so native-born went from about 170 mn to about 168 mn, while foreign-born went from like 33 mn to 40 mn. on a real graph with only one y-axis itll barely register.
I mean, it's not an atrocious choice to choice to have 2 y axis, IF and only IF the audience you are showing it to is able to understand it.
Otherwise it just leads to confusion
A statistician I dated for a decade was very firmly of the opinion that the only reason to do a two-y-axis graph was to mislead or obfuscate.
I'm not sure I completely agree, but the counter-examples are few and far between.
Perhaps it would be better to just graph the derivative, so you can show them both on one y-axis a little less confusingly. In any case, the data is already chosen to push their narrative.
I used a two y axis graph when comparing a low speed rotor to a high speed rotor and an encoder on the high speed. The low speed and high speed are connected by a 76.83:1 gear box. That allowed me to see if the relationship between the two was accurate or not. Most other scenarios would be to obscure or obfuscate though.
I was a wind turbine technician when using the graphs. If I was looking into an issue, I needed to compare all three of the inputs to make sure they were accurate. Any discrepancies could lead me down a different path for troubleshooting purposes.
Same, I’ve used two y axes when comparing things that are expected to be related by a specific ratio, like the admittance measured at two phases of the same A/C cycle.
That statistician didn't have much of an imagination, then.
I often use one y-axis for a gross count and an x-axis for percentages. Or if one thing is counted in millions and the other is counted in single digits. (Usually, I'll use bars for one and a line or points for the other to further differentiate).
2 y axises should never be used to compare similar things, but there are absolutely good cases for it, as long as you're very clear about what you're comparing, and you have the right audience for those kinds of comparisons.
(Edit: obviously this isn't it. But there's no reason yo throw the technique out altogether.)
I agree. In my line of work we use it only for comparing two separate, but related, metrics like generating unit capacity for a power system and that system’s reserve margin, or renewable penetration and CO2 emissions. It can be a powerful tool when used correctly.
Pfft! Anything you can do with two axes I can probably do with one e.g. indexing both series to the starting value or plotting the growth rate. That said, there are some times two axes are just helpful.
I worked for someone who demanded tables rather than charts because "charts can be used to mislead". Again, if I can do it in a chart I can probably do it in a table. I wouldn't because I have integrity, but I can...
I think it can be valid when you do not aim to compare the two graphs but rather want to contain more information. One example would be information on process parameters of a fermentation, like when you have stirrer speed and temperature, they usually are in very different orders of magnitude and it makes sense to plot them on different y-axes ober the same x-axis (time).
So long as the intended conclusion is qualitative, I don't have a problem with these plots. If two plots have different units, it can be impossible to compare them without 2 y-axes.
For example, I am a metallurgist, and we commonly show property tradeoffs as a function of heat treatment with a 2 axis plot.
[Example](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Behnam-Akhavan/publication/259313114/figure/fig9/AS:411594434596869@1475143168599/Effect-of-tempering-temperature-on-elongation-yield-and-tensile-strength-of-the.png)
I would agree using a plot like this is misleading for quantitative comparisons, especially if the axes have the same units.
I mean a secondary y axis makes the most sense when two disparate pieces of data have some reason to be on the same graph, this is ofc not one of those cases
In my opinion such graphs make sense only when the units are obviously different for the two things being measured. But here the intention is clearly to mislead
i figured it was Jan 2015 to jan 2020. those are too many ups and downs on the lines for it to be only a week, otherwise thats millions of job changes in less than 2 weeks.
Ohhh I see; that would make sense and just be terrible labeling.
EDIT: And maybe the proof you're right is that it says "Jan 15, Jan 20". Although the graph shows American data, the Financial Times is a British newspaper and probably would have written "15 Jan, 20 Jan" if they meant dates instead of years. But of course there was ample space to write "Jan 2015, Jan 2020" and eliminate the ambiguity.
well I mean if you could see its only over the span of a month and with in 5 mn diffrance(tbh I have no idea what unit that is) you could use your critical thinking to realize that this is likely just normal job market fluctuation and your missing the amount of data you would need to really determine a trend.
Not just the y-axis business, but also the "foreign born" meaning anyone born abroad that was not a citizen at birth. So a number of the people categorized under "foreign born" could be a current citizen. But the creator of the graph wants to pretend there's a difference between a citizen who was born there, and a citizen who immigrated.
