Thank you for linking to the original. This is awful r/dataisbeautiful content: it's a misleading statistic inside a foreign-language article that is only aggregated content from a different site. It has one "graph", if you can call it that, which is a single box to represent 109 million, with little lines to represent 10, 50 and 100 million. That's it. And for some reason the url says 126 instead of 109 million, probably because they initially copied the wrong statistic from the original Quartz article, using the number for the total number of households in the US rather than the estimate arrived at by number of households under that value multiplied by average household size. There is one single piece of data here and even in words it's misleading, the graphical content is not beautiful or even informative ("boy, that sure is a big box" is the only message here), and it's removed from the original source, which at least provided some useful content and caveats. I'm appalled by Trump too, but we don't need to upvote posts solely for being anti-Trump if they're otherwise awful content for the sub.

About the points in your comment, which I appreciate you adding:

They do acknowledge the negative/zero wealth issue "It is worth noting that almost 13% of American households have zero or negative wealth because of debt, so we are adding together these households with those that have at least some wealth."

It's a little unclear what they're doing here. Are they counting each of those households as $0 each, in which case someone with $1 to their name would be richer than 13% of households? Or are they counting those as negative, such that you have to add a ton of households just to get back up to 0, in which case someone with $1 to their name might be richer than something like 20% of households? (idk how many percentage points of barely-above-0 people you'd need to add to cancel out the debt of the bottom 13%, but I could imagine it being significant.) *(further note below)

They offer an alternative using median household wealth as the measure "Even if we just compare the wealth of Trump’s cabinet to the median household, it is still an impressive concentration of riches. It would take about 120,000 households with the the United States median net worth of about $83,200 to match the wealth of just the four richest members of Trump’s cabinet—Betsy DeVos, Wilbur Ross Jr., Linda McMahon, and Rex Tillerson."

Note the difference between these two results. 109 million and 120,000 might sound similar when you're skimming really fast and saying the numbers aloud, they have the same rhythm to them syllable-by-syllable, but they're 1000x apart. Before, they said over 1/3 of all households, and then translated that to a number of people. Now, they give a number of households just under one-tenth of 1%. Before, it was "Trump's cabinet has as much wealth as the total of every household from the 0th percentile to the 34th percentile of the income distribution"; by this measure, it's "Trump's cabinet has as much wealth as the total of every household from the 49.95th percentile to the 50.05th percentile". Both may be true, but the first implies a very different thing from the second, and really, the fact that the second is true completely undermines the implication they're sending with the first.

*One further caveat on the debt thing; if someone truly has more debt than they have assets, tangible and intangible, then it makes sense to count them there. I believe in most cases that's just bankruptcy, though. Most of the cases you see where someone has more debt than assets are student debt, especially for something like med school or law school. In that case, someone takes on debt in order to get a higher-earning career later; their diploma and expertise is non-transferrable and therefore hard to put a dollar value on it, but it certainly shouldn't be 0. Student debt can be very burdensome, no doubt, but if your metric is saying that the single poorest people in the entire US (or in the entire world, really, as it is in the worst abuses of this statistic) are young doctors and lawyers, it is at best "technically correct" but clearly missing something important.

[Edit: Just added a link to this article. It's even worse than I'd thought, The people at the very bottom aren't just doctors and lawyers with student debt, it includes stock traders with a net worth numbering in the negative hundreds of millions or billions of dollars (yes, the linked man is French, as it's responding to a global statistic, but I'm sure there are similar Americans). The bottom 30% of the world has negative $500 Billion dollars in net worth, which will undoubtedly take another huge group just to bring back up to 0. I'm sure there's a similar dynamic happening here, where the .1% with the most negative net worth would take another 10% or so just to bring back up to 0.]