Right away, I was struck by the early chart "Parenting style" which shows about 75% with "Two parents uninvolved". Pardon my language: What the fuck does that even mean? I call bullshit. The whole article is nothing more than typical doomerism that spikes the reader's emotions with clickbait.
Another one from "Household income vs. poverty line":
> And a lot of kids are growing up extremely poor – which, in and of itself, can be traumatic.
Here, the phrase "a lot" is absolutely an editorial phrase. It would be more clear and less emotional to use a percent value. Instead, they chose the clickbait route. Interestingly, they chose the term "extremely poor", but their own chart does not use it, nor include a definition of it. The lowest income category simply says "In poverty". In past discussions about poverty, many people on HN have shared their personal poverty experiences and the range of poverty. You can be right at the poverty line, but making ends meet. Or you can be deep in poverty, struggling terribly. Again, the article fails to provide necessary nuance.
Another one from "Household income vs. poverty line":
Here, the phrase "a lot" is absolutely an editorial phrase. It would be more clear and less emotional to use a percent value. Instead, they chose the clickbait route. Interestingly, they chose the term "extremely poor", but their own chart does not use it, nor include a definition of it. The lowest income category simply says "In poverty". In past discussions about poverty, many people on HN have shared their personal poverty experiences and the range of poverty. You can be right at the poverty line, but making ends meet. Or you can be deep in poverty, struggling terribly. Again, the article fails to provide necessary nuance.