Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » The Map of Death

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: The Map of Death
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
War deaths by American home town:

http://mithras.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/06/05/us_city3.jpg

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How fascinating! How surprising. How sad.

I wonder why soldiers dying in Iraq mostly come from the urban areas on the coasts.

Posts: 3791 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wow, that's some surprising data. I would never have thought it's weighted so heavily towards the coasts. Common wisdom has Middle America bearing a disproportional portion of the burden. Doesn't matter, in the end. Dead is dead, and dead is only a small part of the casualty list [Frown]
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tezcatlipoca
Member
Member # 1312

 - posted      Profile for Tezcatlipoca     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I wonder why soldiers dying in Iraq mostly come from the urban areas on the coasts.
There is a reasonable explanation to that based on the US population distribution.

Population living in Urban Areas: 79.219%
Population living in Rural Areas: 20.781%

Posts: 1272 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
Wow, that's some surprising data. I would never have thought it's weighted so heavily towards the coasts. Common wisdom has Middle America bearing a disproportional portion of the burden. Doesn't matter, in the end. Dead is dead, and dead is only a small part of the casualty list [Frown]

Common wisdom likes to make a lot of unfounded assumption about the moral fibre of the heartland compared to the east and west coasts. It also likes to forget the demographics about just how heavily urbanized the US population is.
Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's generally balanced by population distribution. Two near anomalies are NY and FL having about the same rate as states with approx 2/3 their population (PA, OH), but there probably is an explanation based on age or citizenship balances. TX has a rate nearly 85% of CA but only 60% of the population. Chalk it up to higher voluntarism, I suppose. I don't see any clear regional patterns.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
CA is exactly median in rate of enlistment - but heavy on Naval service.

The Army is heavily slanted Southern compared to the general population, which goes a long way to explaining higher casualty *rates* in the South.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would actually like to see this done per capita. See the distribution without the effect of population density.
Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WeAreAllJust LooseChange
Member
Member # 3411

 - posted      Profile for WeAreAllJust LooseChange         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
When souls become just numbers, that's when I know there is no solution for this world...

[Crying]

Posts: 174 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm with Tez. The casualty rate roughly reflects population density. Now, a detailed examination of per capita by neighborhoods and relevant socioeconomic weights -- that might reveal something more than population clusters.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's surprising to me precisely because the casualty rate roughly reflects population density.

Does the military enrollment rate also roughly reflect population density? How roughly? I would really expect the rate of entrance in the military to be significantly higher in places where people start off with fewer advantages and fewer options.

Posts: 3791 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My understanding is that it reflects it moreso now than, say, 10 years ago. The shrinking middle class and the 911 spike in patriotic fervor would be two strong aspects of this, I would think.

Also, population density is a very STRONG, even overwhelming demographic. So again, a far more detailed examination of demographic details might be required in order to provide more finely meaningful data.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The following figures are a bit old, as they come from January of this year.

quote:
State Total Population Deaths in Iraq Deaths per 100,000 Vermont 623,908 18 2.88 South Dakota 781,919 17 2.17 North Dakota 635,867 13 2.04 Alaska 670,053 13 1.94 Nebraska 1,768,331 31 1.75 Louisiana 4,287,768 69 1.6 Wyoming 515,004 8 1.56 Delaware 853,476 13 1.52 Montana 944,632 14 1.48 Mississippi 2,910,540 39 1.34 Oklahoma 3,579,212 48 1.34 Oregon 3,700,758 47 1.27 Kentucky 4,206,074 53 1.26 Arkansas 2,810,872 35 1.25 Iowa 2,982,085 37 1.24 New Hampshire 1,314,895 16 1.22 Wisconsin 5,556,506 66 1.19 Arizona 6,166,318 73 1.19 Pennsylvania 12,440,621 146 1.17 Michigan 10,995,643 118 1.17 Idaho 1,466,465 17 1.16 Kansas 2,764,075 32 1.16 Texas 23,507,783 269 1.14 New Mexico 1,954,599 22 1.13 Ohio 11,478,006 130 113 Tennessee 6,038,803 67 1.11 Virginia 7,642,884 85 1.11 Alabama 4,599,030 50 1.09 Hawaii 1,285,498 14 1.09 Maine 1,321,574 14 1.06 Nevada 2,495,529 26 1.04 Rhode Island 1,067,610 11 1.03 West Virginia 1,818,470 18 0.99 Maryland 5,615,727 54 0.96 South Carolina 4,321,249 41 0.95 Indiana 6,313,520 60 0.95 Georgia 9,363,941 88 0.94 Washington 6,395,798 58 0.91 Missouri 5,842,713 52 0.89 Illinois 12,381,970 114 0.89 Calfiornia 36,457,549 307 0.84 Colorado 4,753,377 40 0.84 Minnesota 5,167,101 43 0.83 North Carolina 8,856,505 70 0.79 New York 19,306,183 139 0.72 Florida 18,089,888 127 0.7 Massachusetts 6,437,193 45 0.7 Connecticut 3,504,809 23 0.66 Puerto Rico 3,927,776 25 0.64 New Jersey 8,724,560 25 0.64 Utah 2,550,063 14 0.55 District of Columbia 581,530 3 0.52
Actually, I am rather surprised the range is so large, with Vermont reporting five times more deaths per capita than Utah. But neither state has a large population, or a large total number of deaths, so that result may be sheer happenstance. Otherwise the rate tends to be higher for mostly rural states as opposed to the heavily urbanized ones with large populations. I suspect this mostly means that in many rural areas it is hard to find jobs, so young men are likely to enter the military for lack of other options.
Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WeAreAllJust LooseChange
Member
Member # 3411

 - posted      Profile for WeAreAllJust LooseChange         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Quote:
"I suspect this mostly means that in many rural areas it is hard to find jobs, so young men are likely to enter the military for lack of other options"

No - it probably means that people in rural areas are patriots and not leftalibans! [Wink]

Posts: 174 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave at Work
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Dave at Work   Email Dave at Work   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I suspect this mostly means that in many rural areas it is hard to find jobs, so young men are likely to enter the military for lack of other options.
I would also suspect that young people in rural areas that have few jobs available would move to more populous urban areas where more jobs are available. In fact I know a number of individuals who have done exactly that.
Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How does National Guard service cf?
Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I would also suspect that young people in rural areas that have few jobs available would move to more populous urban areas where more jobs are available. In fact I know a number of individuals who have done exactly that.
Well, you can do that if you can afford to move to an urban area to find a better job. It's an awesome idea, and it works really well if you have supportive parents or other relatives.
Otherwise, if you're stuck in a low-wage job in a nowhere town, you will probably stay there. Unless you become a hooker or join the military.

Posts: 3791 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On the basis of pure annectode, Naval bases tend to be in fairly large cities and attract urban enlistment, and the Air Force tends to attract more computer geek/tech savvy enlisted, a pool that is somewhat more urban than rural.

The casualties don't reflect proportional enlistment overall, like I said CA has proportional enlistment but is near the bottom in terms of casualties.

Looking at rural poverty as a reason for enlistment doesn't explain the difference in casualty rates - because there are more urban poor than rural poor.

I think it's more likely that kids who grow up hunting and are comfortable in the outdoors have a greater likelyhood of joining the Army or Marines, and that they have a greater likelyhood of persuing a combat carreer field once there.

[ November 28, 2007, 01:17 AM: Message edited by: Jesse ]

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1