Monthly Archives: July 2011

God gets good job approval ratings in recent survey

Posted on by

I’m not sure why Public Policy Polling decided to recently include these questions in a mid-July survey (just to make comparisons with current politicians and Rupert Murdoch?) but here is how Americans rate God’s job performance:

While many polls have asked what Americans’ beliefs are about God, there has been little measurement of voters’ evaluation of its performance. It turns out, if God exists, voters would give God a strong 52-9 approval rating. This is hardly a surprise considering the vast majority of the country believes in an infallible deity, but some of the crosstabs are quite interesting.

There is a considerable age divide on God’s approval with those 18-29 approving 67-18 compared to a 40-6 approval rating among those over 65. What jumps out from this divide is not just that young voters are more likely to be critical of the job performance of the omnipotent figure, but that they are considerably more likely to voice their opinion. Only 15% of those 18-29 said they were unsure whether they approved of God, while 54% of those over 65 said they were unsure. This could indicate that the youth is much more comfortable answering silly questions about religion while the elderly feel a question on God’s approval is taking religion too lightly. There is also an ideological divide over God’s performance. Those who identify as very liberal approve of God 54-18, while those who identify as very conservative are almost uniform in their approval, 61-4.

God also performs well on some of the issues it could be responsible for if it exists. God scores its best rating on its handling of creating the universe. The big bang may be messy, but most voters must feel it gets the job done as they give God a 71-5 rating on the issue. As for the animal kingdom, if God exists it may have been off its game when it evolved up the giraffe’s laryngeal nerve, but perhaps the elegant Monarch butterfly makes up for it as voters give God a 56-11 rating on its handling of animals. As one would expect, God’s worst ratings are on its handling of natural disasters; however, Americans may feel the occasional earthquake or hurricane builds character as voters give God strong marks, rating it 50-13.

These figures seem pretty high but they are rather vague questions. If you are going to ask these questions, why not add a few more: do you feel God has treated you fairly lately? Do you think God has blessed the United States? Which political party do you think God would side with more? Do you feel that God approves of your job performance in life?

Maybe these figures do indicate some generational and political gaps. There are also some differences by race as African-Americans are more likely to approve of God’s performance. Or perhaps these figures don’t tell us much of anything. PPP could start asking this question more regularly and track the data over time.

It would be interesting to follow these questions by asking respondents why they gave the rating they did. Were respondents afraid to give God negative ratings?

Also, how come there is no indication of how many people didn’t answer this question since it starts with “If God exists”? Cross-tabs give us percentages but we don’t have Ns for the categories or cells.

An attempt to define the American middle class

Posted on by

Determining who exactly is middle-class in America can be difficult as many Americans, of all income ranges, consider themselves to be middle-class. In the middle of a review of the tough American economy, one columnist provides an interesting definition of the middle-class:

So how come the middle class continues to struggle? To answer that question, we need first figure out what this nebulous thing called the middle class is. Let’s leave aside the fine sociological distinctions about white collars and blue collars and pink collars, and say this: The American middle class is vast middle tier of people who work to live, and who strive to work a little harder to get a little more in life. Middle class people may save, but they don’t accumulate enough wealth to live off. Almost every buck they get, they spend.

This is why we need these “fine sociological distinctions” as this definition offers little to go on. Here is what this might mean:

1. Middle-class Americans have jobs mainly for income so they can support their family and do what they want outside of work.

2. Middle-class Americans are always striving for a little bit more.

3. Middle-class Americans spend most of their income and don’t accumulate enough wealth to stop working.

“Typical” middle-class values are often said to be hard work, striving to own a home, and helping one’s children get ahead. Regarding the three definitions in this article, what about the shift toward seeing one’s job as a vocation or a career? What about a return to saving in recent years? Spending may be a key feature, particularly to chase the American Dream, but is the spending simply essential to the economy or is it considered consumerism? These three definitions above might fit some Americans but I’m not sure they fit most in the middle.

