Readers of the Big Picture know what a huge fan I am of both the WSJ and their awesome graphics department. So it was with great disappointment that I reviewed this graphic sent in by an emailer:
I cannot recall when any WSJ chart previously made a move of just 3% — a move from 132.5m down to 130m up to 134m — look so good . . .
Let’s explore how else this data can be presented. Its important to investors to understand what they are looking ast, and what it truly means for the economy and the markets.
Here’s a few other ways to depict this data — same numbers, but the entire data series shown — not just the changes:
Looks less impressive, no?
But that chart is a worthless to the investor as the WSJ chart above is. Why? It provides no particular insight into what is happening with the economy. All I did was plug the data into Excel, and set the base to nothing; Without the zero 1st month, the charts look about identical — and equally worthless.
So you can either exaggerate change by eliminating all but recent delta, or diminish the change by including all of the data. Both are worthless depictions.
If you really want the data to give you insight, you need to compare it to prior post recession periods. Fortunately, the Cleveland Fed does the heavy lifting for that for us:
Nonfarm Payrolls, Post Recession: 2001-05 vs. Average Recovery
That chart dates from February; As of recently, the two lines are moving in parallel — much better than the chart depicts, but still far far below prior comparable periods . . . (If anyone comes across an updated version of this, please let me know and I’ll post it here also.
UPDATE: AUGUST 9 2005 6:40am
Of course that chart is misleading — its from the Op-Ed page. DUH! Just goes to show you that a picture may be worth a thousand words, but if most of them are crap, so’s the picture . . .
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
The Great American Jobs Machine
August 8, 2005; Page A10
Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.