Quote from: Swisk on April 15, 2016, 02:52:42 PM

Quote from: jaysabi on April 12, 2016, 11:04:34 PM

Quote from: stan.distortion on April 12, 2016, 11:00:30 PM

Quote from: jaysabi on April 12, 2016, 10:56:45 PM

Quote from: Curtains873 on April 12, 2016, 09:34:25 PM

The main point is the divergence since 1987. Before that there was a pretty good correlation.

Yeah but my point is it only looks like a correlation and a divergence because the y-axis is in log. The chart is manipulated to make it look so instead of actually being so.

True, if it wasn't then there probably wouldn't be much co-relation, it'd be a hell of a lot more scary though :/

Yes, that's my point. There is no correlation. The author manufactured one that doesn't exist to make his point.

Hah, nice catch. I think more people need to pay attention to this. Opened my eyes to how easily data can be manipulated to force relationships.

You could argue for scale, but then at the very least you'd need to put the employment percentage in exponential as well.

Yes, and I didn't bring it up initially because the main issue was how badly the chart itself was manipulated to fit the narrative the author wanted to tell, but with the rapidly aging baby boomer generation over the last 20 years and continuing forward, you would expect total employment percentage to start to drop because baby boomers are retiring out of the work force a lot faster than new workers are coming in. But like I said, this is a small issue compared to how badly the chart was manipulated, but another small way the conclusion the author is trying to draw is unfounded.