Showing posts with label economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economics. Show all posts

Representing International Disproportions

Worldmapper offers maps in which the actual land area is morphed to represent various disproportionalities across the globe. The website has over 300 maps! Thanks 73man for the tip!

I borrowed a few examples and pasted them in below. The first map is an actual land area map for reference.



Territory size shows the proportion of worldwide net exports of toys (in US$) that come from there. Net exports are exports minus imports. When imports are larger than exports the territory is not shown.



Territory size shows the proportion of worldwide net imports of toys (in US$) that are received there. Net imports are imports minus exports. When exports are larger than imports the territory is not shown.



Territory size shows the proportion of carbon dioxide emissions in 1980 that were directly from there.



Territory size shows the proportion of all territory level decreases in carbon dioxide emissions between 1980 and 2000, that occurred there.



Territory size shows the proportion of state military spending worldwide that was spent by that territory in 2002.



Territory size shows the proportion of species worldwide that became extinct between 1500 current era and 2004, that became extinct there.



Territory size shows the proportion of all people over 15 in the world living with diabetes who live there.



Territory size shows the proportion of all people aged 15-49 with HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) worldwide, living there.



See more alternative maps here.



.

The Post-Industrial Economy

This figure demonstrates the shift from an economy dominated by manufacturing, to one dominated by information and services. As I understand it, it is this shift that is driving the shrinking of the middle class.


Image borrowed from http://www.whosyourcity.com/.

Allstate Retirement Planning Ad Targets Stay-at-Home Moms


This is an ad for Allstate's retirement programs; it appeared on the back cover page of The New Yorker. What struck me is that the ad is using the fact that women leave the workforce to care for children as a tactic to scare families into buying their product:

The average woman spends 11 years out of the workforce taking care of family. Leaving her without enough retirement money to take care of herself. Those 11 years are spent doing important work, caring for children or elderly parents. But then can also hurt her ability to retire. Fact is, women are still earning less than men do, and they live longer...Women care for America. It's time we showed that America cares about their future.


Notice the picture: it's a woman with a small child and a stroller, all about to fall off into the large crevice in the $20 bill.

I'm really not sure quite what to make of this or what my take on it is.

Measurement Matters

The graph below shows the different results when using two different measures of joblessness (notice how the use of two different scales on these graphs--10% and 15%--visually interrupts a fair comparison). Visit the New York Times story that accompanied this image for a historically-grounded discussion of the problematics and politics of measuring joblessness.


Downturn In Real Wages

This graph, from yesterday's New York Times, shows a decrease in real wages in the past year in the face of 4% inflation.

Website Lets You Create Tailored Maps to Display Data about U.S.

Here is a link to a government website where you can create a map to show all kinds of basic demographic, environmental, and other information--crime rates (broken down by several types of crime), race/ethnicity, poverty rates, median income, climate information, Superfund sites, toxic waste facilities, agricultural information, and so on. I especially enjoyed looking at how many tornadoes there were in Oklahoma.

Class Inequality Superimposed On Theoretical Height

This image illustrates what class inequality would look like if our level of income/wealth were reflected in our height (click to enlarge). Class inequality was first described this way by economist Jan Pen. The image was reproduced for an Atlantic article (view here). Even though the illustration is for 1971 and Britain, it would be useful, especially if we had evidence that income inequality is greater now than in 1971 and greater in the U.S. (or wherever you are) than in Britain (which I think is true... anyone?). An excerpt explaining the illustration is included below. (By the way, what first looked to me like a dark green blob behind the tallest guy is actually the foot of the next tallest guy.)

Excerpt:

"Suppose that every person in the economy walks by, as if in a parade. Imagine that the parade takes exactly an hour to pass, and that the marchers are arranged in order of income, with the lowest incomes at the front and the highest at the back. Also imagine that the heights of the people in the parade are proportional to what they make: those earning the average income will be of average height, those earning twice the average income will be twice the average height, and so on. We spectators, let us imagine, are also of average height.

