Comment by lovich

> The chart is supposed accompany an article, which explains what the metric is:

> 1. If you read the original paper[1], they seem to be doing it for weird economics reasons:

You should probably link a reference to the required extra information if you are expecting people to believe your sourced data instead of assuming they already know it.

> I don't know enough about economics to dispute this…

> In other words, not enough to change the conclusion.

If you don’t know enough about economics to dispute this, why would anyone trust your conclusion?

You’ve not changed my mind, only solidified that this is misleading data given your follow up.