ATProto Browser

ATProto Browser

Experimental browser for the Atmosphere

Post

How to lie with statistics! The 2nd graph by Economics Stack Exchange shows just the last part of the red line shown on the first graph published by Resolution Foundation. It shows a fall in productivity growth, without the context of the wage comparison shown on the first graph, plus emotive label.

May 18, 2025, 12:30 AM

Record data

{
  "uri": "at://did:plc:w3otdckcv3e2cmeh2pq23eau/app.bsky.feed.post/3lpfsjrgjtc2y",
  "cid": "bafyreielu6wajzm2cr3vxewbdmktrce7xj32mdvtahvxgxsv2j2eccwcwe",
  "value": {
    "text": "How to lie with statistics! The 2nd graph by Economics Stack Exchange shows just the last part of the red line shown on the first graph published by Resolution Foundation. It shows a fall in productivity growth, without the context of the wage comparison shown on the first graph, plus emotive label.",
    "$type": "app.bsky.feed.post",
    "embed": {
      "$type": "app.bsky.embed.images",
      "images": [
        {
          "alt": "Line Graph: median pay & labour productivity, 1980-2016 UK. Y axis 100-200 (arbitrary units). Wages & pay rise together until 1992. Thereafter the line for output continues to rise above wages to 190 in 2007(ish) while wages reach 175 around 2008. Productivity then drops to 185 by 2008 then climbs more sluggishly to around 197 in 2016. After 2008, wages fall to 165 and dont move much until around 2015 when they climb slightly to 160. Wages sampled each April. Source O.N.S. annual survey of hours & earnings.",
          "image": {
            "$type": "blob",
            "ref": {
              "$link": "bafkreidklbdcncag5s4pjs5ylhpwxqzl2cxc54z4ejibftgvtvncfqzjoy"
            },
            "mimeType": "image/jpeg",
            "size": 210614
          },
          "aspectRatio": {
            "width": 1280,
            "height": 720
          }
        },
        {
          "alt": "Heading: Productivity remains the Achilles heel of the UK economy. Output per worker (pre-crisis =100). This is the same productivity line used in the previous graph  but cropped to only show 1995 to 2016 and no second graph line for wages. The arbitrary y axis units have been changed so that 1995 (where they data starts) reads as 80 and the dip in productivity around 2007 is now shown occurring at arbitrary unit 100, faling to 95 followed by the slow rise until 2016 thatbis shown on the previous graph.  This graph has added a trend line extrapolating where productivity would have been if the trend before 2007 had continued. The same ONS source is quoted. The removal of the wages line, plus the added heading, and the cropping of the data, tells a different story using the same source data.",
          "image": {
            "$type": "blob",
            "ref": {
              "$link": "bafkreiceux32dn3qw7l3dtysfexifassb7ouyprn6uhi377u3vgg2tyxcm"
            },
            "mimeType": "image/jpeg",
            "size": 23540
          },
          "aspectRatio": {
            "width": 267,
            "height": 189
          }
        }
      ]
    },
    "langs": [
      "en"
    ],
    "createdAt": "2025-05-18T00:30:31.215Z"
  }
}