4 ms·

$100/hr works out to about $200k/yr, maybe a little more or less depending on how much vacation you get and assuming no overtime (for convenience despite the si

by blix 5y ago

$100/hr works out to about $200k/yr, maybe a little more or less depending on how much vacation you get and assuming no overtime (for convenience despite the sibling comment). Based on your data, the represents about the top percentile of police sergeant pay (not including benefits). Actually in the most recent available year only 1 out of 250 passes this threshold, with the median at around ~$85k. Unless this website is just a tool for police to hide how much they earn too? It's a good amount of money for a blue collar job, but I think you're overselling it, especially for HN.

haroldp 5y ago
Why wouldn't you include benefits? Do you consider benefits when accepting a job? Would cops accept only base pay as compensation? I am paying for these benefits, and they are not, like $50/mo into your 401k benefits. They are golden-parachute, retire young, benefits. They are part of total compensation, and it would be dishonest to talk about cop pay without including them. Almost every police sergeant makes over $100k in total compensation. At least 10% make more than $200k.
- blix 5y ago
  Because I'm not convinced of the reliability of benfit-to-dollar conversions, especially given their history as a way to distract from falling real wages. I personally value real salary much higher than benefit equivalent. Maybe the police department is overpaying for dental insurance from an agency run by the chief's cousin's wife. You raise a valid point but it makes the analysis more complicated. Even given the way you run the numbers, however, I think you are still overestimating the hourly rate for the average cop. If you judge the wealth of the world by the top 10%, poverty has been eliminated.
  - haroldp 5y ago
    That is a valid point but let me highlight three counter arguments: First, a large fraction of those benefits come from "overtime pay" or "other pay", and are dispersed as cash. Second, benefits typically come out of pay before taxes, so even if they aren't necessarily the best value, they are a better value than you could buy yourself. Third, most public employees in my state, as with many others, who's retirement benefits are paid into the PERS retirement system, are exempt from paying Social Security taxes.
    - blix 5y ago
      If I were to talk to a fulltime hourly worker, I feel like they wouldn't include benefits when they tell me their hourly rate (I didn't when I was one). You make a good argument; perhaps they should. Even if the conversions are somewhat sketchy, I think this would actually be quite illuminating, especially when considering things like minimum wages. A discussion for another day.
    - newbie789 5y ago
      In my first full-time job at a call center I was given a packet that described total compensation including 401k contributions, insurance etc. There was a bigger number that included all the benefits and perks, and a smaller number that represented actual weekly take-home pay. I was able to divide the bigger number by 40 just as easily as I was able to divide the smaller number by 40. I guess I’m the only one to do that? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- newbie789 5y ago
  I believe the person you’re responding to is only interested in take-home pay divided by hours worked and whether or not that number >=$100. I am not sure whether or not the requisite $100/hr number to become immune to bribery is pre- or post-tax. The premise seems to be that if the police made $99/hr, you could easily get better services out of them by handing them a $100 bill, because then they’d make an extra dollar. However if they are making $100/hr, they’d become morally unassailable at that price point. It’s a somewhat odd argument because instead of responding to a somewhat flippant comment about what it would take to have better interactions with law enforcement, we’re now arguing about hourly wages. It’s a pretty neat way to avoid addressing the actual issue at hand.

by blix 5y ago

haroldp 5y ago

Why wouldn't you include benefits? Do you consider benefits when accepting a job? Would cops accept only base pay as compensation? I am paying for these benefits, and they are not, like $50/mo into your 401k benefits. They are golden-parachute, retire young, benefits. They are part of total compensation, and it would be dishonest to talk about cop pay without including them. Almost every police sergeant makes over $100k in total compensation. At least 10% make more than $200k.

blix 5y ago
Because I'm not convinced of the reliability of benfit-to-dollar conversions, especially given their history as a way to distract from falling real wages. I personally value real salary much higher than benefit equivalent. Maybe the police department is overpaying for dental insurance from an agency run by the chief's cousin's wife. You raise a valid point but it makes the analysis more complicated. Even given the way you run the numbers, however, I think you are still overestimating the hourly rate for the average cop. If you judge the wealth of the world by the top 10%, poverty has been eliminated.
- haroldp 5y ago
  That is a valid point but let me highlight three counter arguments: First, a large fraction of those benefits come from "overtime pay" or "other pay", and are dispersed as cash. Second, benefits typically come out of pay before taxes, so even if they aren't necessarily the best value, they are a better value than you could buy yourself. Third, most public employees in my state, as with many others, who's retirement benefits are paid into the PERS retirement system, are exempt from paying Social Security taxes.
  - blix 5y ago
    If I were to talk to a fulltime hourly worker, I feel like they wouldn't include benefits when they tell me their hourly rate (I didn't when I was one). You make a good argument; perhaps they should. Even if the conversions are somewhat sketchy, I think this would actually be quite illuminating, especially when considering things like minimum wages. A discussion for another day.
  - newbie789 5y ago
    In my first full-time job at a call center I was given a packet that described total compensation including 401k contributions, insurance etc. There was a bigger number that included all the benefits and perks, and a smaller number that represented actual weekly take-home pay. I was able to divide the bigger number by 40 just as easily as I was able to divide the smaller number by 40. I guess I’m the only one to do that? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
newbie789 5y ago
I believe the person you’re responding to is only interested in take-home pay divided by hours worked and whether or not that number >=$100. I am not sure whether or not the requisite $100/hr number to become immune to bribery is pre- or post-tax. The premise seems to be that if the police made $99/hr, you could easily get better services out of them by handing them a $100 bill, because then they’d make an extra dollar. However if they are making $100/hr, they’d become morally unassailable at that price point. It’s a somewhat odd argument because instead of responding to a somewhat flippant comment about what it would take to have better interactions with law enforcement, we’re now arguing about hourly wages. It’s a pretty neat way to avoid addressing the actual issue at hand.