tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8435643185084697173.post5401725734261529434..comments2023-09-12T10:27:43.203-04:00Comments on esther + economics = esthernomics!: Children: inferior good?esjhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10878071075917599438noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8435643185084697173.post-82245248979380644902009-02-25T20:51:00.000-05:002009-02-25T20:51:00.000-05:00i love kids too, just not indiscriminately. who kn...i love kids too, just not indiscriminately. who knows if i'll even like the ones that i have - what if they're jerks?esjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10878071075917599438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8435643185084697173.post-60639663808727059752009-02-25T01:22:00.000-05:002009-02-25T01:22:00.000-05:00i used gapminder several years ago back when it wa...i used gapminder several years ago back when it was still in its infancy; when it first introduced the idea of "visual trend analysis," my data mining professors were standing at their little podiums with controlled spasms of their green laser pointers, feverishly exclaiming how wonderfully complex data can be pared down to such elegant visual representation...<BR/><BR/>they were careful to point out nuances about trend analysis, particularly when staring at large graphs - taking note of logarithmic and linear representations of data. what appeared to me to be a boon for economists was in fact a gleefully disguised joy basket full of goodies for media sensationalists. i say this because the tool is so ridiculously powerful.<BR/><BR/>when a piece of data mining or trend analysis software becomes so overwhelmingly modifiable with infinite amounts of global data, one is granted the ability to tease the data points into fine tracts of harvestable information that can obey any particularly interesting rule.<BR/><BR/>on top of that, logical deduction can explain away any trend analysis situation of this magnitude. set the children-vs-income graph to linear representation, and it becomes more obvious why it seems like income increases as children decrease. the countries with more children are already inherently poor. these countries also maintain a level of necessity with regards to the number of children they rear - because they're mostly farmers. families of farmers need more children to work the fields. as you can also see, the United States is way out there, and this is because per capita income for the US is relatively high, whereas the per capita "children" is relatively low.<BR/><BR/>ehh.. i could also be biased because i just love kids. :)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11806358523567776785noreply@blogger.com