Posts filed under Politics (140)

March 25, 2015

Foreign drivers, yet again

From the Stuff front page

ninetimes

Now, no-one (maybe even literally no-one) is denying that foreign drivers are at higher risk on average. It’s just that some of us feel exaggerating the problem is unhelpful. The quoted sentence is true only if “the tourist season” is defined, a bit unconventionally, to mean “February”, and probably not even then.

When you click through to the story (from the ChCh Press), the first thing you see is this:

1427225389525

Notice how the graph appears to contradicts itself: the proportion of serious crashes contributed to by a foreign driver ranges from just over 3% in some months to just under 7% at the peak.  Obviously, 7% is an overstatement of the actual problem, and if you read sufficiently carefully, the graphs says so.  The average is actually 4.3%

The other number headlined here is 1%: cars rented by tourists as a fraction of all vehicles.  This is probably an underestimate, as the story itself admits (well, it doesn’t admit the direction of the bias). But the overall bias isn’t what’s most relevant here, if you look at how the calculation is done.

Visitor surveys show that about 1 million people visited Canterbury in 2013.

About 12.6 per cent of all tourists in 2013 drove rental cars, according to government visitor surveys. That means about 126,000 of those 1 million Canterbury visitors drove rental cars. About 10 per cent of international visitors come to New Zealand in January, which means there were about 12,600 tourists in rental cars on Canterbury roads in January.

This was then compared to the 500,000 vehicles on the Canterbury roads in 2013 – figures provided by the Ministry of Transport.

The rental cars aren’t actually counted, they are treated as a constant fraction of visitors. If visitors in summer are more likely to drive long distances, which seems plausible, the denominator will be relatively underestimated in summer and overestimated in winter, giving an exaggerated seasonal variation in risk.

That is, the explanation for more crashes involving foreign drivers in summer could be because summer tourists stay longer or drive more, rather than because summer tourists are intrinsically worse drivers than winter tourists.

All in all, “nine times higher” is a clear overstatement, even if you think crashes in February are somehow more worth preventing than crashes in other months.

Banning all foreign drivers from the roads every February would have prevented 106 fatal or serious injury crashes over the period 2006-2013, just over half a percent of the total.  Reducing foreign driver risk by 14%  over the whole year would have prevented 109 crashes. Reducing everyone’s risk by 0.6%  would have prevented about 107 crashes. Restricting attention to February, like restricting attention to foreign drivers, only makes sense to the extent that it’s easier or less expensive to reduce some people’s risk enormously than to reduce everyone’s risk a tiny amount.

 

Actually doing something about the problem requires numbers that say what the problem actually is, and strategies, with costs and benefits attached. How many tens of millions of dollars worth of tourists would go elsewhere if they weren’t allowed to drive in New Zealand? Is there a simple, quick test would separate safe from dangerous foreign drivers, that rental companies could administer? How could we show it works? Does the fact that rental companies are willing to discriminate against young drivers but not foreign drivers mean there’s something wrong with anti-discrimination law, or do they just have a better grip on the risks? Could things like rumble strips and median barriers help more for the same cost? How about more police presence?

From 2006 to 2013 NZ averaged about 6 crashes per day causing serious or fatal injury. On average, about one every four days involved a foreign driver. Both these numbers are too high.

 

March 17, 2015

Bonus problems

If you hadn’t seen this graph yet, you probably would have soon.

bonuses CAQYEF4UYAA5PqA

The claim “Wall Street bonus were double the earnings of all full-time minimum wage workers in 2014″ was made by the Institute for Policy Studies (which is where I got the graph) and fact-checked by the Upshot blog at the New York Times, so you’d expect it to be true, or at least true-ish. It probably isn’t, because the claim being checked was missing an important word and is using an unfortunate definition of another word. One of the first hints of a problem is the number of minimum wage workers: about a million, or about 2/3 of one percent of the labour force.  Given the usual narrative about the US and minimum-wage jobs, you’d expect this fraction to be higher.

