Inspired by @EconTalker to go deeper and question things I read, here is a perfect example of how people cherry pick data to fit their narrative.
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D4QvxXYUIAE7XrG.png)
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D4QvzAxUIAAaGFL.png)
seen in 2013"
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D4Qv1w6VUAAeHiy.png)
If I were a journalist that wanted to be credible, I'd use this response - 14% - I could see why they used 40% but it seems out of line with the rest of the reports takeaways.
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D4XIZGIU8AA0PeL.jpg)