# Category Archives: Ordinary Differential Equations

## Is Long-Term Unemployment THE Problem

Since the late 1970’s the number of US workers unemployed for 27 weeks or more has generally lingered between one and two million, even during recessions. The ’08-’09 recession and recovery period were different: long-term unemployment exploded to a peak of 6.7 million in April of 2010. It lingered above six million for 17 months before falling in October 2011. Since then the level has declined steadily, but very slowly.

There’s a tendency with noisy data to look for linear trends, but I don’t think it’s the right way to analyze long term unemployment. To begin, looking for a job is a job in itself, and when a person is locked out from formal job–>paycheck ways of earning a living, he or she has to find other ways. That means getting public assistance, asking help from friends, family, and community organizations, doing side work or day labor for cash payments, etc. These all take mucho time, and generally have a very low return. For this reason, I assert that being long-term unemployed can be thought of as an occupation in itself. The corollary is that long-term unemployed folks returning to work is a form of occupational mobility.

In addition, if you’re employed there’s a pretty good chance you know very few (if any) long-term unemployed folks…..Unless you’re very active in your church, community, and social networks like LinkedIn, of course. Even then, you’re probably locked out of regular interaction by circumstance. This isn’t a value judgment–it’s just the nature of human interactions. Long-term unemployed people tend to network with others in the same circumstance and share information. Connections tend to play a gigantic role in finding formal work in a slack labor market, but reducing the pool of the long-term unemployed leads to disconnection for those remaining in it. While it would be nice to think that the long-term unemployed would be able to pull their unemployed friends along, this just isn’t the case. Instead, the rate of job finding in the remaining pool slows as information sharing is reduced.

When examining the long-term unemployment trend post-recession, there are two distinct pieces–the relative steady state beginning in April 2010 and the decline beginning in October 2011. Because of the dynamics I described above I decided the best way to analyze + predict from the measured data was with a deterministic trend; as a first-order ODE specifically. I took the measured data beginning in September 2011 and worked out a long-term predictive trend based on it:

The data smooths out to a disturbing trend where an average of 1.715% of the pool of long-term unemployed individuals find work or exit the labor force in any given month. If we assume the recovery continues as it has, the number of people long-term unemployed will decline to about 2.07 million when the current US President leaves office–a number higher the previous ceiling of 2 million and way above what’s been normal during expansions. In my opinion, this shifts the long-term unemployment problem from being just an economic problem to being a political problem. It will be very troublesome for the next Democratic Presidential nominee to have to defend this kind of economic record, and will be an issue the Republican nominee can seize upon.

Of course, “the recovery will continue as it has” is a big assumption. I’ve run the trend line out longer than the data I’m using, which is pretty gutsy to do. However, data from prior expansions show this is a reasonable expectation, and the trend seems to have reached a steady, if undesirable, equilibrium. Anything can happen in the next couple of years to grow the job market, but if history is an indicator, just growing the job market won’t be enough. What will really be needed are more entry level jobs in every industry. As I mentioned previously, entry level jobs have been in short supply, and are simply needed in general. Can the long term unemployed–with all the stigma that has been unfairly attached to them–be expected to compete successfully with the already working? I don’t think they can. In my opinion this is an economic problem that requires a political solution–one that could come in many forms–from tax credits, to paid placement, to direct hiring. If the current administration doesn’t successfully address it, the next one will have to.

The finest GagVid I’ve seen this week….Don’t worry, it’s clean:

## Bifurcating FitzHugh-Nagumo

“I am a spec on a spec of a planet in the spec of a solar system in one galaxy of millions in the known Universe. My Universe is like a ring in the desert compared to the Footstool of God. And the Footstool like a ring in the desert compared to the Throne of God.”

–American Muslimah

The amount of research done on brains, neurons, neuro-chemicals, etc….is astounding. No matter whom your favorite neuroscientist is you can rest assured that his or her knowledge barely scratches the surface of all that is known about human brains, or even Bumble Bee brains for that matter. But even all that’s known is but a “ring in the desert” compared to all that can be known–to all that will one day be known.

Hodgkin and Huxley developed their model of axonal behavior in the European Giant Squid in the late 1940s and published it in 1952. It was a game changer for two main reasons–first because it accounted for the action of Sodium and Potassium channels, and second because it stood up to experiment. It is a shining example of mathematical biological modeling from first principles.

FitzHugh and Nagumo based their model partially on the Hodgkin-Huxley equation, partly on the van der Pol equation, and partly on experimental data. While it’s not as accurate as the H-H equation relative to experiment, it’s much easier to analyze mathematically and captures most of the important attributes. It’s also been successfully applied to the behavior of neural ganglia and cardiac muscle. There are many different interpretations of the FitzHugh Nagumo systems of equations. The readiest on-line tool for examining them was created by Mike Martin.