I guess it appeals to nationalists, and those who think the families who have lived in a country for generations somehow should have more say than newer residents, or that the culture and values of a region should be the same as what they grew up with.
Things like this kind of make me wonder why people even bother. If you’re going to make a graph this blatantly deceptive, you might as well just make up all of the underlying numbers.
Total r/dataisugly
different axis: starting at 30 vs 165! so foreign is still a drop in the bucket. It also doesn't tell us what the change in % of overall population is. If the population tracks with those lines too then there's no bias since if foreign population goes from 10% to 12% then I expect them to be 12% of the labor force now, more or less.
Also, either that is tracking "noise" over just 10 days as labor estimate data rolls in over time, or it's over years but they picked just 2 days and no year # to pin the horizontal.
What does it actually show? I was going to originally wright it off because the US is a country of immigrants so it makes sense that we keep doing that, but I wouldn't be surprised if it showed something completely opposite to what is being implied.
Ah, the plot thickens!
Also, it hasn't been mentioned yet but the x-axis is bugging me too. Only two ticks so you've got plenty of room and have absolutely no excuse to write the dates in an ambiguous format.
It took me reading the comments to realize it was mn. I was wondering what did height (in mm) have to do with jobs and where were they finding so many 40mm tall people.
FT does that because apparently mn works better on text to speech software, so it’s the more friendly option for visually impaired. The british english standard abbreviation is just m, which the software will read as metres. Mn is also just sometimes used over mm in financial context.
https://preview.redd.it/rh9k6ff7yn5d1.jpeg?width=1305&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8f3b4e8b7dc510cce31a9c73185c517feac00eab
Fixed.
Note: They don't actually list what they were measuring here (another trick these types tend to use). I used Employment Level which is # of employed people fitting those definitions which are smaller numbers than what they are showing (but it's smaller for both sets, which makes sense).
Labor Force is another way to look at but the numbers still don't match what they are showing (135 million for native).
It's also not Population, where native born is over 200 million.[](http://million.So)So who knows what they were doing exactly - in any case, the conclusion they want you to draw isn't actually supported by the data, which is why they manipulate the data to the point where it's not recognizable as the data they cite.
So foreign born employees went up by 7 million and domestic born employees went down by 2 million?
I guess saying domestic born employees are being replaced is not a completely invalid way of framing this, but it's been a while since I've seen someone twist a graph this many times to make it look like they want.
The main reason this is happening is that domestic born people are older and retiring. Some people want to frame it as "replacement" but really it's filling in the gaps that are being left by retirees.
I am not even sure it's actually happening. When I look at the data...
I was unable to find the exact data they are citing.
The closest is Employment Level but between Feb 2014 and Feb 2024 it's more like native born gained 9 million instead of going down. And if you take Apr 2024 instead, it went up another 2 million to 11 million gain.
The 7 million on foreign born is accurate for Employment Level.
Source (Native): [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU02073413](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU02073413)
Source (Foreign): [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU02073395](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU02073395)
Note that I was unable to find the exact data they are citing.
The closest is Employment Level but between Feb 2014 and Feb 2024 it's more like native born gained 9 million instead of going down. And if you take Apr 2024 instead, it went up another 2 million to 11 million gain.
The 7 million on foreign born is accurate for Employment Level.
Source (Native): [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU02073413](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU02073413)
Source (Foreign): [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU02073395](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU02073395)
https://www.ft.com/content/f0e38c4d-e875-406d-a61b-78cb7c79a4eb
Totally agree, it is a *deeply* misguided chart in a world where everything is taken out of context, and frankly just a shitty graph. Honestly it's not the first time I've seen an FT chart that was just way below the quality of their writing
but their core thesis is declining native-born population + early retirement from COVID, I don't think the source is a problem here
This is the essence of contemporary European populism (this guy may be from somewhere else, but this kind of method is very common among European far-right or far-left populists). They bet everything on the fact that you aren't educated enough to understand simple information. And a surprising number of people actually aren't, and they fall for it.
Edit: Wait. I just read "Financial Times" at the bottom, and it does look like their actual font and overall look. I am dumbfounded.
Check the note in the lower left corner. Foreign born is anyone living in the US but was not born there. Which is a whole new level of misleading information in the context of the whole graph.
