Employment-Population Ratio - a scarier way to look at unemployment

The Bureau of labor Statistics compiles a stat called the Employment-Population Ratio that is the number of people working of the available workforce, defined as people 16 and over. I am sure some of those folks are not working because they wouldn't otherwise, but in the current climate many have no choice. As has been reported repeatedly, the 9.2% unemployment underestimates the number of people unemployed because after a long enough time people just leave the workforce and are not counted in the number. The chart below shows the current ratio is 58.2%, that's the lowest Employment-Population ratio since 1984.

A longer time series shows the history since 1948.

It's been lower in the past, but that is a generation ago. I personally would like Congress and the President to start working on jobs now.

(Unstable Isotope at Delaware Liberal got me thinking about this)

Osama Bin Laden is dead

It's all over the news today, I am not sure you need my links to it. Osama Bin Laden was killed my US special forces in Abbottabad, Pakistan. Finally.

I am not sure how important he was to al-Quada anymore, but he certainly was a symbol. Perhpas this sucess, along with the democracy fueled protests across North Africa and the Middle East signals a positive change.


My favorite coverage was @ReallyVirtual in Abbottabad, who apparently was live tweeting it and didn't know it.

US Religious Knowledge Survey and Quiz

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life released a new survey of religious knowledge on Tuesday. From the summary:

"Atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons are among the highest-scoring groups on a new survey of religious knowledge, outperforming evangelical Protestants, mainline Protestants and Catholics on questions about the core teachings, history and leading figures of major world religions.

On average, Americans correctly answer 16 of the 32 religious knowledge questions on the survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life. Atheists and agnostics average 20.9 correct answers. Jews and Mormons do about as well, averaging 20.5 and 20.3 correct answers, respectively. Protestants as a whole average 16 correct answers; Catholics as a whole, 14.7. Atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons perform better than other groups on the survey even after controlling for differing levels of education."

There is a quiz you can take to test your religious knowledge. I got 15 our of 15 even with the last question being a very difficult one that I didn't quite know the answer to, but I knew the subject matter so I was able to eliminate answers that couldn't have been correct. The average on the quiz is 50%, which I think is abysmal. Results of quizzes for 3412 nationally representative adults are below.

When I reviewed the number correct for different religious affiliations I realized that people were not even getting the 33% correct that would be expected from random guessing. This means people think their incorrect answers are the right answers for the questions. Are they being taught incorrectly? That needs to be fixed. It might be important to know that a country is predominantly Muslim or the religious holidays of a group that has a disproportionate affect on foreign policy.

Why doesn't Pew ever call me? After the poll they should tell the people the correct answers so they learn something.

You are reading the polls and this chart incorrectly

TYWKIWDBI presents a chart aggregating polls from Pollster.com which seems to indicate that the Democrats and Republicans are losing voters who are becoming independent. Here is TYWKIWDBI's repost of the Pollster chart:


That conclusion can only be made if you actually ignore the points (besides the fact the the X axis labels are lost). Pollster has plunked a solid line which appears to be the average of the data from all of these polls. That's all well and good, but the points that the average is made from are all over the place. here I have replotted the polls and included the 90th and 10th percentile of the last 20 polls for each of the party affiliations. The heavy solid lines are the average of the last 20 polls, red for Republicans, blue for Democrats and green for Independents, the lighter solid lines are the 90th and 10th percentile of the last 20 polls. The points are the individual polls plotted on the ending date of the poll period. The data is all right under the chart at Pollster.com.

Close examination (click on the chart above for a large version) of this very cluttered chart reveals that you could draw lines which trend up or down or stay the same for any any of the affiliations and not leave the area between the between the 90th and 10th percentile lines. Print it out and try it or replot it yourself.