Pen then described what the observers would see. Not a series of people of steadily increasing height—that’s far too bland a picture. The observers would see something much stranger. They would see, mostly, a parade of dwarves, and then some unbelievable giants at the very end.

As the parade begins, Pen explained, the marchers cannot be seen at all. They are walking upside down, with their heads underground—owners of loss-making businesses, most likely. Very soon, upright marchers begin to pass by, but they are tiny. For five minutes or so, the observers are peering down at people just inches high—old people and youngsters, mainly; people without regular work, who make a little from odd jobs. Ten minutes in, the full-time labor force has arrived: to begin with, mainly unskilled manual and clerical workers, burger flippers, shop assistants, and the like, standing about waist-high to the observers. And at this point things start to get dull, because there are so very many of these very small people. The minutes pass, and pass, and they keep on coming.

By about halfway through the parade, Pen wrote, the observers might expect to be looking people in the eye—people of average height ought to be in the middle. But no, the marchers are still quite small, these experienced tradespeople, skilled industrial workers, trained office staff, and so on—not yet five feet tall, many of them. On and on they come.

It takes about forty-five minutes—the parade is drawing to a close—before the marchers are as tall as the observers. Heights are visibly rising by this point, but even now not very fast. In the final six minutes, however, when people with earnings in the top 10 percent begin to arrive, things get weird again. Heights begin to surge upward at a madly accelerating rate. Doctors, lawyers, and senior civil servants twenty feet tall speed by. Moments later, successful corporate executives, bankers, stock­brokers—peering down from fifty feet, 100 feet, 500 feet. In the last few seconds you glimpse pop stars, movie stars, the most successful entrepreneurs. You can see only up to their knees (this is Britain: it’s cloudy). And if you blink, you’ll miss them altogether. At the very end of the parade (it’s 1971, recall) is John Paul Getty, heir to the Getty Oil fortune. The sole of his shoe is hundreds of feet thick."

Inequality Among Affluent Nations




This bar chart puts the United States as the dubious front runner with the highest income inequality among 20 wealthy nations. With the exception of Japan, all the countries have European heritage. In 2000 the United States’ inequality stood well above all other rich nations. At the other end of the scale the Nordic countries plus the Netherlands had very low inequality ratios. Most Western European nations, as well as Australia and Canada fell in between.

These data come from the Luxembourg Income Study, the most rigorous data source for cross-national income and wealth. The chart’s income gap indicator in each country is the disposable (after tax) annual income of the top 10% divided by the disposable income of the bottom 10%. In other words, the income gap is the ratio of the 10% of persons with the highest income to the 10% with the lowest. For instance, in the USA the income of the top-earning 10% was 5.5 times that of the bottom 10%.

The statistics in this chart can be found on page 4 of a document on the Contexts website: http://www.contextsmagazine.org/resources_vol6-3.php That document is a supplement to an article by Peter Dreier, “The United States in Comparative Perspective,” in the Summer 2007 issue of Contexts.

Some may read these statistics and say “inequality in the US is overblown” because the bottom 10% live better off than most people in the rest of the world. That is true if Americans are compared to countries where the average income is less than a dollar a day. But if the American poor are compared to the poor in other wealthy countries, American poor are far worse off.

So, Where Do Our Tax Dollars Go?

One of my favorite questions to ask in (especially) Introduction to Sociology classes is: In an ideal world, for what reason does the U.S. government exist? That is, what is a state for? For protection from other states? To protect private property? To maximize happiness? To pool and then redistribute resources for the collective good? It's something most of them have never thought about. After a discussion, I show them this:

This is where our federal tax dollars go. Students are horrified by the military spending, but completely stumped by the interest on the debt. Most of them have no idea that our debt has any consequences at all.

The pie chart is from http://www.nationalpriorities.org/. You can go every year and update your chart here.