont to do, and notice something kind of interesting. I've made some earlier posts about how non-Hispanic Whites (for brevity, simply referred to as "White" from here on out) will not longer be the majority in the not so distant future, so I expect the population growth of minorities to outpace the growth of the White population. What I didn't expect though was to find that the white population is actually declining in a number states.
States with a declining White population:
California
Connecticut
Illinois
Iowa
Kansas
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Mississippi
New Jersey
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
This got me wondering, with so many states seeing a declining white population, where is population growth coming from?
Population change 2000-2010
Total: 27.3 million
Hispanic: 15.2 million
Asian: 4.3 million
Black: 3.7 million
White: 2.3 million
Multiple: 1.4 million
Others: 0.4 million
Hispanics made up 55.5% of population change while representing only 16.3% of the total population. Whites only made up 8.3% of population change despite representing 63.7% of the total population. Even the Black and Asian populations saw a greater absolute increase in population.
Overall, the population of the US increased by 9.7%. The Hispanic population increased by 43%, followed closely by the Asian population which grew by 42.9%. The White population only grew by 1.2%. It seems that without migration, US population trends would more closely match those of most European states.
I was browsing Census data, as I'm wont to do, and notice something kind of interesting. I've made some earlier posts about how non-Hispanic Whites (for brevity, simply referred to as "White" from here on out) will not longer be the majority in the not so distant future, so I expect the population growth of minorities to outpace the growth of the White population. What I didn't expect though was to find that the white population is actually declining in a number states.
States with a declining White population:
California
Connecticut
Illinois
Iowa
Kansas
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Mississippi
New Jersey
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
This got me wondering, with so many states seeing a declining white population, where is population growth coming from?
Population change 2000-2010
Total: 27.3 million
Hispanic: 15.2 million
Asian: 4.3 million
Black: 3.7 million
White: 2.3 million
Multiple: 1.4 million
Others: 0.4 million
Hispanics made up 55.5% of population change while representing only 16.3% of the total population. Whites only made up 8.3% of population change despite representing 63.7% of the total population. Even the Black and Asian populations saw a greater absolute increase in population.
Overall, the population of the US increased by 9.7%. The Hispanic population increased by 43%, followed closely by the Asian population which grew by 42.9%. The White population only grew by 1.2%. It seems that without migration, US population trends would more closely match those of most European states.
Friday, May 06, 2011
Address Bar Guesses
Like so many things these days, the Firefox address bar attempts to guess what sites I want to visit based on what I start typing. I decided to see what sites are the ones that come up first with each letter of the alphabet.
A - APDC Interpreters Bank I'm currently working on a project with them
B - Blackboard School stuff
C - CBC Canadian election news
D - Dominosa Puzzle game I no longer play
E - Etymonline.com Etymology dictionary
F - Facebook
G - Gmail
H - Hack Slash Crawl Flash game I no longer play
I - Institutional Research Board School stuff
J - Jay is Games Causal gaming site
K - Kayak Flight finder
L - Slither Link Puzzle game
M - Mu Cow Self-referential!
N - Nurikabe Puzzle game
O - Orisinal Flash games
P - Penrose Library Campus library
Q - Quest Diagnostics From when I was being medically cleared for the Peace Corps
R - RTE Irish election news
S - Sporcle Quiz games
T - The Cinema Snob Videos of reviews of bad movies
U - US Election Atlas Information on past US elections
V - Valmyndigheten Information on past Swedish elections
W - Wachovia
X - Google Reader The Local's RSS feed
Y - YouTube
Z - Google Account Logout Warning, this link will cause you to log out of your Google account.
I'm personally entertained that four of these deal with elections.
A - APDC Interpreters Bank I'm currently working on a project with them
B - Blackboard School stuff
C - CBC Canadian election news
D - Dominosa Puzzle game I no longer play
E - Etymonline.com Etymology dictionary
F - Facebook
G - Gmail
H - Hack Slash Crawl Flash game I no longer play
I - Institutional Research Board School stuff
J - Jay is Games Causal gaming site
K - Kayak Flight finder
L - Slither Link Puzzle game
M - Mu Cow Self-referential!
N - Nurikabe Puzzle game
O - Orisinal Flash games
P - Penrose Library Campus library
Q - Quest Diagnostics From when I was being medically cleared for the Peace Corps
R - RTE Irish election news
S - Sporcle Quiz games
T - The Cinema Snob Videos of reviews of bad movies
U - US Election Atlas Information on past US elections
V - Valmyndigheten Information on past Swedish elections
W - Wachovia
X - Google Reader The Local's RSS feed
Y - YouTube
Z - Google Account Logout Warning, this link will cause you to log out of your Google account.
I'm personally entertained that four of these deal with elections.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Mu Cow vs. IMDb
It turns out that IMDb has a Criticker account. It's just movie rankings from IMDb put into a Criticker account. What makes it interesting though is that it allows me to compare my movie opinions to the general public and not just my peers. That said, It appears I agree with the general public a lot as IMDb is ranked as the 22nd account that I agree with the most. However there are a few exceptions.
