Minneapolis: July’s Top 7 Neighborhoods for Crime in 2017

There are few things to consider when sifting through this data set. First, the highest number of reported crimes in Minneapolis are not in the Jordan neighborhood in North Minneapolis, or any  other neighborhood in North Minneapolis for that matter. To the contrary, Downtown West has the highest number of reported crimes. In fact, it has had the highest number of reported crimes in each month this year, and it generally does year after year.

Second, 6 of the 7 neighborhoods in the top 7 are not in North Minneapolis. Of course, this doesn’t mean there aren’t other North Minneapolis neighborhoods that don’t experience a relatively high number of crimes. As a group of neighborhoods, the north side definitely illustrates a concentration of reported crimes. This will be illustrated in a future blog.

Crime: Top 7 Neighborhoods 

Neighborhood Homicide Rape Robbery Aggravated Assault Burglary Larceny Auto Theft Arson Total
Downtown West 1 4 30 18 8 195 6 0 262
Whittier 0 1 6 5 12 59 5 0 88
Loring Park 0 2 7 3 2 55 3 0 72
Longfellow 0 1 6 2 12 46 3 0 70
Lowry Hills East 0 3 3 6 11 43 3 0 69
Marcy Holmes 0 1 5 2 6 40 12 0 66
Jordan 0 0 8 17 10 22 5 1 63
Total 1 12 65 53 61 460 37 1 690
(Neighborhood/Total) x 100% 0.14 1.74 9.42 7.68 8.84 66.7 5.36 0.14 100

(Source: City of Minneapolis)

And lastly, 66.7 percent of the of the reported crimes of the top 7 neighborhoods are Larceny. Matter of fact, Larceny is between 65 and 75 percent of the reported crime each month in Minneapolis. Of course this statistic varies from neighborhood to neighborhood, but it’s a fairly consistent statistic for Minneapolis.

 

Matt Johnson is a blogger/writer for The Systems Scientist and the Urban Dynamics blog. He has also contributed to the Iowa State Daily and Our Black News.

Matt has a Bachelor of Science in Systems Science, with focuses in applied mathematics and economic systems, from Iowa State University. He is also a professional member of the Society of Industrial and Applied Mathematics and the International Society for the Systems Sciences and a scholarly member of Omicron Delta Epsilon, which is an International Honors Society for Economics. 

You can connect with him directly in the comments section, and follow him on Facebook

You can also follow The Systems Scientist on Twitter or Facebook.

 

Photo Credit: Tony Webster, Flickr

 

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright ©2017 – The Systems Scientist

Educational Attainment Data: Comparing Minnesota and the United States

We can use U.S. Census Bureau data to compare the educational attainment of the United States to any of the 50 states; we can use U.S Census Bureau data to compare the educational attainment of the United States to any city contained within the United States (provided data exists);  and we can use U.S. Census Bureau data to compare the educational attainment to compare states to each other, counties to each other, cities to each other, or any combination our hearts desire.

For this blog, we will compare the educational attainment of Minnesota, and the United States. In future blogs, we will compare other city, state, and country combinations. We will also compare city, state, and county; and we will even compare zip codes to one another. Which ones will explore? We will answer this question in due time.  Let’s begin.

United States

The United States is the Super-system. This means all 50 states and their respective counties, cities, town, zip codes, etc. are contained within the borders of the United States. Readers of this blog are familiar with this idea (for a more in-depth exploration of systems and sub-systems click here). This also means the United States meets the (3) systems’ axioms:

  1. A system consists of a set of elements.
  2. Elements in a system interact.
  3. A system has a function, or purpose.

We will take this axioms to be a given for this blog. Instead we will focus on the data. As we can see, the United States is second in every category except graduate and professional.

 

As the data illustrates, the United States has a lower median annual earnings (MAE) than that of Minnesota. This is good news for many residents of Minnesota who exceed the median annual earnings at each level of the ladder.

Minnesota

As readers of this blog will know, Minnesota is a sub-system of the United States. This means Minnesota meets the  (3) systems’ axioms:

  1. A system consists of a set of elements.
  2. Elements in a system interact.
  3. A system has a function, or purpose.

Again, and for our purposes here, this will be given knowledge to us realize we are dealing with different systems and should treat each data set as its own entity. However, we will observe that the three data sets in this blog have similar behaviors. That is, earnings increase at each level of the educational ladder. However, we observe there are subtle differences.

According to the data, Minnesota has the highest median annual earnings (MAE) at each level of the ladder. For example, the MAE for Minnesota is $51,239 whereas the MAE is $50,595 for the United States. It should be noted that at the professional and graduate level MAE for Minnesota is the same as the United States.