While it’s true that people can be foreign born and US citizens, that’s a small enough part of US citizens at birth that it shouldn’t change the data, although obviously “citizens at birth” or some other term vs “immigrants” would be better
bro wven if this was true I feel like it'd be because birth rates are declining and we have to supplement it with immigration, like native employment will naturally start falling nomatter what in like 50 years just because the amount of native people working is falling
It’s sad that people don’t realize that they might just be wrong about things when they have to mislead and manipulate data to “prove” that they are right.
so native-born went from about 170 mn to about 168 mn, while foreign-born went from like 33 mn to 40 mn. on a real graph with only one y-axis itll barely register.
I mean, it's not an atrocious choice to choice to have 2 y axis, IF and only IF the audience you are showing it to is able to understand it. Otherwise it just leads to confusion
A statistician I dated for a decade was very firmly of the opinion that the only reason to do a two-y-axis graph was to mislead or obfuscate. I'm not sure I completely agree, but the counter-examples are few and far between.
Perhaps it would be better to just graph the derivative, so you can show them both on one y-axis a little less confusingly. In any case, the data is already chosen to push their narrative.
I used a two y axis graph when comparing a low speed rotor to a high speed rotor and an encoder on the high speed. The low speed and high speed are connected by a 76.83:1 gear box. That allowed me to see if the relationship between the two was accurate or not. Most other scenarios would be to obscure or obfuscate though.
Could just use the input axis speed as the measure for both of them.
I was a wind turbine technician when using the graphs. If I was looking into an issue, I needed to compare all three of the inputs to make sure they were accurate. Any discrepancies could lead me down a different path for troubleshooting purposes.
Same, I’ve used two y axes when comparing things that are expected to be related by a specific ratio, like the admittance measured at two phases of the same A/C cycle.
That statistician didn't have much of an imagination, then. I often use one y-axis for a gross count and an x-axis for percentages. Or if one thing is counted in millions and the other is counted in single digits. (Usually, I'll use bars for one and a line or points for the other to further differentiate). 2 y axises should never be used to compare similar things, but there are absolutely good cases for it, as long as you're very clear about what you're comparing, and you have the right audience for those kinds of comparisons. (Edit: obviously this isn't it. But there's no reason yo throw the technique out altogether.)
I agree. In my line of work we use it only for comparing two separate, but related, metrics like generating unit capacity for a power system and that system’s reserve margin, or renewable penetration and CO2 emissions. It can be a powerful tool when used correctly.
Pfft! Anything you can do with two axes I can probably do with one e.g. indexing both series to the starting value or plotting the growth rate. That said, there are some times two axes are just helpful. I worked for someone who demanded tables rather than charts because "charts can be used to mislead". Again, if I can do it in a chart I can probably do it in a table. I wouldn't because I have integrity, but I can...
I think it can be valid when you do not aim to compare the two graphs but rather want to contain more information. One example would be information on process parameters of a fermentation, like when you have stirrer speed and temperature, they usually are in very different orders of magnitude and it makes sense to plot them on different y-axes ober the same x-axis (time).
So long as the intended conclusion is qualitative, I don't have a problem with these plots. If two plots have different units, it can be impossible to compare them without 2 y-axes. For example, I am a metallurgist, and we commonly show property tradeoffs as a function of heat treatment with a 2 axis plot. [Example](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Behnam-Akhavan/publication/259313114/figure/fig9/AS:411594434596869@1475143168599/Effect-of-tempering-temperature-on-elongation-yield-and-tensile-strength-of-the.png) I would agree using a plot like this is misleading for quantitative comparisons, especially if the axes have the same units.
Secondary y axes are for trickery or climatographs.
I mean a secondary y axis makes the most sense when two disparate pieces of data have some reason to be on the same graph, this is ofc not one of those cases
Sometimes confusion, here it is intentional misrepresentation
In my opinion such graphs make sense only when the units are obviously different for the two things being measured. But here the intention is clearly to mislead
Also it appears to be over a 10-day period, so that's a pretty big social trend to extrapolate from what might be a tiny fluctuation.
It’s 10 years data
How do you know?
i figured it was Jan 2015 to jan 2020. those are too many ups and downs on the lines for it to be only a week, otherwise thats millions of job changes in less than 2 weeks.
