Unemployment insurance, job search, and Google

We use Google search data to construct the first high-frequency, location-specific index of job search activity (JSI). After showing the JSI’s validity, we study the effect of increased unemployment insurance (UI) on job search activity. We show that indi- viduals on UI search less than individuals who are unemployed and not receiving UI and that individuals with 0 to 10 weeks of UI remaining search 2.1 times more than those with more than 10 weeks left. We document that the JSI temporarily decreases by 2.1% to 3% in the 4 weeks after expansions and extensions in UI policy. While extensions in unemployment insurance do drive temporary changes in job search, the immediate effects of expansions or expansions are unlikely to result in large changes to unemployment rates.

That is from the paper "The Impact of Unemployment Insurance on Job Search: Evidence from Google Search Data"(Baker & Fradkin, April 2013).

Google and the election

This paper argues that Google searches prior to an election can be used to predict turnout in different parts of the United States. Change in October search volume for ”vote/voting” over a four year period explains 20-40 percent of state-level change in turnout rates. The predictive power is little affected by changes in registration rates or early votes over the same period. This information might prove useful in predicting candidate performance beyond what is contained in polls. Because high turnout is usually good for Democratic candidates, unusually high (low) voting search volume might predict better (worse) Democratic performance than state polls suggest. Further, the information might be used to predict what demographics are likely to turn out above or below their usual levels. In 2008, for example, the Google data would have successfully predicted that African-Americans would turn out at greatly elevated levels. Finally, comparing search volumes in Democratic compared to Republican cities and towns within a state may give information about a state’s expected party-specific turnout. I make out-of-sample state and demographics turnout predictions for the 2012 election.

That is from Seth Stephens-Davidowitz's paper. 

Google can help win the war on drugs (?)

Schmidt has discussed at least three different ways that Google can help us win the War on Drugs: creating a way for citizens to safely report criminal drug activity without threat of retribution from narco-criminals; enabling real-time intelligence sharing between military and police; and providing a way to analyze all the data out there about individuals, bank accounts and cross-border money flows.

And,

Imagine a type of Wikileaks for people who fear the Mexican cartels but still want to speak out? Sunlight, as they say, is the best disinfectant. The article is here. 

In some towns in Latin America even the police might know who is involved in drug production and trafficking. Will Google help improve the enforcement of institutions in Latin America? [May be]. One way to strengthen institutions is probably to have the police and intelligence services from richer countries involved [although the historical evidence is not encouraging]. 

I prefer however to think about how Google can help legalize (or regulate) drug production and trafficking, or how Google can reduce the negative consequences when (if) drugs are legalized (or regulated).

Let's say drugs are regulated (one can produce, trade, and consume drugs like any other product under certain regulations). If the economic logic is right we would expect that profits of drug businesses will go down. Since barriers of entry will decrease without the legal prohibition, supply will increase, reducing margins. How would drug cartels respond to this situation? May be they will try to substitute drug activity with other illegal activities, such as kidnapping or extorting. May be the most relevant question in the long run is how Google can help fight kidnaping and related crimes.

What Google knows about you

I know that Google knows, because I’ve looked it up, that on 30 April 2011 at 4.33 p.m. I was at Willesden Junction station, travelling west. It knows where I was, as it knows where I am now, because like many millions of others I have an Android-powered smartphone with Google’s location service turned on. If you use the full range of its products, Google knows the identity of everyone you communicate with by email, instant messaging and phone, with a master list – accessible only by you, and by Google – of the people you contact most. If you use its products, Google knows the content of your emails and voicemail messages (a feature of Google Voice is that it transcribes messages and emails them to you, storing the text on Google servers indefinitely). If you find Google products compelling – and their promise of access-anywhere, conflagration and laptop-theft-proof document creation makes them quite compelling – Google knows the content of every document you write or spreadsheet you fiddle or presentation you construct. If as many Google-enabled robotic devices get installed as Google hopes, Google may soon know the contents of your fridge, your heart rate when you’re exercising, the weather outside your front door, the pattern of electricity use in your home. 

Indeed, it sounds like the beginning of a Science Fiction novel, where the future is closer to us than ever before . . . 

So why doesn’t Google market its personal information, when it has so much of it? One answer might be that to do so would be ‘evil’.  

But another answer might be that the information Google has is too valuable to give away, that it has another reason for collecting every piece of data it possibly can, that the stuff it’s amassing is worth more than just money. 

And then, talking about increasing economies of scale . . .

The reason is that Google is learning. The more data it gathers, the more it knows, the better it gets at what it does. Of course, the better it gets at what it does the more money it makes, and the more money it makes the more data it gathers and the better it gets at what it does – an example of the kind of win-win feedback loop Google specialises in – but what’s surprising is that there is no obvious end to the process. 

Due to the current common name: "disruptive technology" . . .

PageRank, the algorithm that assigns to every page on the web a value indicating how authoritative it is, based on the number and the authoritativeness of the pages linking to it. 

And the ability to think about the internet economy in terms of the "academia economy" . . .

Those at the bottom of the ladder (the junior academics, the lowly website owners) seek recognition from those above them (the celebrated professors, the global internet portals) and use citations in the hope that some of the gold dust will rub off on them if they get cited back. Rankings based on citations aren’t necessarily a measure of excellence – if they were, we wouldn’t hear so much about Steven Pinker – but they do reflect where humans have decided that authority lies. 

But then the question is how do they improve their products . . . again the analogy with Science Fiction is useful . . . remember those estrange creatures found in far away galaxies that feed themselves with energy:

Google’s brain was like a baby’s, an omnivorous sponge that was always getting smarter from the information it soaked up.

But you need to read the full article to get a reasonable picture. By the way, I agree with its conclusion in the last paragraph.  

Thanks to Joseph Cole for sharing this article.