How Religious are the People of Your State?

I encountered some very interesting statistics, complete with interactive charts, at this website. The statistics compare "how religious" the residents of each state are with regard to the following:

• Importance of religion
• Worship attendance
• Frequency of prayer
• Belief in God

Mississippi ranks highest in all four categories. Below are the percentages in each category (highest [MS], national average, Michigan, lowest [state])

• Percent who say religion is very important in their lives: 82%, 56%, 54%, 36% [NH/VT]
• Percent who say they attend religious services at least once a week: 60%, 39%, 38%, 22% [AK]
• Percent who say they pray at least once a day: 77%, 58%, 56%, 40% [ME]
• Percent who say they believe in God with absolute certainty: 91%, 71%, 71%, 54% [NH/VT]

The statistics are a sad commentary on the religious state of our country. Let's pray and work toward improvement!

Fox News Polls: Some Interesting Statistics!

Fox News Poll: 43 Percent Would Vote To Re-Elect President Obama - Political News - FOXNews.com

The headline-grabber from this batch of statistics is above: Only 43% of voters would vote to re-elect the president today. Considering that he won about 53% of the popular vote eleven months ago, this tells us that he would receive approximately 19% fewer votes. Considering that his vote total was about 69.5 million in 2008, a 19% drop would shrink that to about 56.3 million—about 3.6 million fewer than John McCain actually received.

Perhaps we can conclude that at least 13.2 million Americans have awakened. That's a good start.

On the other hand, 60% of voters think the president is "a strong and decisive leader." So there's still work to do.

Did Obama deserve the Nobel Prize? 38% of democrats, 74% of independents, and 91% of republicans did not think so. Overall, that's 65% of Americans who think he did not deserve it.

Then there's this closing paragraph from the article:

Finally, in a rare example of bipartisan agreement, majorities of Democrats, 53 percent, Republicans, 78 percent, and Independents, 61 percent, agree the country is more divided these days. All in all, 64 percent of Americans think the country is more politically divided today -- that's more than twice the number who say it is not more divided, 31 percent.

"Bipartisan" refers to two parties. Three groups are mentioned. Hmmm....

Michigan Unemployment Rises Again! Ugh!

15.2% is the new ugly number. Almost makes you wish for the "good old days" when it was only 8.1%...which it was, twelve months ago. Was this the "hope and change" we bargained for?

As I mentioned in my last post regarding Michigan unemployment statistics, we are moving toward the highest unemployment rate Michigan has had since 1976 (when the current statistics, in their current form, were first tracked), when it was 16.9% in November 1982. The only other state to have unemployment over 15% since 1976 was West Virginia, whose unemployment peaked at 18.2% in March 1983.

Many believe we will surpass that rate before the end of 2009. Ugh.

Detailed data regarding Michigan employment and unemployment:
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LASST26000003

Here are a couple of very telling graphs from that site...first, the number of unemployed in Michigan:

And the unemployment rate, expressed in terms of percents:

Perhaps Governor Granholm was wrong...maybe it will only be three years until we're blown away!

How Does Michigan's Unemployment Rate Stack Up Historically?

Those of us who find statistics an enjoyable and insightful pursuit might wonder, "Our unemployment here in Michigan is 14.1% now. How does that compare to everyone else?" Glad you asked.

Statistics Related to May 2009 Unemployment

Michigan has lost 302,800 jobs from May 2008 (4,180,400) to May 2009 (3,877,600). That's 7.2% of all the jobs recorded in May 2008—gone!

Michigan's closest "challenger" for the top spot is Oregon, at 12.4%. Rhode Island and South Carolina are tied for third at 12.1%.

Thirteen states and the District of Columbia have topped 10% unemployment this month.

Six states have unemployment rates below 6%: Iowa (5.8%), Nebraska (4.4%), North Dakota (4.4%), South Dakota (5.0%), Utah (5.4%), and Wyoming (5.0%).

Eleven states have unemployment rates that are less than half of Michigan's.

Michigan registered the single largest unemployment rate increase over the previous month (1.2% over April 2009). Michigan's was the second-largest jobless rate increase in the last twelve months (5.9%); Oregon's increased by 6.7%.