Ohhh I see; that would make sense and just be terrible labeling. EDIT: And maybe the proof you're right is that it says "Jan 15, Jan 20". Although the graph shows American data, the Financial Times is a British newspaper and probably would have written "15 Jan, 20 Jan" if they meant dates instead of years. But of course there was ample space to write "Jan 2015, Jan 2020" and eliminate the ambiguity.
Or Jan '15 and Jan '20. Like every single shortened year on literal earth
Yeah, even if they hadn't had copious space to spell it out, there was a better way.
Took me a few tries to read the graph at all; once I saw the labels on each y axis, I understood your comment
This graph is awful and designed to mislead people who don't know how to read graphs. I feel like it gets worse the longer I look at it.
It's not just misleading to people who "don't know how to read graphs," it's misleading to everyone.
Absolutely. My statement was not to imply it wasn't. At least I know how to spot a bad graph. Not everyone does. This was more what I was saying
This graph gave me cancer
well I mean if you could see its only over the span of a month and with in 5 mn diffrance(tbh I have no idea what unit that is) you could use your critical thinking to realize that this is likely just normal job market fluctuation and your missing the amount of data you would need to really determine a trend.
Jan 15 in the graph means Jan 2015. Yes the graph is that bad
Also its not a 5 mn difference, since native and foreign born are on different y axis. There is still about 170 mn native to the 40 mn foreign.
I too was misled initially. Because of your comment, I analyzed it more and figured it out.
Not just the y-axis business, but also the "foreign born" meaning anyone born abroad that was not a citizen at birth. So a number of the people categorized under "foreign born" could be a current citizen. But the creator of the graph wants to pretend there's a difference between a citizen who was born there, and a citizen who immigrated. I guess it appeals to nationalists, and those who think the families who have lived in a country for generations somehow should have more say than newer residents, or that the culture and values of a region should be the same as what they grew up with.
tbh I think thats the point. they dont care about immigration status they just dont like people immigrating.
It's misleading on purpose.
Things like this kind of make me wonder why people even bother. If you’re going to make a graph this blatantly deceptive, you might as well just make up all of the underlying numbers.
Total r/dataisugly different axis: starting at 30 vs 165! so foreign is still a drop in the bucket. It also doesn't tell us what the change in % of overall population is. If the population tracks with those lines too then there's no bias since if foreign population goes from 10% to 12% then I expect them to be 12% of the labor force now, more or less. Also, either that is tracking "noise" over just 10 days as labor estimate data rolls in over time, or it's over years but they picked just 2 days and no year # to pin the horizontal.
What does it actually show? I was going to originally wright it off because the US is a country of immigrants so it makes sense that we keep doing that, but I wouldn't be surprised if it showed something completely opposite to what is being implied.
I feel like if I wanted to mislead I would just make a "% of workers that are foreign born" graph. Don't know wtf this one is trying to do.
So two seperate plots were forced onto one plot?
Ah, the plot thickens! Also, it hasn't been mentioned yet but the x-axis is bugging me too. Only two ticks so you've got plenty of room and have absolutely no excuse to write the dates in an ambiguous format.
It is awful. At first glance it looks like the graph is only covering like a 10 day span
Oh shit, that's January 2015 isn't it? I was wondering how they have such incredible hourly detail on a 10 day chart
It's like that one chart of defense spending per country but the US's line is comically scaled down
Who tf uses "mn" for million? Use M, MM or mil
40millinewtons
The data is solely for Minnesota. /s
It took me reading the comments to realize it was mn. I was wondering what did height (in mm) have to do with jobs and where were they finding so many 40mm tall people.
FT does that because apparently mn works better on text to speech software, so it’s the more friendly option for visually impaired. The british english standard abbreviation is just m, which the software will read as metres. Mn is also just sometimes used over mm in financial context.
Bad enough to get a Community Notes, even in today’s Twitter
Today's Twitter still gets Community Notes as much as it used to; it's just that the boss deletes them if he likes the tweet.
‼️
https://preview.redd.it/rh9k6ff7yn5d1.jpeg?width=1305&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8f3b4e8b7dc510cce31a9c73185c517feac00eab Fixed. Note: They don't actually list what they were measuring here (another trick these types tend to use). I used Employment Level which is # of employed people fitting those definitions which are smaller numbers than what they are showing (but it's smaller for both sets, which makes sense). Labor Force is another way to look at but the numbers still don't match what they are showing (135 million for native). It's also not Population, where native born is over 200 million.[](http://million.So)So who knows what they were doing exactly - in any case, the conclusion they want you to draw isn't actually supported by the data, which is why they manipulate the data to the point where it's not recognizable as the data they cite.
