Experiment of the States - Part 4: Welfare And Our Freedoms

This is a continuation of the "Experiment of the States" series.  The significance and purpose of this type of data analysis is explained here.

One would think that there would be a very strong relationship between the states’ public welfare expenses and other economic factors such as unemployment or poverty levels, but these relationships are not that strong across all of the states. For some reason, it depends on the religious values of the states. 

If you look at the chart below, there are a few important trends to realize. Less religious states are more likely to use more welfare even though they have less poverty. There is also no trend between their welfare expenses and poverty levels as you would expect to see. But if you look at the most religious states’ data, there is an obvious trend between poverty and welfare expenses, and this relationship matches an ideal trend based on the fundamental purpose of the program. 

I think this trend could mean one of two things.  Maybe religious states are using welfare only as needed, where the welfare expenditures are proportional to poverty levels, and maybe the less religious states seem to increase government spending with no method to their madness.  Another possible explanation is that states with low poverty and high welfare costs could be utilizing the welfare more effectively, and the lower poverty rates are the result of that.  [Though, with the growing sense of entitlement in our society, I tend to agree more with the first explanation, but I will let the readers decide for themselves.]

The trends below should make you wonder what factors are actually driving the use of welfare. Preferably, these welfare benefits should be used as a hand up out of poverty (rather than just handouts). 

Even though welfare programs have good intentions, they seem to have a few negative effects on our society. According to the data, it seems to have a significant impact to our personal and economic freedoms. 

I believe that two major factors affect our freedoms in this country: debt and the lack of self-reliance, and the amount of welfare expenditures just happens to involve both of these issues. That is probably why the relationship between welfare and freedom is so strong (see chart below).

If the United States is to remain as a nation labeled as a “Land of the Free,” it’s obvious that we must be careful with these types of assistance, or "entitlement", programs. Without the proper use, these policies could have a profound effect on the people of this nation and our outlook of personal and economic prosperity. Our history of unity, hard work, self-reliance, and liberty has been vital to this country’s success, but these core values seem to be diminishing. By looking at this data, the improper use of welfare programs could be an underlying cause. 

As mentioned before in previous parts of this study, it’s important to note that these are just trends at this point. We must be careful not to claim a correlation without causation. It seems plausible that handouts from the government could be having an effect on the people’s awareness of personal responsibility and pursuit of happiness due to a false sense of security and entitlement, but there is another way of looking at this relationship. It is also conceivable that a population that is over their heads in debt and has already lost their sense of self-reliance will require more welfare due to their poverty stricken state of mind. [It's like the chicken or the egg argument.  We do not necessarily know which came first.]

I believe the question we should be asking ourselves is this: how do we reverse the entitlement mindset that is plaguing our nation?  A self-reliant population would require very little welfare (if any at all).  Giving undeserved or unneeded handouts certainly will not solve the fundamental issue. 

Is it the people or policies that affect our personal and economic freedoms in this country? I tend to believe it’s a little bit of both, but the never-ending expansion of government policies is just digging this nation into a deeper hole. I would much prefer the example and efforts of good and prosperous people lead this nation in the right direction rather than rely on the government. 

Sources:

United States’ Census Bureau record of 'Percent of Individuals Below Poverty Level by State, 2008' and 'Personal Income Per Capita by State, 2008'. "The 2012 Statistical Abstract". http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/(accessed on October 28, 2012). 

Mercatus Center index of 'Personal and Economic Freedom Ranking by State'. Posted on June 7, 2011. "Freedom in the 50 States" by Jason Sorens and William Ruger. http://mercatus.org/freedom-50-states-2011(accessed on October 31, 2012). 

Tax Policy Center record of 'Public Welfare Expense Per Capita, 2008'. Posted on October 17, 2012. "State and Local General Expenditures, Per Capita, 2004-2010". http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=521(accessed on November 23, 2012). 

Gallup record of 'Importance of Religion'. Posted on January 28, 2009. "State of the States: Importance of Religion" by Frank Newport. http://www.gallup.com/poll/114022/state-states-importance-religion.aspx#1(accessed on October 31, 2012). 

Experiment of the States - Part 3: Movin' On Up

This is a continuation of the "Experiment of the States" series.  The significance and purpose of this type of data analysis is explained here.

