Weird, huh? Anyway, since I couldn't readily find substantiation for that 24% number, and the added dubiosity coming from the fact that he doesn't even mention whether it's adjusted for students, disabled, etc (as is standard practice in econometrics), I didn't even bother with the other charts or arguments he was trying to make.
That's because you didn't read the first paragraph of the source I cited.
It's just as in academic research -- yeah, maybe it's buried in the source somewhere, but no one has time to parse paragraphs, and divide numbers for you -- especially when you're already trying their patience by making such structurally weak arguments in the first place.
Pointing fingers (and, implicitly, accusing people of being lazy or unable to read) to distract from the fact that don't seem to have an answer for their main criticisms of your "argument" doesn't help, either. It's just grasping at straws.
It's not adjusted even for children, though.