The most you can confidently say about this chart is, "wow, there is a lot of scatter in these poll results." I don't think that you can state with confidence that there has been a statistically significant change in Democratic or Independent affiliation. I am not even sure there is a decrease in Republican affiliation. Shame on you Pollster.com for putting in those average lines, and shame on you TYWKIWDBI for reposting it with your faulty conclusions. Bad statistics, bad presentation (including my cluttered chart).

Update on easing restrictions on raising chickens in New Castle County

I have received an e-mail last week from Nellie Manlove who is Council member Tansey's legislative aide, that the ordinance to ease restrictions on raising chickens in New Castle County will be discussed (.pdf agenda) at the Council's Land Use Committee meeting on Tuesday 9/15 at 3:00pm. This is open to the public and public comment is encouraged. It takes place in the 8th floor Council Conference Room of the City/County Building, 800 N French Street, Wilmington, 19801.

I expect to attend the Land Use Committee meeting tomorrow at 3pm, though I am not sure what to say or what is expected. I certainly can speak in support of the change to the ordinance. My concern is that I am not a Land Use professional so I am not sure what the objections to the change in the amendment are.

I stand by my earlier comments that the county ordinances already allow chickens (and other farm animals) on parcels of greater than one acre, and that this easing of the restriction is a small change addressed primarily at raising hens.

From a common sense perspective it seems that the council members might need to know the following to be swayed to adopt the easing of the restrictions to allow raising up to 4 hens (no roosters) on parcels of at least one acre no nearer than 25ft to property lines in New Castle County.

1.) Why was the first restriction against farm animals on parcels smaller than one acre first enacted.

2.) Is there a reason we cannot just discuss chickens (really just hens) and not open up the discussion to all farm animals.

3.) How many parcels in New castle County are one acre or more and could have chickens right now, and how many do have chickens right now. How many are a half acre or more, or would be added to the parcels allowed to have chickens? This would help us know the scope of the change and its effect. I suspect that there though there are probably a lot of parcels with 0.5 acre or more, we should consider only those that will be added as the change, and how many of those really have people that would want to raise hens. That is the new set of hens that anyone could raise an objection to.

4.) Are there other concerns. Health concerns, noise concerns, nuisance concerns, and doesn't New Castle County already have regulations for those. Thus should anyone who raises chickens and causes these issues can be addressed through existing ordinances.

5.) How many other counties or similar sized municipalities in the country have similar restrictions or ordinances? Is there something we can learn from them?

The ordinance should then come up for a vote at the 9/22 Council meeting, which takes place at 7:00pm in the 1st Floor Council Chambers, also in the City/County Building.

What do you say in support of an ordinance at a Council Land Use Committee meeting? Anybody gave any suggestions?

Republican Robocallers ask for help against Health Care Reform

A Republican Robocaller found me last night. The recording asked me to record a message for my congressman telling him that I was against the Democratic plan to change the health care system. It used more alarming words than I can remember now. So when the message beeped and it was time for me to record I said extemporaneously (as I can recall now) :

"Congressman Castle, this is Richard Koehler of Wilmington and I fully support President Obama's plan to reform the health care system. Please give him and the plan your full support. The health care system needs to be reformed and more people need access to health care."

I think that the robot might have been expecting a different type of message from the priming that was given. I should disclose that I am on the list since I am a registered Republican, though lately that hasn't been how I vote. I just don't want to change now because I get all of these crazy messages and participate in all kinds of crazy surveys. My wife gets the Democratic ones, so as a household we are covered.

Yet another politcal spectrum map

Howard reveals his political views with the Political Spectrum Quiz. I took it myself.

My Political Views
I am a centrist social libertarian
Left: 0.14, Libertarian: 4.64
















I have been moving over the years to a moderate position because I find I have less and less tolerance for black and white positions, though I suppose that in my moderation I should still tolerate people who have black and white positions. I do find that I like authority less and less, perhaps because I don't like what authority has been doing the past few years. At least they add an interventionist dimension and a cultural dimension.






