По мотивам старой записи

[scholar_vit]

Давным-давно я написал небольшую заметку о

Comments

[tarkon]

На графике написано что цены приведены к 1997 году.

[tarkon]

Манипуляция с датой начала и датой конца графика.
Доллары вместо % ВВП.

Черта бедности, кстати, фиксированная или менялась в это время? Тоже интересный вопрос.

[sergeyr]

Вверху графика написано "Billions of 1997 Dollars", а внизу указан источник 1995-го года. Это как?..

[sergeyr]

А, они наверное имели в виду источник данных, а не сам график. Вопрос снимается.

[angerona]

is this welfare spending per person or total? Looks like total, which is meaningless without knowing how many people are covered.

Also, what does "poverty rate" actually mean? Seems to me like it'd be something that would get redefined periodically.

Is that an average rate among all people or among those receiving welfare or among someone else?

Is 'welfare spending' both state and federal or just federal or something else entirely?

As an aside, the bottom-most line seems to imply that this graphic was produced in 1995, yet it supposedly counts things in 1997 dollars. That's confusing in itself.

[zoya_g]

total spending - это явная манипуляция если учесть насколько выросло население США за это время. Per capita please.

почему бы не начать раньше 1965? судя по тому графику, что вы запостили, там как раз все самое интересное.

А про misleading графики в любом нормальном учебнике сейчас написано :)

[dmpogo]

это явная манипуляция если учесть насколько выросло население США за это время. Per capita please.

well, not by a factor of 8 :) 2 at most

[zoya_g]

no, but the shape of the curve will be different. For example, this graph shows that spending hadn't changed from 1980 to 1985 but the poverty rate increased. The U.S. population has increased by some 10 millions during this time (at least it increased by 22 from 1980 to 1990).

Absolute numbers are large. There is also a psychological effect - wow, the gov spent 400 billions! that's huge. Not that huge if you divide by 200 something millions people.

anyway, I believe it makes more sense to look at how this "total spending" gets distributed, on what spent, etc.

[dmpogo]

here is also a psychological effect - wow, the gov spent 400 billions! that's huge.

That used to be huge until the last fall :) Now everything below trillion are just peanuts