In the same spirit, I suppose one could say that it's weird that, in your first post, you didn't mention that it does ultimately say that on the website.

/shrug

I suppose the point I tried to make is that the conclusion presented in the summary omits asians as high-earners and that changes the take-away.

My conclusion would have been:

"With a broad stroke, male, asian and White/Caucasian workers simply earn more than their counterparts."

which is different from:

> With a broad stroke, male and White/Caucasian workers simply earn more than their counterparts.

I could be misunderstanding the point you are making.

>I could be misunderstanding the point you are making.

I don't disagree with the broader point that you're making, I'm just pointing out that you're doing what you're critiquing as you critique it. Your first post says that they don't actually say what the data shows, and you go on to suggest that an improper presentation of data can cause people take away the wrong idea.

I'm saying that you choosing not to mention the fact that they do state that fact accurately merely a few sentences later also could cause people to take away the wrong idea.

I don't understand the point of this conversation.

> Your first post says that they don't actually say what the data shows

And I maintain that the summary omits and misrepresents what the data shows.

> I'm saying that you choosing not to mention the fact that they do state that fact accurately merely a few sentences later

It's behind a click. It actually doesn't show at all without a click. I missed it the first time I skimmed the article (thank you for pointing it out) and I'm sure other people will as well.