6 ms·

Article points out one thing (moving away from the gold standard) that happened in 1971, but ignores all other cultural and social changes. If you believe the

Article points out one thing (moving away from the gold standard) that happened in 1971, but ignores all other cultural and social changes. If you believe the economy takes time to change, then you might as well blame the voting rights act in 1965, or Loving vs Virginia in '67, or the proliferation of terminals in mainframe computers in the early 70s. Very incomplete analysis, and lots of graphs with questionable predicted values - given the persuasive nature of the site.

dTal 7y ago
A priori, one wouldn't expect those things to have such a dramatic and sudden effect. If you start from the mysterious graphs of many different financial metrics all going berserk at virtually the same instant - like someone snapping their fingers - you start to ask yourself "what seismic shift happened in the financial world at this point? What fundamental change was made here?" And if you ask this question in good faith, the answer bubbles right up.
- orf 7y ago
  Removing the gold standard caused more people to get divorced?
  - _-david-_ 7y ago
    If the removal of the gold standard caused economic issues as the OP is suggesting then it could have been an indirect cause of divorce. Money is one the largest causes of divorce after all.
  - vlucas 7y ago
    Economic issues leading to money issues, yes - maybe. The leading cause of relationship stress is money. The two most frequently cited causes of relationship stress and divorce are money and sex.
- asfarley 7y ago
  What triggered this investigation? I agree that it does look like a phase-change. But did you throw out any graphs that didn't have a phase-change appearance? I'm genuinely curious. Seems like there are different arguments below-the-surface in this thread.
  - dTal 7y ago
    For me, what triggered it was noticing several startling graphs that all seemed to show a) something sudden, b) at the same time. I started collecting such graphs. It appears the author of this website has done the same. Note that all the "commentary" is embedded in the images - there's no indication that the webmaster has any agenda beyond mine (although the various graph publishers might). I don't really understand your question about throwing out graphs that don't show a phase-change. There are infinite unrelated graphs. "But, your honor, consider all these photos of my client not murdering the deceased!"
    - bobwaycott 7y ago
      > I don't really understand your question about throwing out graphs that don't show a phase-change. There are infinite unrelated graphs. Unrelated in what sense? Your example seems a bit of a straw man. What other graphs of economic activity and change do not show a significant and sudden shift at ~1971 (is what I think the parent is asking)?
      - asfarley 7y ago
        Yes, this is what I meant. To be clear, I'm not accusing anyone of intentionally being misleading. But consider this process: 1) Notice an inflection 2) Search through a near-infinite number of economic indicators 3) Select those other indicators bearing an inflection-point This is very non-Baysian.
    - asfarley 7y ago
      Well it sounds strange the way you say it, but video evidence of someone not committing a crime is often a pretty good alibi, right?
- flukus 7y ago
  The data sets are mostly confined to the US but it's describing a global (developed world anyway) issue. In that sense it seems like cherry picking rather than an honest look at the data trying to find a cause.
JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> but ignores all other cultural and social changes Also, plays with the x-axis as convenient. And selective sourcing. Talking about income inequality? Cut it off around WWI. Chart showing banking crises? No source showing how they're counting crises. (Surprising lack of them in the 19th century, given multiple empires collapsed in that period.) Savings rate? Post-GI bill only. To say nothing of the liberal mis-use of nominal versus real dollars, et cetera.
- dTal 7y ago
  Note that this is just a disorganized collection of graphs made by third parties, not an article or indeed an attempt to make any sort of a point beyond "hey check this out". There's no commentary of any kind, beyond that which the original graph authors put in themselves.
dwd 7y ago
The one graph missing from this is the workplace participation rate for women which increased rapidly from an average of 47% to 65% between 1972 and 1984 for OECD countries. A large number of households would have gone from having a single breadwinner to two as more women entered the workforce. The expansion of the pool for workers would have had a supply-side impact on wages. Initially many households would have seen their joint income increase substantially but most likely resulted in downward pressure on wages that saw that gain eaten away. Two wages then became the new normal for later generations.
- dTal 7y ago
  There doesn't seem to be any inflection point in that graph, so I'm not sure why you consider it relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_force_in_the_United_States#/media/File:US_Labor_Participation_Rate_by_gender.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_force_in_the_United_Stat...
  - dwd 7y ago
    Not for the US which started earlier after the Equal Pay for Equal Work Act was signed. The graph for OECD countries on average which includes the US turns in the early 70s. From a report on Japanese women participation going the opposite direction. https://www.hamiltonproject.org/ee-ce-image/made/assets/img/uploads/wysiwyg/papers/economic_analyses/japan_women_labor_force_participation/01_labor_force_participation_prime_age_women_oecd_countries_800_422_80.jpg https://www.hamiltonproject.org/ee-ce-image/made/assets/img/...

