Animated unemployment map

[dsheinem]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_University

"American University was recognized by the Princeton Review as the #1 Most Politically Active Campus in the United States twice in the past three years. They currently hold the title on the 2009 list."

Granted, they aren't as right-leaning as some religious-affiliated schools and they seem to have a good mix of conservative and liberal values/alum/etc.. That said, it doesn't surprise me that the publication for this map comes from a school where the staff are politically-minded and probably not trying to present a more "objective" view on rising unemployment.

[Ack]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_University

"American University was recognized by the Princeton Review as the #1 Most Politically Active Campus in the United States twice in the past three years. They currently hold the title on the 2009 list."

Granted, they aren't as right-leaning as some religious-affiliated schools and they seem to have a good mix of conservative and liberal values/alum/etc.. That said, it doesn't surprise me that the publication for this map comes from a school where the staff are politically-minded and probably not trying to present a more "objective" view on rising unemployment.

I'm not sure I follow. Because the campus has an even split of opinion and happens to be a hotbed of political activity, their map's color scheme is wrong because it only reflects our current situation, which isn't as bad as many other nations?

Or you think their use of white to black to reflect less than 10% of unemployment increase is a choice by the university staff to make a political statement? I think that's what you meant, but if so am I supposed to interpret their map as a slight against a particular administration, party, or philosophy? Or is it more that they're trying to portray a crisis worse than it actually is, regardless of whoever's supposedly in charge?

[jmbarnes101]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_University

"American University was recognized by the Princeton Review as the #1 Most Politically Active Campus in the United States twice in the past three years. They currently hold the title on the 2009 list."

Granted, they aren't as right-leaning as some religious-affiliated schools and they seem to have a good mix of conservative and liberal values/alum/etc.. That said, it doesn't surprise me that the publication for this map comes from a school where the staff are politically-minded and probably not trying to present a more "objective" view on rising unemployment.

I'm not sure I follow. Because the campus has an even split of opinion and happens to be a hotbed of political activity, their map's color scheme is wrong because it only reflects our current situation, which isn't as bad as many other nations?

Or you think their use of white to black to reflect less than 10% of unemployment increase is a choice by the university staff to make a political statement? I think that's what you meant, but if so am I supposed to interpret their map as a slight against a particular administration, party, or philosophy? Or is it more that they're trying to portray a crisis worse than it actually is, regardless of whoever's supposedly in charge?

Unless I'm mistaken, it shows us what the unemployment rate is not by how much it's increased so those numbers would be 10% of that county is unemployed. What it is not showing is the actual unemployment rate adjusted for those those whose unemployment benenfits have run out or those people who are underemployed. It also doesn't show us how much greater than 10% a county is. Fact is, unemployment has risen astronomically over the past year.

[dsheinem]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_University

"American University was recognized by the Princeton Review as the #1 Most Politically Active Campus in the United States twice in the past three years. They currently hold the title on the 2009 list."

Granted, they aren't as right-leaning as some religious-affiliated schools and they seem to have a good mix of conservative and liberal values/alum/etc.. That said, it doesn't surprise me that the publication for this map comes from a school where the staff are politically-minded and probably not trying to present a more "objective" view on rising unemployment.

I'm not sure I follow. Because the campus has an even split of opinion and happens to be a hotbed of political activity, their map's color scheme is wrong because it only reflects our current situation, which isn't as bad as many other nations?

Nope.

Or you think their use of white to black to reflect less than 10% of unemployment increase is a choice by the university staff to make a political statement? I think that's what you meant, but if so am I supposed to interpret their map as a slight against a particular administration, party, or philosophy? Or is it more that they're trying to portray a crisis worse than it actually is, regardless of whoever's supposedly in charge?

Yup.

Well, kinda.

I don't think University staff has much to do with it directly, but I do think that the mentality of the journalism students who publish the journal does - they are, like most politically minded journalists, more invested in grabbing attention.

