Shared publicly  - 
Daily chart: Inflation may have ruined "How to marry a millionaire" as a good film title, but there is still something magical about $1m. Today’s chart reveals that America creates the swiftest millionaires, while the main breadwinner in Mexico can expect to toil for three centuries to earn that special sum. View today’s chart to see how long it takes to earn $1m in different countries
priyanshu agrawal's profile photoPatrick Hardy's profile photoMorten Lynge's profile photoEric L's profile photo
What? Are we just number two. I cant stand it.
Is this graph based on the assumption that the average wage earner puts away all his/her earnings as cash or liquidatable assets? Even in that case, a few decades sounds too short a time for a US employee to amass a million dollars.
The key words here are 'before tax'... When you apply the total of Danish taxes (of all kind), you'll pretty easily reach 75%... Takes a lot longer then...
Still all good - but the difference between the US and its neighbours (Mexico) is scary!!!!
The difference is that we have Mexico as our neighbor. It's a lot easier to make and keep $1M when you have an abundant exploitable workforce keeping your expenses low. 
+Hurol Aslan note that it says "earn" a million, not amass. So it's just 1 million dividend by average income. 
+Steve Lyons It also say 'create millionaires', and that is someone who has amassed a million...
All in all, it's just a graph that shows 1.000.000/'average income'... It has absolutely no relevance as it doesn't take in any local differences between the countries. It is completely useless except perhaps as a tool to convince the gullible about something using bogus statistics...
I was suspecting what +Morten Lynge explained; otherwise, how would they know what portion of an income one can put away or invest?
Eric L
+Morten Lynge you and others are trying to read waaay too much into this graph and derive conclusions from assumptions. You are correct that they take 1m and divide by average income, but they have that nifty little adjustment in there also called PPP or "Purchasing Power Parity." While that doesn't mitigate all the other extenuating factors like taxes and such, it does do a good job of making a comparison between the countries involved. Saying that only the gullible will believe this graph or it was derived using "bogus statistics" seems rather hyperbolic, but I guess do what ever makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside.
+Eric Laybourn The PPP figure is as useless as the rest if you don't take taxes and other factors into account. All they really do is present 'average income' and 'price index' figures for the countries, but disguising them as something else to make them fit some other purpose.
Thus yes, it is 'bogus statistics', and not something any honest statistician would ever engage in...
I am interested in seeing the figures of India and China , but i am left disheartened..
Eric L
+Morten Lynge I couldn't disagree with you more;.PPP is a way to turn different currencies into "common units" to help compare them more easily. Taxes (of any sort) do not factor into calculating PPP yet for some reason you still want to include them ergo your argument is invalid. That straw man argument may make you look intelligent to some but falls short to those who have and sort of economic education (or anyone willing to do a quick Google search). As such your opinion that these statistics are "bogus" holds very little water because it is founded on you misunderstanding of PPP and how it is calculated. Also I think any of those "honest" statisticians that you speak of would argue that idea that any statistic that is derived from data is inherently bogus because of biases during collection and interpretation. No one person can deem any statistics real or bogus. These statistic representations should not be considered all inclusive dogma but rather a visual representation of the income disparity between nations. I have said my peace, and I look for ward to your response.
The follow-up chart needs to compare how fast one can blow a $million in various countries.
+Eric Laybourn Nice trolling :-p

However, the chart claims to show where the 'swiftest millionaires' are made (quote: "Today’s chart reveals that America creates the swiftest millionaires"), and does nothing of the sort. Thus 'bogus statistics'.
Your claim is that this chart is correct and valid means that you think that it takes about the same time (the numbers are fairly similar) to create a millionaire in Denmark (which easily has 75% directs and indirect taxes) ans Switzerland (which has <30% direct and indirect taxes).
If you're not trolling, but are simply utterly ignorant about statistics and how it should be used honestly, you should probably not discuss it :-p
Eric L
+Morten Lynge You got me... I Eric Laybourn, am a troll. I obviously know nothing of what I am talking about since I disagree with you and I was just trolling to make myself try to sound cool. I just can't contend against yours obviously superior wit and intelligence. I will remember to not cross you next time. You my good sir win =)
Add a comment...