Shifting Incomes for American Jobs

I feel there is more emphasis on the technique of how to create the graph to promote the subscription-based website's tutorials instead of the actual thing - which IMHO would actually benefit from less programming wizardry. I find the movement distracting. Instead, show the four years side by side. Dingleberry mentions a box plot, but I think the main point would be to just see the development without having to press buttons and watch an animation (and may I suggest a violin plot, kind of like a box plot but it also shows density information). It took me several iterations of switching until I saw details that would be visible right away if all were shown in one graph, for example that how many outliers there are in each profession changes, meaning the development isn't equal but actually reverses in some of them. But you have to keep going back and forth to see which are which.

So this is what happens when your focus is teaching fancy visualization techniques instead of making the point.

I don't understood this... the guy made some claims and then showed just a very weird graph? Was it supposed to be animated? I noticed some balls moving here and there every 5 seconds.

What the rows and colours are supposed to be? I saw colored dots all over the place with seemly no logic, and those row labels didn't made clear why some row has 3 colors of dots in it while another is empty...

I am dumb, seeing a type of graph I never saw before, or the d3.js he mentions is buggy?

Is the graph broken?

It takes 10 seconds to settle, and for any year above 1960, some dots move to above 200K, but around 175K it remains empty. And the relative amounts are similar, invalidating the word "shifting" in the title.

box plot should be a better viz

Who would've guessed Legal being so high? :-)