I can't see how anyone could be interventionist (or neo-conservative as above) these days given our current obligations in Iraq and Afghanistan.








All of these quizzes fail to actually assess the complexities of defining a person's political tendencies. If one dimension, left to right, isn't enough to describe a person's political philosophy, why is two? Why is four, adding foreign policy interventions and "culture"?

We should ask thousands of questions to millions of people and then do conjoint analysis to find the dimensions of politics. It seems to me that politics is the subset of philosophy involved in how we deal with other people or set up governments to regulate our actions and we know how easy that is to categorize.

Add to this that the questions on the quiz are ambivalent and are reminiscent of traditional true/false questions, either answer seems to be right and wrong, depending on the wording and interpretation.

If the East Coast Is American enough For Al-Qaeda, It should be American enough for ...

Jezebel excerpted the exact quote I wanted from Sarah Vowell's interview on the Jon Stewart show on Tuesday October 7th. Sarah complained that Palin and the Republicans pay lip service to New York's bravery in 9/11 and then call New Yorkers "elite" and unpatriotic behind their backs. Sarah said, "They wrap themselves in our attack and then they leave and talk about what snobs we are."



My favorite comment from Vowell was this one: "If the East Coast Is American enough For Al-Qaeda, It should be American enough for them." Them being the aforementioned Republicans.

I like Sarah Vowell's books and their quirky take on history. I even forced us to visit the Rutherford B. Hayes Presidential Center in Fremont, Ohio because I was reading Assassination Vacation at the time. Her new book is The Wordy Shipmates.

Are you better off than your parents? Yes!

Unfortunately, a recent article by Jack Kemp at Spotlight on Poverty chooses to emphasize the negative side of a new report by the Economic Mobility Project entitled "Getting Ahead or Losing Ground: Economic Mobility in America" (.pdf link).

The data compares generational family incomes to determine if children are "doing better" than their parents. One chart (click below for bigger, .pdf link) shows that while the difference between the top quintile and the bottom quintile median incomes is increasing, all income levels do increase. Calling a difference a gap, as they do in the report, is a good way to generate a negative connotation for the data.

The Kemp article chooses to focus on the income disparity while I think an important conclusion is that even the bottom quintile median income (normalized to 2006 dollars) has increased generation to generation.

One interesting chart (click for larger, .pdf link) shows the fraction of each generation that stays in the same quintile or moves to different quintiles.

Kemp and the economic mobility project prefer to focus on the fact that 42% of children whose parents started in bottom quintile remain in the bottom quintile. His quote, with which I disagree, is "A cherished piece of the American Dream – the notion that individuals have the opportunity to rise beyond their parent’s economic status – is not standing up to scrutiny." I think they ignore the fact that most of children of the bottom quintile, 58%, move up a quintile, 6% actually end up in the top quintile, good for them. This doesn't change the fact that we should examine and potentially correct the situations that result in families remaining in the bottom quintile, but it is a quintile, 20% of people will end up in the bottom quintile, that is how it is defined Remember that median income levels still increased from generation to generation for this group.

The report includes a table (click for larger, .pdf link) breaking out each group into rising, falling and staying the same groups with respect to income and quintile. It is only in this chart that I see the most concerning data.

Firstly over all families from top to bottom the trend is generally, one third move up, one third stay the same and one third move down. Keep in mind that this includes those in the upper quintiles staying put or moving down, and while that is dismaying for someone in those groups, we should assume that they have a higher and sufficient quality of life vs. someone in the bottom quintile, especially if it is poverty you care about, not just upward mobility for all. The most concerning statistic on this chart is the 18% of children in the bottom quintile that do worse than their parents. This is the group to focus on.

