a sense of entitlement ii

i babbled something the other day about some groups maybe having a stronger sense of entitlement than others and wondered, if so, which ones those might be. so, i did a little digging around in the world values survey to see if i could find anything interesting.

i was looking for any question/s related to redistribution of wealth issues, and this is the closest one i could find in the last survey wave (2005-2008):

Many things may be desirable, but not all of them are essential characteristics of democracy. Please tell me for each of the following things how essential you think it is as a characteristic of democracy. Use this scale where 1 means *not at all an essential characteristic of democracy* and 10 means it definitely is *an essential characteristic of democracy*: Governments tax the rich and subsidize the poor.

i know, not the perfect question. but let’s see what the results looked like anyway (see also previous post). here are the percentages of respondents answering *10* to that question — governments taxing the rich and subsidizing the poor is *definitely* an essential characteristic of democracy:

the global average is 24.9%. all of the anglo nations (great britain, u.s., canada, australia) score well below that, with australia having the most redistributive inclinations at 12.5%. most of the other european countries also score below the global average, except for romania, germany and russia. the russian federation has got the highest score of all european nations at 44.5%. (i should’ve done a breakdown of the russian fed. by region, but i didn’t. maybe i’ll work on that.)

in asia, the thais, japanese, and taiwanese all score lower — way lower — than the global average. meanwhile, the chinese, south koreans, vietnamese and indonesians are over the global average.

the interesting group, again, are the arabs/north africans/middle easterners (in green) — the father’s brother’s daughter (fbd) marrying folks. all but one (iran) included in the survey are waaaay above the global average: iraq (34.2%), morocco (35.4%), egypt (58%) and jordan (62.9%). these folks often seem to be found in the extremes of surveys/studies — recall the connection between pathogens and consanguinity, and the fact that fbd marriage groups are very consanguineous despite not living in pathogen-rich environments. curious.

finally, (*envelope please*) — and the winner is — india! at 72.7%.

you’d think that poorer countries would be more interested in redistribution of wealth than richer ones, but that doesn’t seem to be the case — at least not 100% of the time. one of the countries least interested in their democratic government (if they have one) redistributing wealth is rwanda. meanwhile, germany’s not poor, but they’re all about the redistribution of wealth apparently.

in the united states, whites scored lower than the u.s. average (6.6%) at 5.8%. the “others” (asians?) scored even lower at just 3%. hispanics and blacks both desire greater redistribution of wealth in america than whites (but you already knew that!):

mexicans back in mexico score on average 18.20% on the question, with white mexicans desiring the least redistribution of wealth, indios wanting the most, and mestizos somewhere in between:

i wanted to check out the numbers for great britain by race, but the sample sizes were too small (<50) for groups like blacks and south asians, so i checked out g.b. by region instead:

prolly can’t tell much from the london score since that is such a “vibrant” city. i’m not at all surprised to see the peripheral populations in g.b. being (like the arab cousin marriers) more interested in redistributing wealth: folks up north and the north west (cumbria’s in the north west), yorkshire and humberside. meanwhile, the english long-term outbreeders in the midlands and south east don’t want the wealth shared around. dunno what to make of the scots, though! i would’ve expected to see them with a high score. hmmmmm.

i also checked out the regional scores for china having in mind that i have the impression (impression) that cousin/endogamous marriage and clans have always been more frequent/stronger in southern china than in the north (which would fit the pathogen-consanguinity theory, btw). i found that there is a -0.47 correlation between latitude and desire for the redistribution of wealth in china — the further south you go, the more people want the wealth spread around (i.e. to them) [latitudes grabbed from geohack]:

lastly, india. i broke the india numbers down by region before, so this time i thought i’d look at them by religion:

a LOT of people in india are very enthusiastic about redistributing wealth. muslims and hindus the most (muslims more than hindus), christians and sikhs the least — christians least of all. recall that muslims in india have the highest rates of consanguineous marriage in india, while sikhs and christians have the lowest rates.

(note: n>50 for all cases. way more than 50 on the national level.)

previously: a sense of entitlement and democracy and the redistribution of wealth

(note: comments do not require an email. hard day.)

civicness in the u.s. by sex

curt suggested that the apparent east-west divide in civicness in the u.s. has something to do with gender, i.e. more “selfish” techie guys on the west coast, more social chicks on the east coast. maybe. i’m digging around in the world values survey to see if i can find out.

first — civicness in the u.s. by sex. data taken from the 1995 and 2006 waves, the two years that americans were asked, “are you or are you not an active member of such-and-such a voluntary organization?” — or words to that effect (you can check out the exact questions on the world values survey site).

