[okfn-labs] [OpenSpending] Representing things in terms of other things?

[Michael Bauer]

I fully agree with Tony there, 

Journalists here have the habit of expressing large quantity in bathtubs
and football-fields and horrendous stuff like that. So better not encourage
that in breaking OpenSpending numbers down to Bathtubs full of 1pound
coins...

Michael

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 09:37:54PM +0200, Jonathan Gray wrote:
> Thanks for this Tony. I very much agree that this needs to be done in the
> right way. I was less flagging this specific article as a shining example
> of making comparisons (I only skimmed the examples), than using it as a
> 'hook' for a more general discussion to see if people had any cunning ideas
> about how something like this might be done.
> 
> Do you have any thoughts about how this could be done? ;-)
> 
> 
> On 17 April 2013 20:38, Tony Bowden <tony at mysociety.org> wrote:
> 
> > On 17 April 2013 20:14, Jonathan Gray <jonathan.gray at okfn.org> wrote:
> > > This recent story [1] made me wonder whether we could do something for
> > Open
> > > Spending (or even a separate little thing, related to OpenSpending) to
> > show
> > > big spending items in terms of other smaller or similar spending items?
> >
> > I have a major problem with that Guardian article, in that it seems
> > more to promote financial illiteracy, presumably to score some cheap
> > political points. It pretends to be adding clarity as to what £10m is,
> > but instead simply perpetuates (and strengthens) standard
> > misconceptions.
> >
> > So, to take the first example, £10m wouldn't really "pay for" 322
> > nurses. The cost of employing a nurse (or indeed anyone) is
> > considerably more than their salary. A general rule of thumb is than
> > an employee will usually "cost" 2x their salary. Secondly, it ignores
> > the critical distinction between one-off costs and recurring costs.
> > Simply stating that it's "for one year" doesn't really address the
> > sleight of hand inherent in pretending that these costs are
> > equivalent.
> >
> > But I'd still be concerned even if the information were presented
> > differently (e.g. "Could employ 20 nurses for 10 years"). This still
> > only gives the _impression_ of useful context, by cherry-picking a
> > single number (the cost of a nurse), and making that number look much
> > bigger than it really is. (And using an emotionally charged
> > example[1], to boot, but that's a slightly different rant.)
> >
> > Most people will instinctively think of 20 extra nurses see it in a
> > hyper-local context — in terms of a hospital they've been at recently,
> > or with reference to someone they know who's recently lost their job,
> > or the like. But out of ~400,000 nurses employed by the NHS, 20 (or
> > even 322) makes very close to zero difference.
> >
> > A more accurate way of expressing the same number in the same context
> > is that £10m could increase the median nurse salary from £31,095 to
> > £31,100 for five years. But as that suddenly makes the £10m seem
> > small, rather than large, I suspect it doesn't fit the narrative the
> > Guardian are trying to put across.
> >
> > And that's only the problem with looking at £10m against the fraction
> > of government spending that is nurses' salaries. Out of the full
> > £720bn, £10m is even smaller still. And any attempt to 'translate' the
> > numbers into something that people can understand, but which doesn't
> > convey *that*, is hindering, rather than helping.
> >
> >
> > Lest anyone misunderstand — I very much agree with Jonathan's
> > underlying idea here. Contextualisation of information, and in
> > particular of big numbers, is hugely important. But it's so important
> > that it needs to be done right — and a lot of how it's being done
> > these days is very far from right.
> >
> > I also have no objection to the Guardian having a narrative they want
> > to get across here. I probably even agree with what they're saying.
> > But I *do* object to manner in which they're doing it, and, more
> > crucially, I think the Open Knowledge Foundation, or those of us doing
> > related things in similar fields, need to be even more careful not to
> > fall into these same sorts of traps.
> >
> > Tony
> >
> > [1] Doubly so by the wider context being highly charged too.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > openspending mailing list
> > openspending at lists.okfn.org
> > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/openspending
> > Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/openspending
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jonathan Gray <http://jonathangray.org/> | @jwyg <http://twitter.com/jwyg>
> Director of Policy and Ideas
> The Open Knowledge Foundation <http://okfn.org/> |
> @okfn<http://twitter.com/okfn>
> Support our work: okfn.org/support

> _______________________________________________
> okfn-labs mailing list
> okfn-labs at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-labs
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-labs


-- 
Data Wrangler with the Open Knowledge Foundation (OKFN.org)
GPG/PGP key: http://tentacleriot.eu/mihi.asc
Twitter: @mihi_tr Skype: mihi_tr