The scale is cherry-picked to fit the change in the graph - you can see that just by looking at the Y-axis. It makes sense for what I assume the BLS assumed the purpose of the graph is, visualizing the direction of the trend over time. However, you can't draw conclusions on the magnitude when the magnitude is arbitrarily chosen.
So yes, I am really accusing the Bureau of Labor Statistics of cherry-picking the scale. I don't assume any malice on their part, only that they intended the graph to be used for purposes other than how it is used here.
You honestly think that the scale was hand picked, rather than being determined by the software being used to generate every graph on the site? The scale looks to be determined by the floor of the lowest value, and the ceiling of the highest.
I didn't say hand-picked. By cherry-picked I mean that the software picked out two arbitrary values that are just outside of the range of the data. The values are still arbitrary: they show direction well but magnitude poorly.
That's not what cherry-picked means. Cherry-picked means more what you are referring to when you say "hand-picked" here. It means to carefully choose the best.
That's also not what arbitrary means. If you select numbers that are just outside the range of a particular set of data, that's anything but arbitrary. Arbitrary means to choose based on someones discretion or judgment rather than to determine by rule. Comes from the same root as arbitration.
I'm not saying all of that to criticize your use of words, I'm saying it because I honestly don't know what you're trying to say. I think you're probably changing the goalposts.
So yes, I am really accusing the Bureau of Labor Statistics of cherry-picking the scale. I don't assume any malice on their part, only that they intended the graph to be used for purposes other than how it is used here.