4 ms·

i like how the 2nd graph is totally wrong: those numbers aren't in billions, but in millions. i guess no one understands how to read graphs anymore

by jumby 16y ago

crad 16y ago
Where's the source of the 2nd graph being wrong? It's labeled as billions and the article mentions "This year, retirement benefits—more than $6 billion—will exceed what the state is spending on higher education." That statement is in agreement with the graph.
- dminor 16y ago
  Yes, but the graph has it at $6,000 billion, i.e. $6 trillion.
  - crad 16y ago
    Ah yeah good catch...
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
alecco 16y ago
(2008) WSJ Editor's Resignation Is Criticized By Committee http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120949530982953531.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120949530982953531.html
dminor 16y ago
Not to mention the first graph would be far more useful if it displayed relative job losses rather than absolute.
- noahlt 16y ago
  Forgive my ignorance -- what does "relative job losses" mean, and how does it differ from "absolute job losses"?
  - muzz 16y ago
    I think he means as a percentage rather than absolute number. I doubt the state even has 1.2M public sector employees; this CNN article indicates 240,000 so even if every single one was fired it would still make the graph look like the public sector wasn't cut enough: http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/08/news/economy/california_pay_cuts/index.htm http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/08/news/economy/california_pay_...
  - stanleydrew 16y ago
    Relative meaning take the ratio of jobs lost to total jobs in each sector and compare.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- muzz 16y ago
  Yes but then it wouldn't make the (largely political) point that he wanted to make. The comparison itself seems odd. If the state's private sector loses 1.2M jobs, should the public sector shed a proportional number of employees i.e. teachers, firemen, policemen, prison guards, etc?
  - noahlt 16y ago
    His point isn't that the public sector should shed a proportional number of employees, but that the collective income of private sector taxpayers has decreased, yet they are forced to sustain public-sector pensions with that decreased income.
    - _delirium 16y ago
      How is that particular graph making that point? I can see for the 2nd pension-cost graph, but the job-losses graph appears to me to be implying "private-sector employment is falling much faster than public-sector employment". But, by using absolute numbers, it implies that the "correct" outcome, where the two curves would roughly track each other, would be for public-sector job losses in raw numbers to be equal to private-sector job losses, which would be absurd given the large difference in total jobs. With those scales, there is almost no economic situation that would result in the public-sector line being anything but flat, because its raw numbers are far too small to register much of a blip in either direction. It's hard for me to come up with a good reason for that particular choice of graph other than "political spin". One of many reasons I've switched to reading The Economist rather than the Wall Street Journal for economics-meets-politics news, since the Economist makes a more conscientious effort imo to avoid slanting their data or infographics in the direction of their editorial line (and they do take roughly the same free-market editorial line).
roc 16y ago
To be fair, most readers aren't even listening to the arguments, so it doesn't matter if the graph is right or wrong. They've settled on a conclusion before they even looked at the data, let alone read the article. Given how difficult it is to collect all the necessary data for actual objective analysis and how little that ultimately influences any party policy, I'm not even sure you can blame the readers. You can rest assured that each party-line talking head is going to present skewed justifications that inevitably support their own preconceived conclusion. So what does anyone gain by reading through it? It's not like you can change the mind of a talking head by pointing out oversights, contradictions, or flat-out errors in their argument. I mean, does anyone honestly expect a party politician might sit down to analyze some data and come away with a policy that goes against the party philosophy? Any Californian politician knows whether they should solve the budget crisis with cuts or taxes long before they even knew how big the problem was or where the money went. Anymore, I'm fairly certain the only data involved in policy decisions are poll numbers.

i like how the 2nd graph is totally wrong: those numbers aren't in billions, but in millions. i guess no one understands how to read graphs anymore

by jumby 16y ago

i like how the 2nd graph is totally wrong: those numbers aren't in billions, but in millions. i guess no one understands how to read graphs anymore

crad 16y ago

Where's the source of the 2nd graph being wrong? It's labeled as billions and the article mentions "This year, retirement benefits—more than $6 billion—will exceed what the state is spending on higher education." That statement is in agreement with the graph.

dminor 16y ago
Yes, but the graph has it at $6,000 billion, i.e. $6 trillion.
- crad 16y ago
  Ah yeah good catch...
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

alecco 16y ago

(2008) WSJ Editor's Resignation Is Criticized By Committee http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120949530982953531.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120949530982953531.html

dminor 16y ago

Not to mention the first graph would be far more useful if it displayed relative job losses rather than absolute.

noahlt 16y ago
Forgive my ignorance -- what does "relative job losses" mean, and how does it differ from "absolute job losses"?
- muzz 16y ago
  I think he means as a percentage rather than absolute number. I doubt the state even has 1.2M public sector employees; this CNN article indicates 240,000 so even if every single one was fired it would still make the graph look like the public sector wasn't cut enough: http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/08/news/economy/california_pay_cuts/index.htm http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/08/news/economy/california_pay_...
- stanleydrew 16y ago
  Relative meaning take the ratio of jobs lost to total jobs in each sector and compare.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
muzz 16y ago
Yes but then it wouldn't make the (largely political) point that he wanted to make. The comparison itself seems odd. If the state's private sector loses 1.2M jobs, should the public sector shed a proportional number of employees i.e. teachers, firemen, policemen, prison guards, etc?
- noahlt 16y ago
  His point isn't that the public sector should shed a proportional number of employees, but that the collective income of private sector taxpayers has decreased, yet they are forced to sustain public-sector pensions with that decreased income.
  - _delirium 16y ago
    How is that particular graph making that point? I can see for the 2nd pension-cost graph, but the job-losses graph appears to me to be implying "private-sector employment is falling much faster than public-sector employment". But, by using absolute numbers, it implies that the "correct" outcome, where the two curves would roughly track each other, would be for public-sector job losses in raw numbers to be equal to private-sector job losses, which would be absurd given the large difference in total jobs. With those scales, there is almost no economic situation that would result in the public-sector line being anything but flat, because its raw numbers are far too small to register much of a blip in either direction. It's hard for me to come up with a good reason for that particular choice of graph other than "political spin". One of many reasons I've switched to reading The Economist rather than the Wall Street Journal for economics-meets-politics news, since the Economist makes a more conscientious effort imo to avoid slanting their data or infographics in the direction of their editorial line (and they do take roughly the same free-market editorial line).

roc 16y ago

To be fair, most readers aren't even listening to the arguments, so it doesn't matter if the graph is right or wrong. They've settled on a conclusion before they even looked at the data, let alone read the article. Given how difficult it is to collect all the necessary data for actual objective analysis and how little that ultimately influences any party policy, I'm not even sure you can blame the readers. You can rest assured that each party-line talking head is going to present skewed justifications that inevitably support their own preconceived conclusion. So what does anyone gain by reading through it? It's not like you can change the mind of a talking head by pointing out oversights, contradictions, or flat-out errors in their argument. I mean, does anyone honestly expect a party politician might sit down to analyze some data and come away with a policy that goes against the party philosophy? Any Californian politician knows whether they should solve the budget crisis with cuts or taxes long before they even knew how big the problem was or where the money went. Anymore, I'm fairly certain the only data involved in policy decisions are poll numbers.