Saturday, December 31, 2011

Breaking the Ice

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.