-------- Original Message --------
Subject:        Re: Two color ramps for unemployment yielding 4 different messages
Date:   Wed, 15 Aug 2012 16:29:47 -0400
From:   Michael Holt <[log in to unmask]>
To:     Maps, Air Photo, GIS Forum - Map Librarianship
<[log in to unmask]>



     -------- Original Message --------
     Subject:        Two color ramps for unemployment yielding 4
     different messages
     Date:   Wed, 15 Aug 2012 19:46:59 +0000
     From:   Weessies, Kathleen <[log in to unmask]
     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
     To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
     <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Dotson,
     Daniel
     <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>



     Several months ago a time-series unemployment map made the rounds and
     got a lot of buzz in social media.  Maybe you remember it:
     _http://www.latoyaegwuekwe.__com/geographyofarecession.__html_
     <http://www.latoyaegwuekwe.com/geographyofarecession.html_>

It's not working now.    Should it be working?

     Of course we all know the unemployment
     situation is/was very bad, but is 5% unemployment really a statistic
     worthy of alarm?  By that standard, we should have been alarmed 80 of
     the 119 years from 1890 and 2009:


Back when I was interested in running businesses, I learned that
"functional unemployment" is what we call the situation wherein workers
are not working because they just joined the work force (graduated from
college, and stuff like that) or because they were changing jobs.
Normally, they said in my university classes in 1970 and 2000, it runs
somewhere between 4% and 6%.   It's not something to worry about.  When
the level reaches 8%, however, in both classrooms situations, the
professors noted, there's a problem, and 10% can be considered "disaster."


Michael Holt