Movies IMDb likes but I don't:
2001: A Space Odyssey - Yes, it's a groundbreaking film, but it's also painfully boring.
Sin City - I felt the graphic nature of the film distracted too much from the stories, or in some cases, was the story.
Frankenstein - Once again, it's really not that good of a movie even by 1930's standards.
Planet of the Apes - Sure it's a classic, but it's still kind of silly.
Crash - Too heavy-handed.
The Ten Commandments - This is a movie I should probably rewatch, but won't because it's incredibly long.
The Last of the Mohicans - I must have really missed something in this movie because I don't understand what makes it so special.
Star Wars Episode III - Really? People like this movie?
Watership Down - It's kind of a downer.
Forbidden Planet - Was probably good for the 1950's, but I don't think it has aged well.
Gattaca - Another movie I should rewatch, I thought it was boring the first time I saw it.
Dancer in the Dark - No amount of arguing will convince me this is a good movie.
Sweeney Todd - Boring, forgettable songs which is unforgivable for a movie touted as a musical.
Bambi - It still has no plot!
Movies I like that IMDb doesn't:
Batman (1966) - The makers of this movie knew exactly what they were making and it was campy brilliance.
Death to Smoochy - I'm still surprised to know so many people dislike this movie.
Young Einstein - It's such a fun movie, how can people not like it?
Movies IMDb likes but I don't:
2001: A Space Odyssey - Yes, it's a groundbreaking film, but it's also painfully boring.
Sin City - I felt the graphic nature of the film distracted too much from the stories, or in some cases, was the story.
Frankenstein - Once again, it's really not that good of a movie even by 1930's standards.
Planet of the Apes - Sure it's a classic, but it's still kind of silly.
Crash - Too heavy-handed.
The Ten Commandments - This is a movie I should probably rewatch, but won't because it's incredibly long.
The Last of the Mohicans - I must have really missed something in this movie because I don't understand what makes it so special.
Star Wars Episode III - Really? People like this movie?
Watership Down - It's kind of a downer.
Forbidden Planet - Was probably good for the 1950's, but I don't think it has aged well.
Gattaca - Another movie I should rewatch, I thought it was boring the first time I saw it.
Dancer in the Dark - No amount of arguing will convince me this is a good movie.
Sweeney Todd - Boring, forgettable songs which is unforgivable for a movie touted as a musical.
Bambi - It still has no plot!
Movies I like that IMDb doesn't:
Batman (1966) - The makers of this movie knew exactly what they were making and it was campy brilliance.
Death to Smoochy - I'm still surprised to know so many people dislike this movie.
Young Einstein - It's such a fun movie, how can people not like it?
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Eurovision 2011
Eurovision
Eurovision starts in two weeks! You can watch it live online. You just have to install Octoshape, which we discovered last year might not work with Apple computers.
The dates are:
1st semi-final: May 10th
2nd semi-final: May 12th
Final: May 14th
They start at 21:00 CET or 3pm EST and 1pm MST.
This year, I don't have any stand-out favorites, but I'm much more pleased with this year's entries than last year. Even the UK managed to put together a decent act after finally dispensing with a national competition and going with an internal selection. I firmly hold that the reason the UK has done so poorly lately is because they let Brits choose their entry, so it's nice to see that the BBC has caught on.
Other big news for this year, Italy and Austria are back in the game! While Austria last competed in 2007, Italy hasn't competed in 14 years. Because of Italy's contributions to the EBU, which organizes Eurovision, it gets automatic entry to the final alongside France, Germany, Spain, and the UK.
It was really difficult for me to narrow down my list of the most interesting songs to only 10, so instead here are 11.
11. Portugal Something sorely missing from last year, poorly sung protest songs.
10. Belgium Walloon's turn to pick an entry. Guess what their gimmick is this time.
9. Finland The preachiest Eurovision song ever.
8. Belarus It will be interesting to see if anyone outside Belarus agrees with this singer's sentiments.
7. Romania Starts out strong, but doesn't keep it up.
6. Italy Returns with a great entry.
5. GermanyShe looks familiar...
4. Moldova That's... unique.
3. France Stay classy, France.
2. Ireland Ireland, I love you.
1. Bosnia This song has really grown on me after repeat listenings.
If you want to see more, all entries are on this YouTube playlist.
There are two last things I want to share. First, my favorite song to come out of this year's national competition, sadly, didn't make it to Eurovision, it came in 3rd in Sweden's competition, but here it is for your enjoyment, Oh My God. Second, in case Ireland's entry wasn't ridiculous enough for you, one of the singers hurt his ankle and has been performing in a wheelchair. No word if he'll be better in 2 weeks, but here's a video.
Eurovision starts in two weeks! You can watch it live online. You just have to install Octoshape, which we discovered last year might not work with Apple computers.
