DGN Bureau of Statistics

[Simon Bar Sinister]

Post some yourself and/or comment on others'.

from this week's issue of TIME...

according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average US household spent $49,638 as follows

$16,920 on housing, which included

...$10,023 on mortgage interest/rent/insurance/upkeep

...$3,477 on utilities, including telephone

...$1,797 on furniture/appliances/other equipment

$8,758 on transportation, which included

...$2,202 on gasoline

...$1,071 on insurance

...$538 on public transportation

$6,133 on food, which included

...$3,465 on food at home

...$2,668 on food away from home

$2,853 on health care, which included

...$1,545 on health insurance

$2,698 on entertainment, which included

...$987 on audio and video equipment/services

$1,881 on apparel and related services, which included

...$749 on women's/girl's clothes

...$435 on men's/boy's clothes

...this was for 2007, btw.

Edited May 10, 2009 by SpammerOvTheGods

[Troy Spiral (13)]

National Volent Crimes In 1973 : 875,910

National Violent Crime in 2007: 1,408,337

(2008 numbers are still not solidified)

I'm usually interested in percentages rates of change. For instance if i hear "1000 new cases of X disease" is that a lot? Is that an increase? What total amount of a population is that? Sometimes the raw numbers "feel" meaningful or meaningless without some sort of context.

The NCVS (National Crime Victim Survey, I remember it since its "CVS" with an N in front) gets reported somewhat regularly on the news. Often it is quoted as just "the voilent crime rate" or just "national violent crime" but this is usually what they are refering to. It has its critics, but seems to be the most widely accepted data about such things.

National Volent Crimes in 1973 : 875,910

National Violent Crime in 2007: 1,408,337

Sounds like an increase right? It could be accurately reported as "an increase" but that is misleading as hell. Overall violent crime is actually down quite a bit since they first started this survey in the early 70s (and way down since the peak in the early 90s).

To get a more acurate understanding it needs to be looked at as a percentage of the population. The numbers are naturally going to tend to increase as the population increases, so just the raw numbers aren't of much value.

Source:

http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/glance/tables/viortrdtab.htm

Plenty more surveys show similar trends, this is just the most often quoted source.