>It seems asian workers earn even more so it's weird how only white/caucasian is called out.
The ethnicity graph in that section begins with, "Asian and White/Caucasian workers see similar annual pay".
The ethnicity graph in that section begins with, "Asian and White/Caucasian workers see similar annual pay".
How you present data is important and I'm wondering why it's not presented there.
/shrug
My conclusion would have been:
"With a broad stroke, male, asian and White/Caucasian workers simply earn more than their counterparts."
which is different from:
> With a broad stroke, male and White/Caucasian workers simply earn more than their counterparts.
I could be misunderstanding the point you are making.
I don't disagree with the broader point that you're making, I'm just pointing out that you're doing what you're critiquing as you critique it. Your first post says that they don't actually say what the data shows, and you go on to suggest that an improper presentation of data can cause people take away the wrong idea.
I'm saying that you choosing not to mention the fact that they do state that fact accurately merely a few sentences later also could cause people to take away the wrong idea.
> Your first post says that they don't actually say what the data shows
And I maintain that the summary omits and misrepresents what the data shows.
> I'm saying that you choosing not to mention the fact that they do state that fact accurately merely a few sentences later
It's behind a click. It actually doesn't show at all without a click. I missed it the first time I skimmed the article (thank you for pointing it out) and I'm sure other people will as well.