The dates are:
1st semi-final: May 10th
2nd semi-final: May 12th
Final: May 14th
They start at 21:00 CET or 3pm EST and 1pm MST.
This year, I don't have any stand-out favorites, but I'm much more pleased with this year's entries than last year. Even the UK managed to put together a decent act after finally dispensing with a national competition and going with an internal selection. I firmly hold that the reason the UK has done so poorly lately is because they let Brits choose their entry, so it's nice to see that the BBC has caught on.
Other big news for this year, Italy and Austria are back in the game! While Austria last competed in 2007, Italy hasn't competed in 14 years. Because of Italy's contributions to the EBU, which organizes Eurovision, it gets automatic entry to the final alongside France, Germany, Spain, and the UK.
It was really difficult for me to narrow down my list of the most interesting songs to only 10, so instead here are 11.
11. Portugal Something sorely missing from last year, poorly sung protest songs.
10. Belgium Walloon's turn to pick an entry. Guess what their gimmick is this time.
9. Finland The preachiest Eurovision song ever.
8. Belarus It will be interesting to see if anyone outside Belarus agrees with this singer's sentiments.
7. Romania Starts out strong, but doesn't keep it up.
6. Italy Returns with a great entry.
5. GermanyShe looks familiar...
4. Moldova That's... unique.
3. France Stay classy, France.
2. Ireland Ireland, I love you.
1. Bosnia This song has really grown on me after repeat listenings.
If you want to see more, all entries are on this YouTube playlist.
There are two last things I want to share. First, my favorite song to come out of this year's national competition, sadly, didn't make it to Eurovision, it came in 3rd in Sweden's competition, but here it is for your enjoyment, Oh My God. Second, in case Ireland's entry wasn't ridiculous enough for you, one of the singers hurt his ankle and has been performing in a wheelchair. No word if he'll be better in 2 weeks, but here's a video.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Are they really good? (Eh)
So similar to my last post, only this time, it's movies that I think are good, but my peers seem to disagree.
In parenthesis is the score I gave the movie and how much higher it is than the predicted score.
-Young Einstein (75, +40) There is nothing so terrible about this movie to justify why people gave it such a low score.
-Napoleon Dynamite (93, +34) There are few other films that I laugh as hard at. All the characters in this movie are great.
Hudson Hawk (70, +32) Whatever this movie hoped to be it utterly failed at. What it ended up being is so absurdly silly that it's hard not to like.
Aeon Flux (53, +32) It's not a great movie by any stretch of the imagination, but I found it interesting and entertaining.
-The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (81, +31) Yes, this movie is dumb, but that's why I love it.
-Michael (71, +31) Celeste appears to be the only person that agrees with me that this is a decent movie.
-Death to Smoochy (86, +27) I was really surprised to find out that there's a lot of people that don't like this movie. I thought it was hilarious.
-Reckless Kelly (74, +26) I loved this movie as a kid. I should probably watch again now that I would get all the jokes.
-The Fountain (97, +26) The movie was really divisive when it came out. I agree it's pretentious at times, but it really grabbed me.
-Chicago (90, +25) I'm a sucker for a good musical.
-A Knight's Tale (80, +24) I found this movie really fun and entertaining. The campiness of all the modern music and themes just added to it.
-Moulin Rouge (98, +24) This movie is such a spectacle I can't help but love it.
In parenthesis is the score I gave the movie and how much higher it is than the predicted score.
-Young Einstein (75, +40) There is nothing so terrible about this movie to justify why people gave it such a low score.
-Napoleon Dynamite (93, +34) There are few other films that I laugh as hard at. All the characters in this movie are great.
Hudson Hawk (70, +32) Whatever this movie hoped to be it utterly failed at. What it ended up being is so absurdly silly that it's hard not to like.
Aeon Flux (53, +32) It's not a great movie by any stretch of the imagination, but I found it interesting and entertaining.
-The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (81, +31) Yes, this movie is dumb, but that's why I love it.
-Michael (71, +31) Celeste appears to be the only person that agrees with me that this is a decent movie.
-Death to Smoochy (86, +27) I was really surprised to find out that there's a lot of people that don't like this movie. I thought it was hilarious.
-Reckless Kelly (74, +26) I loved this movie as a kid. I should probably watch again now that I would get all the jokes.
-The Fountain (97, +26) The movie was really divisive when it came out. I agree it's pretentious at times, but it really grabbed me.
-Chicago (90, +25) I'm a sucker for a good musical.
-A Knight's Tale (80, +24) I found this movie really fun and entertaining. The campiness of all the modern music and themes just added to it.
-Moulin Rouge (98, +24) This movie is such a spectacle I can't help but love it.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Are they really bad? (Yes)
I watch a lot of videos on That Guy with the Glasses as I enjoy watching him and some of the other commentators make fun on bad movies. One day I came across a video he did where he talked about movies where his opinion seemed very different from the general opinion. Basically, movies that he thought were good or bad, but everyone else seemed to have a different opinion.