turns out, women are slightly more likely than the u.s. average to be active members of voluntary associations, while american men are slightly less likely than average to be so:

men score above average in being active members of: sports/recreation groups, political parties, professional organizations and labor unions.

women score above average in being active members of: well, put it this way — there are a LOT of church ladies! women are also above average in being active members of charities/humanitarian organizations, art/music/educational groups and environmental groups.

in the previous post on civicness in the u.s. by region, i only looked at the data from 1999. since then, i’ve discovered that the 2006 data is available by region, so i’m gonna go back and look at civicness by region in the u.s. again and look at the 1999 and 2006 waves together. the more data the better, right? then i’ll take a look at any differences between the genders between the different regions.

previously: civic societies and civic societies ii and civicness in the u.s. (by region) and civicness in the u.s. by race

(note: comments do not require an email. well isn’t that special?!)

civicness in the u.s. by race

following up on civicness in the u.s. by region, here is civicness in the u.s. by race.

the data are taken from the world values survey, 2005-2008 wave (2006 for the u.s.). note that these are people who claim that they are active members of voluntary organizations. here’s what i found (click on chart for LARGER view):

so totally, whites are a bit above average while blacks are a bit below average. hispanics, otoh, are quite a bit below average. the “others” (asians?) are in the lead, but note that the sample size for that group is rather small (n=62). (note that i also left out the “mixed race” category ’cause the sample size was way too small [n=14]. i also skipped the “other organization” category, again because the sample sizes were too small.)

african americans, then, are like their distant cousins back in africa — very civic-minded, civic here meaning inclined to join together in voluntary associations.

white americans score above average in joining: political parties, sports/recreation organizations, charities/humanitarian organizations, art/music/educational organizations, professional organizations and environmental organizations.

black americans score above average in joining: church/religious organizations (average), art/music/educational organizations and labor unions. the church/religious organization really seems to have pulled their total average up.

hispanic americans score above average in joining: church/religious organizations and labor unions, pretty much like they do back home.

previously: civic societies and civic societies ii and civicness in the u.s. (by region)

(note: comments do not require an email. voluntary association.)

civicness in the u.s. (by region)

it looks like this (sorry, i’ve only got the lower 48 here):

the lighter the shading the greater the civicness; the darker the shading, the least civicness.

heh. i’m going to enjoy this all weekend. the pacific northwest — where all those sanctimonious swpls live up there in portland and seattle — they are the LEAST civic people in the nation. heh!

mind you, the numbers for each of the regions are not all that different. americans are generally pretty civic-minded. here are the averages for all of the civic behaviors considered (listed separately below):

West North Central = 24.41%
New England = 23.54%
Rocky Mountain States = 23.31%
South Atlantic = 23.28%
East North Central = 22.38%
Mid-Atlantic States = 22.21%
West South Central = 20.63%
East South Central = 20.53%
California = 18.81%
Northwest = 16.39%

the data are taken from the world values survey 1999. i used the 1999 survey because it’s possible to break down the results by regions for that year. civicness, once again, is determined by membership or activity in various volunteer organizations. in other waves of the survey, the data is broken down by active and inactive membership; unfortunately, for 1999, it’s only broken down into member or non-member. so, all the figures you see here are the percentages of respondents who answered that they were, indeed, a member of such-and-such a volunteer group (including the elusive “other”). i used the same 1999 wave for my germany/poland post if you want to compare and contrast.

here are all the results for different volunteer group types broken down by u.s. region. the pacific northwest is only above the national average in three instances: professional group, labor union, and third world development/human rights. the first two are decidedly self-centered; the last one is, let’s face it, pretty trendy. most of the time, washington state and oregon are at the bottom of the list along with california. they’re even at the bottom of the political parties/groups category. waaaay at the bottom!

ok. here we go…

previously: civic societies and civic societies ii and “civicness” in germany and poland and civicness in poland – redux

(note: comments do not require an email. penguin alert!)

no surprises here

Big gap between races in U.S. on Trayvon Martin killing

Americans are deeply divided by race over the killing of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin, with 91 percent of African-Americans saying he was unjustly killed, while just 35 percent of whites thought so, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Thursday.

Fifty-nine percent of Hispanics believe that Martin was unjustly killed six weeks ago, according to the online poll of 1,922 Americans, conducted Monday through Thursday….

The survey included 1,289 Caucasians, 219 African-Americans and 267 Hispanics. The precision of the Reuters/Ipsos online poll is measured using a credibility interval and this poll has a credibility interval of plus or minus 2.6 percentage points for all respondents….

The poll also showed a stark racial divide between whites and blacks over whether heavy media coverage of the case had been appropriate. A total of 68 percent of blacks surveyed said they thought the amount of media coverage had been appropriate, while only 24 percent of whites thought it was right.

original poll results.