One final thought, it should be noted that the U.S. Census Bureau decomposes its data into regions and divisions as well. So, for example, Minnesota educational attainment data can be compared to Iowa educational attainment data and/or Wisconsin educational attainment data. And this is really just the start of what could be an exhaustive exploration of the educational attainment data. One could even compare men and women at each level of the United States system, if the data exists.

 

Matt Johnson is a blogger/writer for The Systems Scientist and the Urban Dynamics blog. He has also contributed to the Iowa State Daily and Our Black News.

Matt has a Bachelor of Science in Systems Science, with focuses in applied mathematics and economic systems, from Iowa State University. He is also a professional member of the Society of Industrial and Applied Mathematics and the International Society for the Systems Sciences and a scholarly member of Omicron Delta Epsilon, which is an International Honors Society for Economics. 

You can connect with him directly in the comments section, and follow him on Facebook

You can also follow The Systems Scientist on Twitter or Facebook.

 

Photo Credit: VideoBlocks

 

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright ©2017 – The Systems Scientist

Minneapolis: Education pays, according to the data

Odds are if you lived in Minneapolis in 2015 and didn’t have a high school diploma, then you probably made less than $19,200.00 in that year. If you’re keeping track, that’s $10.00 per hour. Matter of fact, if you were the average person with no high school diploma, then the odds were good you made $18,165.00. In contrast, if you were the average person with a graduate or professional degree, then the odds were good you made $62,757.00 in 2015.

It is clear from the data, at least this data, that education pays for those who work and reside in Minneapolis. That is, earnings increase at each level of the educational ladder. Those residents with a high school diploma earn more than those residents with less than a high school education on average; those residents with some college or an associate degree earn more than those residents with a high school diploma on average; those residents with a bachelor’s degree earn more than those residents with some college or an associate degree on average; and those residents with a graduate or professional degree earn more than those residents with a bachelor’s degree on average.

In fact, it is striking how each level earns significantly more than the next educational level down. For example, there is a $7,092.00 difference annually between a high school diploma and no high school diploma; and there is a $21,812.00 difference annually between a college degree and a high school diploma. Of course, is this the case no matter what city data is observed? Does this educational advantage remain if one were to compare the north side of Minneapolis to the south side of Minneapolis? Does this educational advantage remain if one were to compare different parts of North Minneapolis itself?

But what if it were the case that education remained financially advantageous no matter the geographical local, i.e., any part of the United States (take your pick)?

What would this mean for economic policy? Do examples exist of local policy makers constructing such economic policy based off of educational data? Indeed, one data set is not enough. Are there counter examples? In order to satisfy the rigors of science, data sets showing such an advantage need to be illustrated to exhaustion or boredom, whichever comes first.

 

Matt Johnson is a blogger/writer for The Systems Scientist and the Urban Dynamics blog. He has also contributed to the Iowa State Daily and Our Black News.

Matt has a Bachelor of Science in Systems Science, with focuses in applied mathematics and economic systems, from Iowa State University. He is also a professional member of the Society of Industrial and Applied Mathematics and the International Society for the Systems Sciences and a scholarly member of Omicron Delta Epsilon, which is an International Honors Society for Economics. 

You can connect with him directly in the comments section, and follow him on Facebook

You can also follow The Systems Scientist on Twitter or Facebook.

 

Photo Credit: U.S. Department of Education

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright ©2017 – The Systems Scientist

Chicagoland: Homicide rate increases as 2017 progresses

Unfortunately, the homicide rate is increasing in Chicago. That is, the number of homicides per month are increasing as 2017 progresses.

The year started off with 145 homicides in the 1st quarter – January, February, and March –  compared to the 151 homicides through the 1st quarter in 2016. However, things started to pick up at the beginning of the 2nd quarter. April saw seven more homicides than April of 2016. There were 41 homicides in April of 2016 compared to 48 homicides this year.

May saw a slight decrease. That was certainly good news. But then June happened.

Data Source: Chicago Tribune

June saw more homicides this year than last year – 84 to 73 – about a 15 percent increase. And now July is following suit. July of 2017 has seen more homicides than July of 2016.

For those keeping count, 409 families have lost a loved one this year compared to the 403 families at this time last year. 400 families?

August starts tomorrow. And that’s terrible news for those who live in the economically depressed parts of the city (my readers recognize these parts of Chicago as subsystems).

Last year, there were 96 homicides in August of 2016. If this homicide rate remains constant, the windy city will see 500 plus homicides by the end of the 8th month of 2017.

