Category Archives: Sociology

Trying to prove (or disprove) the Infinite Monkey Theorem

Posted on by

A new paper suggests monkeys will have a hard time coming up with the works of Shakespeare:

Photo by Mike Bird on Pexels.com

The Infinite Monkey Theorem is a famous thought experiment that states that a monkey pressing random keys on a typewriter would eventually reproduce the works of the Bard if given an infinite amount of time and/or if there were an infinite number of monkeys.

However, in the study published in the peer-reviewed journal Franklin Open, two mathematicians from Australia’s University of Technology Sydney have rejected this theorem as “misleading” within the confines of our finite universe…

They took the assumption that the current population of around 200,000 chimpanzees would remain the same over the lifespan of the universe of one googol years (that’s 1 followed by 100 zeros). They also assumed that each chimpanzee would type one key per second for every second of the day, with each monkey having a working lifespan of just over 30 years.

Using these assumptions, the researchers calculated that among these randomly-typing monkeys, there is just a 5% chance that a word as simple as “bananas” would occur in the lifespan of one chimpanzee…

“By the time you’re at the scale of a full book, you’re billions of billions of times less likely,” he continued.

Perhaps this needs to be updated for today’s world: instead of animals, why not consider an infinite number of machines randomly producing text? Could they do the work of monkeys much faster and eventually converge on Shakespeare?

I also wonder how this parallels thinking about what humans or societies can accomplish. Given infinite or finite sets of resources, what can be produced? If humans have X amount of resources over X amount of time, how likely is it that a particular issue can be solved or a particular innovation will emerge or a particular problem will arise? Such predictions would rely on estimating probabilities, something that is very hard to do given forecasting future conditions and possibilities.

How many items large museums have that are not on display

Posted on by

The final scene of Raiders of the Lost Ark involves an expanding shot of the ark being taken into a vast warehouse in a nondescript box. Is this what really happens to important items from the past?

Years ago, I had the opportunity to visit some of the storage rooms of the Field Museum in Chicago. This large museum has lots of exhibit space – over 480,000 square feet, according to the museum – but there is even more behind the scenes. The rooms were not full of anonymous boxes but there were shelf after shelf of items.

Or take the British Museum in London. According to the museum, just 1% of their collection is on display. Even as millions of visitors walk through large displays, there are many more items they never see.

Is this all part of a conspiracy theory – as suggested in the Indiana Jones movie – or is this simply how museums operate? The latter is the case as these items may not be on display for a variety of reasons and they serve as resources for ongoing research. The public may see a wealth of items but there is much more in storage.

Outside of working in the museum and archives business, I am not sure how one might see such storerooms around the world. I was impressed by what I saw at the Field Museum and can only imagine what is in secure storage elsewhere.

The shift in voting patterns among the wealthiest Americans

Posted on by

Here is one political shift that occurred in recent years:

Photo by Bruno Ngarukiye on Pexels.com

Over the past decade and a half, however, the dynamic has dramatically shifted. In 2008, the top fifth of earners favored Democrats by just a few percentage points; by 2020, they were the group most likely to vote for Democrats and did so by a nearly 15-point margin. (Democrats won the poorest fifth of voters by a similarly large margin.) Democrats now represent 24 of the 25 highest-income congressional districts and 43 of the top 50 counties by economic output. A similarly stark shift has occurred if you look at college education rather than income. Perhaps most dramatic of all has been the change among wealthy white people. Among white voters, in every presidential election from 1948 until 2012, the richest 5 percent were the group most likely to vote Republican, according to analysis by the political scientist Thomas Wood. In 2016 and 2020, this dynamic reversed itself: The top 5 percent became the group most likely to vote Democratic…

That realignment leaves both parties in a strange place heading into November. Voters consistently say that the economy is the most important issue of the 2024 election. And yet the affluent overwhelmingly support Kamala Harris, whose administration favored bold redistribution and big government spending, while a critical mass of working-class voters favor Donald Trump, whose economic agenda consisted largely of cutting taxes for the rich and trying to kill the Affordable Care Act.

This is not the only political shift in recent years but an interesting one nonetheless. Are these political shifts enduring? Such a shift disrupts short-term activity but there could also be long-term consequences. With the resources and connections elites have, does a shift like this lead to other consequential changes?

While the article focuses on whether these voters are voting in their material best interests, another part is intriguing: how then does this fit with the American obsession on the middle-class and the political rhetoric and activity that goes along with this? Does the composition of who comprises the electorate for a political party than affect how much the party talks about the middle-class or pursues policy aimed to help that group?

And since I think about the suburbs a lot, how does this affect how the two parties view suburbs in the United States? Traditionally viewed as middle-class places with powerful local control, does this shift with new political bases at play?

“Wall Street landlords” don’t own a big percentage of residential properties though percentages are higher in some clusters

Posted on by

An analysis of “Wall Street landlords,” big firms buying up residential properties, suggests they do not own a large percentage of residences overall but their property does tend to be in some clusters:

Photo by Ivan Samkov on Pexels.com

Nationally, Wall Street landlords that have more than 1,000 units in their portfolios own just 1% of all of America’s family homes and 4% of all of the houses that are rented out. In most areas, their presence is still too small to have much effect on local housing dynamics. If current trends continue, though, their share of the market for single-family rentals could increase 10-fold by the end of the decade, MetLife Investment Management estimates. 

There are a handful of U.S. neighborhoods where investors are densely clustered, particularly in Georgia, North Carolina, Florida and Texas. They have bought more than 1,000 homes in 53 zip codes, putting their ownership of the local housing stock anywhere from 4% to 12%, according to data from real-estate analytics firm Parcl Labs. The data includes some houses temporarily owned by builders, as well as foreclosed properties on banks’ books, but most are held by institutional landlords. 

Wall Street housing investors tend to herd into the same neighborhoods because their algorithms spot the same opportunities. They screen the country for cities and towns with population growth and job openings—places where there is likely to be competition for homes. They prefer to own three-bedroom, suburban properties that are around 1,500 square feet in size and offer a convenient commute downtown. Young parents like these kinds of homes, and landlords like to rent to families because they become sticky tenants once their children enroll in local schools.  

Big landlords are also able to sift through reams of data to spot bargains. The 53 zip codes where they are most densely clustered offer cheap housing. The median single-family home price in these areas is $345,400, based on Redfin data—around a fifth below the national level. Rents, however, are only 3% below the national median. 

It sounds like they have bought more in places where there are deals and money to be made relatively quickly. If unchecked, would they then uncover more places that offer deals and just keep going until there are no deals left?

Or might conditions and the approach of landlords change in the future. Some communities might restrict who can purchase residences. The landlords might be willing to hold on to properties for longer, particularly if higher rents are sustainable. Or the broader housing market twists and turns (currently few sales) might affect how landlords and communities act.

At the moment, I am most intrigued by the numbers: 1% of single-family homes, 4% of rented homes. Are these large enough percentages to fundamentally alter housing? I could see how there would be effects in clusters of owned properties and these clusters could introduce spillover effects to nearby locations or the broader market.

Building a community around a new semiconductor plant

Posted on by

A semiconductor plant under construction in Phoenix, Arizona may eventually be surrounded by a new community:

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

“Halo Vista,” as it is now known, will surround a manufacturing complex developed by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC)—which is already under construction and is being developed by New York-based Mack Real Estate Group in collaboration with McCourt Partners…

“It’s not just a science park, and not just a manufacturing district: It’s a community. It’s a city within a city.”

The project will include 2,300 acres with more than 28 million square feet of mixed-use development capacity, with will include up to 8,960 residential units as well as industrial, retail, and office spaces.

“Our vision is for chip designers and engineering students, not just suppliers and manufacturers, to co-locate here, to create a value added ecosystem beyond just what it takes to build chips, and that’s how we’re going to create more value in the Phoenix economy,” Mack said.

Build the facility for the hot industry and let the development grow around it.

While it sounds like the community would be independent from the company and manufacturing facility, is this a new version of a company town? There is a long history in the United States of communities developing around industry, whether it is the Pullman district in Chicago or development around auto plants in and near Detroit to Silicon Valley growth. This can all “work” if the industry is humming along.

At the same time, it may not be so great for those not involved with good jobs in that industry. It may not necessarily be good for the community as a whole. And if the industry itself stops growing or declines, there can be trouble for these communities.

Should the American Dream involve a townhouse?

Posted on by

With Americans idealizing homeownership and a large need for housing, would the townhome provide the answer to the American Dream?