On the whole, this seems like an incomplete and/or sloppy definition. Defining the middle-class by income level, job status and education level, and even self reporting makes more sense.

Google+ a “sociologically simple and elegant solution”?

Posted on by

According to one reviewer, Google+ takes advantage of sociological principles with its circles:

You also don’t have to ask anybody to be your “friend”. Nor do you have to reply to anybody’s “friend request”. You simple put people into the discrete/discreet spheres they already inhabit in your life…

Now, if you had asked me which company I considered least likely to come up with such a sociologically simple and elegant solution, I might well have answered: Google.

Its founders and honchos worship algorithms more than Mark Zuckerberg does. (I used to exploit this geekiness as “color” in my profiles of Google from that era.) Google then seemed to live down to our worst fears by making several seriously awkward attempts at “social” (called Buzz and Wave and so forth).

But these calamities seem to have been blessings. Google seems to have been humbled into honesty and introspection. It then seems to have done the unthinkable and consulted not only engineers but … sociologists (yuck). And now it has come back with … this.

Why exactly do algorithms and sociological principles have to be in opposition to each other? It is a matter of what informs these algorithms: brute efficiency, sociological principles, something else…

Ultimately, couldn’t we also argue that the sociological validity of Google+ will be demonstrated by whether it catches on or not? Facebook may not be elegant or “correct” but people have found it useful and at least worthwhile to join(even if some loath it). Perhaps this is too pragmatic of an answer (if it works, it is successful) but this seems to make sense with social media.

This reminds me as well of the idea expressed in The Facebook Effect (quick review here) that Facebook wishes to reach a point where people are willing to share their information with lots of people they may not know. If this is still the goal, Google+ then is more conservative in that people can restrict information by circle. I suspect it will be a while before a majority of people are willing to go the route suggested by Facebook but perhaps Facebook is being more “progressive” in the long run by trying to push people in a new direction.

British sociologist wins case against reviewer

Posted on by

Reviews are a key part of the academic world as researchers, journalists, and others assess and judge the work of others. Within this world, a British court recently sided with a sociologist who had sued a reviewer:

A High Court judged ruled that Lynn Barber’s 2008 review of Seven Days in the Art World by Dr Sarah Thornton, a noted sociologist, was “spiteful” and contained serious factual errors. The Telegraph Group, owner of The Daily Telegraph, which published the article, has been ordered to pay Dr Thornton £65,000 in damages.

While the country’s critics regard such factual errors as justifiably punishable, the case still raises questions for scribes who have grown accustomed to saying what they like about whomever they please…

There is a long history of critical clashes. The most high profile are necessarily those that end up in court. In 1998 the journalist and TV presenter Matthew Wright “reviewed” the play The Dead Monkey starring David Soul, calling it “without doubt the worst West End show”. The chink in his armour was that he’d never actually seen it, and Soul won £30,000 in a libel case.

Sometimes, the clashes are less clear cut. One anonymous arts critic told The Independent about three legal threats that had recently landed across his desk, none of which ended up in court, incidents he described as “shots across the bows”. To avoid such clashes, critics may find it necessary to limit how often they tackle certain subjects. “My view is that a critic has to be honest and say what he or she likes,” said Brian Sewell, art critic at the London Evening Standard.

The story suggests there two components to the lawsuit: “spiteful” comments and factual inaccuracies. I imagine the case was decided in the sociologist’s favor mainly due to the factual errors in the review (which didn’t have to do with the book but about what the reviewer said about an interview with the author) rather than the critical comments which are common in reviews.

The case reminds of how I heard one academic describe reviews: they are opportunities to knock down other researchers and if you are gracious or perhaps even neutral in a review, it can be interpreted as a sign of weakness. Reading some reviewers (academic or journalistic), it is sometimes hard to imagine they would be happy with anything.