This got me thinking, I've been using Criticker for a long time, and while it's usually really good at predicting what score I'll give a movie, sometimes it's wildly off. The predicted score is calculated based on the scores people who tend to agree with me on movies. Therefore, when a predicted score is way off, it means that I'm not in agreement with people who have similar taste as me. So I decided to take a look at the movies that I thought were bad, but almost everyone who share my tastes disagree.
In parenthesis is the score I gave the movie and how much lower it is than the predicted score.
-Dancer in the Dark (0, -67) I hate it when movies move the plot forward by having characters act like idiots. In this case, the entire movie was carried on the back of characters with a collective IQ of 12.
-Quills (14, -55) I don't understand at all what people found enjoyable about this movie. The entire last act is people being tortured or dying in horrible ways. It's an incredibly uncomfortable movie to sit through.
-Face/Off (11, -46) Nothing in this movie makes any kind of sense. I don't remember any of the actions scenes that supposedly make this a decent movie.
-The Dreamers (20, -46) Many of the scenes come across as laughable instead of artistic. It's a great example of the plot being progressed through idiocy.
-There's Something about Mary (17, -44) I think I may have been too young to really get this movie when I first saw it. All I remember is it being really gross, which I don't really care for.
-The Passion of the Christ (21, -43) Personally, I don't see the appeal that many Christians saw. Virtually every non-Christian I know was horrified by this movie and I'm inclined to agree with them.
-Bambi (29, -40) it has no plot!
-Frankenstein (39, -40) I felt bad giving it such a low score, but it's really not a good movie. It's filled with plot holes and illogical actions. It might be a classic, but it's hard to overlook its flaws.
-The Last of the Mohicans (33, -36) This may have just been a result of not being able to hear the audio very well, but I had no idea what was happening.
-Hercules (23, -35) I'm generally not too hard on movies that don't stick to the source material, but this movie was just insulting.
-Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (37, -31) I don't remember much about it, I just remember not finding it engaging at all.
-Sweeney Todd (36, -31) I told someone that the reason I didn't like this movie was because the music was bad and forgettable. They said it still had an interesting story. My response was, if it had such a good story, why did they make it a musical?
-Crash (40, -30) Did you know this movie was about racism? Subtle isn't it?
This got me thinking, I've been using Criticker for a long time, and while it's usually really good at predicting what score I'll give a movie, sometimes it's wildly off. The predicted score is calculated based on the scores people who tend to agree with me on movies. Therefore, when a predicted score is way off, it means that I'm not in agreement with people who have similar taste as me. So I decided to take a look at the movies that I thought were bad, but almost everyone who share my tastes disagree.
In parenthesis is the score I gave the movie and how much lower it is than the predicted score.
-Dancer in the Dark (0, -67) I hate it when movies move the plot forward by having characters act like idiots. In this case, the entire movie was carried on the back of characters with a collective IQ of 12.
-Quills (14, -55) I don't understand at all what people found enjoyable about this movie. The entire last act is people being tortured or dying in horrible ways. It's an incredibly uncomfortable movie to sit through.
-Face/Off (11, -46) Nothing in this movie makes any kind of sense. I don't remember any of the actions scenes that supposedly make this a decent movie.
-The Dreamers (20, -46) Many of the scenes come across as laughable instead of artistic. It's a great example of the plot being progressed through idiocy.
-There's Something about Mary (17, -44) I think I may have been too young to really get this movie when I first saw it. All I remember is it being really gross, which I don't really care for.
-The Passion of the Christ (21, -43) Personally, I don't see the appeal that many Christians saw. Virtually every non-Christian I know was horrified by this movie and I'm inclined to agree with them.
-Bambi (29, -40) it has no plot!
-Frankenstein (39, -40) I felt bad giving it such a low score, but it's really not a good movie. It's filled with plot holes and illogical actions. It might be a classic, but it's hard to overlook its flaws.
-The Last of the Mohicans (33, -36) This may have just been a result of not being able to hear the audio very well, but I had no idea what was happening.
-Hercules (23, -35) I'm generally not too hard on movies that don't stick to the source material, but this movie was just insulting.
-Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (37, -31) I don't remember much about it, I just remember not finding it engaging at all.
-Sweeney Todd (36, -31) I told someone that the reason I didn't like this movie was because the music was bad and forgettable. They said it still had an interesting story. My response was, if it had such a good story, why did they make it a musical?
-Crash (40, -30) Did you know this movie was about racism? Subtle isn't it?
Friday, April 15, 2011
Tall Buildings
After reading about some monstrosity they want to build in Saudi Arabia, I got curious as to how quickly the world's tallest buildings rise in height, similar to how the Top 500 keeps track of how much faster computers are getting. I got data from Emporis about the current tallest buildings in the world and then figured out what would have been the tallest buildings in previous years by removing newer buildings. The WTC Towers were the only ones I had to look up to add to the data for years prior to 2001 as demolishing skyscrapers is kind of rare.
