Knowing what one is doing
Mar 28, 2009
Jess B. sent in some entertainment.
« February 2009 | Main | April 2009 »
Jess B. sent in some entertainment.
Tuesday was an up day in the stock markets. What did the headline writers think?
Wall Street resumes rally following housing report (Associated Press; link)
What did this great housing report say? Here was a version from Marketwatch, with my comments.
Housing starts surge 22% on apartment building
It was the largest percentage gain in 19 years and was the first increase in eight months in the sector that was at ground zero in the global economic recession.
At the minimum, they claimed to see a local maximum, perhaps even a global maximum
The housing data in winter months are especially volatile because of the weather.
Was someone hedging? It was unclear at this point how important this piece of information was. Some professionals expressed skepticism that the news was really positive:
"We're inclined to write this off as a weather-related fluke for now, " wrote economists for Wrightson ICAP.
Notice they hedged too, using the words "inclined to". Perhaps they had a reason to doubt the news. The article now cited less rosy numbers:
But despite February's gain, housing starts are down 47% from a year ago, and are down 74% from the peak in early 2006. Permits are down 44% in the past year.
And even more bad news:
The National Association of Home Builders reported Monday that its sentiment index was stuck at 9 on a scale of 1 to 100 in March.
Did that really say 9 out of 100? Sounded really bad for a nation of optimists and grade inflators. One had to start wondering about the headline. Was that 22% growth a fluke? Did it mean anything?
Now, two-thirds of the way down, the article revealed its essence:
The government cautions that its monthly housing data are volatile and subject to large sampling and other statistical errors. In most months, the government can't be sure whether starts increased or decreased. In February for instance, the standard error for starts was plus or minus 13.8%. Large revisions are common.
The key news about the sampling variability was a throw-away line ("for instance").
Here, the author was confused about standard error and margin of error. Standard error, being a standard deviation, cannot be a negative number. The range of 22% plus or minus 13.8% is a margin of error. This is a gigantic range, between minus 8.2% to 35.8%. While we conclude that the growth was statistically larger than zero, we have to wonder whether this number has historical significance (best in 19 years?)
Worse than that, in any month when the growth is less than 13.8%, this level of sampling error means the growth rate is not statistically different from zero. Thus, the most newsworthy sentence of the entire piece was:
In other words, this statistic of growth in housing starts is junk. If we really want to examine this statistic, the survey needs to use a much larger sample.
MarketWatch is to be commended for noticing the volatility issue. Of the dozens of articles that came up in a Google search about the housing starts data, none others mentioned this problem.
The original government press release is here (pdf), with all the fine print.
Todd B. pointed us here. These are maps that supposedly show the distribution of respondents for each answer choice in a survey exploring accents in different parts of the country. The full set of maps for every question can be found here.
Just because you put data on a map doesn't make it effective. Check out these mapped responses that either tell us that there is no difference in dialects or fails to illustrate differences effectively.
From Bernard L., another exemplary effort by the Times. This one really got me excited.
The chart on the right which compares the unemployment picture across past recessions has many good features.
It uses a very sensible metric, counting the percentage change from peak employment. I have mentioned the superiority of this type of presentation compared to plotting a time series of unemployment rates. The following is an example of a standard graphic using gray bands to indicate recessions. The difference is obvious.
Here is the previous post that dealt with the drop in market capitalization of banks since the peak which screamed out for this type of treatment.
It handles the foreground-background issue very well. A number of similar charts is circulating in which every single line has a different color. Here, the designer clearly tells us the current recession is the foreground and all the past recessions form the background. It looks as if the 1981-3 recession is slightly highlighted with a darker orange to draw attention to the fact that it is most similar to the current situation. I find this unnecessary because the association is clear even without the darker hue; however, the designer does this with a very light touch so this is just a question of taste.
I would label the horizontal axis starting at 0.
Reference: "Job Losses Hint at Vast Remaking of Economy", New York Times, Mar 8 2009.