Hacker News Reader

It's very pretty but having a stacked graph is really inappropriate.

We don't spend equal amounts on those categories and stacking the graphs obscured the relative changes. There is no analysis worth anything in the text.

It's just showcasing a pretty graph

View on HN

Whether the proportion among them is correct is a valid point, but since the extra cost of the different categories is cumulative to the household budget, there is an argument for stacking them. It would make more sense if it were proportional to household spending between categories, but I suppose then some of the categories would be too thin to see the increase.

Exactly my point. If a category becomes 3x more expensive but it only takes up 1% of my expenditure then a stacked graph without proportions is very misleading.

It also assumes that in 2000 you spent exactly the same amount on each of these categories, which is very weird. It would be much more interesting to know the relative amount of need for each category.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com