Dalio talks about these metrics as an indicator of macro change. I would love to see how the magnitude compares to eras in history with more upheaval. The data probably doesn’t exist in a reliable enough format.
I don’t want to sound to harsh, but do you really think this is a good way to present this data? There are maybe 4 or 5 interesting data points in addition to the general trend that is visible from 1970 – 1990. The rest is just clutter that serves as a baseline.
The next question I would ask is if it makes sense to plot the number of stikes? Obviously it makes a difference if a single amazon warehouse stikes or if a large union calls for nationwide strikes. I did not check the reference you linked, but without diving into the data myself, I have a hard time comparing data points (magnitude and duration of strike matter). In addition, population size/GDP is not accounted for in the plot. A smaller number of strikes in a small country can still be an indicator for special circumstances, whereas the same number of strikes in a larger country is just part of the baseline.
How could you (in my opinion) improve the graph? I would start by asking myself what is interesting about the data. We see the general trend of the number of strikes decreasing from 1970 – 1990 and the outliers in Korea, Poland and Germany. You could try to reduce the number of countries to the ones that show interesting outliers and plot the OECD average to provide a baseline for the reader. Add a legend that assigns colors to countrys and get rid of the country names next to the data points. Instead, I would add text next to the outliers that explains the political circumstances that coused the large deviations. This will add actual information for the reader to help interpret the data.
1987 was a pivotal year in South Korea, marking the end of military dictatorship and the beginning of the current democratic system. It was not only the year with the highest number of strikes in history but also saw the largest anti-government protests.
In the late 1980s, Koreans participated in anti-government protests and strikes almost every day, demanding a fair distribution of the fruits of economic growth. Ironically, this period was also the fastest economic growth period in South Korean history.
I wonder if there is some other value that might correlate with this, such as poverty rate or median wages. And, if that value falling makes a strike more likely, is a strike actually an effective solution?
Basic rule broken: can’t use an acronym without breaking it down the first time.
Just limited your audience to people who already know what OECD is. Everyone else just moved on after they didn’t see an explanation
TIL: lockout = the opposite of a strike, a labor disruption where management refuses to allow workers into a plant to work even if they are willing
Russia’s propaganda has been mostly focusing on Poland and Germany. Especially in Germany, they’ve had huge success.
![Number of Strikes and Lockouts in OECD Countries by year [OC]](https://www.europesays.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/9fqr3cknrove1-1920x1024.png)
8 comments
Dalio talks about these metrics as an indicator of macro change. I would love to see how the magnitude compares to eras in history with more upheaval. The data probably doesn’t exist in a reliable enough format.
Data source: [https://ilostat.ilo.org/methods/concepts-and-definitions/description-industrial-relations-data/](https://ilostat.ilo.org/methods/concepts-and-definitions/description-industrial-relations-data/) (“Number of strikes and lockouts by economic activity”).
Made using matplotlib in Python.
I don’t want to sound to harsh, but do you really think this is a good way to present this data? There are maybe 4 or 5 interesting data points in addition to the general trend that is visible from 1970 – 1990. The rest is just clutter that serves as a baseline.
The next question I would ask is if it makes sense to plot the number of stikes? Obviously it makes a difference if a single amazon warehouse stikes or if a large union calls for nationwide strikes. I did not check the reference you linked, but without diving into the data myself, I have a hard time comparing data points (magnitude and duration of strike matter). In addition, population size/GDP is not accounted for in the plot. A smaller number of strikes in a small country can still be an indicator for special circumstances, whereas the same number of strikes in a larger country is just part of the baseline.
How could you (in my opinion) improve the graph? I would start by asking myself what is interesting about the data. We see the general trend of the number of strikes decreasing from 1970 – 1990 and the outliers in Korea, Poland and Germany. You could try to reduce the number of countries to the ones that show interesting outliers and plot the OECD average to provide a baseline for the reader. Add a legend that assigns colors to countrys and get rid of the country names next to the data points. Instead, I would add text next to the outliers that explains the political circumstances that coused the large deviations. This will add actual information for the reader to help interpret the data.
1987 was a pivotal year in South Korea, marking the end of military dictatorship and the beginning of the current democratic system. It was not only the year with the highest number of strikes in history but also saw the largest anti-government protests.
In the late 1980s, Koreans participated in anti-government protests and strikes almost every day, demanding a fair distribution of the fruits of economic growth. Ironically, this period was also the fastest economic growth period in South Korean history.
I wonder if there is some other value that might correlate with this, such as poverty rate or median wages. And, if that value falling makes a strike more likely, is a strike actually an effective solution?
Basic rule broken: can’t use an acronym without breaking it down the first time.
Just limited your audience to people who already know what OECD is. Everyone else just moved on after they didn’t see an explanation
TIL: lockout = the opposite of a strike, a labor disruption where management refuses to allow workers into a plant to work even if they are willing
Russia’s propaganda has been mostly focusing on Poland and Germany. Especially in Germany, they’ve had huge success.
Comments are closed.