The missing word is “federal”. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports data on people paid at or below the federal minimum wage of $7.25/hour, but 29 states have higher minimum wages so their minimum-wage workers aren’t counted in this analysis. In most of these states the minimum is still under $8/hr. As a result, the proportion of hourly workers earning no more than federal minimum wage ranges from 1.2% in Oregon to 7.2% in Tennessee (PDF).  The full report — and even the report infographic — say “federal minimum wage”, but the graph above doesn’t, and neither does the graph from Mother Jones magazine (it even omits the numbers of people)

On top of those getting state minimum wage we’re still short quite a lot of people, because “full-time” is defined by 35 or more hours per week at your principal job.  If you have multiple part-time jobs, even if you work 60 or 80 hours a week, you are counted as part-time and not included in the graph.

Matt Levine writes:

There are about 167,800 people getting the bonuses, and about 1.03 million getting full-time minimum wage, which means that ballpark Wall Street bonuses are 12 times minimum wage. If the average bonus is half of total comp, a ratio I just made up, then that means that “Wall Street” pays, on average, 24 times minimum wage, or like $174 an hour, pre-tax. This is obviously not very scientific but that number seems plausible.

That’s slightly less scientific than the graph, but as he says, is plausible. In fact, it’s not as bad as I would have guessed.

What’s particularly upsetting is that you don’t need to exaggerate or use sloppy figures on this topic. It’s not even that controversial. Lots of people, even technocratic pro-growth economists, will tell you the US minimum wage is too low.  Lots of people will argue that Wall St extracts more money from the economy than it provides in actual value, with much better arguments than this.

By now you might think to check carefully that the original bar chart is at least drawn correctly.  It’s not. The blue bar is more than half the height of the red bar, not less than half.

March 14, 2015

Ok, but it matters in theory

Some discussion on Twitter about political polling and whether political journalists understood the numbers led to the question:

If you poll 500 people, and candidate 1 is on 35% and candidate 2 is on 30%, what is the chance candidate 2 is really ahead?

That’s the wrong question. Well, no, actually it’s the right question, but it is underdetermined.

The difficulty is related to the ‘base-rate‘ problem in testing for rare diseases: it’s easy to work out the probability of the data given the way the world is, but you want the probability the world is a certain way given the data. These aren’t the same.

If you want to know how much variability there is in a poll, the usual ‘maximum margin of error’ is helpful.  In theory, over a fairly wide range of true support, one poll in 20 will be off by more than this, half being too high and half being too low. In theory it’s 3% for 1000 people, 4.5% for 500. For minor parties, I’ve got a table here. In practice, the variability in NZ polls is larger than in theoretically perfect polls, but we’ll ignore that here.

If you want to know about change between two polls, the margin of error is about 1.4 times higher. If you want to know about difference between two candidates, the computations are trickier. When you can ignore other candidates and undecided voters, the margin of error is about twice the standard value, because a vote added to one side must be taken away from the other side, and so counts twice.

When you can’t ignore other candidates, the question isn’t exactly answerable without more information, but Jonathan Marshall has a nice app with results for one set of assumptions. Approximately, instead of the margin of error for the difference being (2*square root (1/N)) as in the simple case, you replace the 1 by the sum of the two candidate estimates, so  (2*square root (0.35+0.30)/N).  The margin of error is about 7%.  If the support for the two candidates were equal, there would be about a 9% chance of seeing candidate 1 ahead of candidate 2 by at least 5%.

All this, though, doesn’t get you an answer to the question as originally posed.

If you poll 500 people, and candidate 1 is on 35% and candidate 2 is on 30%, what is the chance candidate 2 is really ahead?

This depends on what you knew in advance. If you had been reasonably confident that candidate 1 was behind candidate 2 in support you would be justified in believing that candidate 1 had been lucky, and assigning a relatively high probability that candidate 2 is really ahead. If you’d thought it was basically impossible for candidate 2 to even be close to candidate 1, you probably need to sit down quietly and re-evaluate your beliefs and the evidence they were based on.

The question is obviously looking for an answer in the setting where you don’t know anything else. In the general case this turns out to be, depending on your philosophy, either difficult to agree on or intrinsically meaningless.  In special cases, we may be able to agree.

If

  1. for values within the margin of error, you had no strong belief that any value was more likely than any other
  2. there aren’t values outside the margin of error that you thought were much more likely than those inside

we can roughly approximate your prior beliefs by a flat distribution, and your posterior beliefs by a Normal distribution with mean at the observed data value and with standard error equal to the margin of error.