And yes, it could be read as a slight against the current admin (since they are who is in charge in the present), but more important than left/right politics is that the map is another instance of sensationalist journalism...here passed off as an objective presentation of numbers. Hobie's first comment that the map is "terrifying" is exactly what they are after (no offense, Hobie).

Also note the over-use of pathos and exaggeration in their description: "in the face of the worst economic upheaval since the great depression, millions of Americans are hurting...[the map] is a vivid representation...[of the deteriorating transformation of the US economy."

The Bureau of Labor and Statistics suggests that we've been in this territory quite often, enough to suggest it is even cyclical...

http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm

1992 - 7.5
1984-86 - >7
1983 - 9.6
1982 - 9.7
1980 - 7.1
1981 - 7.6
1976 - 7.7
1975 - 8.5
1961 - 6.7
1958 - 6.8

Again, this isn't to suggest that we aren't in bad shape...but this kind of map makes things look worse than they really are. It purports to provide temporal perspective, when it is actually doing more to hurt any understanding of the significance of these unemployment numbers in time.

[Ack]

Ah, I gotcha. I can see what you mean about sensationalism(and I'd agree both on that point and on our economy having a cycle of growth and recession), though I don't think it's a slight against either administration. The map begins counting in June 2007, so of the two and a half years it tracks, more than half of it is during the previous administration. If anything, I'd consider it opposing both.

[Hobie-wan]

*snip
And yes, it could be read as a slight against the current admin (since they are who is in charge in the present), but more important than left/right politics is that the map is another instance of sensationalist journalism...here passed off as an objective presentation of numbers. Hobie's first comment that the map is "terrifying" is exactly what they are after (no offense, Hobie).

*snip*

Again, this isn't to suggest that we aren't in bad shape...but this kind of map makes things look worse than they really are. It purports to provide temporal perspective, when it is actually doing more to hurt any understanding of the significance of these unemployment numbers in time.

Ok yes, I did over dramatize when I posted it a bit as I had literally watched it right beforehand. Its still sobering to see though. Thankfully myself and those I know are all employed and I don't watch TV so I'm not bombarded by the evening news and don't really think about it all that often.

[Ack]

*snip
And yes, it could be read as a slight against the current admin (since they are who is in charge in the present), but more important than left/right politics is that the map is another instance of sensationalist journalism...here passed off as an objective presentation of numbers. Hobie's first comment that the map is "terrifying" is exactly what they are after (no offense, Hobie).

*snip*

Again, this isn't to suggest that we aren't in bad shape...but this kind of map makes things look worse than they really are. It purports to provide temporal perspective, when it is actually doing more to hurt any understanding of the significance of these unemployment numbers in time.

Ok yes, I did over dramatize when I posted it a bit as I had literally watched it right beforehand. Its still sobering to see though. Thankfully myself and those I know are all employed and I don't watch TV so I'm not bombarded by the evening news and don't really think about it all that often.

I'm not employed.

Actually it's about to become a problem too. Graduation is baring down on me...

[Limewater]

Or maybe there were 2 without jobs and one moved to Northern Alaska, which if you notice, got better. I wonder what's going on up there.

I think people pretty much only go to northern Alaska when their jobs send them there.

[Ack]

Or maybe there were 2 without jobs and one moved to Northern Alaska, which if you notice, got better. I wonder what's going on up there.

I think people pretty much only go to northern Alaska when their jobs send them there.

What, you've never wanted to visit Barrow?

[Limewater]

http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm

1992 - 7.5
1984-86 - >7
1983 - 9.6
1982 - 9.7
1980 - 7.1
1981 - 7.6
1976 - 7.7
1975 - 8.5
1961 - 6.7
1958 - 6.8

One problem (and this may relate to the difference in unemployment between the U.S. and Brazil, though I'm not certain), is that we've changed the way we calculate unemployment over the years. I believe current methods only count people actively seeking employment, not those who have given up.

Maybe I'm just reading the wrong propaganda, but I believe our unemployment numbers today are artificially lower than they would have been if measured in the 1920's, for example.