Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

Same Data, Two Charts, Two Implications

Charles Franklin | February 17, 2010

This chart from Organizing for American drew a lot of comment today. On its face, it is a striking and strong contrast between the Bush and Obama records on jobs. From a purely graphical perspective it is very effective in contrasting the rate of job loss in the past two years, and from a perspective of political rhetoric it is a strong claim that Obama has done better. And it has proven very attention getting, so it has served that political purpose as well.

But let's plot the same data in an equally relevant but strikingly different way visually. Let's look at total jobs lost over the past two years. This is simply the data above, but summed to show how many jobs the economy has shed and therefore how deep the hole is we still have to climb out of.

The OfA chart gives the impression that we have "returned" to where we were in January 2008. The sharp rise since February 2009 gives the impression that what was lost in red has now been regained in blue. But of course, that isn't right. The rate of loss has indeed slowed tremendously in the first year of the Obama administration, something the White House has every right to crow about. But that doesn't mean we've returned to previous employment levels. In fact, we've continued to sink lower throughout the last year, just at a slower and slower rate.

This second chart makes that perspective on the data more clear. It is visually clear, if less dramatic than for OfA's chart, that the rate of job loss has slowed. But my version of the chart drives home the point that we have continued to lose jobs and now stand at over 8 million jobs lost since December of 2007. That is the other "deficit" the administration must worry about. The recovery, which GDP data show has started and at 5.7% growth in the 4th quarter is quite strong, will take a very long time to regain these lost jobs. This fact is made clear in my chart, while it is obscured in the OfA presentation.

Interestingly, my chart is also subtly deceptive. More jobs were lost in the last Bush year than were lost in the first Obama year. But the red lines look shorter and smaller than the blue Obama lines. That makes the graph appear to show that things are worse for Obama, even though his job losses are actually about 3 million compared to Bush's 5 million.

One can think of these two charts as data displays that reveal different aspects of data, but

also as graphical political rhetoric. The different aspects of data are the sharp reduction in the rate of job loss shown so well in the OfA chart and the terrible cumulative loss to employment in the country that has not yet started to rebound that is shown in my chart. Both of those are "true facts" about the jobs data. They use exactly the same data, so differences are entirely matters of perspective and perception rather than "apples to oranges" comparisons. But while both are true stories, their substantive interpretations are quite different-- one is a story of an administration's success is stemming the tide of recession, the other is the high water mark of that tide, which has yet to begin receding.

The other story is graph as rhetoric. The OfA is splendid rhetoric that seems to make an utterly persuasive point with simple yet bold graphics. But it is a rhetorical answer that conducts a slight of hand away from recovery of jobs lost to reductions in rate of loss. Credit worthy to be sure, but not so positive a result as the chart suggests. The rhetoric also succeeds because it has been so widely picked up and commented upon. Even the critics pass on the message that is sent by every viewing of the image.

My chart has its own rhetorical concerns. By focusing on the status of job losses, rather than their trajectory, mine shows the depths of job loss and the lack so far of a trend back up. Mine doesn't lie, because it too shows the reduction in rate of loss, but without a hint of even the beginning of recovery of jobs, mine clearly leaves the rhetorical impression that things are not only no better but are actually quite a bit worse than when Obama took office. The added optical illusion that the red bars are shorter than the blue, even though the opposite is the case, just adds to the false impression that most of the jobs troubles are within the Obama year.

Same data, two charts, two different impressions, both fundamentally true yet also fundamentally misleading in opposite ways. When data and politics mix beware the power of graphs to imply their own conclusions, even with the same data. And appreciate the rhetorical success of a graph that does it's creator's bidding.

By Charles Franklin | February 17, 2010 11:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBacks (0)

Comments

poughies:

Gre8 stuff... Perfect for my rhetoric course.

Posted on February 18, 2010 12:07 PM

____________________

BruceP:

The two charts may be rhetorically equivalent but only the second is politically relevant. No one votes on the first derivative of job creation, but on whether they have a job.

Posted on February 18, 2010 2:28 PM

____________________

GARY WAGNER:

If you want to make your graph even more striking, move the starting point back to October 2007 when the first budget Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid passed began. I've sent it to my liberal friends and they hate it but facts and figures can't lie, can they?

Its even more striking when you overlay the stock market on top of it. The DOW was over 14,000 the day that dudget began.

It's all smoke and mirrors, what you believe, and what you want people who look at it believe. As we have said for years in the IT field, if you can't dazzle them with graphics, bury them with bullshit.

Posted on February 18, 2010 2:58 PM

____________________

Xenobion:

Facts and figures can't lie but blinding people with a statement afterwards without knowning the underlying data is another thing. Like correlating Pelosi/Reid to these charts as if they were the sole contributor. I think the Bush/Obama chart is just as terrible to correlate Bush to that effect.

Posted on February 18, 2010 4:13 PM

____________________

AySz88:

There's a way to make the data look even more negative for Obama: calculate a "pain index" proportional to unemployment rate, then take its integral over time to calculate "accumulated pain over the recession". And I think it's more something like this last metric that has ended up color the far right electorate's perspective -- accumulated pain causes anger, and there's a lot of anger out there.

But it goes one more step the other way too: calculate the second derivative of unemployment, and you get something that measures which way the unemployment is "accelerating". And there's a sharp jump in that graph (as long as you smooth it out a little bit before taking the second derivative - else noise overwhelms the signal).

But I think it's probably unreasonable to believe that government management can create discontinuities in unemployment itself, or even the velocity of unemployment (rate of job loss). But it might have a hand on the way unemployment is accelerating -- and Obama's inauguration and stimulus plan clearly correlates a discontinuity in acceleration. The argument that the discontinuity is thanks to the stimulus holds a lot of water.

Posted on February 18, 2010 5:56 PM

____________________

AySz88:

Posted on February 18, 2010 5:58 PM

____________________

palerobber:

using (what amounts to) a bar graph instead of a line graph to chart cummulative values is highly misleading.

further, if you were going to use a misleading form like that, you could at least make it somewhat less misleading by not coloring all of bush's cummulative job losses blue in the right hand portion of the graph.

like this.

Posted on February 18, 2010 6:51 PM

____________________

Ross Ulmer:

palerobber: Obviously it is difficult to accurately and fairly convey complex information using graphical summaries even when that is the intent. However your method, unlike Franklin's graph, does a good job. It both captures the cumulative effect of many consecutive months of job losses and visually apportions these job losses across the two administrations fairly. In fact, it was precisely the graph I was going to suggest be created before I saw you had done so.

Posted on February 18, 2010 10:24 PM

____________________

Will Taylor:

It SEEMS like you've been clever and got to the underlying truth of the matter. After all:

"No one votes on the first derivative of job creation, but on whether they have a job."

Quite right, Bruce.

However, you've completely missed the message. Any administration cannot effect the number of jobs people have, it can't suddenly give a whole bunch of people jobs. All it can do is act as a force on the business arena to get people to start giving people jobs more of the time.

Take this analogy: A car starts at a starting line and accelerates away. The car gets faster and faster as it accelerates. Half way along the track, the engine is turned off and the brakes are applied. Now the car begins to slow down, but obviously it is still heading away from the starting line. This change is similar to the change of government America got.

Importantly: There is no way that the second government can get you straight back to that starting line. All they can do is turn on the engine or apply the breaks. Which means that actually the first graph is the one which better shows the effort of the government, which means yours is potentially misleading.

I'm a student at Oxford and have reason to support Obama, I just though I should point this out.

Posted on February 20, 2010 4:22 PM

____________________