I'm not sure about this figure heading. www.usatoday.com/story/graphi... - ThreadSky

jonmladd.bsky.social • 7 days ago

I'm not sure about this figure heading. https://www.usatoday.com/story/graphics/2025/03/01/federal-worker-data-visualized-as-firings-layoffs-continue/80753788007/#

Comments

texasnative3.bsky.social•7 days ago

Someone failed at reading graphs. The only thing flatter than that is this EKG:

digthatdata.bsky.social•7 days ago

How to lie with... readers ignoring data and fixating on headlines.

dystopianeggs.bsky.social•7 days ago

Which numbnut built that chart?

jukka-pekka.bsky.social•6 days ago

Almost half the planet working there?

sherpacato.bsky.social•7 days ago

Also, U.S. population was 281 million in 2000. It is now an estimated 344 million per the Census Bureau. 1.7 million jobs out of 160 million total employment. https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/musk-in-your-computers-an-interview

prosediva.bsky.social•7 days ago

😑

worm-ate-my-brain.bsky.social•7 days ago

Looks like cardiac arrythmia. #SickEconomy

keelycahill.bsky.social•7 days ago

Someone didn't learn how to read a graph.

johncolby.bsky.social•7 days ago

Or draw one

merz.bsky.social•7 days ago

I'm even more concerned about the idea that there are ~3,000 x 1 million = 3 billion people in the federal workforce.

ockinger.bsky.social•7 days ago

I'm no expert but I think there are other ways to do a sensus, than to hire the entire population as temporary federal employees.

merz.bsky.social•7 days ago

You have to admit, a 10^3 error in an article about a census is pretty funny.

moderately-grouchy.bsky.social•7 days ago

Federal employment has steadily decreased as a percentage of population since the 1950s, which is the actual important thing

moderately-grouchy.bsky.social•7 days ago

Additionally we have a much smaller government, as a percentage of population, than nearly all other industrialized nations.

jasonandrade.bsky.social•7 days ago

Perhaps it’s just referring to obesity? 🤷🏾🤪

dwillis.bsky.social•7 days ago

Yeah, this isn't a great way to do a chart.

kimmcauliffe.bsky.social•7 days ago

Who wrote this? They can’t read a graph.

robbiepreston.bsky.social•7 days ago

I've seen that heart rhythm in dying patients. Pulseless Electrical Activity. Anyone else?

ngobody.bsky.social•7 days ago

Good lord, what a terrible piece of journalism and editing.

mrsnuffleupagod.bsky.social•7 days ago

Is showing the truth while lying about it the best journalism has to offer in Trump’s Number 2 (💩) term?

glorious-bastard.bsky.social•7 days ago

And the image says the count is by millions, which is clearly wrong. If you click through to the BLS source (or if you think logically for a moment) it should be thousands instead.

gabemacbksysocial.bsky.social•7 days ago

LOL. Plus are there 2 million or 3 million? Pew tells me 3 million but Google's AI insists on 2million, citing Pew!
AI Overview
Pew ...
The number of federal employees in the United States has increased over the years, reaching 2,040,283 in 2023.

adamiani.bsky.social•7 days ago

Why would you ever trust AI numbers?

gabemacbksysocial.bsky.social•7 days ago

Agreed...I did check on some other articles which apparently used them too;(

thelasttheorist.bsky.social•7 days ago

I agree that we should have fewer than 3 billion federal workers.

gabbklein.bsky.social•7 days ago

I hadn't even noticed that -- I was so distracted by the title. 😭

thelasttheorist.bsky.social•7 days ago

Yeah there's also the part where they describe a decrease in federal employment as steadily growing.

jesse405.bsky.social•7 days ago

That does seem a tad excessive

jcruzx.bsky.social•7 days ago

Well, I guess if each of us had about nine federal jobs each ...

dylanzwick.bsky.social•7 days ago

A 10 / 1 ratio of worker / citizen seems a bit unnecessary.

hungrykate.bsky.social•7 days ago

Good point, but I'm confused as to how a declining slope indicates growth.

rmurphey.bsky.social•7 days ago

@usatoday.com seriously???

berfield.com•7 days ago

I know it looks flat, but it feels like it's gone up ..

johnhoward66.bsky.social•7 days ago

it literally shows the opposite 3.1 mil in 1990, 2.7 mil 2025.
our media is trash.

johnhoward66.bsky.social•7 days ago

oops. 2.9 mil.

shyketo.bsky.social•7 days ago

They seem to be betting that most of their readers lack the ability to read a simple line chart.

fullbrokensandwich.bsky.social•7 days ago

And they'd be right

joeyneilsen.bsky.social•7 days ago

I bet this is before correcting for inflation 🤔

marniesworld.bsky.social•7 days ago

Numbers - how do they work?

isaacspeer.bsky.social•7 days ago

Plus it's not adjusted for population growth.

nberlin32.bsky.social•7 days ago

Nailed it.

aurel.indoorco2map.com•7 days ago

Yep from 250 Million in 1990 to 340 Million in 2024, thats around 35% growth while keeping roughly the same absolute amount of federal workers.

drgrat.bsky.social•7 days ago

😆

mulad.bsky.social•7 days ago

Yeah, it's pretty flat even going decades further back. State and local government employment has gone up a ton, likely much more in line with population https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1E6Qi

catnissplz.bsky.social•7 days ago

Switched around to percentage of the population and suddenly the graph is pointing in the opposite direction 🤔

grahamiancummins.bsky.social•7 days ago

The 3,000 (in millions) bit seems odd too

Posting Rules

Be respectful to others
No spam or self-promotion
Stay on topic
Follow Bluesky's terms of service

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply