How do we know when a media technology is maturing? Look at how well it reflects society. Communications technologies often start with a limited set of users, and often a limited appeal. And there are often contradictory forces at work in media innovation, for example when Monk scribes gave way to Gutenberg’s printing press. Religious elite lost some cache, but the rewards were expanded literacy and increased creativity in literature.

Photography is an early example of a media that could both document life and afford artists a new medium to reflect life. But today there is a major difference: ubiquity. In 1997, it was estimated that there were more than 150 billion photographs existed in the U.S., and that was well before digital cameras. Today almost everyone has access to a still and video camera. Yesterday’s photojournalism is today’s snapshots. And the advent of photo sharing is also blurring the lines between amateur and commercial photography.

Music has been around about as long as Homo sapiens, and perhaps since the Homo neanderthalensis. But the transformative nature of music, its ability to fuel the social activism of the 1960s, for example, could only occur with innovations recording (starting with the phonograph) and distribution (beginning with radio). With the advent of Internet music sharing, there is a new wave of do-it-yourself creativity in music, whether through self-published albums, mashups, or local iPod DJ nights.

Documentary and experimental film is as old as the medium itself. But documentaries of the early 20th century were from the viewpoint of a few documentarians. One side of innovation in film distribution has increased the public’s access to our homes, cars, even stadium seating. The other side is more the surge in production. Just look at the Viewer Created Content on Current TV to understand how everyone from high school students to priests and drug dealers are sharing their point of view. And motion pictures are increasingly activist: The box office now has hits with political editorials, documentaries about global warming or docudramas about genocide.

So what about video games? Where do they fit in? It depends who you ask. Those under 40, probably grew up playing them and understand the appeal. The baby boomers have likely avoided video games, save for the ones that best imitate the card games they grew up with. First person shooter games have often been blamed for increased violence. The Economist magazine would beg to differ (see chart at right). Perhaps violent video games don’t reflect crime patterns perfectly, but they do reflect what’s CBS weeknight programming pretty well.

But do video games reflect more than violence in society? More on that shortly.

Sources & Notes:

DVDs include all DVD video software shipments in North America. Data provided by Digital Entertainment Group
Book sales data: Seattle Times
Movie Tickets: Motion Picture Association of America
CDs sales include only CD albums. No CD singles, LPs or downloaded music was included. Data provided by Record Industry Association of America
Games include computer and videogames. Data provided by the Entertainment Software Association

With crude oil prices hovering around $75 per barrel, big oil companies once again announced record profits yesterday. Congressional inquiries into price fixing went nowhere, primarily because oil companies don’t need to fix prices. They have a U.S. population addicted to driving (never mind what makes the car go), high switching costs, and fuel standards that make China look progressive.

How did this happen? After the record oil prices in the late 1970s - prices that produced the 1981 U.S. historical high of $3.01 per gallon (in 2006 dollars) - Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards were made more stringent. From 1978 to 1981, U.S. car and truck fuel efficiency standards rose by 24%.

Then came the cheap oil of the 1990s and the SUV revolution. As a percentage of income, the average American was able to buy three times more gas in 1998 than they could in 1980. Fuel standards reflected the cheaper oil. CAFE standards in 1983 were 24.8; in 2004 the average was 24.7 miles per gallon (MPG). The U.S. has long lagged behind Europe in fuel efficiency standards, but more surprisingly, even the developing world makes us look bad.

China’s red-hot economy has meant a rapid shift from bicycles to cars, and the government is taking stern measures to increase fuel efficiency. One major difference with the U.S. CAFE standards is that Chinese standards are based on weight rather than class of vehicles. The lightest vehicles in China were required to get 38 MPG in 2005, increasing to 43 MPG by 2008. Contrast that with the U.S. CAFE standard of 27.5 MPG for cars.

The United States fuel efficiency peaked nearly two decades ago, and today the oil companies are posting record profits. But don’t blame the oil companies. They’re just small-brained, carnivorous, profit-making sharks that swim and devour money. It’s the bloated American, SUV-loving consumer that we should blame for willingly wading into these shark-infested waters. Chomp!

Notes & Sources: # Historical Real GDP per capita is in 2006 dollars. 2006 GDP estimated by statastic.com using latest Economist forecasts. Gas prices are the annual average gas price and were adjusted to 2006 dollars.
^CAFE fleet standards for cars and trucks. 2005 and 2006 data unavailable, so 2004 standards of 24.7 MPG were used.

According to a recent paper by Miller McPherson, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and Matthew E. Brashears, the number of Americans saying they have no one with whom they discuss important matters nearly tripled from 1985 to 2004. The study used the same questions from the 1984 survey to determine how social networks have changed over time. The core question was:

“From time to time, most people discuss important matters with other people. Looking back over the last six months—who are the people with whom you discussed matters important to you? Just tell me their first names or initials.”

The study found that the average number of people in our personal networks has decreased from 2.94 in 1985 to 2.08 in 2004. They also found that women’s social networks are more likely to involve non-kin: As women have moved from homemakers to the workforce, they have increased their number of confidants outside the family unit.

The authors offer several caveats for the extraordinary change in less than two decades: a change in the interpretation of the question, a different view of what is “important” in a post-9-11 world, and finally, actual differences in the way we interact.

Indeed, we do work more hours, commute longer distances, and communicate in new ways. All of these are likely contributors to the change. The Internet has made it possible to remain geographically dispersed while finding people with similar interests. Barry Wellman calls this concept “networked individualism.”

Communication via the Internet is also more public: Diaries once under lock and key are now blogs with hundreds of readers. A note once left on a work colleague’s desk is now an email with several other recipients copied. Open communication might make the idea of a confidant a less relevant concept. Asking someone in an Internet chat room for advice on how to deal with a parent with Alzheimer’s certainly qualifies as “discussing an important matter” even the person who responds remains anonymous.

Perhaps a recent paper from the Pew Internet & American Life Project puts it best:

“Instead of disappearing, people’s communities are transforming: The traditional human orientation to neighborhood- and village-based groups is moving towards communities that are oriented around geographically dispersed social networks. People communicate and maneuver in these networks rather than being bound up in one (solitary) community.”

Source: “Social Isolation in America: Changes in Core Discussion Networks over Two Decades.” Miller McPherson Lynn Smith-Lovin, Matthew E. Brashears; American Sociological Review, 2006, VOL. 71 (June:353–375)

As U.S. casualties continue to mount in Iraq, there are increasing calls for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Democrats remain divided on withdrawal as a viable strategy for the midterm election. Our involvement in Iraq is a political issue in Washington to be sure, but not for the right reasons.

Even if you support troops and want to prevent the further loss of American lives, it’s imperative to look beyond our own losses. Iraqi civilians are dying at the rate of 100 per day according to the United Nations. In June alone, more than 50 Iraqi civilians died for every one of our soldiers. And their deaths are increasingly cruel.

These questions might help frame the debate over a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq:

1. Are our troops exacerbating the problem or are they preventing further violence in Iraq? An Army commander in the documentary “Operation: Dreamland” commented that (paraphrased), “At this point, we are here to protect one thing: ourselves.”

2. Will the withdrawal of American troops increase the bloodletting in Iraq and lead to a full-scale civil war? If so, our current investment of troops and money might look like child’s play compared to our later involvement in a civil, or even a regional war.

3. If we left Iraq immediately and it turned into a flourishing democracy and ally, would our military credibility still be permanently weakened? Withdrawal also writes a recipe for how to engage our military in asymmetric tactics such as the use of IEDs. Iraqi insurgents have clearly learned that we didn’t stay the course in Somalia in 1994 after our troops were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu.

Unfortunately, our involvement in Iraq is more likely to be determined by domestic politics rather than by considering the hard questions.

If we divide the U.S. into Bush states and Kerry states based on the 2004 election, we can gain some insight into how troop casualties might affect the elections. Of the 11 states that were competitive in the 2004 presidential election (less than 5% difference between winner and loser), all but two states have higher troop losses per capita than the average of the states that Kerry carried.

With support for the war in Iraq slipping and the plummet of Bush’s approval rating, those red swing states with higher-than-average fatalities are unlikely to have the stomach for U.S. troop losses that they did two years ago.

Consider this: on a per capita basis, 585 times more Iraqi civilians than U.S. troops were killed in the month of June. Redeployment is more complicated than short-term domestic politics. Let’s hope the politicians realize that by considering how our policy will affect troop losses well beyond the midterm elections.

Notes: U.S. troop losses as of 7.26.06

Sources: Statastic research; Iraq Coalition Casualty Count; USA Today; U.S. Census

Bush announced that he would be sending more troops to Baghdad at the request of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Bush commented that “Obviously the violence in Baghdad is still terrible, and therefore there needs to be more troops.”

This comes on the heels of the United Nations reporting that Iraq averaged more than 100 civilian deaths per day in June. The UN report was surprisingly precise in its numbers which were based on data provided by the Iraq Ministry of Health and the Medico-Legal Institute in Baghdad.

The UN report included grim, yet matter-of fact, examples of the violence: “On 10 June, 7 bodies were found in the river ‘Malih,’ in Wasit Governorate. The victims wore civilian clothes; some were handcuffed, tortured and shot in the head. Dead bodies are regularly found in the same river.”

At Iraq Body Count (IBC), academics and peace activists have been keeping a separate record of civilian deaths based on news reports from at least two media sources. This tally includes detail that was noticeably absent from the UN report: Iraqi violence seems to be increasingly cruel. According to statastic.com analysis of IBC data, 1.4% of deaths of deaths in April, 2006 involved beheading or decapitation. This rose to 3.5% in May, and 4.4% in June.

These grim excerpts help reveal the scope of the brutality in June alone:

• June 29: Two decapitated bodies found in Kirkuk
• June 10: Severed heads of two brothers kidnapped in Baquba found
• June 10: Seven bodies found beheaded, tortured in Al-Maleh river
• June 6: Nine severed heads found in Hadid
• June 3: Eight severed heads of a Sheik and cousins who were construction workers in Hadid, (found) near Baquba
• June 1: Four men, some of whom detained by police in north Baghdad, found beheaded in Hibhib, near Baquba

It’s impossible for us to imagine death by decapitation. Such a murder would make the U.S. national news, talk shows and media swirl for days, if not weeks. But in Iraq this summer, an average of one civilian is beheaded every day .

Notes: The IBC Web site states that it underestimates the true number of casualties, although they do attempt to incorporate aggregated data from morgues that was not accounted for in media reports. IBC reports minimum and maximum civilian deaths, both are determined by discrepancies in media reports about the same event. The chart above uses the minimum monthly toll.

Because IBC data relies on media reports, any difference in reporting will naturally affect the nature of the data. For example, increased violence may inhibit journalists from reporting some civilian deaths. If violence reduces mobility of journalists, they minght inadvertently over-report especially brutal civilian deaths, thereby increasing the percentage of reported deaths that involve torture or decapitation.

Sources: Statastic research; Iraq Body Count Database; United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI)

The Lerner Group is finalizing the purchase of the Washington Nationals today. To celebrate, they rolled out the red carpet last weekend to re-introduce the team to the nation’s capital.

Attendance is down this year for the Nationals. At 43-56 they’re really not very good. But neither is their stadium. Until 2007, when their new $611 million stadium is completed, they continue to play at RFK.

RFK Stadium is a vastly outmoded relic. The Nationals played their first season there in 2005, and the population of the nation’s capitol was so happy to have a baseball team again that we tolerated the stadium’s shortcomings.

But the 2006 season shows little improvement. In Congo, they can pay bills with cell phones, but at RFK, not a single concession even accepts credit cards. There are a total of 6 ATMs for a stadium that holds 56,000. That’s less than 1 ATM for every 9,000 (potential) fans. A recent survey showed one ATM with 20 people waiting, and the second with more than 30. Let’s hope that PNC Bank won’t be building the bathrooms at the new stadium.

But you can still have a cheap day at the ballpark. The Lerner group introduced $3 outfield tickets. Unfortunately, the efficiency of the Internet still doesn’t apply to the ticketing world. Despite the fact that Major League Baseball acquired Ticketmaster rival Tickets.com in 2005, fees look more like collusion than competition. Once you add the fees to your $3 outfield ticket, the total comes to $9.25. Fees more than tripled the price of the ticket!

Of course, you can save yourself $1.75 not printing the tickets yourself… although MLB wouldn’t recommend it.

Everyone loves a good wiener. But which frankfurter is the most satisfying? The humble Ball Park Beef Frank, measuring only 4.6 inches, barely fills the bun. On the other hand, a single Polish kielbasa comes in almost 20 inches in length. It might be big enough for the whole gang, but it’s a bit unwieldy, so you’d better know what you’re doing.

Just be sure that your wiener isn’t mocked at the next backyard barbecue by keeping in mind that the average hot dog bun is six inches long.

Source: Statastic research

Note: Wiener images are not to scale

Statastico appreciates nurses. They know when to apply pressure, whether to put ice (or is it heat?) on a sprain, even how to keep someone conscious who might otherwise go into shock. With a rapidly aging American population and massive cost increases in the medical industry, it’s hard to understand why there is constantly talk of nursing shortages.

Sure it seems a little simplistic, but aren’t nurse wages subject to the same supply and demand forces as other wages? If there aren’t enough nurses, don’t salaries just go up to attract more young folks into the profession? Somewhat.

Nursing has historically benefitted from a captive labor market: women. Women in the post-war years had scarcely any choice besides teaching or nursing. No longer. Women now make up 48.5% of our future doctors, and earn 47.5% of the law degrees. While the next generation of women has expanded into new occupations, nursing has remained decidedly behind the times, as seen in Chart 4.

So the nursing population is aging. But is it underpaid? It depends where you are. There are indeed shortages in rural areas and numerous states have implemented programs such as loan forgiveness to lure nurses to less desirable areas.

An economic concept called monopsony may help explain why nursing shortages persist in some of these areas. Whereas a monopoly company can dictate prices to consumers because it’s the only business in town (e.g. cable TV), a monopsony is the only employer in town for a particular industry. This means that a single hospital in a smaller town might be able to dictate wages to nurses who are unwilling to relocate.

But is there a really a looming nursing shortage? In a 2001, Douglas Staiger, an economics professor at Dartmouth predicted “a 400,000-nurse shortage in 20 years.” Despite expert projections, Statastico is going out on a limb and predicting that the shortage won’t occur.

Why? The market is already reacting. From 2000 to 2004, average inflation-adjusted nursing salaries went up by 12.8%. That’s real salary, not nominal, folks. Salaries for teachers and nurses were about equal in 1986. Now full-time nurses average $60,000 annually, while teachers make about $48,000. In fact, over the last 20 years, registered nurse salaries have risen faster than teachers, professors, architects, engineers, ubiquitous lawyers, even physicians.

The high percentage of (ahem) “seasoned” nurses does tend to skew salary averages upward. But assuming that the National Labor Relations Board doesn’t scare new recruits away from nursing by preventing unionization, we’ll surely find an unanticipated source. Currently, men make up only 5.7% of registered nurses. Perhaps more lucrative salaries will lure them to the field, reducing the taboo of the male nurse.

Gender equality may yet reach the medical profession.

Notes: Teachers include primary and secondary school teachers. Academia includes all full time college faculty. All data are median salaries except for registered nurses and teachers which are average salaries.

Sources: Teacher salaries 1996-2005: National Education Association

Teachers (national) salaries 1986-1995: Pennsylvania State Data Center

Academia, physicians, lawyers, engineers & architects 1986-2005: American Association of University Professors; Original source for Figure 3: ‘‘Median Weekly Earnings of Wage and Salary Workers Who Usually Work Full Time, by Detailed Occupation and Sex, 1983–2002’’ and ‘‘Median Usual Weekly Earnings of Employed Full-Time Wage and Salary Workers by Occupation, 2000–04,’’ unpublished tables, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, January 2006.

Registered Nurse salaries 1984-2004: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 1986 and 2005 estimated by statastic. 1986 was calculated by averaging real salaries from 1984 and 1988. 2005 was estimated to continue the 3.1% real annual increase that occurred between 2000-2004.

CPI-Inflation statistics: Federal Reserve

Access to potable water remains one of the most enduring problems around the world. Today more than 1 billion people do not have access to improved drinking water sources. This leads to 1.6 million deaths from diarrhea each year, the vast majority occurring in children younger than 5.

Multilateral development agencies have been working for decades to improve this situation. Early water projects were well-intentioned engineering gifts. The SCANWATER project, for example, simply installed gas-powered water towers on the highest hills around Cameroon. Because these projects didn’t develop local capacity to train technicians or to collect money for expensive maintenance, most of these water towers rapidly fell into disrepair.

So the key to sustainability is access, simplicity, good design and minimal maintenance. Two promising products are the Playpump and LifeStraw. As you can probably guess from the compound names, these products combine simple existing concepts with water sanitation development goals.

PlayPump is a water pump powered by children who play on a merry-go-round. The pumps are often located near
primary schools to take advantage of abundant free “labor.” Many primary schools in Sub-Saharan Africa have more than 100 students per class, so classes are taught in shifts. During this downtime, children can play on the merry go round ensuring a regular supply of water.

The PlayPump also takes advantage of the demographics that characterize developing nations, where half the population is under the age of fifteen.

In villages where girls are most often assigned the chore of fetching water, the PlayPump has the potential to reduce the distances walked for clean water, increasing the likelihood that girls can go to school.

Playpumps cost about $5000 each and can produce up to 1400 liters (370 gallons) per hour, enough water for 2,500 people. The water towers also can accomodate up to four billboard advertisements, two of which are normally reserved for public health messages, and two for revenue generation that provides for maintenance expenses. Currently a South African company is installing them with some help from the World Bank.

The second product is LifeStraw, which is produced by the Danish company Vestergaard-Frandsen. The LifeStraw is basically a lightweight handheld filtration device that can be worn around the neck. Any time someone need a sip of water, they can use this device to automatically filter out contaminants. The LifeStraw doesn’t require any spare parts, and it lasts for about one year or 700 liters. They retail in the developing world for $6, or about 1.6 cents per day. The company that produces LifeStraw has ambitious sales goals. The creator, Torben Vestergaard-Frandsen, said that, “We will be disappointed, if we do not sell at least 10 million LifeStraw a year.”

At less than a cent per liter of water filtered, LifeStraw is competitive with other water filtration systems in the developing world. That cost should come down as they ramp up production and realize economies of scale.

And lest you get the idea of ordering a LifeStraw for your homeland security kit or for camping, it’s still being reviewed by the EPA, so it’s not yet available in the U.S. One other caveat: it does not protect against Giardia, a nasty little parasite that Statastico really recommends avoiding.

What other ideas are waiting to be combined into a life-saving innovation? How about an electrical generator powered by soccer players? A playground slide that doubles as solar power? With more than 1 billion people around the world without access to clean water, invention is indeed the mother of necessity.

Sources: Statastic research, WHO, United Nations

The term net neutrality has been the subject of half-page ads in the Washington Post, bumper stickers, even ironic t-shirts. Unfortunately, all of the advertising, partisanship, and hipsters may be obscuring the importance of a difficult debate about the evolution of the Internet. If the father and grandfather of the Internet can’t agree, what can the rest of us do?

Let’s try to understand the term net neutrality. When a consumer wants a good, service or information from the Internet, they surf an almost infinite number of web sites. Here’s the only catch: in order for a consumer to have access, they have to pay for the connection. In return consumers have equal access to all web sites.

But some broadband providers have started complaining that not content is alike. The consumer may be requesting enormous amount of data in a streaming movie, or a few 1s and 0s in an email message. So the broadband providers want to start charging the content producers for their bandwidth usage. Sure, the producers don’t have to pay these tolls, but if they don’t their competitors’ web sites might load faster.

Content providers assert that they are merely responding to consumers by sending the information they request. Broadband providers claim that with these new fees, they can build even bigger, faster networks that consumers will love.

So the producers of content are actively lobbying Congress to push for what they call “net neutrality.” This so-called neutrality is actually regulatory legislation that would prevent broadband providers from a discriminating against particular companies. It would apply common carrier rules to the Internet, ensuring that all Internet traffic is managed on equal terms, protecting startups that might not be able to compete with bigger, faster web sites.
But wait a second, it’s not just Internet giants such as Google that use an enormous amount of bandwidth, so do newcomers such as youtube.

Let’s say I’m at a startup and our business strategy is to stream movies faster than anyone else. We’ve allocated half our budget to pay Comcast cable for broadband priority. And then a pokey competitor sues. How long would it take the courts to determine what’s fair? Would bad network neutrality legislation stifle innovation more than the status quo? (Just ask Ted Stevens.) Many techies are opposed to net neutrality because they’re worried that the government just wouldn’t move fast enough if there were net neutrality violations.

But if broadband carriers start charging content providers for bandwidth, what’s to prevent them from acting more like monopolistic cable companies? Couldn’t they start packaging Internet “channels” based on which company is bidding the most? Maybe, but not for long. Current broadband providers are still under the supervisory eye of Department of Justice (anti-trust), FCC (content) and FTC (consumer protection).

So it seems to come down to the market of broadband providers. If our goal is consumer choice and innovation, then we need more competition between the carriers. How much is there? Only about 50% of Americans have two or more broadband options.

How does the U.S. compare to the rest of the world? Let’s have a look at the statastic. Even though the U.S. is twelfth in the percentage of the population with broadband connectivity, we do have three competing broadband options: cable, DSL, and satellite. As a nation, we have a healthy broadband competition relative to the rest of the world… even if it doesn’t seem that way in your neck of the woods.

Sources: Statastic research, OECD