3 ms·
If your implication is that the red arrow is just random, are we not looking at the same graphs? I'll grant that it looks to be cherry picking on maybe a couple
by hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
If your implication is that the red arrow is just random, are we not looking at the same graphs? I'll grant that it looks to be cherry picking on maybe a couple of the graphs, but clearly appears that something significant and non-random happened in the 1970-1972 period.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> clearly appears that something significant and non-random happened in the 1970-1972 period How are you cutting it off that cleanly? How about this: pick a chart and I'll find the data. We can then look at the numbers and see if something significant happened in '71.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y agoSure, how about the first 2 graphs on the linked site?
- bryanlarsen 2y agoIn both cases the point of divergence appears to be ~1975.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y agoAre we looking at the same graphs? To me, in both cases, there seems to be a clear change in the wage growth line right at 1971-72.
- bryanlarsen 2y agoThe only portion of the graph with divergence around 1971 in the first two graphs is the GDP line. The first graph is even worse -- the divergence is higher in the late 60's than it is in 1971.