It is certainly possible this thing could slow down (I’m rolling my eyes). Cities are stochastic systems; that is, they are probabilistic. But it’s probably not likely that the homicide rate will slow down enough to see fewer people die this year. If the last two months are any indication of what might be possible, then it’s very likely local policy makers could be faced with answering the obvious question from journalists and others in the press, “Why were there more than 800 homicides this year?” The response will be a clutter of words and sentences in ambiguous language – doublespeak.

To be frank, Chicago hasn’t experienced such a ridiculous and appalling statistic since the mid 1990’s. Chicago saw 828 homicides in 1995; and Chicago hasn’t seen fewer than 400 homicides in decades. Wait. What?

Data Source: Chicago Tribune

Anyway, will 2017 break the 95′ threshold of 828 homicides? One would certainly hope not. It would be great if the number went down to zero starting tomorrow. But that isn’t realistic for a plethora of reasons. The challenges of the depressed economic systems, where most of these homicides happen, are not being met with judicious economic solutions.

The necessary economic tools do exist. But it might be the case that local policy makers in Chicago don’t have accessibility to the necessary economic tools: labor economics, game theory, behavioral economics, systems economics, etc… Or perhaps it’s something else entirely (I doubt it – my money is on the economic tool-kit).

Until then, enjoy the featured image for this article. It is a beautiful picture of a Chicago train surrounded by the city’s stunning architecture. Good stuff.

 

Matt Johnson is a blogger/writer for The Systems Scientist and the Urban Dynamics blog. He has also contributed to the Iowa State Daily and Our Black News.

Matt has a Bachelor of Science in Systems Science, with focuses in applied mathematics and economic systems, from Iowa State University. He is also a professional member of the Society of Industrial and Applied Mathematics and the International Society for the Systems Sciences and a scholarly member of Omicron Delta Epsilon, which is an International Honors Society for Economics. 

You can connect with him directly in the comments section, and follow him on Facebook

You can also follow The Systems Scientist on Twitter or Facebook.

 

Photo Credit: Pixabay

 

 

 

 

Copyright ©2017 – The Systems Scientist

Distinguishing between sets and systems through mathematics, economics, and chemistry

A set with objects

So far, we’ve presented the (3) systems’ axioms and the notions of system’s behavior and system’s boundary. We have also explored these ideas via different examples. And we’ve touched on the idea of a set. However, we now want to differentiate between what a set is and what a system is. Once we show the difference between the two, then we will be able to demonstrate the difference between a subset and a subsystem. And most importantly, we will be able to better observe, analyze, and make sense of different kinds of systems, albeit economic systems, political systems, or political systems.

So how can we differentiate between a set and a system? First, we can address this question by referencing back to the (3) systems’ axioms:

  1. A system consists of a set of elements.
  2. Elements in a system interact.
  3. A system has a function, or purpose.
Set A is a subset of set B

The difference between a set and a system is that a set satisfies the first axiom; whereas, a system satisfies all three axioms. More specifically, a set B is a collection of well-defined objects (we will use Naive Set Theory for now), for instance B = {2,4,6,8,10}. Further more, the elements in this set interact with each other. For example, the element ‘2’ interacts with element ‘8,’ or element ‘4’ interacts with element ’10,’ or some combination of possible interaction. And finally, there is a function that is produced, or purpose, via the interactions.

As we can see, a set satisfies the first axiom; whereas, a system satisfies all three axioms. Now we have the tools to delve into the subsets and subsystems. We will see that subsets satisfy the first axiom while subsystems satisfy all three axioms.

As stated before, a set B is a collection of well-defined objects, for instance B = {2,4,6,8,10}. However, a subset of B can be partitioned and observed. For instance, a subset A is a subset of set B if all of the elements in the set A are contained in the set B. That is, A = {2,4,6} so since all of the elements in the set A are contained in  the set B, the set A = {2,4,6} is a subset of set B = {2,4,6,8,10}.

Thus, this subset or any combination of subsets with any of the five elements – 2,4,6,8,10 – satisfies the first system’s axiom.

To illustrate the second axiom with respect to a subsystem, we want to show that if elements interact in a subsystem, then they interact in a parent system. There are a few ways we can do this. For this article, we can do this by observing the interactions in set A = {2,4,6}. Thus if ‘2’ interacts with ‘4’ and ‘6,’ and ‘4’ interacts with ‘6’ in set A, then these elements also interact in set B because set A = {2, 4, 6} is a subset of set B = {2, 4, 6, 8, 10} because set A is contained in set B.