In that case, the probability of candidate 2 being ahead is 9%, the same answer as the reverse question.  You could make a case that this was a reasonable way to report the result, at least if there weren’t any other polls and if the model was explicitly or implicitly agreed. When there are other polls, though, this becomes a less convincing argument.

TL;DR: The probability Winston is behind given that he polls 5% higher isn’t conceptually the same as the probability that he polls 5% higher given that he is behind.  But, if we pretend to be in exactly the right state of quasi-ignorance, they come out to be the same number, and it’s roughly 1 in 10.

March 12, 2015

Election donation maps

There are probably some StatChat readers who don’t read the NZ Herald, so I’ll point out that I have a post on the data blog about election donations.

March 5, 2015

Showing us the money

The Herald is running a project to crowdsource data entry and annotation for NZ political donations and expenses: it’s something that’s hard to automate and where local knowledge is useful. Today, they have an interactive graph for 2014 election donations and have made the data available

money

February 19, 2015

West Island census under threat?

From the Sydney Morning Herald

Asked directly whether the 2016 census would go ahead as planned on August 9, a spokeswoman for the parliamentary secretary to the treasurer Kelly O’Dwyer read from a prepared statement.

It said: “The government and the Bureau of Statistics are consulting with a wide range of stakeholders about the best methods to deliver high quality, accurate and timely information on the social and economic condition of Australian households.”

Asked whether that was an answer to the question: “Will the census go ahead next year?” the spokeswoman replied that it was.

Unlike Canada, it’s suggested they would at least save money in the short term. It’s the longer-term consequences of reduced information quality that are a concern — not just directly for Census questions, but for all surveys that use Census data to compensate for sampling bias. How bad this would be depends on what is used to replace the Census: if it’s a reasonably large mandatory-response survey (as in the USA), it could work well. If it’s primarily administrative data, probably not so much.

In New Zealand, the current view is that we do still need a census.

Key findings are that existing administrative data sources cannot at present act as a replacement for the current census, but that early results have been sufficiently promising that it is worth continuing investigations.

 

January 24, 2015

Measuring what you care about

Via Felix Salmon, here’s a chart from Credit Suisse that’s been making the headlines recently, in the Oxfam report on global wealth.  The chart shows where in the world people live for each of the ‘wealth’ deciles, and I’ve circled the most interesting piece.

wealth

About 10% of the least wealthy people in the world live in North America. This isn’t (just) Mexico, Guatemala, Nicaragua, etc, it’s also the US, because some people in the US have really big debts.

If you are genuinely poor, you can’t have hundreds of thousands of dollars of negative wealth because no-one would give you that sort of money. Compared to a US law-school graduate with student loans, you’re wealthy.  This is obviously a dumb way to define wealth. Also, as I’ve argued on the ‘net tax’ issue, cumulative percentages just don’t work usefully as summaries when some of the numbers are negative.

This doesn’t mean wealth inequality doesn’t exist (boy, does it) or doesn’t matter, but it does mean summaries like the Credit Suisse one don’t capture it. If you wanted to capture the sort of wealth inequality worth worrying about, you’d need to think about what it really meant and why it was a problem separately from income inequality (which is much easier to define).

There seem to be two concerns with wealth inequality that people on a reasonably broad political spectrum might care about, if we stipulate that redistributive international taxation is not on the agenda:

  • transfer of wealth from parents to children leads to social stratification
  • high concentrations of wealth give some people too much power (and more so in societies more corrupt than NZ).

Both of these are non-linear ($200 isn’t twice as much as $100 in any meaningful sense) and they both depend on where you are ($20,000 will get you much further in Nigeria than in Rhode Island). There probably isn’t going to be a good way to look at global wealth inequality. Within countries, it’s probably feasible but it will still take some care and I expect it will be necessary to discount debts quite a lot.  If you owe the bank $10, you’re not wealthy, but if you owe the bank $10 million, you probably are.

January 6, 2015

Foreign drivers, again

The Herald has a poll saying 61% of New Zealanders want to make large subsets of foreign drivers sit written and practical tests before they can drive here (33.9%: people from right-hand drive countries; 27.4% everyone but Australians). It’s hard to tell how much of this is just the push effect of being asked the questions and how much is real opinion.