Part 3 of this study will focus on a highly talked about topic now-a-days: social mobility and income distribution. 

First, I thought it was interesting that states with large amounts of residents labeled as “top wealth holders in the nation” are much more likely to be liberal. The chart below is comparing the 2004 number of top wealth holders (net worth of over 1.5 million dollars) to the 2009 Gallup poll on the states’ ideologies. I know the years don’t match perfectly on this comparison, but these were the best numbers I could find easily available. And it’s also important to know that the states’ ideologies do not change very drastically over the years, so this relationship should prove to be reliable. 

Now on to the social mobility... You may want to read up on PEW’s report to understand their methodology a little more. It’s basically a rating for how easy it is for people to move up or down in income brackets. With that said, you might find the chart below a little interesting. The data in this chart is all from 2012. 

You’ll notice that the upward mobility goes up as a state becomes more liberal, and the downward mobility goes down. I know what you’re thinking already… “That’s a good thing, right?”  Well, you tell me… Take a look at the hypothetical graph below, and then think about it again. Keep in mind that with these different distributions, there are a few things that you should think about. What is the standard and cost of living? What social classes have the power? Does power come with numbers or money? How will the two extreme social classes (high vs low income) interact? It may not be as clear as you thought.

Sources:

United States’ Census Bureau record of Top Wealth Holders With Net Worth $1.5 Million or More--Number and Net Worth by State: 2004. "The 2012 Statistical Abstract: Wealth". http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/income_expenditures_poverty_wealth/wealth.html(accessed on October 28, 2012). 

Gallup record of Total Conservative and Total Liberal Populations. Published on August 14, 2009. "'Conservative' Label Prevails in the South" by Lydia Saad. http://www.gallup.com/poll/122333/Political-Ideology-Conservative-Label-Prevails-South.aspx#1(accessed on October 31, 2012). 

Gallup record of Total Conservative and Total Liberal Populations. Published on February 3, 2012. "Mississippi Most Conservative State, D.C. Most Liberal" by Frank Newport. http://www.gallup.com/poll/152459/mississippi-conservative-state-liberal.aspx#1(accessed on October 31, 2012). 

PEW record of Relative Upward Mobility and Relative Downward Mobility. Published on May 10, 2012. "Economic Mobility of the States". http://www.pewstates.org/research/data-visualizations/economic-mobility-of-the-states-interactive-85899381539(accessed on October 31, 2012). 

Finding a Common, Unwavering Foundation of Thought to Bridge the Partisan Divide

Whether it is our value systems, economic prowess – whatever the metric – the western world has undoubtedly experienced a tremendous amount of success in the last two centuries.  With a sense of mysticism, the right will often refer to their religious principles, such as the Judeo-Christian ideals of righteous individuals, as the cause for this success.  Contrary to the political right’s respect for religious meaning and purpose in our lives, the left will refer to natural, universal causes for the western world’s success.  A common theory coming from the left is one that involves the idea of a collective unity that resembles the survival instincts of a pack of wolves. 

Is it possible that both sides have a point to why the western way of life has been so fulfilling and successful?  Should both the collective and individual be given credit?  Are both universal forces and divine forces at play?

I tend to believe that both the political left and right are correct in their assessment of human flourishment (even though they seem to contradict each other on the surface).  If that is the case, the next logical thing to do is to continue to ask questions and think critically until we have reached a fundamental truth that explains how both sides of the argument can be correct in their assessment of humanity.  Why is religious value systems paramount to our societal success and cultural dexterity in the west?  Why are natural and universal forces continuously influencing humanity in a positive way, even though the universe can be such a violent and unforgiving force? 

To answer the question about the importance of religious principles, it is the empowerment and divine purpose given to the individual that incentivizes continuous improvement.  The answer to what drives the natural causes for human development is, of course, the evolutionary forces that apply to both the collective and individual.  Sure, these explanations seem reasonable, but we have yet to reach a common foundation of thought.  We need to dive even deeper into these concepts and continue to ask questions to determine the most fundamental reason for why these ideas, seemingly contradicting on the surface, can both be right.

If you ask enough question, eventually the truth will come to light.  The most fundamental truth that supports both the left and right perspectives is this:  chaos is the responsible force that allows for spontaneous development of all kinds. 