I took the top 30 from each year and averaged their heights. I picked 30 somewhat arbitrarily as it was a small enough number that most likely 30 of them were from long enough ago to give me plenty of years to work with. I was able to go back to 1984 before the list dropped below 30, meaning of the current top 200, less than 30 were built before 1984. It is also a large enough number that I hoped the annual change in heights would be steady.
The data shows that the average height increases by 3.5 meters, or 11.5 feet, annually. This is a rather steady increase with only 2010 being an outlier due to the completion of the Burj Khalifa. Currently the average height is 405 meters (1328 ft), 24 meters taller than the Empire State Building, and slightly shorter than Trumps new building in Chicago.
Projections (year, average height, current building closest to that height)
2015 - 423 meters - Jin Mao Tower
2020 - 441 meters - Sears Tower
2025 - 458 meters - Petronas Towers
2035 - 494 meters - Shanghai World Financial Center
2040 - 511 meters - Taipei 101
...
2130 - 830 meters - Burj Khalifa
2178 - 1 kilometer - none
I took the top 30 from each year and averaged their heights. I picked 30 somewhat arbitrarily as it was a small enough number that most likely 30 of them were from long enough ago to give me plenty of years to work with. I was able to go back to 1984 before the list dropped below 30, meaning of the current top 200, less than 30 were built before 1984. It is also a large enough number that I hoped the annual change in heights would be steady.
The data shows that the average height increases by 3.5 meters, or 11.5 feet, annually. This is a rather steady increase with only 2010 being an outlier due to the completion of the Burj Khalifa. Currently the average height is 405 meters (1328 ft), 24 meters taller than the Empire State Building, and slightly shorter than Trumps new building in Chicago.
Projections (year, average height, current building closest to that height)
2015 - 423 meters - Jin Mao Tower
2020 - 441 meters - Sears Tower
2025 - 458 meters - Petronas Towers
2035 - 494 meters - Shanghai World Financial Center
2040 - 511 meters - Taipei 101
...
2130 - 830 meters - Burj Khalifa
2178 - 1 kilometer - none
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Who won in 2008?
I recently came upon a new idea for counting votes in an election. Instead of only counting votes cast and ignoring those who abstain, abstentions would be counted in their own category. For example, in a district one candidate might get 55% of the vote and the other 45%. However, if over half of the population didn't vote at all, then abstaining votes would win and no candidate would be selected. While this might seem bad, it gives political parties a stronger incentive to see that everyone votes. Currently, those incentives don't really exist, all a candidate has to do is get more voters than the other candidate, regardless of how many people vote. It would also limit voter disenfranchisement as they would then count as abstaining votes and cause neither candidate to win.
I decided to see what would have happened if this rule was applied to the 2008 election. In 2008, 58% of everyone over the age of 18 voted, the highest voter turnout since 1968. However, this means that 42% of potential voters abstained. If these abstentions were counted, the break down of the vote would be:
Abstain: 42%
Obama: 31%
McCain: 27%
Other: 1%
Abstentions end up winning by a wide margin. Broken down to the state level, the results are very ugly:
Obama and McCain only win a handful of states, the majority, and the winner of the Electoral College with 428 votes. Clearly, a huge portion of the US population isn't having their voice heard.
In order to produce a situation where Obama beats abstentions, voter turnout would have to be over 69%.
I decided to see what would have happened if this rule was applied to the 2008 election. In 2008, 58% of everyone over the age of 18 voted, the highest voter turnout since 1968. However, this means that 42% of potential voters abstained. If these abstentions were counted, the break down of the vote would be:
Abstain: 42%
Obama: 31%
McCain: 27%
Other: 1%
Abstentions end up winning by a wide margin. Broken down to the state level, the results are very ugly:
Obama and McCain only win a handful of states, the majority, and the winner of the Electoral College with 428 votes. Clearly, a huge portion of the US population isn't having their voice heard.
In order to produce a situation where Obama beats abstentions, voter turnout would have to be over 69%.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Majority-Minority 2010
Last year I made a post about majority-minority states. These are states where non-Hispanic Whites are not the majority. Currently only four states, CA, HI, NM, and TX, plus DC are considered majority-minority. However, the population of certain minority groups, mainly Hispanics and Asians, is growing rapidly. I made some predictions about when other states would become majority-minority states, which showed that by 2041, non-Hispanic Whites will be a minority in the US. These predictions used data from 2005-2008, so with the recent Census data, I updated the data with 2009-2010 figures.
What the 2010 Census revealed was that previous population estimates greatly underestimated the size of the Hispanic population. The predicted date for when a state would become a majority-minority state moved forward in all but 10 states. Only in three states, AZ, ME, and, MT, did the estimated minority population decline as a result of the new data. On average, the predicted date for when a state would become a majority-minority state moved forward ten years.
