5 ms·

In that regard, is it really fair that the US has a single Olympics team? Or a single world-level anything team?

by Swizec 10y ago

noobermin 10y ago
Very good point! I'd say that in one case, you are dealing with averages over a population, and averages definitely wash out differences which I think are important. An Olympics team is a different statistic, the max of the distribution, the cream of the crop. One is a sports competition and another are a set of rankings that give us insight into a population and how their culture and laws affect the performance of said population. But I'm afraid I have no retort to the Olympic question other than that is it a completely different ranking of the best of each population rather than the average, so different rules apply? I'm not sure that is a good argument against your sentiment, though.
- bbctol 10y ago
  If anything, population size matters way more when picking out the cream of the crop than the averages. I think the point being made is less about the Olympics specifically and more that it makes little sense to divide up the US economy by state when the US is very clearly one single country.
humanrebar 10y ago
There are completely different purposes for the Olympic games and a ranking of economies. We-have-a-different-flag is perfectly fine for the purposes of friendly competition. Something with more justification is appropriate for discussing economies, especially since the boundaries of 'an economy' are naturally nebulous.
- Swizec 10y ago
  > There are completely different purposes for the Olympic games and a ranking of economies. Isn't success at international competition largely a factor of financial investment into a particular sport? Arguably the US being the world's biggest economy, would also give them the world's best trained athletes, the best trainers, the best training facilities and so on. Many (most?) sports have specific checks and guards in place to minimize the effect of money on team success, but that only goes so far.
- cestith 10y ago
  The US is basically a single market for goods and labor. Individual banks have branches all over the country. It's one currency. There's one federal set of trade laws with minor state limits on some goods. Shipping goods across state lines or selling digital wares across state lines are covered mostly by federal law. Contracts may or may not, by their own language, invoke state laws in interstate sales with few exceptions (some states don't allow a seller to waive certain of a buyer's rights in a standard sales contract). There's no government interference moving from one state to another for work (unless you're a felon or a sex offender or some other special case). There's one set of immigration laws. There's one set of passport requirements. Yes, you could say each state is its own market. But then you could say the same about each city and town. For some people individual cities in the US compete directly against one another more than state vs. state. Am I likely to find work in my field in any little farm town in northern California, upstate New York, rural Georgia, Texas hill country or scrub desert, or in downstate Illinois? Not at all. In San Francisco and the Valley? In NYC? In Chicago? Houston? Dallas? Austin? LA? Atlanta? Sure.
maxerickson 10y ago
Of course not, but the IOC is a private enterprise that engages in trying to get as much attention for their events as possible, so you get an embrace of borders instead of arguments about what would be fair. I think there is probably room to compare economies in different ways. It's certainly notable that California has roughly the same size economy as France, but it isn't the only comparison you would want to make when trying to compare the economic situation in the US to the economic situation elsewhere. But if you were considering the availability of opportunities, you might start with the few US states with the largest economies just like you might start with the few EU countries with larger economies.
baddox 10y ago
If anything, the fact that the US has a lot of advantages for athletes (high incomes, nice facilities, etc.) means that grouping all those athletes together for the Olympics probably disadvantages individual American athletes, because there's more competition for Olympic qualification. If each US state competed separately in the Olympics, how many more medals do you suppose that would all have received in swimming, track and field, gymnastics, etc.?
- jacalata 10y ago
  Interesting question! This article says how many medals were won in Rio by people born in each state - http://www.wxyz.com/news/national/rio-olympics-medal-count-by-us-state http://www.wxyz.com/news/national/rio-olympics-medal-count-b.... It doesn't make a lot of sense to count how many medals were won by people living in each state since the facilities for some sports are focused in a single state. Way beyond me to figure out who didn't make the Olympics, whether they would have medalled, and what states they are from :)
- Symbiote 10y ago
  You could approximate what would happen by summing the medals won by all EU countries, and comparing it with a hypothetical team composed of the top N (3?) EU athletes per event. You might find http://www.medalspercapita.com/ http://www.medalspercapita.com/ interesting.

