June 08, 2006
Now this is cool
This morning I discovered StateMaster, a site with dozens of statistics ranked by state.
This we can conclude from these stats:
1) DC is a statistical outlier with some really bizarre dynamics. How else could we have a "state" with the highest per capita income and the fourth highest poverty rate? I'm thinking it just has to do with the fact that n is very small.
2) Mississippi and Louisiana really suck. They aren't at the top or bottom of all of these lists, but they consistantly rank near the worst of anything you care to examine.
3) All those scare tactics about STDs you heard in high school are a load of crap. Why? Because even the most common STDs barely register as a percentage. Chlamydia is most common, at a maximum of .6%, average of .3%. Gonorrhea clocks in at a maximum of .26%, average of .01%. Syphilis shows up at a maximum of .03% with an average of .001%. There aren't listed stats for HIV infection, because an unknown number of people who are HIV positive never show any symptoms of the infection. But there is an death rate, and it's low. Average of .005%. Herpes rates aren't listed. possibly because 60-90% of us already have it and never show symptoms. Conclusion? 1) We're supposed to be scared of this, why? 2) Notice that Louisiana and Mississippi suck, again.
3) Renting out a property you own isn't a sure thing. Related, renters are more likely to spend a bigger percentage of their income on rent/utilities than mortgagers. It is not, however, possible to conclude that renting is for this reason more expensive than mortgaging, because renters might just be poorer than owners and use a higher percentage of their income on the same expenditures.
4) Almost no one dies from gun violence. We're talking an average of 11.5 people per 100,000.
That's funny to see Alaska at #2 on the gun violence list. Probably a combination of loose gun laws: http://crime.about.com/od/guns/f/gunlaw_ak.htm
and low population per square mile. But I don't know much about Alaska.
Regarding (1), I'd suggest it actually has more to do with the geographical pecularities of DC than that the sample size is small -- while DC is a major metropolitan area, the city itself is actually relatively small (I heard recently that El Paso, Texas passed DC in size; regardless, DC is around a mere 500,000). This has resulted in a massive influx of workers from (wealthy) "suburbs" such as Arlington, Alexandria, and Bethesda, which are essentially just as urban as any part of the District (From wikipedia: "According to the Census Bureau, the District's daytime population is estimated at 982,853. The influx of over 410,000 workers into Washington on a normal business day comprises a 72% increase of the capital's normal population. That is the largest increase percentage-wise of any city studied..."). The conclusion is obvious: much of the wealth generated in the city everyday leaves it (unless I misunderstand GSP, which is quite possible, GSP would include this production) -- and given that the city already lacks a solid middle class and is essentially divided between gentrified, upper-class areas and impoverished, welfare-class areas, its actually quite logical for the city to have both a high GSP and a high poverty rate. In fact, even if I'm totally wrong on GSP, I still think the upper/welfare dynamic is sufficient to explain the results. When you lack median-esque data, you'll get some funny results (so perhaps in the end I agree that it is has something to do with sample size...).
Posted by: rob at June 8, 2006 10:12 AMThat was pretty interesting. Education stats were particularly interesting to me, as a product of the Massachusetts public school system. Apparently, it ranks pretty good, much better than I would have thought.
Posted by: ARoss at June 8, 2006 10:36 AMRob: In thinking about it, I'd conclude that it has something to do with geography as well. Like normal cities, the core of DC is a few extremely wealthy people - those who can afford to live in the city - and extremely poor people - those who can't afford not to live in the city. But whereas "normal" cities that exist as part of a larger state contribute their surrounding suburb/exurb areas as part of the statistical base of the state, DC does not. It's greater metropolitan area is in Virginia and Maryland, and any of its "influx" workers contribute their income elsewhere. I would hypothesize that if you were to look at New York or Philadelphia excised from their metropolitan areas, you'd probably find similar statistical oddities.
Posted by: ryan at June 8, 2006 02:01 PM