Next 10 majority-minority states:
Nevada - 2015
Maryland - 2017
Florida - 2020
Georgia - 2021
Arizona - 2024
New Jersey - 2024
Mississippi - 2029
Louisiana* - 2030
Delaware - 2033
New York - 2034
*The Louisiana estimate leaves out 2005 as there was massive, but temporary, decline in the Black population that skews the data.
The new data moves forward the date for when non-Hispanic Whites become an minority in the US from 2041 to 2034. Previous data showed only 12 majority-states by 2041, but new data shows 14 by just 2034 and 20 by 2041.
Only DC is showing a reversal as the non-Hispanic White population is increasing and could become the majority by 2026. Previous data showed Hawaii reversing, but the 2010 Census data disputes this, showing the non-Hispanic White population declining as a proportion.
What the 2010 Census revealed was that previous population estimates greatly underestimated the size of the Hispanic population. The predicted date for when a state would become a majority-minority state moved forward in all but 10 states. Only in three states, AZ, ME, and, MT, did the estimated minority population decline as a result of the new data. On average, the predicted date for when a state would become a majority-minority state moved forward ten years.
Next 10 majority-minority states:
Nevada - 2015
Maryland - 2017
Florida - 2020
Georgia - 2021
Arizona - 2024
New Jersey - 2024
Mississippi - 2029
Louisiana* - 2030
Delaware - 2033
New York - 2034
*The Louisiana estimate leaves out 2005 as there was massive, but temporary, decline in the Black population that skews the data.
The new data moves forward the date for when non-Hispanic Whites become an minority in the US from 2041 to 2034. Previous data showed only 12 majority-states by 2041, but new data shows 14 by just 2034 and 20 by 2041.
Only DC is showing a reversal as the non-Hispanic White population is increasing and could become the majority by 2026. Previous data showed Hawaii reversing, but the 2010 Census data disputes this, showing the non-Hispanic White population declining as a proportion.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
What a difference a day makes
BLS.gov
Just a couple of days after I made that map about unemployment, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released their numbers for January. With new numbers, I decided to reassess my previous method of categorizing states by looking more at the number of people employed rather than the unemployment rate. The reason for this is a decline in the unemployment doesn't necessary mean that more people have jobs, people may given up looking for jobs for various unrelated reasons. So here's the new map:
The map still shows 26 states plus DC recovering. Some of the most important changes are that California, Florida, and Texas do not appear to be getting worse. I'm reluctant to say that they are fully recovering though until February numbers are available.
Kentucky is an oddity as it's employment numbers are improving, but the number of unemployed is growing at a faster rate.
Wyoming is the opposite situation, its employment numbers are declining, but the number of unemployed is declining at a faster rate.
Nevada is also problem in that it's unemployment rate greatly improved in January, but the number of people employed declined.
Employment numbers in Colorado are getting worse, but I couldn't really call it a double-dip recession because the employment numbers never really showed much improvement in the first place.
In any case, the Midwest and the Northwest are still doing incredibly well, but the recovery appears to be losing steam in the Rockies and the Southeast.
Just a couple of days after I made that map about unemployment, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released their numbers for January. With new numbers, I decided to reassess my previous method of categorizing states by looking more at the number of people employed rather than the unemployment rate. The reason for this is a decline in the unemployment doesn't necessary mean that more people have jobs, people may given up looking for jobs for various unrelated reasons. So here's the new map:
The map still shows 26 states plus DC recovering. Some of the most important changes are that California, Florida, and Texas do not appear to be getting worse. I'm reluctant to say that they are fully recovering though until February numbers are available.
Kentucky is an oddity as it's employment numbers are improving, but the number of unemployed is growing at a faster rate.
Wyoming is the opposite situation, its employment numbers are declining, but the number of unemployed is declining at a faster rate.
Nevada is also problem in that it's unemployment rate greatly improved in January, but the number of people employed declined.
Employment numbers in Colorado are getting worse, but I couldn't really call it a double-dip recession because the employment numbers never really showed much improvement in the first place.
In any case, the Midwest and the Northwest are still doing incredibly well, but the recovery appears to be losing steam in the Rockies and the Southeast.
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
Unemployment in the US
I've been wanting to put something up here for awhile, but finals take time as do some of the things I want to work on for this blog. However, last night I started working on something that didn't take too much time.
I was looking at unemployment figures and seeing how different states were doing. I wasn't planning to do anything with it until I looked at Georgia's numbers. Like most states, Georgia's unemployment peaked around the end of 2009 and recovered slightly, but then started back up again at the end of 2010. It left me wondering if this was the sign of a double-dip recession, that we would see another peak in unemployment in the near future. So I made the following map:
Bright green - States that have shown continuous recovery since their peak in unemployment.
Dark green - States where unemployment is down from its peak, but there was little change in the last 6 months of 2010.