A devote religious person will look to a divine truth to create order in his or her life, yet, through the Judeo-Christian perspective, there is also thought to be a spark of divinity in all of us.  With the amount of variability between all individuals, how is it that a part of each and every one of us can be considered divine if that same divinity is to be a source of order?  [To realize the chaotic state of divinity within the individual, just think about the biblical story of the penitent thief being put to death next to Jesus during His crucifixion.  After making bad decisions in life – decisions so bad that he is disregarded by all of humanity and put to death – there is still a spark of divine wisdom that Jesus acknowledges with some of His last words before dying on the cross.] 

God may be perfect and orderly, but when realizing the concepts of original sin and free will, the religious perspective on the world is far from being orderly and perfect.  It is chaotic.  

Then comes the natural causes of human flourishment that are recognized by the left.  Humans are thought to evolve by conquering chaos that the universe continues to throw at us.  It is true that we are geared to always overcome adversity, and the reason is our antifragility.  Not only do we overcome adversity and chaos, but we are made stronger after withstanding it – like a sword forged in fire. 

You see – the theory of chaos is one that explains the winning and losing arguments from both the left and right.  This concept of chaos and how it affects the world and the people living in it should be the foundation of thought we all fall back on when building up our ideas.

Let’s consider a few examples of how it explains the winning and losing arguments coming from both sides…

A common, but flawed, argument used to support most political initiatives is the necessity of order.  The left attempts to create order through centralized, secular power hierarchies.  The right attempts to create order through cultural coercion with unquestioning, religious obedience.  Are all these incessant forms of order really necessary?

It is true that centralized power and other cultural forces can lead to increased order, but the solutions to our problems do not always involve order.  Think back to our new foundation of thought.  It is disorderly chaos that leads to societal progress. 

Chaos is a fundamental reality of the universe, and it is a metaphysical truth of our mortal existence.  For example, if you compare our partisan politics and the people of our society to the nuclear family, then you will see that people are affected by chaos in the same way that children are affected by new ideas and unfamiliar experiences.  It is chaos that allows children to develop into responsible, productive human beings that can eventually lead our future society.  Realizing the truth about chaos versus order is a foundation of thought that transcends religion, politics, philosophy, science, and all other ideas.  Its significance can even be proven when studying the laws of physics. 

As an engineer, my college curriculum included a class on thermodynamics.  It was in that class that I learned about the concept of entropy.  In laymen’s terms, entropy is basically the measure of chaos, disorderliness, or randomness of matter; and the second law of thermodynamics states that entropy can never decrease over time (similar to how our society has continually become more chaotic over time).  This chaotic characteristic of matter is essential in explaining many laws of physics, and it is an increase in chaos (or entropy) that explains how spontaneous reactions take place (just like how chaos allows for spontaneous improvements in humanity). 

Ironically, the chaotic expansion of the universe, which is still occurring today, resulted in an orderly formation of galaxies, star systems, and even the planet we call home: Earth.  There could be some wisdom attained by realizing this phenomenon.  The chaotic universe could be analogized to society; galaxies within the universe are like each small community within society; star systems can be compared to the family unit, and planets are like individuals.  Just as the universe is chaotic, society (as a whole) can be considered chaotic.  When focusing on a single galaxy, there will be a little less chaos (just as a small community is more orderly than all of society).  As you move toward a more precise location within the galaxy, such as a specific star system or planet, you can witness more and more order within the universe (just like how a family or individual can be more orderly than its community). 

What holds true in the cosmos also holds true in our social constructs.  Out of chaos comes order.  

The global economies and varying systems of government through human history can also be analogized with the concept of entropy and chaotic nature of the universe.  It is a known fact that throughout the world’s history, our economies and political structures have become more and more complex and chaotic over time.  Just like the natural aspects of our physical universe, as defined by the second law of thermodynamics, this trend toward chaos is productive and natural.  That is why having a chaotic economy results in more progress. 

The same is true for political territories.  With the growing number of sovereign countries throughout history, geopolitical maps have become more chaotic at an exponential rate.  As you can imagine, this has led to foreign relations being more complicated than ever before.  Even so, this increasing amount of chaos has resulted in peace and prosperity for the masses.  We live in a world that is much more stable to live in when compared to how it was thousands of years ago, when the geopolitical structures were much simpler.  As with thermodynamics and free market economies, increasing levels of chaos and randomness in the geopolitical world has, ironically, led to orderliness.  Furthermore, it has helped spur moments of spontaneous progress and is the very reason for human prosperity.

