I've been unable to find anything inspiring to write about this morning, so instead I'm resorting to serenfredity. This is similar to serendipity, but involves going to FRED and typing something random to see what comes up. Today I typed in Oklahoma.
Then I scrolled around and eventually lit on average house prices in Oklahoma City. Here they are:
I have no point to make here. It's just random data. If anyone can think of anything to say about this—especially those who live in Oklahoma City—please leave it in comments.
Yeah, I don't want to live there, either.
Kevin, I don't understand what the Y axis is on your graph. 100% of what? How was it 0% in 2000?
Does the cart say that income has increased by 100% since 2000? That can't be right.
Yes, income has about doubled:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OKLA440PCPI
and so has house price:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ATNHPIUS36420Q
Inflation adds up even if it's not 6%.
I think you should write about this. Make a chart showing all the wasted money and lost lives and compare to how safe you feel as a result. 😂
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2021/11/16/the-us-makes-the-rules-and-syria-massacre-was-no-exception/
Massacre for fun and profit.
Covid going back up in OK....
CovidActNow no longer showing vaccination data for PA and NH. Which is good--numbers need to get fixed. In PA, the state vaccination rate was higher than the rate in any county....hmmmm. Didn't look so closely at NH. IL data was update a while back.
I still look at covidactnow every day and usually rely on their numbers of things like cases and deaths and assume they can get that right .
But I do not rely much on their numbers for transmission rate which are based I guess on some algorithm from case numbers and maybe positivity changes.
But something is flawed there. I have noticed numerous times that their county transmission rates shown are impossibly inconsistent with the state rate . At one time , all the larger counties in CA had a rate below 1.0 and only a few smaller counties were above 1.0 . But ca as a whole was above 1.0 and no way could that be right .
And their transmission rate just responds way too slowly to case number changes. They imply it is some 7 day average but no way. Alaska cases had been dropping for weeks to like half of peak rate before they showed transmission rate below 1.0.
If you now see a disparity in county and state numbers on a hard number like vaccinations, just makes me doubt them more.
Some of the trends in the more northern states and highly vaccinated states ( which mostly are more northern so hard to seperate out effects) are worrisome.
Looks now that there is zero or even positive correlation between vaccination rate and case numbers ( without controlling for other factors ) . Now no way vaccination rates do not help somewhat, and I think a lot has to do with latitude and weather, but clear that vaccination rate now is helping minimally to prevent spread.
And note that started who vaccinated more also tended to vaccinate earlier. And sure looks like the 2 dose vaccine protection from being infected and infecting others ( i.e. preventing spread) just really collapsed after 5 or 6 months.
And does not look to me that boosters are being widely used , and we really should have started to allow them before 6 months.
And found the 538 discussion on boosters today interesting. All solid liberal democrats but seems they have not gotten booster and might not ever get them . I think you are going to see older and more vulnerable people ( like me) get boosters. But not younger and healthier, whether liberal or conservative. Which means limited help in preventing spread.
And on prior discussion of conservative reluctance to get vaccinated and selfishness, I argued it had little to do with differences there. It had to do with perceptions of reality and facts differing.
Conservatives who never vaccinated was because they perceived vaccine risk as high and covid risk as low ( to themselves and others) and I agree that many conservatives way overestimated vaccine risk ( but actually tended to somewhat overestimate covid risk to young). Liberals tended to assess vaccine risk very low ( and more accurately on that imo ) but also way way overestimated covid risk especially to young . Polls clearly showed that both liberals and conservatives had exaggerated estimates of covid risk to young but there conservatives were closer to accurate.
End result. Many young liberals got vaccinated simply for personal selfish reasons as they assessed the vaccine risk correctly as low and overestimated personal risk from covid . Net decision imo still correct as vaccine risk so low . But now, with booster, and increasing evidence that 2 shot vaccine still works well for preventing death and sickness and , for young, that makes covid risk real low. So personal selfish decision of young is likely logically no booster
Even minimal booster risks or side effects not worth it when your personal covid risk is so low.
But getting the booster still has substantial benefit to community in preventing spread. So non selfish young person should get the booster right? We shall see but right now not hopeful.
And those liberals who really want to help the community can do one thing . Even if a young liberal is selfish and would not get booster as do not need it themselves, they can be subject to social pressure to get one to be a " good liberal ". What struck me in 538 discussion was lack of criticism for " selfish " decisions to not get the booster..
Case counts are trash.
This is getting very confusing.
People get vaccinations for a mixture of reasons.
Unfortunately, with Delta, your viral load is still very high even if vaccinated. Vax must have some positive effect but it's not overwhelming.
So it's about personal protection.
For people past a certain age, the risk from Covid is so high that they will get vaxxed, and they will have boosters.
People w less fear of the disease will have a lower propensity to get a booster.
In the US it is highly complicated by politics but I believe that in the over 60 category, even Republican voters have a very high vaccination rate.
Conversely, although Democrat leaning (even if participation in voting is lower), younger & non-white demographic groups have a much lower propensity to get vaccinated (and therefore also to do a booster?). This may reflect less engagement with the medical system and a primary care provider (family doctor) as well.
Not sure if this is the reason for skewed PA numbers but Philadelphia is counted separately. At some point that add it back in but there is often a mismatch.
Sure, I'll bite. The chart doesn't show house prices in Oklahoma City compared to per capita personal income, it shows the percentage rise in house prices since the year 2000 and the percentage rise in per capita personal income since the year 2000, both on the same chart. At least that's what I gather from the context, but you can't tell it from the label.
Also, the numbers appear not to be adjusted for inflation, which I've been told is a no-no.
I think your interpretation is obviously what must be the case. For sure real income has not doubled.
But a very poorly constructed chart . At least it should have said comparing CHANGE in house prices and CHANGE in income.
My first glance is that it was house price as % age of income but then that cannot be right.
Not adjusting by inflation is not really a problem as long as you are just comparing the change in both on same basis.
The chart doesn't claim either real income or house prices have doubled. These are nominal figures. It's not remotely difficult to believe average incomes and house prices have doubled in nominal anywhere in the US in the last 2+ decades.
About 30 years ago I lived in ft smith Arkansas for about 6 months. At thanksgiving I drove to Dallas and cut through SE Oklahoma. It was a tour of poverty and terrible run down farms and houses… shacks and trailers really. What an awful place full of awful people.
Unlike your amazing self.
Yeah - I am pretty amazing. At least in comparison to the residents of rural Oklahoma. Boston residents are truly amazing. Have a nice day!
There's a big difference between "awful people" and "people in awful circumstances".
You find really shooty people who are well off (professions like banking & law attract them like flies). And you find really kind and generous people who have not 2 soults to rub together.
I lived in an OKC suburb from 1991 to 2002. We bought a house when we arrived, and sold it for about 150% of the purchase price when we left (so along roughly the same trendline as the graph, assuming the graph were to make sense, which it doesn't quite).
I can't say anything meaningful about personal income during that time, as my income sources changed dramatically over the period, and by about the midway point all of my income was from sources outside of Oklahoma.
It means that even in so-called flyover country house prices have been rising faster than income for the last 15 years.
Huh? Doesn't it show the actual opposite?
I'm reminded that Adam Smith said that the rent of land is determined by the ability to pay -- that is, by incomes.
Cost of housing is probably heavily determined by ability to service the mortgage.
The best thing about living in Oklahoma City is leaving it.
That was Timothy Mc Veigh's original defense of his bombing.