Lady Gaga comments on the University of South Carolina course about her

Posted on by

When the University of South Carolina announced it was going to have a sociology course titled “Lady Gaga and the Sociology of Fame,” it was a big story (as far as stories about sociology courses go). Lady Gaga herself recent commented on the course:

Lady Gaga’s attention to cultural detail has inspired a sociology course at the University of South Carolina called “Lady Gaga And The Sociology Of Fame,” which Gaga describes as a “wonderfully interesting art.”

“When you look back, movie stars sort of created their own sense of fame. Andy Warhol appropriated the fame of others in order to appropriate his own.”

“Especially in today’s media with social networking and cameras, everyone can take that same picture that the paparazzi used to take…It’s not so much about doing it as it is about embracing the art of it. And I think that’s what the course is about.”

I wonder if she has actually looked at what is going on in the course but she still makes an interesting point: “fame” and “celebrity” seems to be more concentrated in the hands of people seeking it now rather than requiring certain gatekeepers like the media. In the case of people like Andy Warhol or Lady Gaga, they can retain their celebrity by turning their own fame and the fame of others on its head to create and reinvent their own image.

This reminds me a discussion I occasionally run into: does creativity or originality today require creating something new or remixing older themes or piecess?

Another thought: will anyone really consider Lady Gaga an “artist” or is she more of a blip in the world of pop culture?

I will be curious to hear what Lady Gaga says or does when her popularity wanes. Will she just keep going over the top to try to attract fans or will she gracefully fade away knowing that her time is up?

New sociology course: sociology of games

Posted on by

A “new minor in Game Studies and Design” at the University of Montevallo includes the chance to take the elective course “sociology of games”:

Cartier and Tyler, both of whom hold doctorate degrees in math, were approached by university President William Stewart shortly after his arrival on campus last June about the possibility of offering such a course of study at the liberal arts school.

“The original idea was to focus on video games,” Cartier said. “Benton and I went to California to do research, and we found there was more to the design process than just the ability to code.”…

Students who minor in Game Studies and Design must take 24 hours in specific subjects. All students must take History of Games, Survey of Modern Games and a two-part Game Design Workshop.

The remaining 12 hours must come from a combination of: Creative Writing or Technical Writing for Games (English); Principals of Marketing (Marketing); Mathematics of Games (Math); Aesthetics of Games (Philosophy); or Sociology of Games (Sociology).

The pictures for the story show students playing Settlers of Catan, perhaps the most well-known game in a wave of newer games that have swept the market in recent years. Such games are supposed to provide a different experience than some classic American games, like Monopoly or Risk, that prompt players to crush their opponents, often leading to one happy winner and several bummed out opponents. In games like Settlers or Carcassonne or Ticket to Ride or Dominion, each player gets an opportunity to build and pursue their own goals, giving some sense of satisfaction even if they don’t win.

While some might question the need for students to pursue the academic study of games, this would seem to fit with a number of recent articles I have seen about the process of “gamification.” If society is moving toward taking more average/normal activities and making them into games, wouldn’t this minor prove useful? There could be a lot of potential for growth in this area, particularly in field like health.

I wonder exactly where the “sociology of games” might fit in the broader field of sociology. I’ve heard about the “sociology of leisure” but it isn’t a current ASA section.There is an international group for the sociology of leisure and the Wikipedia page suggests it is “fairly recent subfield of sociology.”

 

Declining rural population in US

Posted on by

While the percentage of Americans living in the suburbs has hit a high of 51 percent and 33 percent of Americans live in cities, an all-time low of 16 percent of the population now lives in rural areas:

The latest 2010 census numbers hint at an emerging America where, by midcentury, city boundaries become indistinct and rural areas grow ever less relevant. Many communities could shrink to virtual ghost towns as they shutter businesses and close down schools, demographers say.

More metro areas are booming into sprawling megalopolises. Barring fresh investment that could bring jobs, however, large swaths of the Great Plains and Appalachia, along with parts of Arkansas, Mississippi and North Texas, could face significant population declines…

The share of people in rural areas over the past decade fell to 16 percent, passing the previous low of 20 percent in 2000. The rural share is expected to drop further as the U.S. population balloons from 309 million to 400 million by midcentury, leading people to crowd cities and suburbs and fill in the open spaces around them.