Photo by Curtis Adams on Pexels.com

The new American Dream should be a townhouse — a two- or three-story home that shares walls with a neighbor. Townhouses are the Goldilocks option between single-family homes in the suburbs and high-rise condos in cities…

Instead, developers have found a sweet spot with townhouses. They are cheaper to build. They usually face less “not in my backyard” resistance. And buyers love them. Townhouses have all the trappings of a classic dream home, but they cost less to buy, offer a low-maintenance lifestyle and are more climate-friendly. It’s the American Dream, but with a smaller yard…

Townhouses are becoming more attractive because they almost always cost less than detached single-family homes. In big urban areas, the median sale price for a townhouse is substantially cheaper: $382,000 less in San Francisco, $222,000 less in Los Angeles, $220,000 less in Miami, $190,000 less in Denver, $145,000 less in D.C. and $130,000 less in Phoenix, according to Zillow data from this summer…

Though townhouses have long been perceived as starter homes for young couples who hope to later move to a larger place, developers say that stereotype is changing. Today, townhouses are popular options for many kinds of households — couples with one child, single parents, people who live alone, couples in their 30s and 40s with no kids, and empty nesters in their 50s looking to downsize. People are drawn to the low-maintenance lifestyle and the sense of community. Many people don’t want to isolate themselves in suburban homes where they have minimal contact with neighbors and are fully dependent on a car.

This is an interesting adaptation to fit the priorities of Americans. If a good portion of population want to own a property, apartments and renting are not ideal in the long run. If people want what they perceive to be a good deal, a townhome can be cheaper than a single-family home. If they want a more walkable neighborhood or don’t want to deal with outside work, townhomes can provide options.

At the same time, I wonder how much townhomes have adapted to fit other things Americans want. (This might be in comparison to the rowhouses of past decades mentioned in the article.) How many townhomes have to have garages and/or dedicated parking because American life is still built around driving? How do the interior spaces and the features of townhomes compare to single-family homes (are they built around large kitchens and great rooms, what levels of amenities do they have, etc.)? Where are certain townhomes being constructed – in other words, do the townhomes in wealthier suburban communities look very different than those built elsewhere?

Imagine American suburbs in a few decades that contain a majority of townhomes. Does this fundamentally change suburbia? Does it alter the emphasis on single-family homes? Can townhome neighborhoods be woven together into a broader fabric that reduces reliance on driving? I am curious to see what happens.

Trying to count all the government bodies in Illinois

Posted on by

Different sources provide different counts of government bodies in Illinois:

Photo by Tim Mossholder on Pexels.com

There are so many units of government in Illinois that people can’t even agree on the total because of differences over what technically qualifies as a government body. The U.S. Census Bureau says 6,930, while the Illinois Department of Revenue, which tracks governments authorized to levy property taxes, reports 6,042. The state comptroller’s office lists 8,529, and a study by the Civic Federation tallied the number at 8,923 as of 2019.

Regardless of the exact answer, the number of governments in Illinois outpaces that seen in bigger states, including Texas (which has 5,533, according to the Census Bureau), Pennsylvania (4,851) and California, a state with a population three times the size of Illinois but half as many local government units…

Today the state has more than 5,700 special-purpose governments, including 851 school districts, 861 drainage districts, 838 fire protection districts, 376 library districts, 348 park districts and 320 multi-township tax assessment districts, according to the state comptroller’s office. Many of the state’s nearly 1,400 districts dedicated to roads and bridges have boundaries overlapping its 1,425 townships.

Most of these governments are outside the Chicago region and represent only a sliver of the state’s population. Nearly two-thirds of Illinois residents live in the six-county Chicago metropolitan area. Meanwhile, 51 of Illinois’ 102 counties have fewer than 25,000 residents, and 15 of those have a population under 10,000, according to a 2021 Civic Federation report. About two-thirds of Illinois’ school districts have fewer than 1,000 students enrolled, and there are 26 school districts with fewer than 100 students.

Two figures stand out:

  1. How do the different counters get to numbers so far apart? The difference is roughly 2,000 bodies of government – what exactly is the scope or taxing ability of these bodies? On the national level, who is considered to have an official count in these area?
  2. Americans tend to like local government that responds to local needs. On one hand, all these government bodies are exerting the will of the people to control local activity. On the other hand, this could be viewed as micromanaging. Certainly there are merges that could happen in some of these categories to take advantage of economies of scale and more efficiently serve a slightly larger population? (I have discussed townships before.)

The focus of this long article is the corruption and lack of oversight than can happen because of so many government bodies. The few times a resident might be reminded of all these bodies is when they see a property tax bill or during election season when there are candidates for all sorts of spots in different bodies.

So is one way to interpret the number of government bodies in Illinois is to suggest that the price of corruption is not enough to convince residents and/or local leaders to give up local control?

The awesome ability to see Earth from above

Posted on by

I can only imagine what it feels like to see the Earth from truly far away. From the first person who walked on the moon:

It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth. I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth. I didn’t feel like a giant. I felt very, very small

The closest I have come to that is a view like this:

This was my view from an airplane window on a recent trip. The landscape is not particularly special (no big mountains, no big cities, no big bodies of water, etc.) nor is the sky or atmosphere particularly noteworthy (it was cloudless and in the afternoon).

