4 ms·

so is this catching up or exceeding the rate of inflation? How was this salary number not tied to inflation or another index? If anything it seems to me to be

so is this catching up or exceeding the rate of inflation? How was this salary number not tied to inflation or another index? If anything it seems to me to be a benefit to those seeking employment who have real skills and ability.

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
$120k might be a starter's salary in the Bay Area but in, say, Rochester, NY, it's nothing to sneeze at. I agree that indexing to inflation is probably necessary, but there are so many factors to inflation at a local level that it's hard to make a one size fits all
Retric 10y ago
It's slightly more than inflation, but as it does not index to inflation it's going to quickly become meaningless.
- gregw2 10y ago
  Read the article. It is indexed to 35% above the median wage for a computer worker according to some of existing Department of Labor category. That median wage presumably will indirectly rise with inflation, so it's better than the previous static # and arguably more tied to the intent of the statute than even pure inflation indexing would be.
  - Retric 10y ago
    I doubt that category is really as fixed as you are thinking. At one point fast food prep was categorized as factory workers to make some statistics look different.
nicolas_t 10y ago
If the $60,000 from 1989 had been indexed on inflation, it would be $115,000 now. So, 130k doesn't seem so unreasonable. Of course, that does exclude states and cities with a lower cost of living. It would really make more sense to just index it to inflation or even better to the cost of live of the city where the employee would work (but that would potentially leave some loopholes)
- Clubber 10y ago
  >just index it to inflation It's so that politicians can fight every few years it needs to be raised and say, "vote for me, I fight for wages." On the other side of their mouth, on the years they don't fight for an increase, they can go to businesses, "donate to me, or I might have to fight to raise minimum wage this year." The minimum wage fight a few years ago is a prime example of this.
gregw2 10y ago
It was tied to another index according to the article.

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago

$120k might be a starter's salary in the Bay Area but in, say, Rochester, NY, it's nothing to sneeze at. I agree that indexing to inflation is probably necessary, but there are so many factors to inflation at a local level that it's hard to make a one size fits all

Retric 10y ago

It's slightly more than inflation, but as it does not index to inflation it's going to quickly become meaningless.

gregw2 10y ago
Read the article. It is indexed to 35% above the median wage for a computer worker according to some of existing Department of Labor category. That median wage presumably will indirectly rise with inflation, so it's better than the previous static # and arguably more tied to the intent of the statute than even pure inflation indexing would be.
- Retric 10y ago
  I doubt that category is really as fixed as you are thinking. At one point fast food prep was categorized as factory workers to make some statistics look different.

nicolas_t 10y ago

If the $60,000 from 1989 had been indexed on inflation, it would be $115,000 now. So, 130k doesn't seem so unreasonable. Of course, that does exclude states and cities with a lower cost of living. It would really make more sense to just index it to inflation or even better to the cost of live of the city where the employee would work (but that would potentially leave some loopholes)

Clubber 10y ago
>just index it to inflation It's so that politicians can fight every few years it needs to be raised and say, "vote for me, I fight for wages." On the other side of their mouth, on the years they don't fight for an increase, they can go to businesses, "donate to me, or I might have to fight to raise minimum wage this year." The minimum wage fight a few years ago is a prime example of this.

gregw2 10y ago

It was tied to another index according to the article.