U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-17-2015, 10:20 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,004,486 times
Reputation: 1348

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Only if one doesn't know how to read a graph. Frankly, that's so basic I just assumed everyone did.
Many don't. Read enough op-eds or view enough congressional committee meetings on CSPAN and that becomes painfully clear. Even otherwise respectable organizations do horrible things with charts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-18-2015, 04:07 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,061 posts, read 16,074,613 times
Reputation: 12636
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
Many don't. Read enough op-eds or view enough congressional committee meetings on CSPAN and that becomes painfully clear. Even otherwise respectable organizations do horrible things with charts.
Making the scale of the graph not start at 0 isn't a horrible thing by any means. That's just an argument made by people that (a) are ignorant and don't know how to read a graph, or (b) assume that other people are ignorant and don't know how to read a graph and will be misinformed. Either way, it's really a stupid argument which hinges on the premise that data should be presented in a far less useful fashion to protect ignorant idiots for their own stupidity. It's really a stupid argument. The data should be presented in the most useful fashion and if that leads a few ignorant people to draw the wrong conclusions, so be it. We can just point and laugh at stupid people and get amusement out of the their idiocy when it happens.

If you leave the scale off, sure, it's then misleading. That does happen but isn't pertinent to FRED's graphs as the scale is clearly there for anyone that isn't ignorant. It's the way graphs should be presented as a graph that goes from 0-11,000 with little variation in data just looks like a flat line which conveys no information to anyone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2015, 07:29 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,004,486 times
Reputation: 1348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Making the scale of the graph not start at 0 isn't a horrible thing by any means. That's just an argument made by people that (a) are ignorant and don't know how to read a graph, or (b) assume that other people are ignorant and don't know how to read a graph and will be misinformed. Either way, it's really a stupid argument which hinges on the premise that data should be presented in a far less useful fashion to protect ignorant idiots for their own stupidity. It's really a stupid argument. The data should be presented in the most useful fashion and if that leads a few ignorant people to draw the wrong conclusions, so be it. We can just point and laugh at stupid people and get amusement out of the their idiocy when it happens.

If you leave the scale off, sure, it's then misleading. That does happen but isn't pertinent to FRED's graphs as the scale is clearly there for anyone that isn't ignorant. It's the way graphs should be presented as a graph that goes from 0-11,000 with little variation in data just looks like a flat line which conveys no information to anyone.
Actually, it's an argument made by someone who sees how people misuse or misread charts. We're all ignorant by nature. We don't read the fine print, the EULA, the footnotes. We look at a box of Cheerios Protein and don't see that it has twice the serving size and 17x the sugar content. I'm not regarding people as stupid, but I sure regard people as human.

You're more interested in winning than being right. Wonderful thing about the internet, I don't have to continue to play.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2015, 09:45 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,061 posts, read 16,074,613 times
Reputation: 12636
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
Actually, it's an argument made by someone who sees how people misuse or misread charts. We're all ignorant by nature. We don't read the fine print, the EULA, the footnotes. We look at a box of Cheerios Protein and don't see that it has twice the serving size and 17x the sugar content. I'm not regarding people as stupid, but I sure regard people as human.

You're more interested in winning than being right. Wonderful thing about the internet, I don't have to continue to play.
Which is what I said in (b). We actually are in agreement on the basis of the argument. I know where your argument is coming from, I just don't agree with you.

It doesn't matter to me very much if someone who can't read a graph gets confused by a truncated scale. They're useful in visually displaying relatively small changes. The usefulness of truncating far outweighs the downside of potentially misleading ignorant people who can't read a graph and realize it's truncated. You're free to disagree, of course. I'll even do you the favor of not pretending your disagreement is just because you're more interesting in winning than because you have a legitimate opinion that the downside of misleading ignorant people has greater weight than the usefulness of displaying the data.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2015, 05:40 PM
 
12,299 posts, read 15,190,901 times
Reputation: 8108
No, but gasoline consumption in the US has. Mileage requirements and possibly cheaper fuels. As soon as a battery with quick enough recharge time and long enough range at a reasonable price comes out- look out! Gas stations will become quick-charge stations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2015, 06:24 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 18 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,996 posts, read 102,568,112 times
Reputation: 33059
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hemlock140 View Post
Yes, since gas prices are back down well below $3 again, and the weather is improving, expect a lot more driving. At $2.47 here now, despite one of the nation's highest gas tax rates, I would expect plenty of weekend traffic to the mountains, and there may also be increased sales of trucks and larger SUVs, with the more economical gas cars, hybrids and electrics sitting on the lots. People for some reason seem to forget that the gas prices will eventually go back up again.
Gas prices are now about $1.79 here in metro Denver.


Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature View Post
Except the trend is that fewer and fewer people in America are choosing to have kids, so it's not clear if the rate will catch up as fast as it would in the past when more people started families.
Birth rates are going back up as well. Who knew? The Millennials want the same things their parents wanted. Birthrate among U.S. women rises for first time in seven years


Quote:
Originally Posted by impala096 View Post
Millennials arenít driving as much but they arenít participating in the labor force either. Itís telling looking at the labor force participation rate for people aged 16-24. There has been a significant drop between 2002 and 2012 and it is projected to decline even further by 2022.

1992: 66.1%
2002: 63.3%
2012: 54.9%
2022: 49.6%

Civilian labor force participation rates by age, sex, race, and ethnicity
Seriously, do you have a crystal ball? Look at the predictions on here. "Gas prices will go up." Meanwhile, they're at their lowest rate in several years. "People are choosing to have fewer kids." Meanwhile, the birth rate is rising.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hurricaneMan1992 View Post
Gotta wonder how immigration will affect the trends in VMT. Our population in the US is currently growing because we have lots of immigration, not because millennials are having lots of children. In fact I've heard the term "baby bust" used on multiple occasions on major mainstream network and cable news shows. Where I live, at least, many immigrants do end up living in the city and using the public transportation system, limited and inefficient as it is. Presumably because they don't have the background and family resources of, say, a teenager growing up in a middle class suburb in a household which always maintained multiple family vehicles. I don't have any data on this so it's a bit speculative, but perhaps food for thought for city/transportation planners.
There was a baby bust after the Baby Boom, too. They're called Generation X. Then the Millennials came along. Now there are more of them than Boomers. And they're starting to have babies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2015, 06:55 PM
 
9,520 posts, read 14,823,688 times
Reputation: 9769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
Seriously, do you have a crystal ball? Look at the predictions on here. "Gas prices will go up." Meanwhile, they're at their lowest rate in several years. "People are choosing to have fewer kids." Meanwhile, the birth rate is rising.
Next you're going to tell me the suburbs are growing.

Funny story about gas prices: when they first hit $3.00, there was all sorts of doom and gloom and panic about the age of the car being over and gas prices hitting $8.00 or more. I made a bet with someone that they'd hit $2.00 again before they hit $4.00 (at a certain place in Pennsylvania). They spiked up to almost $4.00, but dropped back down and stayed in the $2-$4 range for longer than I could remember who I made the bet with...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2015, 11:26 AM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,004,486 times
Reputation: 1348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
Birth rates are going back up as well. Who knew? The Millennials want the same things their parents wanted. Birthrate among U.S. women rises for first time in seven years
The point it seems you're making--that the prognosticating about lower birth rates among millennials was wrong--isn't supported by that story from USA Today. It says nothing about preferences and everything about economics; the recession and high CoL have had a profound effect on birth rates, and there was bound to be a rebound once the economy stabilized (for whom it has stabilized is a long thread unto itself) and couples' incomes stabilized.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2015, 12:26 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 18 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,996 posts, read 102,568,112 times
Reputation: 33059
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
The point it seems you're making--that the prognosticating about lower birth rates among millennials was wrong--isn't supported by that story from USA Today. It says nothing about preferences and everything about economics; the recession and high CoL have had a profound effect on birth rates, and there was bound to be a rebound once the economy stabilized (for whom it has stabilized is a long thread unto itself) and couples' incomes stabilized.
I agree with you interpretation of the story. I don't agree with your conclusion.

The decline in birth rates was temporary. Demographers love to prognosticate based on very weak evidence. The "Baby Boomlet" that produced the Millennials was a surprise to them too. They were predicting that we Boomers would forgo childbearing/parenting in large numbers. It turned out that we made more kids than there were of us! There are more Millennials now than Boomers.

And no one predicted the severe drop in birth rates in Europe and Japan, until it happened.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2015, 12:18 AM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,004,486 times
Reputation: 1348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post

The decline in birth rates was temporary.
At the very least, the USA Today piece contained no data that said anything of the sort. Specifically, it said:

Quote:
Lindberg said the change in the general fertility rate probably won't emulate the Baby Boom in the 1950s and should be characterized more as "a short window of a patch-up period" from the recession.
And no one seems to be answering the why questions. Why should the Millennial birthrate match that of their parents? Why should VMT even keep pace with, much less increase faster than the increase in population? On C-D, I've seen some very impassioned defenses of birthrates and VMT as if these are moral matters instead of just demographic and statistical issues. Frankly, I don't get it; if the numbers go up or down, speed up or decelerate, then they are what they are and are interesting academically but not philosophically.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top