Gold - Unemployment peaked and has remained near that level.
Red - Unemployment continuously getting worse.
Dark Red - States that initially recovered, but unemployment has since gotten worse again.
Only two states, Georgia and Delaware, seem to show signs of a double-dip recession. As it stands, 26 states plus DC have shown continuous improvement since 2009. The Midwest is doing especially well, with unemployment rates falling much more rapidly in places like Illinois and Michigan than the national average. Michigan's unemployment rate was at 14%, but has fallen to 11%, lower than Nevada, California, Florida, and Rhode Island.
What's interesting with the dark green states in the Southeast is that they all show a similar pattern. They all peaked at around 11% unemployment, which quickly fell to about 10% and has stayed there ever since.
People have said that Colorado did well during the recession as when the nation as a whole was at 10%, Colorado was at 9%. However, the number show that while the nation is doing better, Colorado is still stuck at 9%.
The most worrisome sign is that three of the largest economies, California, Texas, and Florida, were worse off at the end of 2010 than they were in 2009. I'm also curious about Idaho and Montana given that all the surrounding states are doing fairly well.
I was looking at unemployment figures and seeing how different states were doing. I wasn't planning to do anything with it until I looked at Georgia's numbers. Like most states, Georgia's unemployment peaked around the end of 2009 and recovered slightly, but then started back up again at the end of 2010. It left me wondering if this was the sign of a double-dip recession, that we would see another peak in unemployment in the near future. So I made the following map:
Bright green - States that have shown continuous recovery since their peak in unemployment.
Dark green - States where unemployment is down from its peak, but there was little change in the last 6 months of 2010.
Gold - Unemployment peaked and has remained near that level.
Red - Unemployment continuously getting worse.
Dark Red - States that initially recovered, but unemployment has since gotten worse again.
Only two states, Georgia and Delaware, seem to show signs of a double-dip recession. As it stands, 26 states plus DC have shown continuous improvement since 2009. The Midwest is doing especially well, with unemployment rates falling much more rapidly in places like Illinois and Michigan than the national average. Michigan's unemployment rate was at 14%, but has fallen to 11%, lower than Nevada, California, Florida, and Rhode Island.
What's interesting with the dark green states in the Southeast is that they all show a similar pattern. They all peaked at around 11% unemployment, which quickly fell to about 10% and has stayed there ever since.
People have said that Colorado did well during the recession as when the nation as a whole was at 10%, Colorado was at 9%. However, the number show that while the nation is doing better, Colorado is still stuck at 9%.
The most worrisome sign is that three of the largest economies, California, Texas, and Florida, were worse off at the end of 2010 than they were in 2009. I'm also curious about Idaho and Montana given that all the surrounding states are doing fairly well.
Monday, February 14, 2011
2011 Elections
World Elections
I really enjoy following elections around the world partially because I'm fascinated by the eccentricities of different electoral systems and the political dynamics within different countries. The link above is to one of my favorite sites as the guy who runs it goes into great detail about recent elections, explaining how their system works, history of the political parties, and the issues at hand. He made his own list of elections that he's interested in at the end of last year and I figure I should make my own list of the elections I'm most interested in following this year in mostly chronological order. I say mostly because the dates for some elections haven't been set.
2/25 - Ireland - This one would be interesting to me even without the debt crisis hanging over everyone's heads. Ireland has one of the most fascinating and complex electoral methods in the world. A short explanation is that voters rank parties, and if their first ranked party fails to win a seat, their vote goes to their second choice, and so on. It appears that Fianna Fail (the dominant party since 1932) is going to get crushed this election due to their mismanagement, going from 41.5% of the vote in 2007 to hovering around 15% in current polls.
3/6 - Estonia - This is probably only interesting to me as I plan to do research there next fall. Most polls don't show much change. Estonia is politically interesting though as it's one of the few countries that's dominated by a classical liberal party.
4/17 - Finland - This is not likely to be an earth-shattering election, as the ruling coalition is unlikely to change. What is concerning is the rise of the nationalist True Finn party which has gone from having just 4% of the vote in 2007 to now polling at 16.6% and still rising.
5/5 - Various UK elections - Along with local elections, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales are holding elections for their respective legislative branches. Labour looks set to make massive gains in Scotland and Wales with both the Conservatives and Lib Dems looking to lose many seats and the respective nationalist parties doing about the same. With Northern Ireland it will be interesting to see if the nationalist continue to make their slow gains. Also, there will be nationwide referendum on adopting a new electoral method to replace the first-past-the-post system. It appears it may pass, but polls are close.
Jun - Thailand - Politics in Thailand have been rather tumultuous lately. It will be interesting to see if this election will bring about renewed stability or reawaken old grievances.
6/12 - Turkey - Turkish elections are interesting to me more in relation to their hopes of joining the EU. In 2010, the AK Party passed a constitutional referendum to help bring Turkey more inline with EU law. Since then, support for the AK Party has remained high and they are likely to maintain majority.