Having a healthy amount of chaos is important for having a well-rounded society.  While it would be nice to avoid living in the wild west (hence the need for maybe a little bit of order to keep the fabrics of society from unraveling), being in a chaotic state is far superior than its extreme alternative.  It is chaos that leads to an endless cycle of failures and successes, which is necessary for the progress of individuals and society.  Sure – some individuals are bound to fail when presented with a chaotic environment, but others will exceed in ways that are inconceivable to most people.  Through this chaotic development of individuals and small communities, a better society will emerge. 

Whether on the left or right, the concept of chaos and order should be the foundation of thought we all share.

Experiment of the States - Part 2: Show Me The Money!

This is a continuation of the "Experiment of the States" series.  The significance and purpose of this type of data analysis is explained here.

So does money replace religious values? 

When studying the states, there seems to be a slight trend that would support this theory (see chart below, where each data point represents a single state).  I did not include a trend line on this chart because it does not appear to be a linear relationship. Instead, it is more like an area under a line. [Here’s a good way to view it… having more income seems to lower the importance of religion, but just because a state has lower income, doesn’t mean it will be more religious.] 

We all know that with more money comes more happiness, right? WRONG! So far I have found no evidence of a direct link between income and overall happiness ratings between the states. And contrary to what conservatives may think, there is also no direct link between religion and happiness either. Though, keep in mind that overall happiness ratings by various polling companies are very subjective. 

So what does change for states with higher incomes, and why are they less religious? Is it the money or is it something else entirely?  What does it all mean?  Below are just a few more interesting trends to consider before trying to answer these questions. 

First, it is obvious that the states with the higher incomes are more liberal. This should be no surprise to people paying attention to the demographics of cities and states.  See the chart below for this relationship. 

Now, if you take the original chart – the one that compares a state's average income per capita to its percent of population claiming religion to be important – and separate the states' data by the two ideological extremes, you will notice another interesting trend. Liberal states always seem to be less religious no matter what their income is (this matches part 1 of the "experiment of the states" blog series). Conservative states seem to have a downward trend. 

Here's another interesting trend... Everyone has probably heard the saying, “you get what you pay for." In most cases this idiom will turn out to be true (hence why it has become an idiom), but when it comes to a state's resulting productivity in relation to its income per capita, the saying only holds true for conservative states. Liberal states have no increase in productivity with increased income, but conservative states have a significant upward trend in productivity with increased incomes. [Note that this productivity number is a net calculation. It subtracts the income per capita from the gross productivity per capita. You could consider this number as an economic “efficiency” rating.]

Now what about debt? You would think that higher incomes would help pay off a state’s debt, but this is not true at all. In fact, the opposite is true!  States with higher incomes will have higher amounts of debt, but income alone is not the sole contributor to this debt trend.  There is slight evidence that a state's debt per capita also depends on its religious values. First, you’ll notice in the chart below that the most religious states seem to have lower incomes (probably because they are usually less educated, too), but within their range of income, there is not much change in debt. They all seem to have low amounts of debt.  On the contrary, states that are less religious tend to have increased debt with increased income levels. 

These are all just noticeable trends at this point, but it seems that a lot of them can easily be explained. This may support the theory that they are cause and effect relationships involved. 

Do you think these data trends are just coincidences, or can they all be rationalized and explained? 

Note that all data shown on this page is from 2008 and 2009. 

Sources:

United States’ Census Bureau record of 'Persons 25 Years Old and Over with Bachelor's Degree or More, 2008', 'Gross Domestic Product by State in Current Dollars, 2008', and 'Personal Income Per Capita in Current Dollars, 2008'. "The 2012 Statistical Abstract: State Rankings". http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/rankings.html(accessed on October 28, 2012). 

Gallup record of Total Conservative and Total Liberal Populations. Published on August 14, 2009. "'Conservative' Label Prevails in the South" by Lydia Saad. http://www.gallup.com/poll/122333/Political-Ideology-Conservative-Label-Prevails-South.aspx#1(accessed on October 31, 2012). 

