An anonymous tipster points to this news article by Emily Badger, Claire Cain Miller, Adam Pearce, and Kevin Quealy featuring an amazing set of static and dynamic graphs.
An anonymous tipster points to this news article by Emily Badger, Claire Cain Miller, Adam Pearce, and Kevin Quealy featuring an amazing set of static and dynamic graphs.
Thank you for posting this; missed it at the time – from 2018 …
We spend enough time making fun of bad graphs, so it’s good to say something nice about a graph for a change!
The most curious thing to me is the difference between black boys and girls. Black boys decouple from the class cohort they’re born with in a way that black girls seemingly don’t. There’s something interesting going on at the intersection of race, gender, and class there that I don’t understand
Have you looked at the follow up questions and answer? There’s some further discussion of that issue there:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/27/upshot/reader-questions-about-race-gender-and-mobility.html
This article merits a lot of time….
Thanks for pointing me towards the Q&A — it’s an interesting discussion. Can’t say I see a smoking gun there, but then again a smoking gun may not exist
[Excerpted from E. Miller, The Abbey and Bishopric of Ely (1951), pp. 150-1]
His name was Stephen Puttock, and he lived on the prior
of Ely’s manor of Sutton at the end of the thirteenth and
the beginning of the fourteenth century. There can be no
doubt about his villeinage : he was described as nativus in
a charter ; he paid a fine for the lord’s licence to marry
both his wives, as did his sister when she married (and
leyrwite [the fine for immorality by a villein] as well) . There
can be no doubt that he owed labour services, for he was
amerced [i.e. fined] from time to time for carrying them
out with less than proper care. Yet he was an important
man in the village. Almost certainly he held a full land
[i.e. full peasant holding] at least. … He was . . . reeve
in 1310, a chief pledge for a quarter of a century, ale-taster
more than once, a frequent member of inquest juries. Like
others of his kind he was a sheep farmer. . . .
But above all he was a great buyer of land. In 1300
he bought three-quarters of an acre without licence. A
charter of 1303 recording the purchase of an unspecified
parcel from another villein, is still extant. In 1304, he took
up Northcroft (containing 8J acres) from the prior. In
1305 he bought 2 acres from the prior’s former bailiff and
in 1307 a parcel of meadow from a free tenant. … In
1310 he bought 6 acres of arable for 20 silver marks. . . .
Such a man was thriving into the yeomanry.’ 1
Both links to the New York Times (the one in Andrew’s article and another one in the discussion) ask me to login.
Is it just me, or do you need to be a subscriber to the NYT to view this?
Howard
I think it’s the latter — I also get the login request.
Thank you for posting this. I find Chetty’s work and, more importantly, his novel datasets to be very informative. Perhaps equally important, I find people’s interpretations to be a great way to understand other’s world view.
Andrew, I don’t imagine you have an opinion about what the dataset does/does not tell us? I found you’re interpretation of the now famous Case & Deaton Deaths of Despair to be good, and, I would have to admit, a corrective to some of my previous views.
As someone who is so pedantic about words not being used without backup, I’m amazed you’d link to this piece with a title of “Extensive Data Shows Punishing Reach of Racism for Black Boys.”
Nice visuals sure, but come on. These visuals don’t even come close to backing up that title. I guess once you’re in your tribe you don’t need backup for that claim; it’s a given.
Moodey:
Good point. It would be more accurate for the title to say “racial disparity” than “racism.” I was focusing on the graphs, and I hadn’t looked at the title carefully.
That’s fair. I was probably so focused on the title because I had to try three devices to get past the paywall, and when the paywall was in place all I could see was the title.
This is absolutely a fair title given our prior knowledge of the methods by which black men were systematically excluded from the economy combined with the data presented.
Nah. It’s probably just a coincidence that hundreds of years of systematic exclusion from the economy would line up with poorer economic outcomes for black males.
If you weren’t in the “tribe” you’d be able to see that.
Your terms are poorly defined and you’re using a motte-and-bailey argument. Can you figure out what is poorly defined and what the motte/bailey are without me spoon feeding it to you? Probably not, because you (and curious) are idiots. Go get a humanities degree and live in that already ruined world. You’ll get along just fine, believe me. The stats world still has hope and can do without you.
Cool, thank you for sharing. Great visualizations. Other commenters are not me posting anonymously.