Tuesday, June 3, 2014
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
Gapminder Screencast and Analysis
Video 1- As Income per person (GDP/capita) increases, Service workers increase
Video 2- As Income per person (GDP/capita) increases, Agriculture workers decrease
The first two factors I chose were income per person and service workers. GDP per Capita stands for Gross Domestic Product per person. The inflation and differences in the cost of living between countries has been taken into account and it is measured in international dollars. Service workers are workers engaged in tertiary activities such as dentistry and engineering. The statistic is measured as the percent of labor force employed in jobs classified as service activities.
GDP per capita can provide useful economic insight because money is a very large part of economics, it often determines what a country can and can't do to develop. Knowing roughly where a country is in terms of income can help determine if the state will remain agriculturally centered, is ready to industrialize, is industrializing or has deindustrialized. The percentage of service workers in a country can provide economic development insight because not just anyone can perform tertiary tasks. This statistic serves as a peephole into the population of a country in that people in the service sector must be educated, and middle-upper class citizens. Also, the country itself needs to have the means to hold tertiary jobs (ex. proper infrastructure).
The second video demonstrates income per person (which I have explained in the previous paragraphs), and percentage of agricultural workers. The latter statistic is measured as the percent of labor force employed in agricultural activities. This can provide economic development insight because a country with a high percentage of people working in agriculture means the agriculture of that particular country is not advanced enough for the people to start taking steps towards secondary and tertiary jobs- if there aren't any workers, there can't be new jobs.
In general, more developed countries have higher percentages of service workers and higher GDP/capita. The regions with the highest of both statistics are western Europe (France, UK, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland), North/Central America (US, Canada, Bahamas, Netherlands Antilles), Australia, and wealthy pockets of East Asia (Hong Kong, Macao, Singapore). Israel and Saudi Arabia also have high GDP and service workers unlike other countries in their region. Each of these places has been among the highest in the world since 1980. Luxembourg has the highest income per person, however, in 2007 their percentage of service workers dropped from 78% to 52% - perhaps they have innovated ways to tertiary activities with fewer people thus raising the average income per person. Many small Central/South American countries made brief rises in service workers in the 1990's but quickly fell by the year 2000. I also think it's interesting that Hong Kong and Macao are exceedingly different than China as a whole - China is largely manufacturing but those two areas are quite service-centered.
Logically, those countries that are more developed with higher percentages of service type jobs have lower percentages of agricultural jobs. Thus, generally, the countries with higher percentages of agricultural workers are those with lower GDPs. Regions with lower income per person and higher percent workers involved in agriculture include: East/Central Asia (Georgia, Moldova, Philippines, Thailand, Azerbaijan), South Asia (Pakistan, Sri Lanka), and South America- not overly low development (Paraguay, Panama, Columbia). Many African countries (Tanzania, Madagascar, Sierra Leone) had many agricultural workers and low GDPs up until 2005 when they dropped off the graph. There really aren't any true outliers for these factors which I think is kind of weird.
Many countries that have lots of agricultural workers consist of many small subsistence farming pockets. Not much capital is being produced in these countries which explains the low GDPs. On the other hand, more economically developed countries can rely on less developed countries for basic goods; they don't have to produce their own goods so they can focus on tertiary services.
Monday, February 24, 2014
Crossing the Line GIS Activity
View Larger Map">
The country that could potentially split is Australia. The Murrawarri nation, straddling the border of sub-states New South Wales and Queensland, would become a separate enclaved country in the eastern part of the continent. The Arabian Gulf Union could form with the joining of several countries in the Middle East including Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Bahrain, as well as parts of Iraq and Syria.
I believe Murrawarri will split from Australia because it is clear the nation wants its own country. In 2013, the "republic" declared independence from Australia and claimed a small segment of territory. However, the government ignored this declaration and Murrawarri's independence is not recognized. At first, the nation interpreted the lack of response as the green light to start a country; they began setting up a government and went to the United Nations for recognition. Murrawarri has yet to achieve state status, but are determined to make it happen. I think the Arabian Gulf Union will form because of cultural similarities. Not only do the countries practice the same religion, but they speak similar languages. Additionally, the countries are unified through a common threat from Iran.
The Murrawarri Republic has both physical and cultural boundaries. The nations borders are largely based on where the majority of the nation lives and the territory they claimed. However, to draw the boundaries, the Darling and Balonne Rivers were used as criteria. The boundaries of the Arabian Gulf Union are cultural. They were drawn in accordance with the Indo-European/ Afro-Asiatic language family border.
Murrawarri will be satisfied with statehood but in the beginning, their economy, government, and military won't be very strong, and may not ever be. This is because of the small size of the nation and the probable unwillingness of other countries to invest in such a tiny chunk of land. Another disadvantage is being landlocked, the nation won't be able to make money importing and exporting goods by sea. Independence is good for the nation because it will be unified; not only will the Murrawarri Republic be a nation-state, they will be linked through their extensive efforts to gain sovereignty. Murrawarri could likely stimulate other nations in Australia to split, and the continent might eventually look similar to Africa. The Arabian Gulf Union will create security because the new, more powerful country will be able to defend itself against Iran. Plus, simply having more territory can make a state stronger economically. Combining states could possibly cause internal conflicts because of the nature of people resisting change.
Sunday, January 12, 2014
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Census Data Mapper Map and Analysis - October 2013
LINK to this map on Google Drive
The topic of this map is average family size. Bigger families are clustered in the Western and Southwestern United States. Also, family sizes tend to be high around major cities such as Minneapolis, Philadelphia, or Los Angeles. Almost all of Puerto Rico, Alaska, and Hawaii are shaded as having bigger families. As far as small families go, many parts of the Midwest have a light shading for small families. Additionally, much of the Northern U.S. has a small average family size and families in mountainous regions typically aren’t very big.
The reason for large family sizes in the South might be that immigrants from Mexico tend to have many children. City populations tend to be higher than rural so it would make sense that large families reside in the city. In the West, the cost of living is pretty low so people can afford to have more kids. Also, many families live on ranches/farms so it would be good to have more kids for help. It is a part of Puerto Rican, Hawaiian and Alaskan Native culture to have large families. In the Midwest, most people enjoy hunting, fishing, snowmobiling, ski/snowboarding, etc. and it would be inconvenient and expensive to have a large party to haul around. It might be that a lot of people who live in the mountains are ski bums and because they are so busy skiing there isn’t time for family - or maybe people want to preserve the peace of the landscape by not introducing children, who can often be rambunctious.
In areas with larger families when it has become a part of the culture, most people will have many children and the population will increase. More children means more money needed for day care, schools, school activities, and various youth programs. Drawbacks such as overflowing classes, multiple sports teams/cutting kids, and probably high taxes would be in effect. Also, with bigger families bigger homes are needed so more money will be spent on housing. Socially, kids will most likely have more friends because they will be exposed to more people their age. To gain votes, political candidates will have to target campaigns towards improving/expanding services for young people. In areas with small families, classrooms would be more open and kids would hopefully get more attention. Taxes would be relatively low because enormous sums of money wouldn’t be spent on youth. Plus, homes would be smaller and more people could live comfortably in a given neighborhood. Without many kids, schools will be underused, not as many friendships would exist, and there might not be enough people for sports teams.
Friday, September 20, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)