The final step is to show that a subsystem has a function, or purpose. It could be the case that a subsystem has the same function as its parent system, or it could be the case that it has a function different from its parent system. But either way, it ought to have a function no matter if it is the same or different from its parent system. So how can this be illustrated?

Example 1

As Donella Meadows conveyed in her book Thinking in Systems: A Primer identifying the function of a system can sometimes be difficult. Indeed, there are instances where the function or a system is fairly obvious.

One way this can be done is by mapping the elements in set B to the elements in set A. In other words, the elements in set B will go to the elements in set A.

The sketch in Example 1 illustrates this point. For instance, 1 goes to 3, and 2 also goes to 3; 4 goes to 7; and 5 goes to 8.

And so something is imputed through 1, 2, 4, and 5, and something is outputted through 3, 7, and 8. This means the elements in set B = {1, 2, 4, 5} would be the inputs of the system and the elements in set A = {3, 7, 8} would be the outputs.

To illustrate this point further, one could view a system that includes labor and wages as the elements. That is, a person exchanges their labor, hours worked, for a wage. If, for example, the wage was set at $30 per hour, then a person would obviously make more for every hour worked as Graph 1 shows.

That is, if 5 hours are imputed into the system, then $150 will be outputted from the system; if 6 hours are imputed into the system, then $180 will be outputted from the system; and if 7 hours are imputed into the system, then $210 will be outputted from the system. And of course this game could be played over and over again. Thus, as the number of hours imputed into the system increases, the number of dollars outputted from the system increases.

Example 1

Another demonstration of a function can be illustrated through an interaction between an oxygen molecule, O2, and two hydrogen molecules, 2H2. If a gaseous oxygen molecule interacts with two gaseous hydrogen molecules at a high temperature, these molecules are known as the reactants in chemistry, then two gaseous H2O molecules, known as the products in chemistry, will be produced. In other words, if one gaseous oxygen molecule and a two gaseous hydrogen molecules are imputed into a system, then the system will output two gaseous H2O molecules as Example 2 demonstrates.

Example 2

These systems’ functions and purposes are obviously not what we often think of as a function or purpose of a system. They are in one instance somewhat familiar and in another instance esoteric.

In this article, we have used mathematics along with a couple of examples from economics and chemistry to distinguish the difference between a set and a system. Moving forward, we will be able to continue building off of these axioms, notions, and examples as we begin to apply these ideas to more familiar systems such as economic systems, political systems, and social systems.

Let us now, as we have done before, attempt to disprove our notions and work in the tradition of natural philosophy until the next blog.

 

Matt Johnson is a blogger/writer for The Systems Scientist and the Urban Dynamics blog. He has also contributed to the Iowa State Daily and Our Black News.

Matt has a Bachelor of Science in Systems Science, with focuses in applied mathematics and economic systems, from Iowa State University. He is also a professional member of the Society of Industrial and Applied Mathematics and the International Society for the Systems Sciences and a scholarly member of Omicron Delta Epsilon, which is an International Honors Society for Economics. 

You can connect with him directly in the comments section, and follow him on Facebook

You can also follow The Systems Scientist on Twitter or Facebook.

 

Photo Credit: Pixabay

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright ©2017 – The Systems Scientist

The Bright Side of the Blight Side of Minneapolis

As we know, the 55411 zip code, which is in Minneapolis’ 5th Ward on the north side of the city, has the most depressed economic system in Minneapolis. It has the highest concentration of condemned and vacant buildings; it has the second highest concentration of foreclosures (the 4th Ward has the most); it has the highest unemployment rate in the city; and it has the second highest crime density in the city (the 3rd Ward has the highest).

But we also know from our previous articles that the 55411 zip code is a subsystem of the Minneapolis system. This means that the 55411 satisfies the (3) systems’ axioms:

  1. A system consists of a set of elements.
  2. Elements in a system interact.
  3. A system has a function, or purpose.

It has a system’s boundary and behavior (how a system’s performance changes over time) for which condemned and vacant buildings, foreclosures, the unemployment rate, and crime are all examples of in this economic system. But how does the systems’ behaviors of educational attainment of the 55411 zip code compare to the educational attainment of Minneapolis?

Do the residents of the 55411 experience greater earnings with greater attainment of education? Is it the case that a person from the north side zip code would earn more with a college degree than a person from the north side without a college degree? Is there a correlation between education and earnings in the 55411 zip code?