Historical Comparisons

The data I have been citing comes from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (your tax dollars at work!). The chart of data gives both this month's data plus the highest and lowest unemployment rates for any month since 1976; apparently there are differences in how unemployment rates were computed prior to that date which make comparisons less valid. Additional data is available here. Here are some notable facts:

Michigan's highest unemployment rate during this period was 16.9%, in November 1982.

Only two other states have ever had unemployment rates higher than Michigan's current rate in the past 33 years: Alabama (highest was 14.4% in Dec. 1982) and West Virginia (highest was 18.2% in March 1983).

Twenty states have never had a monthly unemployment rate of at least 10% since 1976.

Eight states had a higher unemployment rate in May 2009 than any month since 1976. All of them had unemployment rates of at least 9.7%.

Michigan's lowest unemployment rate since 1976 was 3.2% in March 2000...less than one-fourth of our current rate.

One-Sixth of EVERY Income Dollar?

According to this report I read in the USA Today online, and rapidly circulating elsewhere, one out of every six dollars of American income comes in the form of a federal or state check or voucher of one sort or another—more specifically, 16.2%. This is a stunning amount of money. Let's see how it breaks down:

According to the article, the total amount of money exceeds $2 trillion, or about $17,000 per household. Broken down further, $2 trillion+ amounts to approximately $6700 for every living person in this country.

If my family got our share of that (me, wife, 4 kids), that would be just over $40,000. We could live a modest middle-class existence on that much money!

Jon & Kate's clan would see $67,000. The Duggars of Arkansas: About $134,000.

Much of this federal and state largess is Social Security and unemployment benefits. Then there's food stamps, Medicaid and other health programs, prescription drug benefits, and a host of other things that, quite simply, put money in the pockets of those whom the government has selected to receive those benefits.

We should be outraged. I am outraged...until the government sends me my $40,000, that is.

Chrysler Shakedown? Updates and Statistical Analysis

My last blog posting considered the possibility that the Obama administration may have targeted a disproportionate number of Republican-donating Chrysler dealerships for closure. Not having the time to do the original research myself, here are some links to several items of interest related to this story:

Directorblue

Washington Examiner

Gateway Pundit

Red State

Libertarian Republican

theblogprof

These alone (and there are more) have a wealth of data—and they're linking more all the time, it seems—that seems to demonstrate some statistically interesting conclusions.

Since most Americans (alas!) are woefully weak when it comes to statistics, I am going to try to focus on the key issues that must be statistically demonstrated to (a) exonerate the Obama administration, or (b) blow open the greatest Washington scandal since Watergate.

Here are some of the assertions that are beginning to be made:

1. A disproportionate share of the dealers on the closure list gave political contributions to Obama opponents and Republicans.

2. A disproportionate share of the dealers on the closure list are in "red state," GOP-leaning districts across the country.

3. The administration claims that the closed dealers were less profitable and/or losing money may in fact not be true.

Here is how they should be statistically analyzed:

1. Two key sets of data must be obtained: The percentages of dealers giving to each of the various political groups (Republican, Obama for president, Hillary Clinton, etc.; and those who did not give to any political groups) in 2008, and possibly previous years; and the percentages of each of those groups of dealers which were put on the closure list.

For example, it has been speculated that car dealers in general are Republican leaning. Let us say, then, that 60% of dealers give to the GOP [Note: Data used as examples is fictitious and only for the purpose of illustration]. If 75% of the closed dealers are GOP donors, it would then be relatively easy, once the data is in hand, to conclude if this is a statistically significant difference, and if so, to what level of confidence (90% confidence? 95%? 99%? 99.999%? I'm not joking about that last one, either). Confidence intervals, by the way, are quite interesting as a statistical topic.

The same can be done with the Obama donors, or with any other political group. The data could potentially indicate that there are no statistically signficant differences, in which case this whole story will, of necessity, quickly fade away. But just imagine a press release like this:
"We [insert statistician(s) name(s) here] conclude, with a 99.9% level of confidence, that there is a statistically significant difference between the political giving of dealers overall and those who were closed." The impeachment proceedings should begin within days.

2. This will be the easiest of the three, and the process mirrors #1 above. The two key sets of data this time are how many dealers are in "red" areas, and how many of the closed dealers are in "red" areas. [Note: Defining "red" geographically could be done at the state level, or at the congressional district or county levels. Here in Michigan, a blue state overall, the west side of the state tends to be red, while the east side is deep blue. No doubt the analysis will be done at state, district and county/local levels.]

