3 ms·

A quick calculation: $60,000 in 1989 adjusted for inflation equals $116,132.42 in 2016. This changes the narative a lot.

by dandare 10y ago

gravypod 10y ago
I don't see how. Can you please elaborate?
- jbmorgado 10y ago
  Seen this way it only updates the salary requirement to accompany inflation, so you are actually just putting it like it already was during the beginning of the 90's.
  - phonon 10y ago
    Benefit costs have increased much more than the rate of inflation though.
trollpan2 10y ago
Well inflation may have increased but as per pew research wages are stagnated for decades (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-wor...) . In that narrative, this increase is unfair to companies outside of SF/NYC area and also unfair to students who came to USA for studies.
webmaven 10y ago
Rather than adjusting for inflation, try adjusting for productivity instead: http://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ http://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/
- randyrand 10y ago
  The productivity gap is really an economics understanding gap. The whole idea is that when productivity goes up, prices go down! To suggest wages should go up when productivity goes up is a complete misunderstanding of economics. It's stupid. You only need one! Prices going down is how the free market adjust for productivity. If they wanted to make a fair comparison, chart a graph between productivity and the cost to buy a basket of goods in real money. You'll find wages have gone up! Roughly the rate of GDP growth per year! Shocking!!! /s
  - dandare 10y ago
    Good point. Also, wages are not disposable income - the government redistributes more wealth than it used to. The number on your payslip may not be bigger but you can afford more food and health care. Any graph should take this into consideration.

A quick calculation: $60,000 in 1989 adjusted for inflation equals $116,132.42 in 2016. This changes the narative a lot.

by dandare 10y ago

A quick calculation: $60,000 in 1989 adjusted for inflation equals $116,132.42 in 2016. This changes the narative a lot.

gravypod 10y ago

I don't see how. Can you please elaborate?

jbmorgado 10y ago
Seen this way it only updates the salary requirement to accompany inflation, so you are actually just putting it like it already was during the beginning of the 90's.
- phonon 10y ago
  Benefit costs have increased much more than the rate of inflation though.

trollpan2 10y ago

Well inflation may have increased but as per pew research wages are stagnated for decades (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-wor...) . In that narrative, this increase is unfair to companies outside of SF/NYC area and also unfair to students who came to USA for studies.

webmaven 10y ago

Rather than adjusting for inflation, try adjusting for productivity instead: http://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ http://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/

randyrand 10y ago
The productivity gap is really an economics understanding gap. The whole idea is that when productivity goes up, prices go down! To suggest wages should go up when productivity goes up is a complete misunderstanding of economics. It's stupid. You only need one! Prices going down is how the free market adjust for productivity. If they wanted to make a fair comparison, chart a graph between productivity and the cost to buy a basket of goods in real money. You'll find wages have gone up! Roughly the rate of GDP growth per year! Shocking!!! /s
- dandare 10y ago
  Good point. Also, wages are not disposable income - the government redistributes more wealth than it used to. The number on your payslip may not be bigger but you can afford more food and health care. Any graph should take this into consideration.