Poverty in America
- Started
- Last post
- 19 Responses
- ********0
that is a great find, how did you find that?
- those numbers are kind of low.********
- you think?????
fuck...looks pretty scary high to memarychain
- those numbers are kind of low.
- ********0
but how can 18 and under be in the poverty level?
- teenage parents?
homeless?omgitsacamera - I guess it's not accurate.********
- if living with parents, and are under 18 , and parents are in poverty , then they live in poverty tooBattleAxe
- teenage parents?
- ********0
that is a pretty ugly bit of information graphics.
- Sandder0
Oh, no, don't go Phil Collins on me here. You're not poor, i see it on television every night. You guys have everything!
- ********0
Anyone watch Panorama last night?
I knew America was a bit fucked, but I had no idea it was completely buggered by big business to that extent.
The country is run by the likes of walmart, and that's pretty funny.
- ********0
Sad times ahead, you have seen nothing yet, guaranteed!
- DrBombay0
These types of info graphics bother me. Self-indulgant designers making information harder to comprehend than it needs to be.
- ********0
its also completely misleading, as naturally CA would obviously be the largest if you go purely by straight numbers, as it has the highest population.
So what does this really tell us? not much at all unless I'm mistaken.
- ********0
you still thinking of moving here cuntybaws?
- only if I can be the poorest.********
- i reckon i could give you a pretty good run for your money on that count.********
- see what i did there? clever as fuck me.********
- pure fucking stawner genius!********
- only if I can be the poorest.
- ********0
ie; The above graph gives the impression that CA has the highest poverty rate followed by Texas, when in fact, Mississippi has the highest followed by Louisiana.
Ca and TX come in 20th and 8th respectively.
- Corvo20
Shallow statistics. Good studies are not done in this way. There's no info whatsoever how the data was gathered or even what is one looking into.
- Corvo20
Shallow statistics. Good studies are not done in this way. There's no info whatsoever how the data was gathered or even what is one looking into.
- Corvo20
^ sorry. bad syntax. somehow I got clumsy with my keyboard - that's not even what I wanted to publish. I screwed up.
- ********0
The Guardian does info graphics like these really well.
- ********0
yeah. nothing like a good double page spread on just how much more rapey israel is than it's neighbours.
- havn't read the paper in a while, but i'm guessing they aren't too happy.********
- omg @ "rapey" as an adjective!vespa
- Israel 90% Rapey********
- that's OMG in a good way, right vespa?********
- right. wrong! arrghvespa
- guardian and guardian tv (4) are well outraged at the mo. as well they should be. not like this in the good old days of uncle jokelpie
- uncle joekelpie
- havn't read the paper in a while, but i'm guessing they aren't too happy.
- Corvo20
What I wanted to say is that this sort of statistics is bollocks. Where are these numbers coming from? What are we looking at? Even if these percentages are real, why is there no reference to any data source? What's the point of publishing data this way?