The rest of the key findings (.pdf link) of the report focus on things that we have been aware of for some time. Many of the families in poverty are families with a single mother, and non-white. Thus the programs in place to offer these groups opportunities to improve their economic situation should continue or be improved. I strongly disagree that economic equality is a target to be striven for. The report seems to think that economic advantage or disparity is a bad thing in and of itself. As Americans we often don't realize that for most people things are better now than before, we are miserable when we someone else with more, no matter how much we have. I daresay we would be miserable if everyone had the same as well, no matter how well off.

In spite of the negative view offered by Kemp, I tentatively agree with some of his conclusions. We should try to reduce poverty as much as possible. We should find ways to allow increased opportunity for those in poverty to break out of it and move up the income scale and improve quality of life. I disagree with the negative tone of the article because the very study that it uses seems to also support the idea that the United States is one country in the world where these opportunities exits and that incomes (and by extension the quality of life) of each generation do continue to improve.

Obamalicious

This cookie is Obamalicious.

Vote with your stomach

Kij's Bakery in Chichester, Pennsylvania has a delicious way to express your support for your favorite presidential contender. Since Pennsylvania's primary is April 22nd the volume has been turned up on the political commercials. The cookies lighten the atmosphere I guess.

I don't know if I should eat my favorite candidate or eat the other guys up to devour them and get them out of the race.

Conservatives are Threatened and Liberals are Thrilled

Spider Robinson (website) has taken old notes and outlines and written a "lost" Robert A. Heinlein novel "Variable Star". The book is a fun read and one thing that Robinson has done well is capture the glib advice and commentary that is a hallmark of many Robert Heinlein novels. Heinlen had an opinion on everything from war to relationships to manhood to survival, and he wasn't afraid to put it into the know-it-all mouths of his characters.

So what does Spider as Robert have to say about the political parties?
(from pg. 202 of "Variable Star")

"Sol Short once told me that mankind is divided into two basic sorts: those who find the unknown future threatening... and those who find it thrilling. He says the rupture between those two sides has been responsible for most of the bloodshed in history. If change threatens you, you become conservative in self-defense. If it thrills you, you become liberal in self-liberation. He says the Threateneds are frequently more successful in the short run, because they always fight dirty. But in the long run, they always lose, because Thrilled people learn and thus accomplish more."

At least this opinion is expressed not by the twenty-something protagonist but by the older and "wiser" character, Sol. It turns out to be important when the characters in the novel face a space disaster even more horrifying than the 9-11 World Trade center attack and they must decide on their approach. After an attack everyone feels threatened, but what is the appropriate next step? The novel throws in some not so thinly veiled commentary on our life and times, the war on terror and the appropriate response to attack.

As to the philosophy espoused, it doesn't make Threatened sound like an attractive position. I also disagree that all of the bloodshed is caused by disagreements between the two sides. The Threateneds seem to like to beat up on each other pretty nicely as well.

Which are you?

---------

---------

Need help in picking your presidential candidate?

The presidential candidate selector quiz asks the questions and then matches you to your candidate. I have to admit, I had to look up my own number one result. Kent McManigal is a far out write in candidate for radical libertarians. Let me go check those answers again...

My results:

Your Results:

	1.	Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
	2.	Kent McManigal (83%)
	3.	Ron Paul (76%)
	4.	Dennis Kucinich (72%)
	5.	Barack Obama (67%)
	6.	Alan Augustson (60%)
	7.	Bill Richardson (58%)
	8.	Christopher Dodd (58%)
	9.	Mike Gravel (56%)
	10.	Wesley Clark (56%)
	11.	Al Gore (55%)
	12.	Joseph Biden (54%)
	13.	Hillary Clinton (52%)
	14.	John Edwards (47%)
	15.	John McCain (47%)
	16.	Newt Gingrich (46%)
	17.	Chuck Hagel (45%)
	18.	Mitt Romney (40%)
	19.	Sam Brownback (37%)
	20.	Fred Thompson (36%)
	21.	Mike Huckabee (30%)
	22.	Rudolph Giuliani (30%)
	23.	Tommy Thompson (29%)
	24.	Tom Tancredo (28%)
	25.	Jim Gilmore (22%)
	26.	Elaine Brown (22%)
	27.	Duncan Hunter (21%)

You can find the quiz at the 2008 Presidential Candidate Selector.

