this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
635 points (94.9% liked)
United States | News & Politics
1936 readers
279 users here now
Welcome to [email protected], where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.
If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.
Rules
Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.
Post anything related to the United States.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What a terrible graph. You don't know if the numbers are good or bad at a passing glance.
Are you perhaps color blind? The shades of red and green were pretty clear for me at a glance.
Sure, but is people making over $14m/year paying more taxes really a bad thing?
For them it is...
I’m sure the post tax income will still be enough to soak up the tears.
Fuck em.
I think they might be. blue would've been a better choice. it's weird that people still use red and green when it's the best known and most common form of color blindness and it affects as much as 1 in 20 people, give or take. that's not a small percentage. color blindness in general affects 1 in 12 people.
1 in 12 men I believe. It's not as common in women.
that's for red-green, which is why I said about 1 in 20 -- maybe closer to 1 in 25 -- but in total, all color vision deficiency types add up to around 1 in 12 people.
No it isn't. 1 in 12 men are colour blind. Only 1 in 200 women are colour blind.
https://enchroma.com/pages/facts-about-color-blindness
colorblindawareness.org seems to say it both ways
the thing here is even 8% is the total number of CVD men, that's inherited. there's also CVD that comes with age:
so that's more people. added to the 4.25% that would make 7.25% -- somewhere between 1 in 13 to 14 people. doesn't matter too much, it is significant and should be considered in design.