[RD] Daily Graphs and Charts

[SS-18 ICBM]

 

[Mise]

Found this on reddit. It's about cotton buds.

 

[madviking]

^As confirmed by my fwb.

 

[Winner]

Found this on reddit. It's about cotton buds.

I very much doubt it

I don't trust these surveys, chiefly because I don't believe asking people one question can produce usable data. If it was a set of questions designed to uncover how much they understand and accept the idea of biological evolution (and calling it a "belief" just irks me), I'd take it more seriously. (For example, according to this graph only about 65% of Cezchs accept evolution. That would basically mean that ALL the believers (62% of Czechs classify themselves as non-religious) in this country would have to be scripture-obsessed fundamentalists, which is so not the case it's not even funny. Personally, I've never met a SINGLE person here in the Czech republic IN MY LIFE who would question evolution in the same way some Americans do.)

 

[Monsterzuma]

Spoiler :

 

[Winner]

More from the Economist:


Military budgets (relative to GDP) / Military budgets (absolute numbers):




The pursuit of happiness:




Real income in the US:

 

[Mise]

I wonder how much of the change in the top 1% after tax income is due to changes in tax rates vs level of economic activity. Would be interesting to compare the top 1% before tax vs after tax indexed to the same 1979 base. Also would be interesting to see it extended to 2011...

 

[luiz]

I wonder how much of the change in the top 1% after tax income is due to changes in tax rates vs level of economic activity. Would be interesting to compare the top 1% before tax vs after tax indexed to the same 1979 base. Also would be interesting to see it extended to 2011...

Yeah, those graphs about "the 1%" have the annoying habit of always ending in 2007. I've made the point before that part of the reason why the wealthiest got so much wealthier than everybody else is because their wealth is so volatile (in the sense that they have a very high "beta" wrt economic growth). In periods of economic growth they get much richer, in periods of economic contraction they take a bigger hit than everybody else (see the hit they took around 2001 in Winner's graph). The "issue" is of course that the US has had many more good years than bad years, and so people with high "betas" got overwhelmingly richer. A little mentioned fact is that "the 1%" lost much more from 2008-2011, even in relative terms, than the average american.

 

[Mise]

Yeah, that's what made me ask - whether the drop during the 2001 recession was repeated in 2008/2009.

 

[Monsterzuma]

See if this clarifies anything:



http://www.epi.org/blog/financial-crisis-didnt-wont-fix-inequality/



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/b...es-of-the-richest-americans.html?ref=business

Do keep in mind this concerns income, not wealth. Volatile income =/= volatile wealth (not necessarily anyway).

 

[Mise]

Thanks for that, makes sense.

 

[GoodGame]

I very much doubt it



I don't trust these surveys, chiefly because I don't believe asking people one question can produce usable data. If it was a set of questions designed to uncover how much they understand and accept the idea of biological evolution (and calling it a "belief" just irks me), I'd take it more seriously. (For example, according to this graph only about 65% of Cezchs accept evolution. That would basically mean that ALL the believers (62% of Czechs classify themselves as non-religious) in this country would have to be scripture-obsessed fundamentalists, which is so not the case it's not even funny. Personally, I've never met a SINGLE person here in the Czech republic IN MY LIFE who would question evolution in the same way some Americans do.)

To be honest I think your criticism jumps to conclusions.

You are basically saying 'if not evolution then biblical creationism'. Also we don't know how evolution was presented to the surveyed individuals. The surveyed individuals may have objected to the presentation of evolution that they were given, and objected to it. It's not fair to conclude that they were rejecting evolution because they were biblical creationists. Also they might have been skeptical inquirers to the equivalence of being science agnostics--i.e. they did not feel there was convincing proof of evolution, but that did not have to imply that their skepticism derived from a belief in biblical creationism.

For instance, what if they had "new age" beliefs that run contrary to both evolution and biblical creationism?

 

[Narz]

The pursuit of happiness:

I spent a few months in Mexico and it doesn't really strike me that Americans are twice as happy.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Those better-life-indexes and whatnot are overall all crap to actually measure quality of life in a way that is not horribly misleading or just a reflection of arbitrary assumptions.
What in objective terms is the only and ultimate factor to measure quality of life is the emotional well-being of people. Which is way too complex to get there by a cumulation of some statistics.
What we instead need to do is to look at ways how to measure emotional well-being by brain scans / other biological indicators and then do some periodical representative measuring with every nation. And that IMO should be the ultimate indicator of how good a nation is doing.
Except: Life expectancy. That needs to be cross-referenced with emotional well-being as it adds the quantity to the quality.

 

[Heretic_Cata]

This isn't a Sims game, happiness can't be quantified.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Err, I just told you how you can.

 

[Narz]

Those better-life-indexes and whatnot are overall all crap to actually measure quality of life in a way that is not horribly misleading or just a reflection of arbitrary assumptions.
What in objective terms is the only and ultimate factor to measure quality of life is the emotional well-being of people. Which is way too complex to get there by a cumulation of some statistics.
What we instead need to do is to look at ways how to measure emotional well-being by brain scans / other biological indicators and then do some periodical representative measuring with every nation. And that IMO should be the ultimate indicator of how good a nation is doing.
Except: Life expectancy. That needs to be cross-referenced with emotional well-being as it adds the quantity to the quality.

Agree 100%. Downside, this would be damn expensive.

BTW, I think functional lifespan is more important than lifespan. US nursing homes are fully of braindead vegetables who's cruel family members refuse to pull the pull on (much to the delight of the industry who houses them). Personally I'd rather lead a functional life to 80 than one to 90 with dementia so severe in the last fifteen years I can't even remember who I am.

This isn't a Sims game, happiness can't be quantified.

You can quantify brain states fairly well via brain scan. Especially extreme states like severe depression, anxiety, joy even being in love (which supposedly is similar to a brain high on cocaine... & lasts not to much longer).

 

[Heretic_Cata]

Err, I just told you how you can.

Whops, didn't see your post, was respoding to Narz's. :O

Your idea is a bit too far into scifi tho.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Downside, this would be damn expensive.

True, but only way to know if it is worth it is to try it

BTW, I think functional lifespan is more important than lifespan. US nursing homes are fully of braindead vegetables who's cruel family members refuse to pull the pull on (much to the delight of the industry who houses them). Personally I'd rather lead a functional life to 80 than one to 90 with dementia so severe in the last fifteen years I can't even remember who I am.

I speculated that this will be reflected by the happiness-measurement. I.e. I suspect the feeling of such vegetables to be not very positive. If due to their clouded mental states they are positive, I don't see much of a problem to be honest.

 

[Narz]

I speculated that this will be reflected by the happiness-measurement. I.e. I suspect the feeling of such vegetables to be not very positive.