My Professional Network, Graphically

A few months ago, I was thinking about my professional network and wondered what it would look like if it were mapped out. It turns out, LinkedIn has a lab project to do just that. I loaded up my profile and a few minutes later, this came out (click for larger version):

Each dot in the above chart represents a person, and each line represents a connection between people. The larger the dot, the closer the relationship. I am at the center, and unique clusters of people become apparent by their interrelationships, and they are grouped together in space.

The lab does not label the clusters, but it does identify the clusters by color, and it allows the user to identify those clusters and name them, as I have done above. Further, you can explore your network by hovering over the individual dots that represent people.

Essentially, five groups arise from my network: Family, Friends, and Educators on the left; Dean Health Plan at the top; CPM Healthgrades at the upper right; the UW Health System, which is composed of the University of Wisconsin Medical Foundation (UWMF), the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics (UWHC), and the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health (UWSMPH); and finally the SAS Institute at the bottom.

The lab isn't perfectly accurate, but it is pretty good. I checked out a number of individuals and some don't make sense, but most do. As an example, my wife is one of the larger dots on the left, which makes sense, since she also has networked with our friends and family on LinkedIn (although I usually avoid doing so for a number of reasons).

The UW Health cluster is visually split, but there is apparent movement and interrelationship between the organizations. There are some people who traveled between the UW and Dean, one way or another. The same is true between Dean and CPM, with most, I believe coming from Dean to CPM. There are some hubs in each organization, likely managers, project managers, or other people who attended a lot of meetings (I think one of the big dots at Dean was an IT manager who sat in on a lot of projects).

Aside from family and friends, SAS is probably the oddest group. I have some connections, and they seem to be somewhat strong. Before I attended the SAS Global Forum, this chart may have looked quite different, since I made many more connections after the conference. The chart also shows how well-developed my connections were at Dean and the UW, and how I'm still fairly new at CPM. (I bet if I ran this today it would look a bit better developed.)

Of course, charts like these leave out people who aren't on such sites as LinkedIn, but I would think that all the other people would compensate for them when graphed like this. Additionally, I don't have much of a network for old jobs like the ones I had in college, nor have I really networked much with fellow college classmates.

It would be interesting to see what other people's networks look like, especially people who are essentially professional networkers, like HR professionals or recruiters. How do networks in different industries look (mine is mostly health care)? What if you have someone who only networks with family or friends? What does that show? Perhaps different geographic locations you've lived in? How about someone who is a world traveler?

This type of graph is very powerful in that makes you think about the data behind it and ask such questions as I have done. It opens up doors we haven't thought of and inspires curiosity.

What About Gas Prices?

Recently there's been a lot of hubbub about gas prices. While high, gas prices are not as high as many other things people buy, especially some things people buy on a daily basis, like coffee. For my family, I can demonstrate that the cost of gas is not as big a concern and not as big a budget item. Using Mint.com, my credit and debit cards, my wife's credit and debit cards, and many other financial accounts are linked and the transactions pooled together and categorized. Using this tool, I graphed the entire year of spending in 2010 in seconds:



Note: "Everything Else" includes Gifts and Donations, Health and Fitness, Uncategorized (cash and some checks), Travel, Business Services, Personal Care, Pets, Entertainment, and Fees and Charges. I also separated "Gas and Fuel" from "Auto and Transport" to demonstrate my point. What's left in in "Auto and Transport" includes Parking, Services and Parts, Auto Insurance, and "Other" (state transportation fees). Restaurants, coffee shops, and alcohol were included in Food and Dining, but I split those out into "Restaurants, etc.".

Our family probably does not spend like other families. We're generally fiscally conservative. We do like to buy good, healthy, and (when we can) local food, so our food prices are high. We don't splurge on electronics, entertainment, fancy phone or cable services, or personal care. We also minimize driving, which keeps auto costs lower. Both our drives to work are within 15 minutes. On the other hand we have a lot of educational debt. Even so, that's still a relatively small percentage of expenses. It should be no surprise that the top of the list is housing. That's probably true for just about anyone at any income level.

So what concerns me more? The cost of fuel or something else? Even as the cost of gas has risen, I'm not as concerned as I am about the cost of food, which is partly related to the cost of gas. However, there are more insidious factors in the cost of food: Wall Street.

As quoted by BoingBoing author Mark Frauenfelder, Frederick Kaufman wrote, in an article titled How Goldman Sachs Created the Food Crisis:

[T]he boom in new speculative opportunities in global grain, edible oil, and livestock markets has created a vicious cycle. The more the price of food commodities increases, the more money pours into the sector, and the higher prices rise. Indeed, from 2003 to 2008, the volume of index fund speculation increased by 1,900 percent. "What we are experiencing is a demand shock coming from a new category of participant in the commodities futures markets," hedge fund Michael Masters testified before Congress in the midst of the 2008 food crisis.

The result of Wall Street's venture into grain and feed and livestock has been a shock to the global food production and delivery system. Not only does the world's food supply have to contend with constricted supply and increased demand for real grain, but investment bankers have engineered an artificial upward pull on the price of grain futures. The result: Imaginary wheat dominates the price of real wheat, as speculators (traditionally one-fifth of the market) now outnumber bona-fide hedgers four-to-one.

Today, bankers and traders sit at the top of the food chain -- the carnivores of the system, devouring everyone and everything below. Near the bottom toils the farmer. For him, the rising price of grain should have been a windfall, but speculation has also created spikes in everything the farmer must buy to grow his grain -- from seed to fertilizer to diesel fuel. At the very bottom lies the consumer. The average American, who spends roughly 8 to 12 percent of her weekly paycheck on food, did not immediately feel the crunch of rising costs. But for the roughly 2-billion people across the world who spend more than 50 percent of their income on food, the effects have been staggering: 250 million people joined the ranks of the hungry in 2008, bringing the total of the world's "food insecure" to a peak of 1 billion -- a number never seen before.

As you can see in my spending graph, "Food and Dining" consumes 13% of our budget, higher than the quoted 8-12%. This category originally included restaurants, coffee shops, and alcohol, which I moved into "Restaurants, etc.", and was at 18.5% of spending. With these items removed, it seems much more reasonable, but still high. About 4 times higher than gas prices!

Given that our expenditure is already higher than the estimate in the article, and that food prices are likely to increase due to this investment scheme as well as increased transportation costs due to gas prices, I am much more concerned about the cost of food. Occasionally I joke that my son eats so much I might as well buy a farm to feed him, and that's not that far from the truth. We do partake in local farmer's markets and a community farm, but even so, those prices will probably be affected too.

So take a look at your own expenses and critically examine what's really costly. And once you figure that out, take action to reduce the costs however you can. For me, I'll chose to vote for politicians who push for financial reform and continue to buy as much local, organic food as I can.

Funny Quote from Former Job

A while ago I found this odd quote from a research paper. Here's the quote (emphasis added):

Online courses provide scheduling flexibility to students facing scheduling conflicts. Also, they afford opportunities to at-risk students, elite athletes and performers, dropouts, migrant youth, pregnant or incarcerated students, and students who are homebound due to illness or injury or homeschooled, allowing them to study outside the classroom. (Watson, 2007)

Why on earth would a someone write a sentence linking pregnant and incarcerated students? I realize it says "or," but it's still just a bit strange to grammatically combine these two types of students. There are other students listed, so why not separate them? Is there something similar about being pregnant and incarcerated?