Here's another version that only considers 18-44yo college grads. This version indicates more single women than men in SF, though Silicon Valley proper is still skewed toward men.
Well, there's Silicon Valley. Jason posted this map (http://elvaliente.wordpress.com/2008/04/04/towards-a-better-singles-map/) which shows less of a skew when you look at percentages and focus on 18-to-44 year old college grads.
Well, there are certainly places in this country (Canada) where this happens for work-related reasons: the most natural example is probably Fort McMurray, which had (essentially) 12,000 single guys and 9,000 single women. (It's an oil town.)
I guess I can sort of understand that, but explain NJ to me. What the heck? Why are there so many more single women there? Does is it have to do with a high divorce rate there or what?
Because people don't stay where they're born and more men move west and more women move east? That would be my guess. Alaska in the early 90's was six-to-one and I believe Australia is still skewed, but I'm not sure by how much.
See, Alaska I can understand, but what about New Jersey? Also, I'm a total innumerate. I don't understand graphs and charts at all. I may have a Masters, but it's not in Math:). I'm not a visual learner at all and graphs and charts just completely confound me. I guess that's why I needed a mathematician in my life:)
no subject
Date: 2008-04-09 09:22 pm (UTC)(I'd rather see the chart showing the split as a percentage than an absolute number)
no subject
Date: 2008-04-09 11:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-10 01:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-09 09:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-09 11:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-09 09:29 pm (UTC)http://elvaliente.wordpress.com/2008/04/04/towards-a-better-singles-map/
no subject
Date: 2008-04-10 06:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-09 09:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-09 10:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-09 11:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-09 11:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-09 11:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-10 12:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-09 11:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-10 12:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-10 12:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-10 12:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-10 06:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-10 12:05 am (UTC)