In 1910, the population share of rural America was 72 percent. Such areas remained home to a majority of Americans until 1950, amid post-World War II economic expansion and the baby boom.

If people were asked to think about the biggest changes in the last 100 years, few might cite this important change: America has shifted from a majority rural population to a majority suburban/urban population. The reasons for this have been well-documented but it is still a large shift away from small towns and farms to suburbs and cities. This has impacted all areas of life: politics, economics, housing, workplaces, families, schools, and more.

It will be interesting to see how rural areas and communities are able or not able to hold on. For example, one area where this gets interesting is healthcare: with more hospitals and organizations consolidating and new regulations coming, who will want to continue to offer rural care?

Lenders pursue options for foreclosures: bulldoze them, donate them…

Posted on by

While some people may be interested in obtaining foreclosures through “adverse possession,” lenders are pursuing other options to rid themselves of a glut of foreclosures:

The biggest U.S. mortgage servicer [Bank of America] will donate 100 foreclosed houses in the Cleveland area and in some cases contribute to their demolition in partnership with a local agency that manages blighted property. The bank has similar plans in Detroit and Chicago, with more cities to come, and Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC), Citigroup Inc. (C), JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) and Fannie Mae are conducting or considering their own programs.

Disposing of repossessed homes is one of the biggest headaches for lenders in the U.S., where 1,679,125 houses, or one in every 77, were in some stage of foreclosure as of June, according to research firm RealtyTrac Inc. of Irvine, California. The prospect of those properties flooding the market has depressed prices and driven off buyers concerned that housing values will keep dropping…

Bank of America had 40,000 foreclosures in the first quarter, saddling the Charlotte, North Carolina-based lender with taxes and maintenance costs. The bank announced the Cleveland program last month, has committed as many as 100 properties in Detroit and 150 in Chicago, and may add as many as nine cities by the end of the year, said Rick Simon, a company spokesman.

The lender will pay as much as $7,500 for demolition or $3,500 in areas eligible to receive funds through the federal Neighborhood Stabilization Program. Uses for the land include development, open space and urban farming, according to the statement. Simon declined to say how many foreclosed properties Bank of America holds.

This article describes small efforts by these lenders. If there are indeed over 1.6 million homes in some stage of foreclosure and more likely to come, lenders would need to bulldoze or donate a lot more homes to really clear up the supply and help stabilize home prices.

I wonder if the lenders are pursuing these goals with these small moves:

1. Building goodwill within the community.

2. Getting rid of the worst of the worst properties and just cutting their losses.

Neither of these options are bad but it remains to be seen what lenders will do with the majority of foreclosed properties. I think we’re a ways from Warren Buffett’s suggestion that we simply “blow up a lot of houses.”

(h/t Instapundit)

Photos of “unique” Lakewood, California

Posted on by

The New York Times takes a look at some of the photographs Tom M. Johnson has taken of his hometown, Lakewood, California. Here is how Johnson describes his pictures:

At a workshop in Santa Fe, N.M., Mr. Johnson learned of three steps for becoming a successful artist, ascribed to Horton Foote: Be competent at your medium, understand the history of your medium and come from a place.

“I thought about that driving on the way home,” he said. “I started thinking about Lakewood. This is sort of a unique suburb. I started to appreciate the qualities.”

Mr. Johnson’s parents moved to Lakewood in the 1950s. It was his mother’s dream home. At that time, he said, Lakewood was largely composed of a single middle-class stratum. Now, he said, even as the definition of “middle class” has broadened, so has the mix in Lakewood, where you can find run-down homes as well as manicured lawns.

Mr. Johnson is changing, too. “I see different types of pictures than I did before,” he said. “It’s probably something I’ll continue to work on forever.”

