Majority of under-35s can't afford own home

[WDCRob]

Re: Majority of under-35s can't afford own home

Some group associated with Tufte also offers seminars on visual presentation of data. I've not been, but have heard great things about them.

[bart]

Re: Majority of under-35s can't afford own home

Well, Finster really isn't Sinister, but I like Sinister because it has meaning, and sometimes for me the meanings put forth by Finster are hard to grasp, and that isn't a serious criticism. By the way, what ever happened to Finster, he's seemingly disappeared. Do you think I offended him? I didn't mean to do so. I apologize if I did. "Come back, come back, Finster."

It's easy to critcise others especially when it is they who must do the work to remedy criticism. Bart, I am not buttering your breed here, but I was and continue to be flabbergasted at the extent of your web-site. How anyone could do anything else in life while at the same time assembling all you have is beyond me, but you have done it.

After three lines in most charts, I think they can fail to be a picture worth a thousand words. Three lines are good if possible. I personally have difficulty with very thin, light-colored lines and moreso when they are broken. What I think is important is secondary to what you think, you know that, it is your time and your work that is at play. I always am looking forward to your next creation and the often esoteric nature of what you track.

Very true on Finster, I just got a huge kick out of you "picking on" him too... not that he deserves it or anything. ;)
I also had trouble years ago when I first ran into his thoughts and views on DR. His approach is quite non mainstream, much as my own is, and we've learned from each other quite a bit. I also consider him a good friend and thoroughly enjoy all the bantering and real exchanges.

Thanks again for your kind words about my efforts. Only recently and since I've picked up the tracking of so many major central bank info has it become a fairly large time effort. Most of the charts are pretty well automated, but it's not unusual for me to update 4-500 charts during my weekly update.
It's funny in an odd way that with all the criticism I direct at the Fed that they are by far the easiest to monitor.

Thanks too for your input on chart design, especially about three lines maximum and light colored and dashed lines. I'm looking forward to seeing that book that jk recommended so that I can whip my charts into better shape so that they communicate much better.

A few of them, just by virtue of their very esoteric nature as you noted, will be very difficult to make fully understandable without a significant economics background. I also have some nebulous plans for a site redesign that will include an "advanced" section for them.

[bart]

Re: Majority of under-35s can't afford own home

Some group associated with Tufte also offers seminars on visual presentation of data. I've not been, but have heard great things about them.

Thanks WDCRob - once the book arrives I get through it, I may very well attend one of those. It couldn't hurt to meet some real pros too.

[bart]

Re: Majority of under-35s can't afford own home

Bart, it does, but it's not totally 100% clear what everything means to me. Let me give some (hopefully) constructive criticism from my viewpoint

1. You start with base = 100. But there is no "100" on the chart. Also that starts in 1963. There is no 1963 on there. I understand you are describing that in words what base means, but base = 100 should mean that your measurements are all starting at a literal value of 100. If you had started the chart in 1963, with all the lines starting there, you would likely not need to specify base = 100, but could say "base year of 1963."

A good example of this chart that I can clearly understand is the chart EJ brings up regarding inflation, with lines for health care, college tuition, and televisions (among other items). All numbers start at literally 100 on that chart. But the numbers aren't raw numbers, they are percentages. Usually if you are using a base = 100 you are working with percentage (remember, "per cent" means "portion of 100" in latin).

2. The label on the left hand y-axis would be best put on top of that axis, not in the middle of the chart.

3. There is no label for the right hand side y-axis. Yes it's in blue, but what is it referring to? Median salary? Mean salary? Home equity? Some kind of tangible measure must be used to show inflation... there is no label to indicate what that axis is. Or is it an aggregate of all CPI measures? I'm just not sure what it is referring to.

The good:

The color schemes and better labeling on the second chart make it definitely clearer and easier to see. The use of right and left hand scales are done well. The labeling of the second chart (outside of the above criticisms) are placed and described well.

Just an FYI, I wrote this post for constructive criticism purposes; I think you do a great job creating the charts, so hopefully these suggestions can help you improve what you've got going for you.

Not a problem in the world on your critique - it's exactly what I was hoping for. I may know quite a bit about the Fed and money flows, but communicating it well via charts is not my strong suit for sure.

1. Excellent point on the "Base = 100", I just changed it to drop the "=100" and substituted 1970 so it isn't so misleading. Definitely agreed on that inflation chart of EJ's too - it's very clear and well done.

2. & 3. This is one on which personal preference was the determinant. Maybe I'm the only one, or one of few, but I dislike having to read vertically or tilt my head... and that assumes that I'm tracking with what you're trying to say. I'd be interested if anyone else has input on putting vertical labels on the scale, instead of having them in a grouped box at the bottom.

To answer your question on what's on the right hand y axis though, it's both of the colored lines - CPI and CPI+lies actual home prices. I could have put all three values on the one left hand axis, but then the two adjusted ones (green & blue) would almost be level. I chose not to do it that way since it seemed to me that it communicates better by using another scale... and could easily be wrong too due to my lack of training, etc.

Thanks (truly) on your input too. I can read all the books in the world but the real test is whether the charts I do create actually deliver the message and data that I intend.

[bart]

Re: Majority of under-35s can't afford own home

bart, i think the chart is readable and the labelling ok just as it is. i've got a different problem with it: the median house in 2006 is likely a very different house than that of 1963- square footage, amenities, lot size, appliances, are all likely quite different. looking at the chart, specifically the price deflated by cpi+lies, i think " housing hasn't moved in price at all since about 1980." but if the house itself is really different, then i can't conclude that. that's not your fault, of course. the median price is the median price, and it would take another whole layer of analysis to try to tease out, e.g., whether there has in fact been deflation because the 2006 house is more house than the 1980 house was.

Thanks jk... and interesting how the exact same chart is coming across to different folk.

Your point about the validity of the comparison is well taken too. There's little question that the houses of 1970 or 1980 are not the same ones as the ones of today. As you correctly observe, it may not be a great comparison but at least it's something... and if they are overall "better" today, it even makes the comparisons look worse - they should be up much more.

Just to counterpoint your other specifics too... ;) ... the materials in the houses of today are generally of lesser quality than those of 20+ years ago too (the last time a 2x4 was really 2" x 4" was in the early '60s as I recall for example, and same with the thickness of wood floors too).

The key difference though, and one I never hear mentioned when the comparison issue is brought up, is that the average land size is down quite a bit over the decades.