Tests for statistically significant differences are then performed, as with #1.

3. This one will be the most challenging of the three to assert from a statistical viewpoint, as there will likely be various viewpoints on what constitutes "profitable," "growing," etc., combined with the fact that many dealerships are quite private about their financials. [Question: If the car companies are government owned, can a FOIA request unlock this data?] Furthermore, whatever statistics Chrysler may have used to comprise the list of dealer closures would need to be incorporated into the analysis.

Assuming the data becomes available in sufficient detail, the essence of the analysis will be a comparison—but there is more than one way to do it.

• Comparison of all dealers to closed dealers. I would be surprised—nay, shocked—if there was not a statistically significant difference here, but the magnitude of the difference will be informative.
  
• Comparison of closed dealers to dealers in the lowest 25% of profitability overall. It would also be interesting—and fairly easy once the data is known—to determine the degree of overlap in these groups. Which brings us to...
  
• Comparison of closed dealers to the lowest 25% profitability dealers who are allowed to remain open. This one could be fascinating, because if the closed dealers are not worse off from a profitability perspective than the lowest quarter of those who remained open, the stink will rise.

Whether or not the Obama administration more closely resembles the blindfolded Lady of Justice or the cast of the Godfather remains to be seen.

Godspeed, accuracy, and best wishes to all those data crunchers out there.

Bad Math Strikes Again!

We all probably know by now that a woman in California just had octuplets...and we all probably have our opinions on just how foolish her life choices have been. I'd like to strike a few blows, however, at the ignorant statements made in this foxnews.com story by Dr. Charles Sophy, whose title is "medical director of Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services," according to the article.

Dr. Sophy was quoted as saying the following:

Sophy said the expense of raising 14 children will likely be prohibitive, citing studies that estimate it costs roughly $2.5 million to raise a child to adulthood. Using that math, raising 14 children would cost roughly $35 million.

"And that's basic stuff," he said. "That doesn't include swimming lessons and things like that. It's very costly and hopefully the planning that needs to be done was done upfront."

Sophy continued, "14 is a large number of children, so yes, it'll be 14 times the stress."

Let us examine his math.

• First of all, it is true that $2.5 million times 14 = $35 million.
• $2.5 million per child to adulthood? Let's assume that this spans 22 years (graduate from H.S. at 18 and then 4 years of college). We then have an average cost of $113,636 per child per year. This works out to a cost of $2185 per child per week, or $312 per day. Are you really telling me that it costs an average of $312 every day to feed, clothe, and care for my child?
• I have four children. Do I really need $454,545 every year to care for them? If so, I'm in big trouble!
• And if my kids need swimming lessons, piano lessons, and the perfunctory trip to Disney, should I budget $500,000 annually?
• Why did they not tell us, in this article, what "studies" Dr. Sophy cited? I'd like to know.
  
• Do all kids produce equal quantities of stress? Dr. Sophy implies that they do, and that, furthermore, stress increases incrementally and consistently. Is the difference between the stress of 2 children and the stress of 3 children equal to the difference between the stress of 12 childen and the stress of 13? How would he know? How would anyone?
  
• How many children does this gentleman have? How did he get to be a "director," and do his responsibilities include budgeting and/or accounting? [OK, those aren't really math questions...]
  

The moral of the story, as always, is to be cautious with the numbers that are thrown about in the media, as if they were serious, accurate statistics. They often are not. For example, consider the numbers Congress is throwing around right now...they have NO idea what they are talking about!

More Proof You Should Be Skeptical of Statistics...

The following is a quote from an article about Jim Abbott:

Nearly 50 million Americans have disabilities, and according to the Department of Labor, two out of every three Americans with disabilities are unemployed.

Quite simply, this is highly misleading.

If the above statistics are both true and both refer to the same group of people, simple mathematics dictates that approximately 33 million Americans are unemployed. I'm not sure what the number of employment-eligible people is in the United States, but even if we place it generously high at 200 million, that means the unemployment rate in this country is near....

16.5%.

Even here is Michigan, where we have the highest unemployment of any state in the nation...it's only about 9%. And according to today's report, the national rate is at 6.1%.

Conclusions:

• One or both of the above statistics are wrong.
• People should be careful to verify what they read.
  

