user09723

I have a few negative points to make about this graph.

1) Maps are generally useful for area-based values, not population-based. A simple bar graph is equally as informative.

2) The bin sizes are unequal "below 40" and "above 60" bins may be misleading depending on how many states fall into those bins. Why bin at all? Just select a color in the colormap associated with that states value.. The bins are even worse on the state-by-state graph (25k bins mixed with 50k bins).

3) I'm left to assume that the %'s in the state-by-state section is % of households in the state, but it's not clearly stated and could be interpreted as % wealth or something.. And the national breakdown would be better in-line with the other states (but segregated) so that a state can be eyeball-compared to the national breakdown.

4) green/blue is usually associated with low values and red/orange with high. I understand why the colors were chosen, but it took me a couple of seconds before I realized I was interpreting them backward.

B-

Interesting surprises (to me anyway): Oregon, Utah, and Maine

Excellent thoughts here. My background is in a field... well, probably the single most risk-adverse field there is. Which is why OP is seeking a nominal POV. There are certainly months to years of profitable wear left in the tires and some chance of sustained success. But experience is not my basis for judgement. It is clear that many before me have abandoned this post and there are pretty strong indications that the company is trying to shed this liability.