(via Exploding Aardvark)

Battlefield Earth, bad movie, great book, Mitt Romney favorite

You probably couldn't buy the publicity for an old book like Battlefield Earth that Republican candidate Mitt Romney gave it by revealing that it is his favorite book.

The best thing to come out of the discussion is some reasoned defense of the book and post-apocalyptic science fiction in general. BoingBoing pointed to the Joshua Glenn of the Boston Globe's defense of the choice. Apparently, just like Mitt Romney, liking post-apocalyptic fiction makes me a "starry-eyed idealist, someone who believes that another world is possible." I'll take that. It is important to note that we are talking about the book here and not the film. As Candleblog points out about the book "it's a decent post-apocalyptic yarn that any nerdy teen will likely get a kick out of. It's way better than that turd of a film."

I remember reading this tome (it is over 1000 pages) in clumsy paperback form when I was a kid. I also remember my mother worried that I might be converted to Scientology by reading the book. My father, another science fiction fan like myself, shrugged off the possibility. (This would be when I tell you that today I am proud to be a Scientologist and Clear, but no, it didn't happen.) The book is definitely pulp fiction, space opera, adventure science fiction and is perfect for an adolescent boy. It certainly isn't deep science fiction, but not everything can be. I do recommend reading it if you never have.

Biden puts his foot in it

Everyone has now heard of Joe Biden's comments about Barak Obama, here is Wonkette's take on it.

What is much funnier are the comments on Wonkette and other outlets about Delaware. Here's a good one:

"Biden's racist in that well-meaning-but-still-inadvertently-racist-grandma kind of way; that 1950s "well, for a black man, he's done pretty well" patronizing kind of attitude.

Then again, he is from Delaware, where everyone, black or white, is perpetually filthy, dissheveled, and addicted to meth."

I am not sure if Delaware needs the kind of spotlight that our Senator is causing to be shined on us. We are more comfortable with lawyer murderers and teenagers abandoning babies in dumpsters. I think Wilmington has a high crime rate for a small city too.

President's visit generates controversy

The title above is an extreme understatement. One of the great new things about the News Journal is that they now have comments enabled for any of their articles, including the one about the President's visit. This brings out a lot of interesting viewpoints. To be honest, it is an open invitation to the kooks, much like the rest of the Internet, including yours truly.

The comments on the President's visit variously ranged from:

• rants about the war, both pro and con
• rants about his hypocrisy/necessity to driving/lying/take the train when he was going to talk about reducing energy dependence
• rants about how he has too much/not enough security surrounding him during the visit
  
• rants about how traffic was going to be snarled by the visit (I saw none of this)
• rants about how the favorite/least favorite local politician was doing/not-doing something about an unimportant/important unrelated topic
  
• some completely off topic stuff that would blow your mind.

Case in point, I always thought I knew the conspiracy theories but rj360 has them down pat and actually posts them into forums:

"The Presidents of the U.S. are tools, used by societies that have been trying to create a New World Order for a few centuries. America is the base of the NWO because wars are not fought over here and we are not as influenced by European policy because the U.S. is so far away. The U.S. can also be self sustaining but greed has has created a need to be dependent on other nations. Research organizations like the Free Masons and history on the Knights Templar. Research the differences between which presidents were assassinated or an attempt was made, against those who have done what they have wanted to do. The President of the U.S. has a boss that most people do not know about and it sure isn't the people or any other branch of government. There is no democracy. Democracy is an illusion. Because you can vote doesn't mean that democracy is living."

I need to stop taking my paranoia medication and send it on to this guy. I doubt he would give me his address though, they can use that to send mind control messages to you through your teeth. Too bad tinfoil doesn't work anymore.