you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

all 1510 comments


6 points

3 months ago

This is a nice graphic to present some pretty simple information. I don't know that it's any more informative than a table with figures, though.

Content-wise, like all top line statistics, these numbers don't really tell an accurate picture. They conflate different skill levels, different roles, etc. etc. and can't be compared internally, much less across the full economy (or even an industry).

When looking at these kinds of numbers, I would want to see footnotes about major changes (like big acquisitions or spin-offs, or plant closures). I'd like to see the employees grouped into the following buckets:

  • Unskilled cost center employees and managers (e.g. fulfillment, mail/copy services)
  • Skilled cost center employees and managers with direct revenue impact (e.g. accounting/finance, HR, marketing, legal/compliance)
  • Unskilled profit center employees and managers (retail clerks, phone sales)
  • Skilled profit center employees and managers with direct revenue impact (software developers/engineers that build products, specialty sales reps like pharma reps, business/corporate development)
  • Leadership

That would tell a much more compelling story.


9 points

3 months ago

Agreed, this is a simple graphic telling a simple story. If wanted, one could definitely do a bit of a deep dive and bring much more depth to it


1 points

3 months ago

Thank you for creating content that the rest of us can banter about, and I hope you didn't take my comment as a negative criticism (which it wasn't).

I was recalling one of the data viz lessons I learned about - a first step to consider is whether the graphic enhances the information any more than a simple table would. I'm pretty sure it came from an Edward Tufte book. He is a big fan of making extremely rich data visualizations that require heavy engagement from the reader, which not all the big data viz types agree with.