Slashdot Mirror
Study Reveals The Most Googled 'Should I' Questions In Each State (bgr.com)
An anonymous reader quotes BGR:
One of the more interesting 2018 retrospectives we've seen focuses on which Google searches were the most popular across each state. Specifically, AT&T tapped into data from Google Trends and came up with a rather amusing look at the most popular "should I..." questions on a state by state basis.
"Should I vote" was the most-popular question in seven states, which isn't surprising, given the exciting races in many areas. Indiana and Michigan, on the other hand, are more concerned with the other four-letter v-word: vape.
Other interesting results:
"Should I vote" was the most-popular question in seven states, which isn't surprising, given the exciting races in many areas. Indiana and Michigan, on the other hand, are more concerned with the other four-letter v-word: vape.
Other interesting results:
- The most popular question in Washington was "Should I delete Facebook?"
- The most popular question in California was "Should I move out?"
- The most popular question in Texas was "Should I apologize?"
- The most popular question in both Nevada and New Hampshire was "Should I buy bitcoin?"
Although the article warns that "If you're asking Google what you should or shouldn't do, you probably already know the answer."
Should I post first?
Paradise is expensive. And no, you can't stop them, not as long as California property values stay high. Until California real estate crashes (and I mean a real crash, ie drops below previous peaks), then Californian's will continue to sell their properties, and go to any other state and buy out the locals. Ironically, the anti tax nature of a lot of places means they have no way to dissuade this, short of raising property taxes, and we know how well that will go over with the locals.
I'm constantly being told California is a paradise. Why would anyone want to leave?
It's expensive to live in a nice place.
People can sell their house in California and buy a place twice as big somewhere else.
No sig today...
Its bad for middle class and working class folk. Rich folk who have the money and connections to be isolated from the politics still have a place there as well as their very poor slaves. Its rapidly becoming tiny wealthy enclaves surrounded by a sea of poverty like most liberal places.
Middle class and working class people are net moving out of California, middle class and working class people are moving out of places like San Francisco or is this fake news? Pretty strange thing to do if they're paradise compared to the more conservative places they're going to.
>"Paradise is expensive."
I think that depends on your definition of paradise. In many, many ways (besides financial), California is far from a paradise. I did have to laugh when I saw the "should I move out?".
These numbers are a little old (2010), but if you look at a list of states ranked by gini coefficient:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You will indeed see places like California, New York, and DC ranked poorly, but you will also see places like Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Kentucky. On the other end of the scale the states with the least inequality include places like Utah, New Hampshire, Iowa, South Dakota, Minnesota. Both ends of the spectrum include a number of liberal states and both ends include conservative states.
If you compare this with the list of states by poverty:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There's a correlation between states that have high income inequality and high levels of poverty and states that have low income inequality and low levels of poverty. IE, if we think that poverty is bad for society, reducing income inequality might help.
Should I RTFA or make wild assumptions and post inflammatory uninformed counter replies?
From TFA: In Kansas and Tennessee, for example, the most popular “Should I” query was “Should I diet?” This of course isn’t terribly shocking given that both states know a thing or two about barbecue.
Since when is Kansas known for their barbecue? I both love barbecue and have lived in Kansas, and while there were a few barbecue restaurants in Wichita, I don't recall anyone ever talking about barbecue like Tennessee or Texas. People in Kansas sure love to eat, a lot, but barbecue restaurants are far less common than burgers, fried chicken, and Mexican, in fact aside from chain fast food, Mexican is definitely extremely common. Plus the barbecue there really, really, really sucks and isn't worthy of note.
When Voldemort uses my shampoo
Those search autofinish would be a little amusing at least.
Hard to imagine that this article got published anywhere. I'm only here because I can't look away from a train wreck.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
It's never going to crash enough relative to other markets for that to stop happening though. There are more people who want the kind of weather that Southern California offers as opposed to Montana.
IE, if we think that poverty is bad for society, reducing income inequality might help.
The measures are likely entangled in such a way that the conclusion you draw isn't valid, or you're at the very least attempting to draw a causal relationship from a correlation. It's pretty easy to look at parts of the world where almost everyone is impoverished, yet because they're all about equally dirt poor, there's not much income inequality.
On the other end you can get something like Hong Kong which has a high (comparable to Haiti using the CIA's numbers) Gini coefficient. Everyone there is extremely well off by the standards of the rest of the planet, but there are some people there who are so incredibly wealthy that they just blow the numbers out.
If you look at World Bank numbers, Liberia and Switzerland have about the same Gini coefficient (in 2014), but are quite obviously on different ends of the poverty spectrum.
State A:
Neighborhood 1 average income $100,000
Neighborhood 2 average income $50,000
Inequality = $50,000
State B:
Neighborhood 1 average income $100,000
Neighborhood 2 average income $30,000
Inequality = $70,000
Having a bunch of broke people mathematically means you'll have higher inequality, if you also have anyone doing well.
The sane thing to do is for state B to look at state A and ask "how we can help our lower income people make $50,000 like they do in the other state? What is state A doing that makes their lower-income tier earn more than out lower-income tier?"
Your "solution" is to ask "how can we harm our high-earners so they can only make $30,000, making everyone equally poor?". Please stay in California.
Paradise is expensive.
Paradise just burned the fuck down. Bet you can get lots cheap there right now from desperate underinsured who need to get paid and get out ASAP.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
They weren’t talking about leaving the state. They were talking about moving out of their parent’s basement. With housing prices higher there than anywhere else in the nation, however, the answer is nearly always, “no”.
Happens to any place that people in general want to go, because money destroys what it loves. Key West used to be a funky, bohemian place; now the interesting oddball who serves you your drinks doesn't crash nearby anymore; he drives for a couple hours to get home when his shift is over.