Gallup record of Importance of Religion. Posted on January 28, 2009. "State of the States: Importance of Religion" by Frank Newport. http://www.gallup.com/poll/114022/state-states-importance-religion.aspx#1(accessed on October 31, 2012). 

Liberals and Conservatives Search for Meaning and Purpose in Different Places

Photo by Ryoji Iwata on Unsplash

In my last blog post, I pointed out the link between political ideology, higher education, and religious values when studying data trends between the states. By diving deeper into these subjects, I think there is a rational explanation for the root cause of these trends.

In the United States, there is a stark contrast between the two competing political ideologies.  Conservatives tend to support the ideals of individualism, which is the philosophy that the individual should be self-reliant and have complete protection against the state – a philosophy that allows for each individual to create their own destiny.  To a right-leaning conservative, the strength of a collective group may still be important, but they feel that a group's strength can only come from having strong individuals.  This is why conservatives believe that individuals should look inward for improvements of one's self in order to be a beacon of good.

In summary, conservatives believe in an incremental, bottom-up approach to societal progress.

Liberals, on the other hand, support the ideals of collectivism.  They believe that empowering the collective is more important than focusing on the individual.  This does not mean that liberals do not care about individuals, but they certainly prioritize the collective over any single individual.  They feel that the strength of an individual is mostly defined by the strength of that individual's collective group.  

When giving credit for the successes of humanity, liberals would rather attribute it to a collective group instead of crediting any individual.  You see evidence of this philosophy when leftist politicians, such as Barrack Obama, say things like "you didn't build that" when referring to the successes of entrepreneurs.  Likewise, when assigning blame for the failures of humanity, they will again look to group identities.  For instance, feminists that have a leftist perspective on the world will claim that we live in a patriarchal society that allows men to oppress women.  Instead of putting blame to only sexist individuals, leftist feminists feel that there is a widespread cultural problem.

Obviously there are fundamental differences in the philosophies of the political left and right, but there are also ways we are alike.  The most important similarity of all people is our common interest in having a meaningful and purposeful life.  Sure, the definition of a meaningful and purposeful life may change from person to person (especially between conservatives and liberals), but each person's basic desire to fulfill a purpose does not.

Where a person searches for meaning and purpose depends greatly on their political ideology, which I believe is just a reflection of how a person approaches life itself.

Conservatives, with their focus on the individual, will look inward for purpose.  They value religion because it tells them that they have a spark of divinity within their individual self.  [After all, the Bible tells us that we are all made in God's image, and God has even represented Himself as the perfect individual through Jesus Christ.]  A meaningful life, according to a conservative, is one where an individual acts in accordance to God's will and spreads their ideals with a bottom-up approach – an approach that directly influences the people around them by being a good spouse, a good parent, a good friend, a good worker, and, ultimately, a good follower of Jesus (at least for a devote Christian, that is).

Liberals, with their focus on the collective, will look outward for purpose.  They seek to have a powerful influence to culture, to law, to human progress.  To a liberal, having a meaningful life means living a life that directly influences the collective.  The problem with this approach is that influencing the collective requires coercion and force (a top-down approach), which is why liberals will seek to climb the secular ladder of power.  Realizing this power hierarchy of the collective is why a liberal is more likely to appreciate political activism and higher education, both of which give them a sense of having more power in the secular world.  

Both side of the political spectrum are seeking to live a moral and meaningful life, even if we are seeking it in different places.  This search for meaning is what explains the left's attraction to higher education and political activism.  It also explains the right's attraction to religion and family.  Each way of living has served humanity well, so it is important to not denigrate either side's search for meaning.  Doing so could throw off the balance that has allowed humanity to flourish.

On a personal note, I believe there is just one caveat to the respect that should be given to each political perspective.  One philosophy is, in fact, more important than the other.

Before striving to influence the collective – a sentiment that is most common among liberals, no matter their personal expertise – one should put their own life in order first.  In other words, the individual should come first, and the collective should come second.  It would be ideal if only strong individuals look to lead the collective.

Experiment of the States – Part 1: Education, Religion, and Political Ideology

This is a continuation of the "Experiment of the States" series.  The significance and purpose of this type of data analysis is explained here.