In this post I’m working with a slightly modified version of the forms described by Ermentrout and Terman:

As you can see, this is a system of ordinary differential equations. The second equation has the quality of stabilizing the first. In a sense, it acts like an independent damper on changes in voltage when current is applied to an axon. Like the van der Pol equations, it’s non-linear and deterministic, and doesn’t easily lend itself to analytical solutions.

One thing you can’t see with Dr Martin’s tool is an interesting phenomenon that frequently occurs with these sort of equations: the Hopf Bifurcation. The only equation parameter that can be easily changed during experiment is the applied current. By programming the equations and calculating across a range of currents, it can be determined when an applied current produces unstable voltage oscillations. The point at which it becomes unstable is known as the critical point or Hopf point, and as long as the region of instability doesn’t extend to infinity, there will be one on each side. According to Steven Baer, the critical points for Ermentrout and Terman’s system are found at:

Enough about all that. Using parameter values of a = 0.8, epsilon = 0.5, and gamma = 0.2, I punched it out using my MatLab program FHNBifurc, and also ran it with XPP. XPP is no-frills and a little bit glitchy, but it’s awesome for solving systems of ODEs and it’s a champ of a program for bifurcation analysis. The installation is a little tricky, but it’s totally free–no spyware or anything else attached. If you haven’t at least toyed around with it, you should.

The MatLab program works by drawing the diagram in two directions–from the right in red and from the left in blue. The calculated critical points are shown as white stars. Ideally, the bifurcations should begin at those points, but as you can see, they don’t show up perfectly. That’s the image on the left. The best use of the program I’ve found is that it can be used to search across a wide range of currents to determine if and where instability occurs. I ran the same stuff with XPP’/Auto, and it gave me the figure on the right. Auto’s kind of a bear to get to the first time, but do it once and you’re set for life.

I also did a final run with Matlab, this time a smaller range with a lot more iterations. Took my computer about 10 minutes to complete it, so make sure you’ve got enough memory and processing speed before you try it. I edited-in the critical point solutions, FYI:

You can see why the FitzHugh-Nagumo equations are called eliptical. The MatLab program is great for scanning a wide range of values and locating the range of the bifurcation. Auto is way primo for drawing their shapes. Here’s the code for the XPP file:

# FitzHugh-Nagumo equations # fhnbifurc.ode dv/dt=-v*(v-1)*(v-a)-w+i dw/dt=e*(v-g*w) parameter a=0.8, e=0.5, g=0.2, i=0 @ total=50000, dt=1, xhi=50000., MAXSTOR=100000,meth=gear, tol=.01 done

The MatLab call looks like this:

**FHNBifurc(a,eps,gamma,I1,IF,tspan,tstep)**

a = value of a eps = value of epsilon gamma = value of gamma

I1 = initial current value IF = final current value

tspan = time span over which current is scanned

tstep = how short the time steps should be for the calculation

The specific call for the 0 to 10 scan was:

**FHNBifurc(0.8,0.5,0.2,0,10,100000,0.01)**

and for the more detailed diagram:

**FHNBifurc(0.8,0.5,0.2,1.5,5,100000,0.001)**

As always, the complete code is below. Cheers!

PS–Did you like The Sexy Universe on Facebook yet?

function FHNBifurc(a,eps,gamma,I1,IF,tspan,tstep) steps = tspan/tstep; Iramp = (IF-I1)/steps; V(1) = 0; W(1) = 0; I(1) = I1; for n = 1:(steps-1) In = I(n); Vn = V(n); Wn = W(n); fV = Vn*(Vn-1)*(Vn-a); dVdt = -fV - Wn + In; dWdt = eps*(Vn - gamma*Wn); V(n+1) = Vn + dVdt*tstep; W(n+1) = Wn + dWdt*tstep; I(n+1) = In + Iramp; end IFwd = I; VFwd = V; WFwd = W; V(1) = 0; W(1) = 0; I(1) = IF; Iramp = -Iramp; for n = 1:(steps-1) In = I(n); Vn = V(n); Wn = W(n); fV = Vn*(Vn-1)*(Vn-a); dVdt = -fV - Wn + In; dWdt = eps*(Vn - gamma*Wn); V(n+1) = Vn + dVdt*tstep; W(n+1) = Wn + dWdt*tstep; I(n+1) = In + Iramp; end IRev = I; VRev = V; WRev = W; Vcr(1) = (a+1-sqrt(a^2 - a + (1-3*eps*gamma)))/3; Vcr(2) = (a+1+sqrt(a^2 - a + (1-3*eps*gamma)))/3; for n=1:2 Icr(n) = (Vcr(n)/gamma) + Vcr(n)*(Vcr(n)-1)*(Vcr(n)-a); end Vcr Icr plot(IFwd,VFwd,'-r',IRev,VRev,'-b',Icr,Vcr,'*w') xlabel('Current (I)') ylabel('Voltage (V)')