Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

F1r3Fly4life t1_iufn5fq wrote

Sweet, another bar chart. Since when did “Data is beautiful” resort to displaying 3D bar charts? I have spent WEEKS making data beautiful and then somehow this gets hits…

118

zeronic t1_iug3gw9 wrote

Well there are two warring factions in the sub. Make the data too pretty and the people will just say "why couldn't this just be a line chart?" but if you make it too boring people will say "how is this beautiful?" hilariously you can't win either way.

24

RoastedRhino t1_iuh81nf wrote

I disagree, you are kind of suggesting that making a pie chart or a bar chart 3D makes it beautiful. Maybe we should define what beautiful means. There are definitely examples where the representation of the data highlights some additional information, pattern, or interpretation, that would otherwise be missed. This is what makes a data representation beautiful.

7

Mnm0602 t1_iui5pxe wrote

Death taxes and comments complaining about how the data isn’t actually beautiful.

−1

glmory t1_iug4zew wrote

If a bar chart is the clearest way to show data, use it. This subreddit is as much to showcase interesting data as elaborate visualisation of that data.

8

RoastedRhino t1_iuh8c8e wrote

But in this case it clearly isn't. A bar of percentage growth in 45 years is exactly as informative as writing in the title "CEO salary increased 15 times in the last 45 years, US stock market grew 10 times in the same period".

Even the use of percentages when the percentage is of the order of 1500 is a very lazy choice. With two decimal points........

So many questions unanswered: when the stock market fell, did the CEO salaries fell as well? Are some sectors leading the increase? Are companies getting bigger, so that a larger salary per CEO capita could correspond to a somehow constant top-management expenditure across the board? What was inflation in the same period?

All these questions could have been answered via minimal modifications of the chart.

7

F1r3Fly4life t1_iughkwb wrote

And those are for meeting rooms, not r/dataisbeautiful

3

[deleted] t1_iuhutvp wrote

[removed]

3

F1r3Fly4life t1_iui5o9a wrote

Yep, we are going backwards…soon people will be passing off ggplot with praise…or worse yet….excel. In all honesty I love excel still…but like everyone else I have discovered software that makes my vizzy waaaaaay better

1

cy13erpunk t1_iugbla8 wrote

THIS DATA IS NOT BEAUTIFUL

30

Mnm0602 t1_iui5hq0 wrote

I’m here searching for the CEO Pay Index Fund…

4

685327593 t1_iufbkyk wrote

These numbers look wrong. The private sector and CEO compensation are adjusted for inflation, but the stock market returns aren't.

20

imnota4 t1_iug4ock wrote

I'm not sure what you mean I'm this particular context when you say adjusted for inflation. Mind elaborating?

4

[deleted] t1_iuf7c25 wrote

[deleted]

16

PompiPompi t1_iuforer wrote

Taking a percentage of a percentage is kind of stupid.

This is not a 40% difference, it's a 400% difference.

2

chicagotim1 t1_iuftumc wrote

Since 1978 my investment has gone 10X while CEO pay has gone up 14X. A 40% difference.

4

PompiPompi t1_iuh554z wrote

Let's say your investment is 1.

Let's say your yearly salary is 1.

In 1 year, your investment increased by 10x, so now it's 10

In one year, your salary increased by 14x, so now it's 14.

Another year, your investment increased by 10x, so now it's 100.

The same year, CEO salary increased by 14x, so now it's 196.

−1

[deleted] t1_iuhl4zj wrote

[deleted]

2

PompiPompi t1_iuhlu0k wrote

Doesn't matter if it's a yearly growth or 10 years growth.

The point is, it's on a period of time.

I mean, what happens the next 10 years? Does the stock stay the exact same amount for ten years? Does that mean it is still 1000% up?

So in 10/20/whatever years, the stock raised by X percent. when happens in the next 10 years though? The increase in X percent is from the original amount or the amount after the X percent increase?

0

[deleted] t1_iufpj7v wrote

[deleted]

0

PompiPompi t1_iufqa7k wrote

You don't understand what you are talking about.

We are measuring growth.

Growth already measure rate.

What you are doing, is second order growth.

You are measuring the growth of the growth.

−2

[deleted] t1_iufqhci wrote

[deleted]

3

[deleted] t1_iufr3ev wrote

[deleted]

2

PompiPompi t1_iufrl8o wrote

You are measuring compensation, not salaries.

Most of the CEO's compensation probably come from stocks anyway.

Imagine the stocks also has dividends.

If the CEO's salary is so high, then he would get less compensation in stocks.

−2

[deleted] t1_iufrs2c wrote

[deleted]

3

PompiPompi t1_iuftht4 wrote

You are measuring the growth of the growth.

You make no sense.

You need to go back to school.

−1

Majestic_Food_4190 t1_iufdaa2 wrote

The price of a companies stock is most certainly impacted by the quality of its CEO. And where are you getting 40% from?

−4

[deleted] t1_iufelme wrote

[deleted]

2

Majestic_Food_4190 t1_iuffq2e wrote

I mean.... It does contain the same information. If the CEO was bad, the stock price wouldn't go up. It at the very least implies how the CEO is currently doing.

And ok, your 40% was making up numbers, gotcha.

−4

[deleted] t1_iufmah1 wrote

[deleted]

2

Majestic_Food_4190 t1_iufnbzt wrote

Again, making up fictional numbers to illustrate your point. There is no 1000 nor 1400, you're rounding. You're also negating the DJIA and doing some sort of rounding between that and the S&P.

And 10%? Those others "90%" of factors impacting a stock price are also heavily influenced by the CEO.

Anyhow, have a great day with your made up numbers 👍🏻

−2

[deleted] t1_iufo08q wrote

[deleted]

1

Majestic_Food_4190 t1_iufss5v wrote

CEO is 48% greater than DJIA... I'll go ahead and use your method and say it's 50% greater. Because twisting statistics is apparently what YOU do in the real world.

50% greater growth sounds substantial to anyone that understands numbers.

0

DeadFyre t1_iug9p50 wrote

The Dow Jones and S&P 500 are NOT the same things as the entire market. The S&P 500 are the largest 500 companies listed, and the Dow is an index of 30 huge, established companies. Both of these indicies err towards stability, not growth. If you wanted to invest in a company with growth potential, would put your money into a new business with lots of potential, or a huge business which has already reached that potential?

12

logicallyzany t1_iufm3uz wrote

Conveniently leaving out the NASDAQ… which would kill the narrative trying to be told here

8

F1r3Fly4life t1_iui5105 wrote

You want to hear something even more hilarious is that u/row64software is a company that is supposed to modernize data visualization. Congrats OP.

5

dungeonfish t1_iug55vg wrote

Did they count all the “CEOs” on LinkedIn? Seems off

2

chicagotim1 t1_iuftq19 wrote

That's kinda the point. When I invest, I WANT my investment to passively rise and you to have an incentive to work to provide me that growth.

0

blackdeathmessenger t1_iugxq8r wrote

Proof of why we need to eat the rich instead of cows. Just call it Soylent and very few will even know

−1