This sounds like it could be interesting: an artist realizes that his unique hometown has a lot of potential. But, looking at these 13 photos on the NYT website, I don’t really see much of the uniqueness of Lakewood at all. In fact, I think these photos could come from a number of suburbs. Maybe I think this just because of the 13 photos offered here.

Lakewood does have the potential to be an interesting subject. Here is a brief history of the community:

Lakewood is a planned, post-World War II community. Developers Louis Boyar, Mark Taper and Ben Weingart are credited with “altering forever the map of Southern California”. Begun in late 1949, the completion of the developers’ plan in 1953 helped in the transformation of mass-produced working-class housing from its early phases in the 1930s and 1940s to the reality of the 1950s. The feel of this transformation from the point of view of a resident growing up in Lakewood was captured by D. J. Waldie in his award-winning memoir, Holy Land: A Suburban Memoir.

Lakewood’s primary thoroughfares are mostly boulevards with landscaped medians, with frontage roads on either side in residential districts. Unlike in most similar configurations, however, access to the main road from the frontage road is only possible from infrequently spaced collector streets. This arrangement, hailed by urban planners of the day, is a compromise between the traditional urban grid and the arrangement of winding “drives” and culs-de-sac that dominates contemporary suburban and exurban design.

It might be difficult to take photos of “boulevards with landscaped medians” or convey the spirit of “mass-produced working-class housing” but, if this is what sets Lakewood apart, these are the photos I would like to see.

In general, it may be difficult to convey the unique character that individual suburbs have. While residents and community leaders certainly know what sets their community apart from nearby communities, picking this out in photographs may be a challenge.

You shouldn’t purchase your own town, even for $800k

Posted on by

If you had a little extra cash, you might think about purchasing your own town. Scenic, South Dakota is available for $800,000:

So, what exactly do you get for your $800k? Quite a lot, actually. You’ll get a dance hall, a saloon, two jails, a train depot, two stores, and some more empty buildings…

True, the town won’t be mistaken for New York or even Green Acres. However, based on the pictures, it does have a certain Old West charm. One can almost picture John Wayne ambling down the street. It does look like a ghost town–and with fewer than 10 residents, it’s mighty close to becoming one.

But, before you rush to purchase this hotspot, you might want to consider the track record of those who purchase towns:

This isn’t the first time an entire town has gone up for sale. Some may remember actress Kim Basinger’s ill-fated purchase of Braselton, Georgia for $20 million. Basinger planned to turn the town into a tourist draw, complete with film festival. But things didn’t quite work out as she planned. She was later forced to sell the town at a huge loss due to financial problems of her own.

And Basinger isn’t alone. As an article from MSN points out, many have purchased towns only to see that the dream of “owning their own zip code” turn into a nightmare. It’s one thing to be a landlord and have to fix a renter’s leaky faucet. It’s another to be responsible for an entire town of faucets (and toilets, and electricity, and crime prevention, and, and, and…)

This article makes owning a town sound difficult. While this story suggests owners get tripped up by infrastructure, I would think the interactions with residents and other people might even be more problematic. Think back to the experience of company towns in America: places like Pullman, Illinois may have been efficient (and profitable?) but eventually didn’t work. Even in a small place like Scenic, the owner would have to interact with existing residents and take full responsibility for decisions.

Perhaps the gameplay of SimCity would help illustrate the issue: in the early days of the game, it was easy to grow a community and Simcity 2000 offered well-known cheat codes that allowed the mayor to do whatever you want (with unlimited money). But with more recent iterations of the game, it is easier to get bogged down in real matters: paying for infrastructure like roads and water and dealing with the concerns of your citizens and advisers. In the end, even small communities have a lot to take care of in order to get up and running and the services and amenities (and taxes/fees) have to be agreeable to residents.

Are there any “successful” examples of wealthy individuals purchasing a town and maintaining or improving the community? Are there any management companies that would handle these responsibilities for a wealthy owner?