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

Comments

perfectlyGoodInk

"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.

Ken

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.

The comments to this entry are closed.

BOOTCAMP SUMMER '19



Link to Principal Analytics Prep

See our curriculum, instructors. Apply.
Kaiser Fung. Business analytics and data visualization expert. Author and Speaker.
Visit my website. Follow my Twitter. See my articles at Daily Beast, 538, HBR.

See my Youtube and Flickr.

Book Blog



Link to junkcharts

Graphics design by Amanda Lee

The Read



Keep in Touch

follow me on Twitter

Residues