« But or because more information | Main | How to tell if your graphic is underpowered? »



"What doesn't make sense to me, in the blue chart, is the extreme variance in the annual payout for the beneficiary with "average" tenure of about 35 years. If you look at all of the charts, there are several examples of retirement systems in which employees with similar tenure have payouts that differ by an order of magnitude. Can someone explain that?"

I can only guess that 35 years is about how long it takes to get promoted as far as possible in the system, and so this is where the range is maximized.


I would also switch x and y axes.

The peak at 35 years service would correspond to late fifties, early sixties, at which point if someone has enough pension they retire. If I could get $200,000+/year I would retire now. Those that stay on are staying on purely because they don't get enough to retire.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


Link to Principal Analytics Prep

See our curriculum, instructors. Apply.
Marketing analytics and data visualization expert. Author and Speaker. Currently at Columbia. See my full bio.

Book Blog

Link to junkcharts

Graphics design by Amanda Lee

The Read

Good Books

Keep in Touch

follow me on Twitter