Some of the most significant trends found between the states show direct relationships between political ideologies, amount of higher level education, and religious values. If you look at the graphs shown on this page, each data point represents a single state.  More conservative states have a population that are more religious with less people having higher education.  States having a higher percentage of their population with higher education will also be less religious.

Note: All of the data shown on this page is from 2008 and 2009.  By using data from the same time period, I am limiting the effect of time.

When looking at data, it is important to realize that statistically significant trends can only be used as evidence of a correlation.  There is a difference between correlation and causation.  By no means can such evidence be used to prove a cause and effect relationship (yet), but using our God-given gift of reason may help further explain these trends. With that in mind, these data trends suggest that some (if not all) of the following relationships may exist: 

Political ideology could be affected by education and/or religion; 

Religion could be affected by political ideology and/or education;

Education could be affected by religion and/or political ideology;

If some of these cause and effect relationships truly do exist, there may be a lot of questions that arise. For example, if one’s religious beliefs are affected by their amount of higher education, what are the underlying causes? What about their education causes a change in their religious views? Could it be the type of teachers they had or schools they attended? Maybe it depends on their previous religious views and experiences? Or could it be that science and religion tend to always contradict each other? If that’s the case, which is more important, and what are the repercussions for picking between the two?  Are there situations where science and religion can work together? 

Similar questions will arise when considering the other data trends as well. 

It may be frustrating that this type of information gives us more questions than answers, but these questions are necessary.  Asking these questions is very important for continuously improving upon our understanding of the chaotic world we live in.

These are just a few examples of statistically significant trends that can be used to tell a story or give insight into different social and economic trends across the nation.

Sources:

United States’ Census Bureau record of Persons 25 Years Old and Over with Bachelor's Degree or More, 2008. "The 2012 Statistical Abstract: State Rankings". http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/rankings.html(accessed on October 28, 2012). 

Gallup record of Total Conservative and Total Liberal Populations. Published on August 14, 2009. "'Conservative' Label Prevails in the South" by Lydia Saad. http://www.gallup.com/poll/122333/Political-Ideology-Conservative-Label-Prevails-South.aspx#1(accessed on October 31, 2012). 

Gallup record of Importance of Religion. Posted on January 28, 2009. "State of the States: Importance of Religion" by Frank Newport. http://www.gallup.com/poll/114022/state-states-importance-religion.aspx#1(accessed on October 31, 2012). 

The United STATES of America – A Social and Economic Experiment

Many people argue that a particular ideology is better than others because of historical evidence or comparisons with other nations. Though, does anyone find it amusing that the exact same argument can be found on both sides of a debate? The problem with this reasoning is that they are claiming a relationship between a couple variables without accounting for any of the other factors in the equation.  When the majority of factors are ignored in an analysis, the data can usually be manipulated to support any desired conclusion.  It is our responsibility to ask questions and use our own reasoning to decipher between relevant information and the normal junk that is found in the media. 

When trying to understand relationships between certain variables and outcomes, it’s important to keep all other variables as constant as possible.  Even still, the knowledge gained is limited by a defined inference space, but at least this experimental method allows for some sort of relevant conclusion to be made. Without this control method, any analysis of data is most likely worthless! 

For example, while comparisons between the U.S. and other nations can sometimes be useful, it really isn’t a good way to come to a sound conclusion because of the vast differences in cultures and other variables. Likewise, even though we have a lot of data and history found within our country, it’s not always a good idea to compare variables from different time periods. Could you imagine modeling economic policies during a depression or recession around that of an economic boom? Oh wait… We do that sort of thing all the time, don’t we? 

If data is to be used for optimizing the state of government within the United States, then there needs to be a relevant control method. One idea is to only analyze the data between the states.  This would limit the effects from cultural differences seen across the world.  Though, the data cannot be analyzed in a historic way.  In order to limit the effect of time, this data should be analyzed from only one time period.  Looking at different time periods should only be used as a method to confirm that a cause and effect relationship is true through all different parts of our history (i.e. does variable X have the same effect on Y in years 1970, 1980, 1990, etc.).

Following this post will be several statistical studies that look at data between the states within a single time period.  I challenge others to attempt these same methods, rather than traditional ways, for learning about the causes and effects of our governing policies.