8 ms·

I would like to point out that those graphs are very misleading if not carefully read. For instance, the first is tuned to make it appear that college and high

I would like to point out that those graphs are very misleading if not carefully read. For instance, the first is tuned to make it appear that college and high school graduates are on exactly equal footing in mid-2006, whereas in fact in 2006 the median income of a high-school graduate with no higher education is $37,000, but the median income for a bachelor degree holder with no higher education is $60,000. It's useful for comparing the change in the two values over time, but it is not useful for comparing the values of the two at any given time. All I'm saying is, be careful not to let your intuition get in the way, and think carefully about what the graph is saying.

cinquemb 13y ago
I'm pretty sure both charts mention that they are rates or % change, if one needs a degree to read things carefully to not be mislead, we have bigger problems… All I'm saying is, if one wants to work 40+ years of their life putting a significant portion of ones increasingly diminishing difference of median income levels (which for those with high expectations for oneself, the difference is a joke anyways in the scheme of things) into 401k/403b/RothIRA's "invested" for them in the thing we call a stock "market", while paying off increasing larger debts for things one does not need to survive or to enjoy life and that's if one is apart of the decreasingly smaller group of those "successful" enough to come out "ahead" in that game, that's ones prerogative, not mine.
- delluminatus 13y ago
  I'm not attacking your position, just trying to clarify some graphs that are obviously confusing (whether deliberately or not I don't know). The whole purpose of a graph is that it makes information visually available and easily digestible. If you have to "read it carefully to not be mislead," that is a faulty graphic.
  - cinquemb 13y ago
    There isn't an agreed upon purpose of a graph, but luckily for us, there is for what a graph is: a diagram showing the relation between variable quantities, typically of two variables, each measured along one of a pair of axes at right angles.[0] I missed the part on "makes information visually available and easily digestible", but considering that you recognized it as a graph means that it did its job and everything else can be stroked upon to infinity, and like I said, we have bigger problems… I'm not attacking your clarification, just clarifying my original personal anecdote that was dependent on state of the status quo and its direction (rates and % change, respectively). [0] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/graph http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/graph
- argonaut 13y ago
  No, the graph is very misleading. The first one is not of rates of change, it's % relative to 2007. Which is a really really weird way to graph things.
  - cinquemb 13y ago
    Yet it clearly stated what it was measuring in the title regardless of if "really weird" or not. If I was reading a graph that measured % moles of two different substances in a solution over a period of time that was adjusted at t=x and mentioned for in the title, sure, some might see that as "really weird", but one will still be able to extract information from it and apply it in a context of a report (as BoA did in theirs and mine in my statement). But let me not sit here and type away on the internet and think that some graph is going to wipe away the cognitive dissonance of populations…
    - argonaut 13y ago
      The graph is misleading because it misleads the reader into believing that college grads and non-college grads made the same real wage in 2007, disguising the fact that there was a substantial gap between their wages at 2007. The fact that both wages fall a similiar percentage relative to 2007 only tells us that the gap between both wage classes remained the same, in effect telling us nothing. There are entire classes of misleading graphs that are misleading despite being technically, literally, valid. Your snark is not helping.
      - cinquemb 13y ago
        Telling us nothing, or you nothing? Let's have an example… x = 60,000, y = 30,000 with difference, d = 30,000 >the fact that both wages fall a similar percentage relative Let's pick some random rate and apply it to both, r = %10. Now what decreased more: %10 of x or %10 of y? >the gap between both wage classes remained the same Really? Do the math, and d is now = 27,000. I'm sure such math helps BoA in its positions in the private student loan market (and beyond) in such an environment. Let's not pretend that my snark stands in the way of your understanding, clearly you had that going for you anyways…
mikeyouse 13y ago
An actually useful graph that basically refutes that idiotic Zerohedge one; http://i.imgur.com/s3GqHl2.png http://i.imgur.com/s3GqHl2.png

cinquemb 13y ago

I'm pretty sure both charts mention that they are rates or % change, if one needs a degree to read things carefully to not be mislead, we have bigger problems… All I'm saying is, if one wants to work 40+ years of their life putting a significant portion of ones increasingly diminishing difference of median income levels (which for those with high expectations for oneself, the difference is a joke anyways in the scheme of things) into 401k/403b/RothIRA's "invested" for them in the thing we call a stock "market", while paying off increasing larger debts for things one does not need to survive or to enjoy life and that's if one is apart of the decreasingly smaller group of those "successful" enough to come out "ahead" in that game, that's ones prerogative, not mine.

delluminatus 13y ago
I'm not attacking your position, just trying to clarify some graphs that are obviously confusing (whether deliberately or not I don't know). The whole purpose of a graph is that it makes information visually available and easily digestible. If you have to "read it carefully to not be mislead," that is a faulty graphic.
- cinquemb 13y ago
  There isn't an agreed upon purpose of a graph, but luckily for us, there is for what a graph is: a diagram showing the relation between variable quantities, typically of two variables, each measured along one of a pair of axes at right angles.[0] I missed the part on "makes information visually available and easily digestible", but considering that you recognized it as a graph means that it did its job and everything else can be stroked upon to infinity, and like I said, we have bigger problems… I'm not attacking your clarification, just clarifying my original personal anecdote that was dependent on state of the status quo and its direction (rates and % change, respectively). [0] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/graph http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/graph
argonaut 13y ago
No, the graph is very misleading. The first one is not of rates of change, it's % relative to 2007. Which is a really really weird way to graph things.
- cinquemb 13y ago
  Yet it clearly stated what it was measuring in the title regardless of if "really weird" or not. If I was reading a graph that measured % moles of two different substances in a solution over a period of time that was adjusted at t=x and mentioned for in the title, sure, some might see that as "really weird", but one will still be able to extract information from it and apply it in a context of a report (as BoA did in theirs and mine in my statement). But let me not sit here and type away on the internet and think that some graph is going to wipe away the cognitive dissonance of populations…
  - argonaut 13y ago
    The graph is misleading because it misleads the reader into believing that college grads and non-college grads made the same real wage in 2007, disguising the fact that there was a substantial gap between their wages at 2007. The fact that both wages fall a similiar percentage relative to 2007 only tells us that the gap between both wage classes remained the same, in effect telling us nothing. There are entire classes of misleading graphs that are misleading despite being technically, literally, valid. Your snark is not helping.
    - cinquemb 13y ago
      Telling us nothing, or you nothing? Let's have an example… x = 60,000, y = 30,000 with difference, d = 30,000 >the fact that both wages fall a similar percentage relative Let's pick some random rate and apply it to both, r = %10. Now what decreased more: %10 of x or %10 of y? >the gap between both wage classes remained the same Really? Do the math, and d is now = 27,000. I'm sure such math helps BoA in its positions in the private student loan market (and beyond) in such an environment. Let's not pretend that my snark stands in the way of your understanding, clearly you had that going for you anyways…

mikeyouse 13y ago

An actually useful graph that basically refutes that idiotic Zerohedge one; http://i.imgur.com/s3GqHl2.png http://i.imgur.com/s3GqHl2.png