(note: comments do not require an email. lies, damned lies and surveys. (~_^) )

democracy and military takeover

heh. here’s a good one! again, from the world values survey, 2005-2008:

Many things may be desirable, but not all of them are essential characteristics of democracy. Please tell me for each of the following things how essential you think it is as a characteristic of democracy. Use this scale where 1 means *not at all an essential characteristic of democracy* and 10 means it definitely is *an essential characteristic of democracy*: The army takes over when government is incompetent.

here are the 10s:

5.3% of americans think that an ESSENTIAL characteristic of democracy is that the army should take over when the government is incompetent?! wtf?? that’s about 5% too many, afaiac. (at least we scored better than burkina faso, tho.)

southerners (not texans) and folks in the nw think this way more than those in other parts of the country. you southerners — you’re always causing trouble! (~_^)

btw. there’s something wrong with the data from sweden — there are no figures for responses three through nine, so i wouldn’t believe that 17% number.

previously: dēmos kratos and democracy and civil rights and democracy and the redistribution of wealth and libyans on democracy: meh and what egyptians want

(note: comments do not require an email. hmmmm. nope. can’t see the bit about the military taking over if necessary….)

democracy and the redistribution of wealth

more fun with the world values survey, 2005-2008!:

“Many things may be desirable, but not all of them are essential characteristics of democracy. Please tell me for each of the following things how essential you think it is as a characteristic of democracy. Use this scale where 1 means *not at all an essential characteristic of democracy* and 10 means it definitely is *an essential characteristic of democracy*: Governments tax the rich and subsidize the poor.

here are the percentages of people who answered 10 — government taxing the rich and subsidizing the poor is definitely an essential characteristic of democracy — for each nation:

for a change, i’m glad to see the anglos scoring so low. (^_^) i’m surprised that the scandinavians didn’t score higher; i guess they must simply understand that redistributing wealth, which is something they like to do, just isn’t an essential feature of democracy. the germans, always the over-achievers, score above average though.

in the u.s., more blacks (13.3%) than whites (5.8%) think that the redistribution of wealth is definitely an essential feature of democracy. hispanics are in between (7.0%) (click on table for LARGER view):

same in south africa. many more blacks (31.9%) and coloureds (24.7%) think that the redistribution of wealth is an essential feature of democracy than south african whites (6.9%):

and, what’s up with india?! 72.7% of the population think that the redistribution of wealth is an essential feature of democracy. wow. i did a breakdown by region, and northerners seem to hold this idea more than other regional populations of india, whereas easterners are not as fond of the idea:

what’s up with argentina, for that matter?

previously: dēmos kratos and democracy and civil rights and libyans on democracy: meh

*update 08/14: see also a sense of entitlement and a sense of entitlement ii

(note: comments do not require an email. the redistribution of wealth.)

interracial / interethnic marriage rates up in u.s.

from a new pew survey:

– About 15% of all new marriages in the United States in 2010 were between spouses of a different race or ethnicity from one another, more than double the share in 1980 (6.7%). Among all newlyweds in 2010, 9% of whites, 17% of blacks, 26% of Hispanics and 28% of Asians married out. Looking at all married couples in 2010, regardless of when they married, the share of intermarriages reached an all-time high of 8.4%.

– Gender patterns in intermarriage vary widely. About 24% of all black male newlyweds in 2010 married outside their race, compared with just 9% of black female newlyweds…. Intermarriage rates among white and Hispanic newlyweds do not vary by gender.

– [W]hite/Asian newlyweds of 2008 through 2010 have significantly higher median combined annual earnings ($70,952) than do any other pairing, including both white/white ($60,000) and Asian/Asian ($62,000). When it comes to educational characteristics, more than half of white newlyweds who marry Asians have a college degree, compared with roughly a third of white newlyweds who married whites. Among Hispanics and blacks, newlyweds who married whites tend to have higher educational attainment than do those who married within their own racial or ethnic group.

– Couples formed between an Asian husband and a white wife topped the median earning list among all newlyweds in 2008-2010 ($71,800)…. As for white female newlyweds, those who married a Hispanic or black husband had somewhat lower combined earnings than those who “married in,” while those who married an Asian husband had significantly higher combined earnings.

– Intermarriage in the United States tilts West. About one-in-five (22%) of all newlyweds in Western states married someone of a different race or ethnicity between 2008 and 2010, compared with 14% in the South, 13% in the Northeast and 11% in the Midwest.

– Several studies using government data have found that overall divorce rates are higher for couples who married out than for those who married in….

looks like a big report. lots to read. and data, too (state-by-state even)!

(note: comments do not require an email. snow day!)