Places that money loves, like Key West or San Francisco, gets turned into an Epcot Center versions of themselves. But California is a vast state.It is slightly larger in land area than Sweden. When somebody asks whether they want to move, they could well be moving to some place in-state. An hour's drive can make a three-fold difference in housing costs. People of moderate means get expelled from valuable real estate by expense or pulled by savings. That's capitalism for you. There's no such places as "your community"; if you rent in a place that catches the eye of the wealthy, you're going to have to find a new one.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The method used was to find the most distinct query for each state from a list of the top 100 queries for all states. This nearly guarantees that the result will NOT be the most popular query for any state,
I am at a loss as to how a conservative approach - lower taxes and less funding for schools and social services - would reduce the wealth inequality you see in California. Explain how that works?
On Facebook it's assumed it's because of socialism and the extreme poverty and lack of jobs that California and Europe that is causing the moves. Fox news parrots this everyday. Mention California's high GDP and they won't believe you!
http://saveie6.com/
The most popular question in Texas was "Should I apologize?"
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
My sister works as a mortgage underwriter and on a lark managed to find an identical-layout house to our childhood home in Missouri. Ours goes for $150k. Out in Cali? >$1 million.
Money represents economic value. "Making money" is a shorthand way of saying "creating economic value". Someone who "makes $30,000" is someone who produces finding valued at $30,000.
Based on your comment, you might be surprised to learn people are not in fact born with $10 million shoved up their ass which then "went somewhere", to use your words. The balance, the "thermodynamics" is that their economic income matches their economic outflow. If you build tables in your garage, and each week someo, someone buys one of your tables for $500, your income is $500 precisely because your outflow is $500 worth of table.
If your weekly output is "played 45 video games", your weekly income will have the exact same economic value as what you produced - zero.
Btw that doesn't change if you and a friend make the tables together, or if you and 100 friends do. If 90 friends build tables and ten friends but all the tools and build the shop, they'll get income equal to the market value of what they did.
If someone's income is $30,000 and someone else's income is $50,000, that's because one person produced stuff with an economic value of $30,000 and the other person $50,000. The first person didn't misplace $20,000, they simply didn't create as much.
A real estate crash won't be enough, their land prices are so high they'd find a hard floor at the property value of their neighbors, and so flight funded by selling would still be reasonable.
In Oregon we tried adding warning labels on our border, but even that didn't stop them.
Well, don't expect English speakers to see "failed" as a synonym for, "Yer bee-leafs are differunt than miine."
You've come to a correct conclusion regarding individual action, while being confused about some basic terminology.
You also seem to missed part of what I wrote, stating I didn't say anything about investment when in fact I did. Remember "if ten of them but all the tools and build the factory"? Yeah, that's investment.
> [Labor] But that's not the only source of income, or even primary source for the highest earners.
You are 100% correct that for the vast majority of high earners, the earnings are multiplied by investment - by not spending all their money the moment they get it, but by delayed gratification. That's hugely important for anyone who wants to ever be financially comfortable.
There are two reasons why. The amount of labor you can put into an enterprise is limited. You can work about 40 hours per week, maybe 60. The amount you can invest us unlimited - you can grow your money, then grow the growth, where a little investment becomes more, then since it's more, there is even more growth, in a cycle of exploding wealth. It literally grows exponentially, the math number "e" for exponential refers to this type of growth.
The other reason is that human nature is wired toward short-term thinking, instant gratification, compared to the natural gains from delayed gratification. Whether it's eating crappy for, ditching class, or goofing off reading Slashdot while we're supposed to be working, human nature tends to favor getting a little bit now rather than getting a lot later. Those who overcome this desire for instant gratification, making investment available for use, are well-rewarded vs their peers.
> There is also income via rents. Which has many forms, interest on borrowed money, dividends to investors, and rent for use of property.
You might want to look up what economic rent is. Rent applies to items for which there is a hard limit, nobody can make more. That may be natural, as in the case of land, or artificial, in the case of taxi medallions and such. Governments in certain places LOVE to put these artificial limits in place so there donors can extract rent.
There is no hard limit on money, investment, capital. There is a LOT more capital today than there was 100 years ago - probably ten times as much. You can build capital equipment yourself in your garage, if you're so inclined. Therefore there can be no rent, the cost of capital is controlled by supply and demand. Rent on capital would be possible only if government limited your ability to invest.
That's no big - one doesn't need to know much about economic theory as long as you understand the actionable conclusion - investment is how you get rich. Our tax system gives an extra bonus there, and employer 401k matching adds another 50% or so increase.
Speak for yourself. California literally has a Paradise. (... With apologies to 2018 victims.)
I agree, California is a shit-hole, which is why no one lives there.
It's also a socialist boondoggle, which is why the economy is such shit and no companies want to be based there.
Clearly whenever someone asks "Should I move out?" with no other context, they must mean "out of their State", right? That's by far the most common usage of the phrase.
I mean, if California is such a paradise, how come it's not the most populous state with the largest economy? Checkmate, libtards.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
I love how everyone is so quick to make these super deep jumps in logic using only this single 1-dimensional metric.
"Should I move out?" could mean California has more basement neck-beards than everywhere else. But it could just as easily mean that the basement neck-beards in California are at least considering moving out, whereas everywhere else they don't even bother.
Obligatory xkcd.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
This is a really interesting list. I'm particularly amused by the groupings of the north-west-ish indicating that they feel their vote doesn't matter, the midwest which seems to correlate with the food desert that those states are, and the northeast which seems to be broadly covered by the term "first world problems". Also, being a Washington native and Oregon resident I am supremely proud of both my home state and adopted home for their outlooks on life.