Graph 1

As Graph 1 of the Minneapolis system illustrates, there is an obvious increase in wages as a person’s education increases. That is, the odds are good that a person with a high school diploma will make more than a person with less than a high school education; a person with some college will more than likely make more than a person with a high school education; a person with a college degree will more than likely make more than a person without a college degree; and a person with a graduate level education will more than likely make more than a person with only a college degree.

And so the question is, will the 55411 zip code follow this system’s behavior? Indeed it will.

Graph 2

Considering the sensitivity of the marketplace on the north side, this is really remarkable. And despite the number of adverse economic conditions in the 55411 zip code, education is still a game changer. The question is now, would this behavior remain stable during a great recession just like a few years ago? And would Minneapolis policy makers utilize this data?

Indeed there are obvious differences in earnings from educational attainment between the 55411 and Minneapolis. But the fact remains, this is a bright side to blight side of Minneapolis.

 

Matt Johnson is a blogger/writer for The Systems Scientist and the Urban Dynamics blog. He has also contributed to the Iowa State Daily and Our Black News. Matt has a Bachelor of Science in Systems Science, with focuses in applied mathematics and economic systems, from Iowa State University. 

You can connect with him directly in the comments section, and follow him on Facebook

You can also follow The Systems Scientist on Twitter or Facebook.

 

Photo Credit: army.mil

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright ©2017 – The Systems Scientist

Chicagoland: 2017 Homicides through June, Update!

In a previous article Chicagoland: Systems Axioms, Boundaries, and 2017 Homicides through June this blog reported the total number of homicides for the first 6 months of 2017 was 329. This total was taken from the most current data provided by the Chicago Tribune.

However, these numbers do change from time to time. According to the most current Chicago Tribune data, the total number of homicides through 2017 now stands at 333. This means that 2017 homicide data is now on pace with 2016 homicide data: 333 homicides in 2016 through June and 333 homicides in 2017 through June.

Graph 1

We’ve built a system’s foundation over the past few articles. We’ve established the (3) systems’ axioms, we’ve provided examples of systems’ boundaries, and we’ve illustrated systems’ behaviors; and now we can these axioms and notions to provide a greater understanding of what the homicide data is telling us.

We know Chicago is a system with boundaries and behaviors. If we differentiate 2016 from 2017, we can identify similarities and differences in Chicago’s homicide behavior; that is, how a system’s performance changes over time. In this case, we mean the lower the number of homicides, the better the performance of this system.

Why is this the case? This is because economic utility is inversely proportional to crime and therefore homicides. In other words, as crime increases, economic utility decreases, and as crime decreases, economic utility increases. However, it should be noted that there are exceptions to this rule, for example, Downtown Minneapolis.

By observing the data in Graph 1, we can see that there aren’t many significant differences between 2016 data and 2017 data. Of course, there are months in 2016 that contain a greater number of homicides than there are months in 2017 and visa versa.

For example, there were more homicides in January, March, and May of 2016 than in those same months in 2017. In contrast, there were more homicides in February, April, and June of this year than those same months in 2016.

The greatest difference between the two years has been the months of May and June. For instance, there were 12 more homicides in May of 2016, 68 in total or approximately 17.5 percent, than in May of 2017. In comparison, there were 11 more homicides in June of 2017, 84 in total or approximately 15 percent, than in June of 2016. But overall, the behavior of the Chicago system of 2017 has been similar to the behavior of the Chicago system of 2016.

Either way, this system’s behavior is going to continue to depress economic utility in some parts of Chicago where these homicides are concentrated. And as the readers of this blog now, homicide distribution is not equal throughout Chicago.

This is because the neighborhoods of Austin, Englewood, Garfield Park, and North Lawndale to name a few continue to experience high numbers of homicides and high numbers of crime in general year after year. In contrast, the neighborhoods of Edison Park, North Park, Forest Glen, and Hegewisch to name a few do not experience such adverse systems’ variables, and of course this is good.

But how can adverse systems’ variables be addressed either by economic and public policy or by market solutions in these depressed subsystems of Chicago? Or perhaps these systems’ challenges could be addressed with a combination of government and marketplace solutions in these depressed subsystems of Chicago?

Let us now, as we have done before, attempt to disprove our notions and work in the tradition of natural philosophy until the next blog.

 

Matt Johnson is a blogger/writer for The Systems Scientist and the Urban Dynamics blog. He has also contributed to the Iowa State Daily and Our Black News. Matt has a Bachelor of Science in Systems Science, with focuses in applied mathematics and economic systems, from Iowa State University. 

You can connect with him directly in the comments section, and follow him on Facebook

You can also follow The Systems Scientist on Twitter or Facebook.

 

Photo Credit: Pixabay

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright ©2017 – The Systems Scientist