Another Graph

[dales]

[rubato]

Do you have a link to the source of the graph, an article perhaps?

Can you describe what your graph says?

yrs,
rubato

[Joe Guy]

[dales]

Do you have a link to the source of the graph, an article perhaps?

Can you describe what your graph says?

yrs,
rubato

No URL, I thought the graph was self-explanatory then again perhaps not.

[Joe Guy]

Link to article.

[dales]

Thanks, Joe!

[Lord Jim]

No URL, I thought the graph was self-explanatory then again perhaps not.

Well it was self-explanatory to me... (and probably most folks with at least a high school education...)

But the Santa Cruz Pseudo Scientist, despite his fetish for posting them, has repeatedly demonstrated a singular inability to interpret simple graphs, charts and tables....

It's part of what makes him so damn amusing...

[RayThom]

[oldr_n_wsr]

Who told on us?!?!?

[rubato]

Do you have a link to the source of the graph, an article perhaps?

Can you describe what your graph says?

yrs,
rubato

No URL, I thought the graph was self-explanatory then again perhaps not.

So you don't actually know what it says. As I expected.



yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

No URL, I thought the graph was self-explanatory then again perhaps not.

Well it was self-explanatory to me... (and probably most folks with at least a high school education...)

But the Santa Cruz Pseudo Scientist, despite his fetish for posting them, has repeatedly demonstrated a singular inability to interpret simple graphs, charts and tables....

It's part of what makes him so damn amusing...

And what do you think it says? Tell us, if you are able.



yrs,
rubato

[dales]

Do you have a link to the source of the graph, an article perhaps?

Can you describe what your graph says?

yrs,
rubato

No URL, I thought the graph was self-explanatory then again perhaps not.

So you don't actually know what it says. As I expected.



yrs,
rubato

Joe provided a URL, I'm not going to read it to you.

Silly boy

[Long Run]

It is very thoughtful of these cities to provide such a good economics lesson -- raising prices substantially will result in less of that thing, whether it is donuts or labor. And, even with gas and energy prices at extremely low levels, the economy has gone into slowdown, which, of course, is the perfect time for a 10 to 30% increase in the minimum wage.

[Lord Jim]

which, of course, is the perfect time for a 10 to 30% increase in the minimum wage.

That would be modest; the Dems are calling for a 60-100% increase...

The data from D.C. are the most reliable because they are confined to the city limits. The latest data show that job gains ground to a halt in the nation’s capital in 2015, with average monthly leisure and hospitality sector employment in the fourth quarter virtually unchanged from a year earlier. That was a sharp drop from the 3% annual job gains in 2014, meaning restaurants, hotels and other employers went from adding 2,000 jobs to adding zero. That’s no small thing in a city with a 6.6% jobless rate.

The timing coincides with the $1 minimum-wage hike to $10.50 an hour last July. That jump followed a boost from $8.25 to $9.50 an hour that took effect in mid-2014. Another jump to $11.50 is set for this July.

http://www.investors.com/news/economy/h ... d-in-2015/

What this data indicates is that it is possible in certain circumstances to raise the minimum wage the minimum wage somewhat without damaging the jobs picture, but if you raise it too far too fast, you're going to hurt employment. (This really isn't surprising; it reflects pure logic.)

Joe provided a URL, I'm not going to read it to you.

One of the other really amusing things about rube is the way in which when he doesn't understand something simple and obvious, he insists on broadcasting this inability repeatedly. This latest example is similar to the way he kept drawing attention to his inability to understand the article I posted about Krugman, and his seeming inability to comprehend the blatantly anti-semitic nature of the comment he made that I have quoted several times.

There are many, many other examples. (Like his repeated inability to absorb the factual information I have posted completely disproving his ignorant belief that Nazism was some how Christianity based.)

It won't surprise me a bit if he returns yet again to this thread to say, "See! See! Nobody can explain that graph!"

I'm beginning to think that rube may have some sort of organic brain disorder that prevents him from recognizing or understanding any factual data that conflicts with his preconceived views and ideology. His brain can't synthesize it, so he can't even see it.

So it's not that he can't understand a graph this simple per se; it's that he is incapable of understanding it because it conflicts with preconceived views. His cognitive ability simply shuts down when presented with information like that.

This, combined with his adolescent arrested brain development that prevents him from thinking in anything other than simplistic binary terms (Science good, Religion bad, Liberals good, Conservatives bad, Democrats good, Republicans bad, etc, etc, etc) has severely handicapped his reasoning functions.

I am coming to the conclusion that his brain is simply organically incapable of perceiving reality in a fully formed and developed way.

[Joe Guy]

It's a case of rubatism.

[ex-khobar Andy]

I'm with Rube on this, and I use graphs every day.

Why the dotted red line which is apparently DC? I was trying to figure out why it should be different from the rest until I went to the source and found it had been added with no explanation. I still don't know what it means. The X axis is obviously years. We know that the minimum wage increase came in during 2015 (last year) so where is that on the X axis? It may be that the black line LA LB Glendale shows a recovery after the increase, and if you do not show where that was it is not possible to convey the message. And finally, if you want to make the point that the increases led to job losses, which I presume was the point, add some non cherry picked data from cities which did not increase minimum wage. As it is, this is an incomprehensible graph which fails to make the point for which it was apparently constructed.

[Lord Jim]

Okay...

I'm really puzzled as to why anybody would have a problem with this, (it looks extremely straight forward to me) but here goes:

The dotted line is not DC; the blue line is DC...

The red line is SF-Oakland-Hayward, and the black line is LA-Long Beach Glendale...(The red dotted line is clearly intended to reflect the overall downward trajectory of all three...for anyone who finds this confusing for some reason, you can see the graph without the red dotted line by going to the link with the article )

The Y axis clearly represents the percentage increase in jobs or loss of jobs in the leisure and hospitality sectors. Again, if anyone is confused, just read the text in the article, and this becomes even more clear than it already is:

http://www.investors.com/news/economy/h ... d-in-2015/

There is absolutely nothing "incomprehensible" about this graph; far from it...

Saying that it would be interesting to compare these results with job increase/loss in these sectors in similar communities (ie communities that do a lot of tourist business) where the minimum wage was not increased during the same period of time is a legitimate point. However that has nothing to do with the ease with which one can interpret this very simple graph...