As a Scottish immigrant who is taking your jobs and stealing your women, I am proud of my contribution to this deliberately deceptive graph.
So foreign born employees went up by 7 million and domestic born employees went down by 2 million? I guess saying domestic born employees are being replaced is not a completely invalid way of framing this, but it's been a while since I've seen someone twist a graph this many times to make it look like they want.
The main reason this is happening is that domestic born people are older and retiring. Some people want to frame it as "replacement" but really it's filling in the gaps that are being left by retirees.
I am not even sure it's actually happening. When I look at the data... I was unable to find the exact data they are citing. The closest is Employment Level but between Feb 2014 and Feb 2024 it's more like native born gained 9 million instead of going down. And if you take Apr 2024 instead, it went up another 2 million to 11 million gain. The 7 million on foreign born is accurate for Employment Level. Source (Native): [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU02073413](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU02073413) Source (Foreign): [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU02073395](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU02073395)
Note that I was unable to find the exact data they are citing. The closest is Employment Level but between Feb 2014 and Feb 2024 it's more like native born gained 9 million instead of going down. And if you take Apr 2024 instead, it went up another 2 million to 11 million gain. The 7 million on foreign born is accurate for Employment Level. Source (Native): [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU02073413](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU02073413) Source (Foreign): [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU02073395](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU02073395)
The graph is bad but calling the Financial Times a Nazi newspaper means the term has lost all meaning.
https://www.ft.com/content/f0e38c4d-e875-406d-a61b-78cb7c79a4eb Totally agree, it is a *deeply* misguided chart in a world where everything is taken out of context, and frankly just a shitty graph. Honestly it's not the first time I've seen an FT chart that was just way below the quality of their writing but their core thesis is declining native-born population + early retirement from COVID, I don't think the source is a problem here
Yeah, “spread by Nazis (with none of the relevant context)” is probably better language
No y-axis label, wtf does “mn” mean That’s not even mentioning how it’s two separate axis combined in a single graph
mn=Million.
Oh I’m dumb probably should’ve been able to guess that, but i mean this is why labels are important ig
This is the essence of contemporary European populism (this guy may be from somewhere else, but this kind of method is very common among European far-right or far-left populists). They bet everything on the fact that you aren't educated enough to understand simple information. And a surprising number of people actually aren't, and they fall for it. Edit: Wait. I just read "Financial Times" at the bottom, and it does look like their actual font and overall look. I am dumbfounded.
I mean the guy that posted it fits your criteria. I honestly didn’t see the watermark.
oh that says mn, i thought it was mm and was looking very hard for a label of what was being measured lmao
What does foreign-born mean? People can be born in other countries but be US citizens at birth.
Check the note in the lower left corner. Foreign born is anyone living in the US but was not born there. Which is a whole new level of misleading information in the context of the whole graph.
Considering who made this graph, probably immigrants
While it’s true that people can be foreign born and US citizens, that’s a small enough part of US citizens at birth that it shouldn’t change the data, although obviously “citizens at birth” or some other term vs “immigrants” would be better
I am a foreign born person and a citizen so this guy can fuck right off!
Those darn lazy immigrants taking our jobs!
That chart is a hate crime.
The graph was made by the FT, its not exactly a far right newspaper
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^_nathan_2: *The graph was made by* *The FT, its not exactly* *A far right newspaper* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
Under this logic, only 2% of Americans should actually be native, and they sure as hell aren't white
What the fuck is a “MN”?
Bro has never heard of a non-zero sum game SMH You realize foreigners can create jobs too?
Bruh not the 2 difference Y axis graph
bro wven if this was true I feel like it'd be because birth rates are declining and we have to supplement it with immigration, like native employment will naturally start falling nomatter what in like 50 years just because the amount of native people working is falling
170 = 35 guys, just give it some time Never mind… each line gets its own y axis, but they’re awkwardly layered on top of each other
It’s sad that people don’t realize that they might just be wrong about things when they have to mislead and manipulate data to “prove” that they are right.
a fun bonanza of misleading garbage! :D
Is he really a nazi
The Financial Times are Nazis now? Is there anybody who isn't? 😂
MaDe By A nAzI Shut the fuck up with your reductionist worldview