Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

spiral8888 t1_izi4gl0 wrote

First, I have to say that there is something wrong with the data behind the graph. I can't believe the yearly disposable income could have 20%+ jumps in a month.

Second, yes the 5 year graph is misleading as it makes it look like the disposable income doubled in a month and then fell back to the old level.

−1

MrMitchWeaver t1_izim1f2 wrote

First, that's because of the stymulus payments. It's an anomaly. We're not here to talk about the data itself though.

Second, if you actually look at the y axis it's not even a little bit misleading. This is the default setting for all Fred graphs. If you're showing a value starts at 15.000.000.000 you are not going to start the Y axis at zero...

2

spiral8888 t1_izivw2d wrote

Yes, you can look at the Y-axis. But if you think that just by having the Y-axis values available removes all misleading, then no suppression of zero is ever misleading. For instance, by your logic the OP's first graph is not misleading as the values are there.

Regarding the Fed graph, the thing that you named as anomaly is amplified when you suppress the zero. When you don't the effect of the stimulus is put more context of how much effect it actually had on people's disposable income.

0