Are you brave enough to deal with THE CHART?

[cthulu2016]

Last edited Tue Jul 9, 2013, 01:00 PM - Edit history (3)

This chart is inconvenient, but not unimportant.

It identifies no villain. Whether this chart is explained by Obama being a bad egg, or the more sensible explanation that Republican obstructers are bad eggs, or a combination of both, the chart still exists.

It is a record of a reality, not merely a talking point or political football.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/a-potentially-tragic-taper/

This is a chart of the ratio of employed persons to the population, posted by Paul Krugman from Fed data. This measure can change due to demographics in the long term—older population, younger population, more women in the workforce, etc..

But we know the waterfall in 2008-2009 was not due to demographic trends. It's not like an extra 4% of the population all decided to retire early in 2008-2009 because they were so rich. The economy collapsed. A few million jobs went away. As the population continued to grow the economy was able to make barely enough jobs for that population growth, but not enough to repair the losses. One out of 20-25 jobs in America went to job-heaven and do not seem inclined to return.

Discuss. What does this mean to you? What does it mean about the political future short term and long term? What would you do to fix this, assuming it should be fixed?

[cthulu2016]

1. .

[cthulu2016]

4. -

[ananda]

2. I'm brave enough.

I'm just not sure I'm smart enough to understand it thoroughly.

But I do get the gist.

[cthulu2016]

3. Just that as we toss around the unemployment rate like a talking-point football, the

real picture adjusted for population size has been pretty flat and steady for years.

For good or ill, fixable or un-fixable, we are stabilized at a surprisingly steady new-normal of millions fewer jobs.

[dawg]

5. I think President Obama took steps that stopped the collapse in it's tracks, but ...

then he reverted to the economic centrism (read: center-right) that is apparently his default setting, leaving us stuck in a low-level depression that may not unwind for many more years.

To be fair, my favorite President (FDR) made the same mistake. To be a little less fair, people who don't study history hard enough are doomed to repeat it.

[geek tragedy]

6. People have accepted the lower participation rate as the new normal.

Pretty much, people have decided we really can't and won't do any better.

[Recursion]

10. Are there widgets we need going unmade?

We need to make unemployment dignified rather than trying to eradicate it. What the hell is the point of technology if we all still have to work?

[Dreamer Tatum]

7. The x axis runs over 5 percentage points.

Not good, but made overly dramatic using visual trickery.

[MineralMan]

8. I noticed that, too. Chartery.

Chartery - The art of manipulating the appearance of a chart by selecting scales that exaggerate the appearance. A very useful skill for people preparing presentations, allowing the presenter to use the raw appearance of the chart to make his or her point.

[Fumesucker]

12. In this case the same scale would also equally exaggerate any rise in the numbers

No one seems to deny that there was a significant drop in employment around 2008, the chart shows that and also shows that there has been no subsequent increase in the employment to population ratio.

[cthulu2016]

11. If you assume everything is propoganda...

There is nothing unusual about focusing a chart on the area of change. Krugman is an economist and that is how he would present the datum to a class, or in a paper or book.

The fact that folks not accustomed to charts might not read the axis is a fact.

But your identifying the perfectly proper presentation of data as "trickery" is quite silly.

And since the swing is something like 10 million Americans it is hardly a case of creating the appearance of a problem where none exists.

Also... is the objection that somebody could look at the chart and conclude that employment had dropped from 80% to 5% a sensible objection? The reality, if the chart were 1-100% on the x, would be something everyone knows did not happen.

I really have no idea how you think data should be presented, if not to be clear and usable to a person able to read a chart in the first place.

[BlueCheese]

14. The y-axis, you meant. n/t

[BlueCheese]

16. Krugman did address this kind of issue before.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/axes-of-evil/

I agree with you in general that limiting the range of the y-axis is often used to mislead, and one should be careful about doing so. I don't think that was Krugman's intent in this case, however.

[Recursion]

9. I can honestly claim consistency

I thought the labor participation rate was too high before. Unfortunately we haven't had the kind of wage restructurings that would make this drop more palatable.

[moondust]

13. Would also like to see plotted:

Part-time jobs.
Temporary jobs.

Probably even uglier.

[okaawhatever]

15. What does it mean to me? That you're another right wing hack trying to take over the site. I've

already noticed every other anti-Obama anti-government post of yours. I'll just add this.

[sibelian]

17. ...

... probably not...

[bemildred]

18. It means we moved about 4.5% of the civilian population out of the workforce.

And they have stayed there. And that means, among other things, a similar loss of tax revenue, and yet the deficit is declining.

So consider where we would be if that debacle had not occurred and those people still had good jobs ...

[Pretzel_Warrior]

19. I hate graphs with distorted scale

Not saying the point is invalid, but visually exaggerating it is a Foxnews trick.