dTal 7y ago

A priori, one wouldn't expect those things to have such a dramatic and sudden effect. If you start from the mysterious graphs of many different financial metrics all going berserk at virtually the same instant - like someone snapping their fingers - you start to ask yourself "what seismic shift happened in the financial world at this point? What fundamental change was made here?" And if you ask this question in good faith, the answer bubbles right up.

orf 7y ago
Removing the gold standard caused more people to get divorced?
- _-david-_ 7y ago
  If the removal of the gold standard caused economic issues as the OP is suggesting then it could have been an indirect cause of divorce. Money is one the largest causes of divorce after all.
- vlucas 7y ago
  Economic issues leading to money issues, yes - maybe. The leading cause of relationship stress is money. The two most frequently cited causes of relationship stress and divorce are money and sex.
asfarley 7y ago
What triggered this investigation? I agree that it does look like a phase-change. But did you throw out any graphs that didn't have a phase-change appearance? I'm genuinely curious. Seems like there are different arguments below-the-surface in this thread.
- dTal 7y ago
  For me, what triggered it was noticing several startling graphs that all seemed to show a) something sudden, b) at the same time. I started collecting such graphs. It appears the author of this website has done the same. Note that all the "commentary" is embedded in the images - there's no indication that the webmaster has any agenda beyond mine (although the various graph publishers might). I don't really understand your question about throwing out graphs that don't show a phase-change. There are infinite unrelated graphs. "But, your honor, consider all these photos of my client not murdering the deceased!"
  - bobwaycott 7y ago
    > I don't really understand your question about throwing out graphs that don't show a phase-change. There are infinite unrelated graphs. Unrelated in what sense? Your example seems a bit of a straw man. What other graphs of economic activity and change do not show a significant and sudden shift at ~1971 (is what I think the parent is asking)?
    - asfarley 7y ago
      Yes, this is what I meant. To be clear, I'm not accusing anyone of intentionally being misleading. But consider this process: 1) Notice an inflection 2) Search through a near-infinite number of economic indicators 3) Select those other indicators bearing an inflection-point This is very non-Baysian.
  - asfarley 7y ago
    Well it sounds strange the way you say it, but video evidence of someone not committing a crime is often a pretty good alibi, right?
flukus 7y ago
The data sets are mostly confined to the US but it's describing a global (developed world anyway) issue. In that sense it seems like cherry picking rather than an honest look at the data trying to find a cause.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago

> but ignores all other cultural and social changes Also, plays with the x-axis as convenient. And selective sourcing. Talking about income inequality? Cut it off around WWI. Chart showing banking crises? No source showing how they're counting crises. (Surprising lack of them in the 19th century, given multiple empires collapsed in that period.) Savings rate? Post-GI bill only. To say nothing of the liberal mis-use of nominal versus real dollars, et cetera.

dTal 7y ago
Note that this is just a disorganized collection of graphs made by third parties, not an article or indeed an attempt to make any sort of a point beyond "hey check this out". There's no commentary of any kind, beyond that which the original graph authors put in themselves.

dwd 7y ago

The one graph missing from this is the workplace participation rate for women which increased rapidly from an average of 47% to 65% between 1972 and 1984 for OECD countries. A large number of households would have gone from having a single breadwinner to two as more women entered the workforce. The expansion of the pool for workers would have had a supply-side impact on wages. Initially many households would have seen their joint income increase substantially but most likely resulted in downward pressure on wages that saw that gain eaten away. Two wages then became the new normal for later generations.

dTal 7y ago
There doesn't seem to be any inflection point in that graph, so I'm not sure why you consider it relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_force_in_the_United_States#/media/File:US_Labor_Participation_Rate_by_gender.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_force_in_the_United_Stat...
- dwd 7y ago
  Not for the US which started earlier after the Equal Pay for Equal Work Act was signed. The graph for OECD countries on average which includes the US turns in the early 70s. From a report on Japanese women participation going the opposite direction. https://www.hamiltonproject.org/ee-ce-image/made/assets/img/uploads/wysiwyg/papers/economic_analyses/japan_women_labor_force_participation/01_labor_force_participation_prime_age_women_oecd_countries_800_422_80.jpg https://www.hamiltonproject.org/ee-ce-image/made/assets/img/...