Sept - Egypt - Elections will probably end up being sooner, but for right now they are schedule to happen in September. There's really no telling what will happen.
Nov - Denmark - Denmark is required to hold an election before 11/12. Left-wing parties are currently leading in the polls, so there's likely going to be a change of government. The current government also has a long standing promise of holding a referendum on the four EU opt-outs Denmark currently has. It appears that the government may have dragged their feet on this too long as support for removing them, as the government would like to do, is dropping.
11/26 - New Zealand - Current polls show that the government won't change much after this election, what is a bit more interesting is that New Zealand is holding a voting method referendum that is a bit more complex than the UK. New Zealand currently uses a two-vote system, wherein voters vote for a local representative and for a party which will determine the distribution of seats. The vote is to whether or not to maintain the system, and if not, which of four systems would be preferred. The current system is favored to win.
Sometime - Tunisia - Elections weren't due to be held until 2014, but the removal of the president has changed quite a few things. According to the Tunisian Constitution, when the presidency is vacant, a new election needs to be held within 60 days, putting the election in mid-March. However, many are calling for an interim period to form a new constitution and government and hold the election at a later date.
Throughout the year - Germany - Several German states are holding local elections this year. As the current conservative government is unpopular, this elections could be a huge victory for the left, particularly the Greens which have been polling incredibly well since the 2009 elections.
I really enjoy following elections around the world partially because I'm fascinated by the eccentricities of different electoral systems and the political dynamics within different countries. The link above is to one of my favorite sites as the guy who runs it goes into great detail about recent elections, explaining how their system works, history of the political parties, and the issues at hand. He made his own list of elections that he's interested in at the end of last year and I figure I should make my own list of the elections I'm most interested in following this year in mostly chronological order. I say mostly because the dates for some elections haven't been set.
2/25 - Ireland - This one would be interesting to me even without the debt crisis hanging over everyone's heads. Ireland has one of the most fascinating and complex electoral methods in the world. A short explanation is that voters rank parties, and if their first ranked party fails to win a seat, their vote goes to their second choice, and so on. It appears that Fianna Fail (the dominant party since 1932) is going to get crushed this election due to their mismanagement, going from 41.5% of the vote in 2007 to hovering around 15% in current polls.
3/6 - Estonia - This is probably only interesting to me as I plan to do research there next fall. Most polls don't show much change. Estonia is politically interesting though as it's one of the few countries that's dominated by a classical liberal party.
4/17 - Finland - This is not likely to be an earth-shattering election, as the ruling coalition is unlikely to change. What is concerning is the rise of the nationalist True Finn party which has gone from having just 4% of the vote in 2007 to now polling at 16.6% and still rising.
5/5 - Various UK elections - Along with local elections, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales are holding elections for their respective legislative branches. Labour looks set to make massive gains in Scotland and Wales with both the Conservatives and Lib Dems looking to lose many seats and the respective nationalist parties doing about the same. With Northern Ireland it will be interesting to see if the nationalist continue to make their slow gains. Also, there will be nationwide referendum on adopting a new electoral method to replace the first-past-the-post system. It appears it may pass, but polls are close.
Jun - Thailand - Politics in Thailand have been rather tumultuous lately. It will be interesting to see if this election will bring about renewed stability or reawaken old grievances.
6/12 - Turkey - Turkish elections are interesting to me more in relation to their hopes of joining the EU. In 2010, the AK Party passed a constitutional referendum to help bring Turkey more inline with EU law. Since then, support for the AK Party has remained high and they are likely to maintain majority.
Sept - Egypt - Elections will probably end up being sooner, but for right now they are schedule to happen in September. There's really no telling what will happen.
Nov - Denmark - Denmark is required to hold an election before 11/12. Left-wing parties are currently leading in the polls, so there's likely going to be a change of government. The current government also has a long standing promise of holding a referendum on the four EU opt-outs Denmark currently has. It appears that the government may have dragged their feet on this too long as support for removing them, as the government would like to do, is dropping.
11/26 - New Zealand - Current polls show that the government won't change much after this election, what is a bit more interesting is that New Zealand is holding a voting method referendum that is a bit more complex than the UK. New Zealand currently uses a two-vote system, wherein voters vote for a local representative and for a party which will determine the distribution of seats. The vote is to whether or not to maintain the system, and if not, which of four systems would be preferred. The current system is favored to win.
Sometime - Tunisia - Elections weren't due to be held until 2014, but the removal of the president has changed quite a few things. According to the Tunisian Constitution, when the presidency is vacant, a new election needs to be held within 60 days, putting the election in mid-March. However, many are calling for an interim period to form a new constitution and government and hold the election at a later date.
Throughout the year - Germany - Several German states are holding local elections this year. As the current conservative government is unpopular, this elections could be a huge victory for the left, particularly the Greens which have been polling incredibly well since the 2009 elections.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)