In that regard, is it really fair that the US has a single Olympics team? Or a single world-level anything team?

by Swizec 10y ago

In that regard, is it really fair that the US has a single Olympics team? Or a single world-level anything team?

Very good point! I'd say that in one case, you are dealing with averages over a population, and averages definitely wash out differences which I think are important. An Olympics team is a different statistic, the max of the distribution, the cream of the crop. One is a sports competition and another are a set of rankings that give us insight into a population and how their culture and laws affect the performance of said population. But I'm afraid I have no retort to the Olympic question other than that is it a completely different ranking of the best of each population rather than the average, so different rules apply? I'm not sure that is a good argument against your sentiment, though.

bbctol 10y ago
If anything, population size matters way more when picking out the cream of the crop than the averages. I think the point being made is less about the Olympics specifically and more that it makes little sense to divide up the US economy by state when the US is very clearly one single country.

humanrebar 10y ago

There are completely different purposes for the Olympic games and a ranking of economies. We-have-a-different-flag is perfectly fine for the purposes of friendly competition. Something with more justification is appropriate for discussing economies, especially since the boundaries of 'an economy' are naturally nebulous.

Swizec 10y ago
> There are completely different purposes for the Olympic games and a ranking of economies. Isn't success at international competition largely a factor of financial investment into a particular sport? Arguably the US being the world's biggest economy, would also give them the world's best trained athletes, the best trainers, the best training facilities and so on. Many (most?) sports have specific checks and guards in place to minimize the effect of money on team success, but that only goes so far.
cestith 10y ago
The US is basically a single market for goods and labor. Individual banks have branches all over the country. It's one currency. There's one federal set of trade laws with minor state limits on some goods. Shipping goods across state lines or selling digital wares across state lines are covered mostly by federal law. Contracts may or may not, by their own language, invoke state laws in interstate sales with few exceptions (some states don't allow a seller to waive certain of a buyer's rights in a standard sales contract). There's no government interference moving from one state to another for work (unless you're a felon or a sex offender or some other special case). There's one set of immigration laws. There's one set of passport requirements. Yes, you could say each state is its own market. But then you could say the same about each city and town. For some people individual cities in the US compete directly against one another more than state vs. state. Am I likely to find work in my field in any little farm town in northern California, upstate New York, rural Georgia, Texas hill country or scrub desert, or in downstate Illinois? Not at all. In San Francisco and the Valley? In NYC? In Chicago? Houston? Dallas? Austin? LA? Atlanta? Sure.

maxerickson 10y ago

Of course not, but the IOC is a private enterprise that engages in trying to get as much attention for their events as possible, so you get an embrace of borders instead of arguments about what would be fair. I think there is probably room to compare economies in different ways. It's certainly notable that California has roughly the same size economy as France, but it isn't the only comparison you would want to make when trying to compare the economic situation in the US to the economic situation elsewhere. But if you were considering the availability of opportunities, you might start with the few US states with the largest economies just like you might start with the few EU countries with larger economies.

baddox 10y ago

If anything, the fact that the US has a lot of advantages for athletes (high incomes, nice facilities, etc.) means that grouping all those athletes together for the Olympics probably disadvantages individual American athletes, because there's more competition for Olympic qualification. If each US state competed separately in the Olympics, how many more medals do you suppose that would all have received in swimming, track and field, gymnastics, etc.?

jacalata 10y ago
Interesting question! This article says how many medals were won in Rio by people born in each state - http://www.wxyz.com/news/national/rio-olympics-medal-count-by-us-state http://www.wxyz.com/news/national/rio-olympics-medal-count-b.... It doesn't make a lot of sense to count how many medals were won by people living in each state since the facilities for some sports are focused in a single state. Way beyond me to figure out who didn't make the Olympics, whether they would have medalled, and what states they are from :)
Symbiote 10y ago
You could approximate what would happen by summing the medals won by all EU countries, and comparing it with a hypothetical team composed of the top N (3?) EU athletes per event. You might find http://www.medalspercapita.com/ http://www.medalspercapita.com/ interesting.