This is potentially important because we consume a lot of water. The USGS estimates that we in the US use about 400 billion gallons per day. Given that a ton is about 240 gallons, that's over 1.7 billion tons of water. At an added cost of 65 cents per ton that means we save about $1 billion every day we are able to avoid desalination to meet our water needs. But with over 96% of the earth's water accounted for by sea water, it is comforting to know that for a bit less than half the cost of Social Security we could find alternative water sources. Here's hoping it doesn't come to that!
It's March Madness time. This year, a few more people may beplaying brackets. With financial backing from Warren Buffet, Quicken Loans is offering billion to anyone who filled out a perfect NCAA bracket. As the USAToday article I've linked to notes, that's not as big a risk for Buffet as it sounds like because there are 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 (9 quintillion) different possible brackets. Of course, not all of those are equally likely. Nate Silver and the folks at fivethirtyeight.com have put a lot of effort into picking the games. Silver figures that all of his number crunching dramatically improved his odds of a perfect bracket...to 1 in "7.4 billion". (Actually it is 1 in 7,419,071,319--don't forget those last 19+ million outcomes!)
So, how's it all working out? Not surprisingly, Quicken reports at least 50 people have perfect brackets after the first 16 games. Unfortunately for Nate Silver, he didn't see Dayton beating Ohio State.
The image makes two things clear:
1) Growth has been dramatic--though not literally exponential. We are apparently around 1 billion users, increasing at a pace of about 100 million users per year. At this rate we won't have the entire world online until the end of the 21st century (assuming the world population grows to approximately 9 billion and then stabilizes). Of course, because the last adopters will likely be harder to draw online due to poverty, we probably won't get anywhere near that many users.
2) Until 1997, the US made up more than half of internet users. Since then we have fallen to only 20% of the internet market.
3) Despite the US's decreasing role, we remain the dominant internet user. It looks like European users have only just recently risen equal US users. So, while "the rest of the world" has long overtaken the number of US users, no other homogeneous political group has matched the US use until just recently. Perhaps this explains why the pressure to shift internet control out of the US has taken so long to build considerable pressure.
Given the attention, it seemed useful to apply a little QR to the topic to gain a deeper understanding. If you click the link above, you will quickly learn that the gender gap is 23%. But who is in the sample? It takes a little digging, but you eventually find the answer: "full-time, year-round workers." That's a start, but a student armed with 10 Foundational Quantitative Reasoning Questions would know to press further by wondering how the concept of "full-time" is defined. The answer turns out to be anyone working over 35 hours is employed full-time. That well-prepared student might then wonder what is controlled for in this analysis. The answer is nothing other than full time status--not even hours worked.
A recent Labor Department study reports that the wage gap shrinks by 71% (to around 5%) after controlling for well-documented income-altering factors other than sex like hours worked, age, number of children, marital status, union representation, race, education, and fraction of women working in the person's industry and occupation. In other words, the gender pay gap is largely explained by choices.
So, does that mean that we can largely ignore complaints of discrimination? Clearly not. That women and men on the same career path earn the same income does not rule out discrimination that limits work choices. Are there barriers in the education system or in hiring that make it harder for women to end up in higher-paying positions? Does society push women into lower paying life paths? These are hypotheses that cannot be ruled out by the data.
But the tools of QR can help us focus in on the real explanations for an important observation.
But now the internet is also creating its own potentially useful data. "Google it!" Forecasting the US unemployment rate with a Gooble job search index explains how Google search statistics can improve forecasts of unemployment. The authors create a typical forecasting model based on past unemployment levels and data from the Survey of Professional Forecasters, a quarterly survey of experts carried out by the Philadelphia Fed. The authors then add a variable which captures the frequency of Google searches for "jobs." Including the Google search data reduces the model error by 30 to 40 percent.
It seems to me there is something really interesting in this idea. In economics, there are many behaviors we try to track: hiring, unemployment, consumption, investment, etc. I'm sure that is true of many fields. The problem is that there is a long lag between households' actions and when we get the data. Online activity gives us an alternative, real-time measure that may help us improve forecasts. [Note: I am less excited about what Google does with personally identifiable information. The data referred to here is aggregate activity that isn't linked to any particular person.]
If you are interested in looking into trends for search terms, go to www.google.com/insights/search/#.