Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
Report an error
Google searches for 'highest paying jobs' correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Food spending in Arizona | r=0.98 | 17yrs | No |
The number of university communications teachers in New York | r=0.98 | 18yrs | No |
The number of registered nurses in Texas | r=0.98 | 17yrs | No |
Muenster cheese consumption | r=0.98 | 18yrs | No |
Global Apple iPhone Sales in Q3 | r=0.97 | 12yrs | No |
The number of restaurant cooks in Arkansas | r=0.97 | 19yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Valentina | r=0.97 | 19yrs | No |
The distance between Neptune and Uranus | r=0.96 | 20yrs | No |
Food spending in Colorado | r=0.96 | 17yrs | No |
Food spending in Oregon | r=0.96 | 17yrs | No |
The number of restaurant cooks in Florida | r=0.96 | 19yrs | No |
Solar power generated in Czechia | r=0.96 | 18yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Liam | r=0.95 | 19yrs | No |
The number of accountants and auditors in Georgia | r=0.95 | 19yrs | No |
Annual US household spending on eggs | r=0.92 | 19yrs | No |
Google searches for 'highest paying jobs' also correlates with...
<< Back to discover a correlation
You caught me! While it would be intuitive to sort only by "correlation," I have a big, weird database. If I sort only by correlation, often all the top results are from some one or two very large datasets (like the weather or labor statistics), and it overwhelms the page.
I can't show you *all* the correlations, because my database would get too large and this page would take a very long time to load. Instead I opt to show you a subset, and I sort them by a magic system score. It starts with the correlation, but penalizes variables that repeat from the same dataset. (It also gives a bonus to variables I happen to find interesting.)