What about disabled people?

This is a great topic. A lot of people seem to get through undergraduate without an understanding of how to think about numbers as they apply to the world in which we all live. I read a really useful book called Innumeracy that really did a good job (in my opinion) of laying out how to think critically about numbers that govern our everyday lives.

For my own field, I also got the book Ecological Numeracy, which ran through many of the same lessons and underlying logic - but from a complementary viewpoint.

I personally think that - just like learning the Classics (or at least just taking classes in the Classics) is presently a required part of a Liberal Arts education - courses on applied numeracy ought to be included, too. Yes, I know that the physical sciences, engineering, economics, and many other disciplines utilize objective metrics to conduct their work, but many of the courses that teach these metrics (at least the ones that I took) fail to show how to apply those metrics (and the principles underlying them) to problems that extend beyond the practice sets and exams.

American Indians? Really now?

Lies, damn lies, and "statistics".

The only way to get from 24 per minute to 12M per year is to pretend that each person is only "victimized" for one minute one time during the year, otherwise your simple multiplcation of 24 victims/minute * 60 minutes/hour * 24 hours/day * 365.25 days / year = 12.6M victims / year is a complete load of bull.

Perhaps you should be "teaching" your students something you actually understand yourself instead of making up numbers.

I like the idea of giving people tools to think critically about the information they're presented with. I try to help my interns use common-sense double-checking -- e.g., if they know that our city has 3 million residents, and they know that educational-level data is only collected for people 25 and over, then it should be a giant red flag if population total in the "education level" chart is 2.9 million.

Within 20% is pretty damn precise. The Fermi method of estimating unknown quantities considers itself accurate if it gets within an order of magnitude of the actual value; for US population, that would mean anywhere between 30M and 3B would be good estimates.

ETA: Fermi Estimates

Best book/site for getting your head around statistics - The Flaw of Averages
http://www.flawofaverages.com/

Something to be cautious of: Demographics can be highly unreliable in many parts of the world. An example I am familiar with because I had to work with it is South Africa. Firstly, not every country has a reliable system for collecting demographics, and governments also frequently limit how much foreign agencies can intervene. Secondly, depending on the level of transparency in the country, demographics may be highly tinkered with. Finally, there can also be significant regional differences in collecting/reporting demographics within countries.

I think emphasizing awareness demographic facts is important, but only in optimal conditions. I assume you are suggesting that they are reliable when referring to the USA. But it is equally important to teach students to be skeptical with demographics throughout many parts of the world, to treat them as rough estimates at best, that is, if you can take them seriously at all. I am aware this sounds conspiracy theorish, but it's not. It is, in its own sad way, a fact.

You didn't listen to the press conference very carefully. A House Republican was referring to RECENT COLLEGE GRADUATES, which is more plausible. The unemployment rate in May for all teenagers 24.5%, according to the BLS. And according to a fecent BLS study, more than 25 percent of recent graduates were not employed (though, to be accurate, not all of them were seeking jobs and in the workforce). http://bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/02/art1full.pdf

Love this topic... you might find the "Dictionary of Numbers" interesting, since it's somewhat related. http://blog.xkcd.com/2013/05/15/dictionary-of-numbers/

Oftentimes, people have no idea what huge numbers mean... perhaps we need a "dictionary of populations?"

You touched on this in your article, but perhaps in addition to population counts and percentages, some time-based math.... When this "happens every 20 seconds" or that "affects dozens of people every day", what do those numbers really mean in meaningful contexts?

I'd add the US government's annual budget.

I'd like to see an inclusion of the LGBT community here, especially with the recent SCOTUS decision. Also, I second the suggestion of including people with disabilities.