Almost dat time of year, eh

Some starter US County level analysis considering the effects of population size on employment and other economic factors:

Population does not do a good job at predicting unemployment. There's a tiny positive correlation; population size explains about 0.1% of the variance in unemployment.

It does a similarly bad job at explaining the number of businesses operating within a county. Population size explains about 0.2% of the variance in businesses established within each county.

It does a somewhat better job at explaining how many people are hired by local businesses, though, implying that businesses in larger areas tend to have more employees per capita in the county. There, it explains about 6.6% of the variance. Seems to suggest that smaller counties tend to have a slightly larger population that travels out of county for work, which is in line with normie expectations and other data.

Population size correlates a bit stronger, and in a negative direction, with the percentage of homes that are owner occupied. About 10% of the variance in home occupancy by owner is explained by population size, with less populated places tending to have more people living at homes that they own.

But there are two sizable correlations between county population size and economic factors that haven't been discussed yet.

Here, we find something a bit unpleasant for the people living in less populated areas: there is a moderate and positive correlation between a county's population size and the median household income within the county. County population size explains about 8% of the variation in median household income between counties. Meaning that people in higher populated counties tend to make more money. Ouch!

But I've saved the strongest correlation for last. County population size has an even stronger correlation, and in a positive sense, with cost of living. Population size explains about 21% of the variation in cost of living. Meaning that less populated areas are cheaper to live in, with population size having a stronger relationship here than with income. Woohoo!

The rank order spearman correlation shows even stronger relationships. The Spearman rank correlation indicates that about 14% of the difference in median household income ranks can be explained by population ranks, meaning that counties that rank higher in population also tend to rank higher in median household income. And, shockingly, about 42% of the difference in cost of living ranks can be explained by population ranks, meaning that the higher a county's population rank, the lower it will rank in cost of living.

That method gets at the monotonic relationship between the two variables by eliminating the bias of outliers like counties with extremely large cities and eliminating the assumption of a linear relationship.

In what way is the relationship non-linear? If it tends to shift more at higher points of population, then the takeaway would be to stay away from the biggest counties. If it shifts more at the lower points of population, then it suggests living in very small counties might be the way to go. What do we find?

In examining the interplay between county population size and various economic metrics, a nuanced narrative emerges. While densely populated areas may offer higher earning opportunities, they come coupled with a disproportionately steeper cost of living. On the other hand, less populous counties present a more economically advantageous scenario, characterized by modest incomes but substantially lower living costs. Interestingly, despite population size's influence on income and cost of living, it demonstrates minimal predictive power over unemployment rates. Notably, the diminished earnings in these smaller counties are more than offset by the significant savings in living expenses. This paints a clear picture: for those prioritizing financial well-being and seeking to maximize the value of their income, smaller counties present a distinct economic advantage. The overarching lesson is clear: the allure of small county living is underpinned by its economic efficiency, not marred by unemployment, and promises a more balanced financial life."

Our next free chess tournament for right wing Telegram schizos is next weekend

On October the 28th, at 12:30 PM EST, we'll be competing for a $50 first place prize, and those under certain rating thresholds have the chance to win free lessons with a professional coach.

The time control will be 15 minutes with a 10 second increment. There will be 7 rounds.

To join our tournament, you must first create a LiChess account. After that, or if you already have an account, you must join our club by clicking here, pressing the "join team" button, and then using club password "Nigger". After you're on the team, you'll be able to sign up for the tournament here.

Best of luck, everyone!

This might be the worst thing I've ever seen. I thought I disliked the rich faggot Mount Everest climbing industry. But this is on a whole nother level

Our next free chess tournament for right wing Telegram schizos starts soon.

Today, at 12:30 PM EST, we'll be competing for a $50 first place prize, and those under certain rating thresholds have the chance to win free lessons with a professional coach.

The time control will be 15 minutes with a 10 second increment. There will be 7 rounds.

To join our tournament, you must first create a LiChess account. After that, or if you already have an account, you must join our club by clicking here, pressing the "join team" button, and then using club password "Nigger". After you're on the team, you'll be able to sign up for the tournament here.

Best of luck, everyone!

Gm