This post is with regard to a clarification that, hopefully, will clear up some issues regarding deception. Earlier in this thread, PrintSmith and I went back and forth on a graph I posted regarding who is paid minimum wages.
Here is what PrintSmith said:
PrintSmith wrote: That you would even attempt to give legitimacy to a graph that assigns 3 years to one group, four to another and roughly 40 to the last one and think it legitimate only demonstrates the depths of deception that you are willing to stoop to in pursuit of an ideology. Sorry Z, you'll have to do much better than that in this forum.
My responses were quite possibly, and regrettably, deflections of a sort.
Here's why: I did my research, albeit "after the fact", went to the BLS website, and came away with the realization the graph I presented may be inaccurate from a "totals" perspective. The graph shows "millions" on one axis and "years" on the other of the graph. The data table presented on the BLS website shows data in the "thousands", not millions. That being said, the table on the BLS web site is the most current and up to date data available and covers only the year 2013. I'm still looking for the info from the years represented in the graph.
So, in this regard, I offer apologies to PrintSmith and everyone else following this thread for this apparent error in the graph. I've contacted the source from which the graph was taken and have asked them for verification links. If provided, I'll share them here. If not, I stand by the most current information available presented on the BLS website:
www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat44.htm
That being said, one of the things I also noted on the BLS website is with regard to the age group breakdown challenged by PrintSmith. The BLS website breaks down their analysis by "total", and by men and women as far as the age classification is concerned. The age breakdowns are 16 to 24 years, and 25 years and older. The graph did, in fact, break it down into three groups, as PrintSmith asserted. The BLS website breaks it down into only two groups. And, for this discrepancy, I also offer my apologies. I don't know if, in the overall scheme of things it really makes much difference, but it does, as PrintSmith asserted, go to credibility.
I'm hoping my source is credible enough to provide verification (they've been very credible and reliable in the past). If not, that's ok, too. I still have the BLS stats to rely on which, perhaps, I should have presented to begin with.
Again, my apologies.
