Slightly OT: Graphic of Unemployment in the United States
in [SAS]
|
From: Sierra Information Services on 2 Dec 2009 23:50 Wow! I had no idea my post would generate such a reaction! I don't have the credentials to counter some of the arguments made about the "appropriateness" of how the data are displayed on the graphic. I just thought it was interesting, and disturbing, to watch unemployment rates increase across the country over recent years. There's no doubt we can argue about many aspects of this graphic, but I think we can all agree there are ALOT of people in the United States--and elsewhere--who don't have a job right now and want one. Andrew
From: John Burton on 3 Dec 2009 13:37 On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Sierra Information Services <sfbay0001(a)aol.com> wrote: > Hello... > > The link below was shared on one of my Linked In groups, and I thought > I'd pass it along to SAS-L'ers, too. It shows monthly unemployment > rates by county in the US over the past several years. If you click > the "start" arrow in the middle of the map you will see how > unemployment rates have changed, by month, in the US, over the past > several years. > > I have not seen a more effective or compelling representation of our > current economic situation. The link is: > > http://cohort11.americanobserver.net/latoyaegwuekwe/multimediafinal.html > > Andrew Karp > Sierra Information Services > http://www.sierrainformation.com > Andrew, Thanks for sharing this with us. I have read all the comments. I like Paul and some others liked the graphic presentation of the spread of employment over time. I think anyone examining the graph will understand How population density is not represented. On the other hand, they most likely will also know that roughly two thirds of the U.S. population is east of the Mississippi and the highest population concentration west of the Mississippi is along the Pacific coast. We can, also, see that some areas most highly affected by unemployment are the highly populated "rust belt" mid-west states and the southeastern states with most of their large population areas showing either 7.0-9.9% or >=10%. The northeast appears to be al ost as bas largely in the 6-6.9% and 7-9.9%. The "bread basket" and cattle ranching states with large rural populations has been less affected. Also, noted is that the densely populated area surrounding "the district" (NoVa/DC/MD) has remarkably lower unemployment than the areas surrounding it. An argument was presented regarding the NYC metro area and similar higher population metropolitan areas. Even so, by the unemployment rates represented, NYC and Boston have fared better (6.0-6.9%) than many other large population areas such as Chicago, Detroit, Atlanta, Charlotte, Miami, LA, Frisco, Seattle, etc. Andrew, thank you again for sharing this with us. -- Best Cheers, Ray Burton Chattanooga TN AnalyticBridge, inCircle, Linked-In, MedZilla, SAS/L http://www.analyticbridge.com/profile�/RayBurton http://www.linkedin.com/in/johnrayburton
From: Dale McLerran on 3 Dec 2009 14:12 --- On Thu, 12/3/09, John Burton <jrburtonsaspro(a)GMAIL.COM> wrote: > > Andrew, > > Thanks for sharing this with us. I have read all the comments. I > like Paul and some others liked the graphic presentation of the spread > of employment over time. I think anyone examining the graph will > understand How population density is not represented. On the other > hand, they most likely will also know that roughly two thirds of the > U.S. population is east of the Mississippi and the highest population > concentration west of the Mississippi is along the Pacific coast. > > We can, also, see that some areas most highly affected by unemployment > are the highly populated "rust belt" mid-west states and the > southeastern states with most of their large population areas showing > either 7.0-9.9% or >=10%. The northeast appears to be al ost as bas > largely in the 6-6.9% and 7-9.9%. The "bread basket" and cattle > ranching states with large rural populations has been less affected. > Also, noted is that the densely populated area surrounding "the > district" (NoVa/DC/MD) has remarkably lower unemployment than the > areas surrounding it. > > An argument was presented regarding the NYC metro area and similar > higher population metropolitan areas. Even so, by the unemployment > rates represented, NYC and Boston have fared better (6.0-6.9%) than > many other large population areas such as Chicago, Detroit, Atlanta, > Charlotte, Miami, LA, Frisco, Seattle, etc. > > Andrew, thank you again for sharing this with us. > > -- > Best Cheers, > Ray Burton > Chattanooga TN > AnalyticBridge, inCircle, Linked-In, MedZilla, SAS/L > http://www.analyticbridge.com/profile�/RayBurton > http://www.linkedin.com/in/johnrayburton > Ray, I like your thinking. However, what you note about NYC and Boston is precisely what the naysayers argue is the problem with the graphic. Those very high density population centers are not readily observed in the graphic. Therefore, the graphic gives an impression about unemployment which may not be realistic. I happen to disagree with the naysayers, agreeing with your comments about population densities in general being high east of the Mississippi and on the Pacific Coast. Both of those areas showed big increases in unemployment. You suggested that the breadbasket region had been less affected. But I would suggest that even the western interior region has been highly affected. It is just that in the sparsely populated farming areas, unemployment was very low to begin with. However, much of the western interior went from 2-3.9% unemployment in early 2007 to 5-9.9% unemployment in the 2009 period. That is as indicative of the recession as anything, in my book. Dale --------------------------------------- Dale McLerran Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center mailto: dmclerra(a)NO_SPAMfhcrc.org Ph: (206) 667-2926 Fax: (206) 667-5977 ---------------------------------------
From: John Burton on 3 Dec 2009 16:15 On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Dale McLerran <stringplayer_2(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > I like your thinking. > > However, what you note about NYC and Boston is precisely what > the naysayers argue is the problem with the graphic. .... > You suggested that the breadbasket region had been less affected. > But I would suggest that even the western interior region > has been highly affected. It is just that in the sparsely > populated farming areas, unemployment was very low to begin > with. However, much of the western interior went from > 2-3.9% unemployment in early 2007 to 5-9.9% unemployment in the 2009 period. > > That is as indicative of the recession as anything, in my book. Dale, Indeed, the rural / agrarian areas have been affected, especially those in California. However, when the economy sours the rural / agrarian areas will be less affected than the urban / industrialized regions simply because no mater what the state of an economy is, people will still have to eat and those who live off the land will always have work to do. Granted, everyone suffers during an economic downturn. Even those who are gainfully employed purchase less frivilously as no one knows what s around the next corner. On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Sierra Information Services <sfbay0001(a)aol.com> wrote: > Wow! > > I had no idea my post would generate such a reaction! .... > I just thought it was interesting, and disturbing, to watch > unemployment rates increase across the country over recent years. > > There's no doubt we can argue about many aspects of this graphic, but > I think we can all agree there are ALOT of people in the United > States--and elsewhere--who don't have a job right now and want one. Andrew, Thank you again for sharing with us. I think your graphic has sparked such interest because we all feel the recession whether or not you have a job at this time. I was chatting with a friend in Scotland last night and he tells me it is just as bad over there. It so bad that unemployed engineers and analysts can't even find work flipping burgers or bagging groceries. I think someone already suggested that they would like to see the 10% and greater category broken down into increments. It would be interesting to see say [10.0-10.9%], [11.0-11.9%], [12.0-13.9%], [14.0-15.9%] and a [16.0% and greater] categories. -- Best Cheers, Ray Burton Richmond VA / Chattanooga TN
From: Savian on 3 Dec 2009 21:43
On Dec 3, 2:15 pm, jrburtonsas...(a)GMAIL.COM (John Burton) wrote: > On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Dale McLerran <stringplaye...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > I like your thinking. > > > However, what you note about NYC and Boston is precisely what > > the naysayers argue is the problem with the graphic. > ... > > You suggested that the breadbasket region had been less affected. > > But I would suggest that even the western interior region > > has been highly affected. It is just that in the sparsely > > populated farming areas, unemployment was very low to begin > > with. However, much of the western interior went from > > 2-3.9% unemployment in early 2007 to 5-9.9% unemployment in the 2009 period. > > > That is as indicative of the recession as anything, in my book. > > Dale, > > Indeed, the rural / agrarian areas have been affected, especially > those in California. However, when the economy sours the rural / > agrarian areas will be less affected than the urban / industrialized > regions simply because no mater what the state of an economy is, > people will still have to eat and those who live off the land will > always have work to do. Granted, everyone suffers during an economic > downturn. Even those who are gainfully employed purchase less > frivilously as no one knows what s around the next corner. > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Sierra Information Services > > <sfbay0...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > Wow! > > > I had no idea my post would generate such a reaction! > ... > > I just thought it was interesting, and disturbing, to watch > > unemployment rates increase across the country over recent years. > > > There's no doubt we can argue about many aspects of this graphic, but > > I think we can all agree there are ALOT of people in the United > > States--and elsewhere--who don't have a job right now and want one. > > Andrew, > > Thank you again for sharing with us. I think your graphic has sparked > such interest because we all feel the recession whether or not you > have a job at this time. I was chatting with a friend in Scotland > last night and he tells me it is just as bad over there. It so bad > that unemployed engineers and analysts can't even find work flipping > burgers or bagging groceries. > > I think someone already suggested that they would like to see the 10% > and greater category broken down into increments. It would be > interesting to see say [10.0-10.9%], [11.0-11.9%], [12.0-13.9%], > [14.0-15.9%] and a [16.0% and greater] categories. > > -- > Best Cheers, > Ray Burton > Richmond VA / Chattanooga TN Move the graphic into a different category and make it a political map. Every state has 2 senators and therefore the graphic can show the possible impact on the Senate on rising unemployment. I don't want to make this political, at all, just showing that population density is not the only factor to consider. It depends on what you want to pull out of it. Alan .. |