Yet, I enjoy looking out the window every time. To be able to fly thousands of feet above the ground and see it from this angle is exciting. A map can provide an overview from an above perspective but this is not the same as looking at the landscape as it moves below you.

From the ground, planes look very small flying through the air. But the view from the plane makes the landscape as a whole look big as it trails off to the horizon. I do not think I could get tired of this perspective from above and adding it to the very human experiences we all have rooted firmly to the ground.

The oldest church building in what would become the United States

Posted on by

How many people in the United States know the location of the oldest church building within the country’s borders? According to the website for the church:

Photo by Genadi Yakovlev on Pexels.com

San Miguel Chapel is the oldest Catholic Church built in the United States part of whose original walls are still standing and which is still used regularly for religious services. It is the centerpiece of El Barrio de Analco National Register Historic District in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Adobe buildings like this chapel, historically, were not exclusively used for worship and ceremonies. Their size and location within the community allowed for a variety of gatherings.

During the 400+ years, first under the rule of imperial Spain, then Mexico, and finally the USA, the Chapel, dedicated to Archangel Michael, has been many things to many people. It has served as a place of worship for diverse groups of Native Americans; an infirmary for Franciscan missionaries; a target for autocratic officials and exploited Pueblo groups; a military chapel; a unique venue for talks, concerts, celebrations and ceremonies; and a sanctified space for Sunday Mass in Latin and English. Today and into the future, this treasured, privately owned, but ever-fragile structure requires constant vigilance and expert use of traditional construction methods and culturally authentic materials.

San Miguel Chapel first appears in the surviving historical written record in 1628. Construction my have begun by 1610 according to oral history, simultaneous with, or prior to, the official founding of Santa Fe. According to archeologists, this Franciscan-designed house of worship rests upon an early Pueblo settlement from circa 800-1300 CE.

The Importance of Oral Tradition: Few question whether or not the San Miguel Chapel in Santa Fe is the oldest Church in The United Staes, but many do question just how old it is. It’s no easy task to sift historical fact from traditional belief. Oral history holds that San Miguel Chapel was built around 1610, and it has been rebuilt and restored several times over the past 400 years. Oral tradition, stories told throughout the generations by local families and communities, remains a binding fabric of identity and historic pride for local people.

Official documentation stored in the Chapel was destroyed by fire during the revolt of 1680. However, many documents had previously been sent back to Mexico and Spain as reports to officials. Even today, documents naming San Miguel Chapel are being discovered all over the world, the latest one in London.

This might be a surprise for those oriented to a history of the United States oriented more to the East Coast or English settlement patterns or Protestant history in the US.

Additionally, this means the congregation and a building have been present for over 400 years, a large amount of years for a country often interested in youth and breaking away from older European patterns.

Finally, the building has been part of colonial activity, beginning with Spanish activity with Indigenous people to the aftermath of the Mexican-American war when the United States took control over land ceded to it.

As someone who has written about religious buildings, this was new and interesting information that came up in recent conversation about old religious buildings in the United States.

American home sales still down

Posted on by

Existing home sales in the United States are down to levels not seen for almost two decades:

Photo by MART PRODUCTION on Pexels.com

Sales of existing homes in the U.S. are on track for the worst year since 1995—for the second year in a row.  

Persistently high home prices and elevated mortgage rates are keeping potential home buyers on the sidelines. Sales of previously owned homes in the first nine months of the year were lower than the same period last year, the National Association of Realtors said Wednesday.

Existing-home sales in September fell 1% from the prior month to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 3.84 million, NAR said, the lowest monthly rate since October 2010. Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal had estimated a monthly decrease of 0.5%. 

Three quick thoughts in response:

  1. The article hints at the consequences of this low level of sales. The mortgage industry is not originating as many mortgages. Potential homebuyers do not have as many options to choose from and the prices are higher. Not mentioned: does this mean this is helping to keep home values high? Or how much less economic activity does this all add up to?
  2. Why are home sales measured in absolute numbers? Compared to 1995, I assume there are more potential homes that could be sold in the United States because there are more homes. If we looked at the percentage of existing homes sold, wouldn’t the lower activity even be more clear?
  3. The expectation in this article and elsewhere seems to be that home sales should be at a higher level or should be growing in number. How cyclical are these numbers? How realistic is it to expect ongoing growth in this area? Looking at the chart in the article going back to 1981, it looks like there are 3 rises in growth followed by periods of lower numbers.

By itself, I am not sure what this particular figure compared to change over time means. What happens in the long run if the trend continues or it does not?