3 ms·

I don't mean to be crabby, but the infographic explicitly mentions that some of the jobs are from the service industry. If you look at the infographic in contex

by antics 15y ago

I don't mean to be crabby, but the infographic explicitly mentions that some of the jobs are from the service industry. If you look at the infographic in context[1], it lists the source[2]. Also, while I generally agree with your point about this meriting a very detailed and thorough analysis, I do not believe that it was "intentionally" misleading any more than my disagreement with you indicates that you are also being intentionally misleading. IMO, that comment (along with your guess about what is and is not "quality") is not helping in your goal of making this a constructive conversation. [1] http://maddox.xmission.com/ http://maddox.xmission.com/ [2] http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs038.htm http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs038.htm

malandrew 15y ago
I have no doubt that there is a discrepancy between the 361,900 figure from the BLS and the over 2 million figure from the MPAA, but that info graphic just isn't clear on several points and clouds the discussion. TBH, you may be right that I am wrong about it being intentionally misleading. It may just be confusing design due to proximity. But if that is the case, I wouldn't be surprised if agenda played some role in clouding out better judgement in how it was designed. I'm still trying to figure out if the 25% refers to: (a) 361,900 jobs, meaning there are 1,080,700 creative jobs in the industry for a total of 1,447,600 people employed; or (b) 25% of the 361,900, meaning that 90,475 people are doing jobs like janitor and concessions and that 271,425 are creative jobs. FYI, I removed the word "intentionally" from my original comment. I agree that including it wasn't constructive. Plus, the same argument can be applied to tech companies. It's disingenuous to talk about people like janitors and cooks and whatnot, when people in every industry need to eat and have the spaces they occupy cleaned up and cared for. The author of the info graphic shouldn't have discounted those jobs from the MPAA's figures without also discounting them from the tech industry figures as well. I'm as anti-SOPA and anti-PIPA as anyone here on HN, but truth and transparency are more important than agenda, and if you give those up, you become those you are critizing.

by antics 15y ago

malandrew 15y ago

I have no doubt that there is a discrepancy between the 361,900 figure from the BLS and the over 2 million figure from the MPAA, but that info graphic just isn't clear on several points and clouds the discussion. TBH, you may be right that I am wrong about it being intentionally misleading. It may just be confusing design due to proximity. But if that is the case, I wouldn't be surprised if agenda played some role in clouding out better judgement in how it was designed. I'm still trying to figure out if the 25% refers to: (a) 361,900 jobs, meaning there are 1,080,700 creative jobs in the industry for a total of 1,447,600 people employed; or (b) 25% of the 361,900, meaning that 90,475 people are doing jobs like janitor and concessions and that 271,425 are creative jobs. FYI, I removed the word "intentionally" from my original comment. I agree that including it wasn't constructive. Plus, the same argument can be applied to tech companies. It's disingenuous to talk about people like janitors and cooks and whatnot, when people in every industry need to eat and have the spaces they occupy cleaned up and cared for. The author of the info graphic shouldn't have discounted those jobs from the MPAA's figures without also discounting them from the tech industry figures as well. I'm as anti-SOPA and anti-PIPA as anyone here on HN, but truth and transparency are more important than agenda, and if you give those up, you become those you are critizing.