Shocking Statistics To Think About

I mentioned in a blog post some time ago that the annual worldwide abortion total stands at about 46,000,000. This is a holocaust unparalleled in human history: The premeditated murder of so many innocent babies.

But the number 46,000,000, quite frankly, is one of those generic, "big" numbers that most of us deem impressive but don't think about much. Until....

Today I received an e-mail pointing me to a "world clock." This is fascinating to me for many reasons, not all of them statistical, but the one that caught my attention was the one on abortion. That "46,000,000 per year" translates to about 87.5 abortions per minute...and there goes the clock ticking each one of them off at what now seems a horrifically fast pace.

Some statistics about what 87.5 deaths per minute would be like:

• A small Midwestern town of 1000 would be gone within 11.5 minutes.
  
• The village of Paw Paw, Michigan (pop. 3363 in 2000) would be gone in 38.4 minutes.
• My county of Van Buren, Michigan (pop. 79,018 in 2000) would be gone in just over 15 hours.
• Kalamazoo County, Michigan, would be gone in a bit less than 2 days.
• Finland would be wiped out in about 6 weeks.
• Michigan would be wiped out in about 11.5 weeks.
• California, the most populous state at about 36,500,000, would be completely exterminated in about 290 days—or about 41.4 weeks.
  

There's also a ticker that marks off births and deaths (and the corresponding population growth). It is amazing just how frequently humans are being born, and dying, on this planet. And then I realize: Every one of those births is a soul that will live somewhere forever; every one of those deaths is a soul going to either heaven or hell.

If that doesn't impress your soul with the importance of spreading the Gospel message now, you need to examine yourself.

Click here to view the population clock.

Abortion May Be a Greater Tragedy Than You Think!

According to these two stories from Foxnews.com (click here and here to read them), worldwide abortions in 2003 were down to "only" 41.6 million.

Here are some quotations from these articles (my commentary is in a different color):

"One in five pregnancies worldwide and one in three pregnancies in Europe ends in abortion, according to a new study published in a special female-focused issue of the Lancet.

"The study also found that, on average, 90 percent of women worldwide will have an abortion before the age of 45, based on 2003 data. However, many women will have had multiple abortions and many none at all to come to this average. [To put this in more statistically-understandable terminology, the average woman will have 0.90 abortions by the age of 45.]

"Although the statistics may seem startling, worldwide rates of induced abortion actually fell 17 percent from 46 million to 42 million between 1995 and 2003." [Later in the article, it uses the 41.6 million number instead, but even that only represents a decrease of 9.565%. When reading or hearing statistical data in the media, make it your habit to be highly skeptical. Reporters are not statisticians, and they can be easily misled]

"...Of the 41.6 million abortions worldwide, 35 million were in the developing countries, and 6.6 million in developed countries.

"The worldwide induced abortion rate fell from 35 per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44 in 1995 to 29 per 1,000 in 2003.

"That same year, 48 percent of all abortions worldwide were unsafe (up from 44 percent in 1995), and 97 percent of unsafe abortions were in developing countries. In developed countries, 92 percent of abortions were safe. [Read the article for a morbid definition of what this means. No abortion is safe. At least one person dies every single time.]

"Globally, there were 31 abortions for every 100 live births in 2003, while in Eastern Europe there were more abortions than live births, 105 abortions for every 100 live births, more than double the level of the next highest world region, Eastern Asia (51 abortions for every 100 livebirths).

"Eastern Europe also saw the biggest decrease in abortion rates between 1995 and 2003, down 50 percent. The authors attribute this decline to an increased use of modern contraception methods."

From the second article:

"Women are just as likely to get an abortion in countries where it is outlawed as they are in countries where it is legal, according to research published Friday.

"In a study examining abortion trends from 1995 to 2003, experts also found that abortion rates are virtually equal in rich and poor countries, and that half of all abortions worldwide are unsafe."

"...Abortion accounts for 13 percent of maternal mortality worldwide. About 70,000 women die every year from unsafe abortions. An additional 5 million women suffer permanent or temporary injury." [I can't help but think about the sowing-and-reaping principle here, or the fact that God does punish sin.]

Just for comparison purposes, the number of 2003 abortions worldwide is approximately equal to the total 2000 combined population of California, Arizona, and Nevada.