The rationale is that foreign drivers are dangerous:

Overseas drivers were found at fault in 75 per cent of 538 injury crashes in which they were involved. But although failure to adjust to local conditions was blamed for seven fatal crashes, that was the suspected cause of just 26 per cent of the injury crashes.

This could do with some comparisons.  75% of 538 is 403, which is about 4.5% of all injury crashes that year.  We get about 2.7 million visitors per year, with a mean stay of 20 days (PDF), so on average the population is about 3.3% short-term visitors.

Or, we can look at the ‘factors involved’ for all the injury crashes. I get 15367  drivers of motorised vehicles involved in injury crashes, and 9192 of them have a contributing factor that is driver fault (causes 1xx to 4xx in the Crash Analysis System). This doesn’t include things like brake failures.  So, drivers on average are at fault in about 60% of the injury crashes they are involved in.

Based on this, it looks as though foreign drivers are somewhat more dangerous, but that restricting them is very unlikely to prevent more than, say, 1-2% of crashes. If you consider all the ways we might reduce injury crashes by 1-2%, and think about the side-effects of each one, I don’t think this is going to be near the top of the list.

December 13, 2014

Barchart of the week

Venezuelan-election-chart-e1418319765834

Via SkepChick, this chart from Venezolana de Televisión (Venezuelan national TV) during the 2013 elections almost makes Fox News look good.

December 10, 2014

Not net tax

A recurring bad statistic 

But Finance Minister Bill English told Morning Report that was is not the answer, and half of all New Zealand households pay no net tax at all.

In some ways this is an improvement over one of the other version of the statistics, where it’s all households with income under $110,000 who collectively paid no net tax. It’s still misleading.  It seems to be modelled on the similar figure for the US, but the NZ version is less accurate. On the other hand, the NZ version is less pernicious — unlike Mitt Romney, Bill English isn’t saying the 50% are lazy and irresponsible.

In the US figure, ‘net tax’ meant ‘net federal income tax’, ie, federal income tax minus the subset of benefits that are delivered through the tax system.  In New Zealand, the figure appears to mean national income tax minus benefits delivered through the tax system (eg Working For Families tax credits) and also minus cash benefits delivered by other means.  In both cases, though, the big problem is the taxes that aren’t included.  In New Zealand, that’s GST.

The median household income in New Zealand is about $68,000. If we assume Mr English has done his sums correctly, this is where the ‘net tax’ starts (though the original version of the claim was 43% rather than ‘half’, which would push the cutpoint down to $50,000).  Suppose the household is paying 30% of income on housing (higher than the national average), which is GST-exempt, and that they’re saving 3%, eg, through Kiwisaver (also higher than the national average). By assumption, they get back what they pay in income tax, so they spend the rest. GST on what they spend is $6834: their tax rate net of transfers is about 10%. To get a negative “net tax” you need to include some things that aren’t taxes and leave out some things that are taxes.

If you use this table from 2011, which David Farrar at Kiwiblog attributed to English’s office, it looks like many people in the $30k-$40k band will also pay tax net of transfers

nettaxpaid-560x342

If everyone in that band was at the midpoint, and they had no tax deductions (so that the $35k taxable income is all the non-transfer income they have), the total taxable income plus gross transfers for that band is about $7150 million, and 15% of 60% of that is $643 million, so they’d have to use 40% of their money in GST-exempt ways to pay no tax net of transfers.  Presumably the switch from positive to negative tax net of transfers is somewhere in this band. So, somewhere between 27% and 37% of New Zealand households pay less in tax than they receive in transfers.

Of course, cash benefits aren’t the only thing you get from the government, and more detailed modelling of where taxes are actually paid and the value of education and health benefits estimates that the lower 60% of households (adjusted for household size) get more in direct benefits and social services than they pay in direct and indirect taxes — but a lot of that is ‘getting what you pay for’, not redistribution.

Most importantly of all, there isn’t an obvious target value for the proportion of households who pay no tax net of transfers. There’s nothing obviously special about the claimed 50% or the actual 30ish%. The question is whether increasing taxes and transfers to reduce inequality would be good or bad overall, and this statistic really isn’t relevant.

 

Previously for this set of statistics