7 ms·

Shame they don't raise that even higher. It seems like ~60K in the governments mind is still high, even though as a population, even people making >100K are rep

Shame they don't raise that even higher. It seems like ~60K in the governments mind is still high, even though as a population, even people making >100K are reporting that they feel like they can't get ahead, let alone people who make less than that. I think its great that they're updating this, but they should of increased it by 2/3s at least

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> even people making >100K are reporting that they feel like they can't get ahead I know people making $5+ million who say the same. This is the human condition. Anecdotes of not getting ahead and personal strife are terrible inputs for economic policy. American GDP per capita is about $75k [1]. Median household income around $70k [2]. If you want natural figure to revolve around, those are good ones. [1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=US https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?location... [2] https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2022/demo/p60-276.html https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2022/demo/p60-27...
- no_wizard 3y ago
  I agree with this and I should have clarified - The cost of living is rising fast enough that the majority of people making between 100K and 250K are feeling like they can't get ahead, with record low numbers of home ownership (not just single family homes either, but condos etc) among this group of traditionally "automatic" home buyers, as well as record lows of asset accumulation. The dollar just isn't going as far as it used to, and there is no signs of that letting up any time soon, even with rising interest rates, you see no knock off effects on things like grocery prices or home prices, even though corporations are making record profits currently.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > record low numbers of home ownership…among this group of traditionally "automatic" home buyers Source? I see evidence of this in supply-restricted cities. But not in the country broadly. > dollar just isn't going as far as it used to Real wages are near historical highs and at par with the pre-Covid economy.
    - deepsun 3y ago
      The parent poster probably talks about 1970x, not pre-covid.
      - jonas21 3y ago
        Real wages are also higher today than they were in 1970.
        deepsun 3y ago
        > In fact, despite some ups and downs over the past several decades, today’s real average wage (that is, the wage after accounting for inflation) has about the same purchasing power it did 40 years ago. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/08/07/for-most-... That's 1980x, not 1970x, but should be close.
        jonas21 3y ago
        Let's use the actual numbers [1] instead of a statement from 5 years ago that things are "about the same" as 40 years before. The average hourly wage for Production and Nonsupervisory Employees in the highest month of 1970 was $3.50, or $26.88 in current dollars. The current average hourly wage is $28.96. Thus, real wages are higher today than they were in 1970. [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AHETPI https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AHETPI
    - no_wizard 3y ago
      Business Insider[0] and WSJ[1][2] have reported on this over the years. I also do not think its fair to discount away people who live in "highly desirable" urban environments. Beyond a simple dislike of that idea, most of the jobs that do pay over 100K existed near them for decades, and with RTO in full swing, it seems most of them are going back to those cities one way or another. WFH does not appear to be a permanent boon for employees at large. Given this reality, the metrics around those cities are important to consider as well. [0]: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-to-buy-house-six-figure-salary-not-enough-2021-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-to-buy-house-six-fi... [1]: https://www.wsj.com/articles/three-million-u-s-households-making-over-150-000-are-still-renting-48bd48e4 https://www.wsj.com/articles/three-million-u-s-households-ma... [2]: Tried getting an archive link for WSJ but it kept failing. I know its paywalled, will comment if I get a working link
  - kasey_junk 3y ago
    In 1960 61%[0] of Americans owned their own home, it’s around 66%[1] now. Go back to before WW2 and you’ll see a homeowner rate in the 40% (which makes sense as our current public policy was largely enacted post war). When people say home ownership rates are down they are comparing it to the pre-2008 bubble deflate when it was a whopping 3% more homeowners. We have more homeowners now than during the childhood of any of the home owning cohort. That is to say we don’t have record low home ownership rates, we have rates within the normal band for our current public policy. [0] https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/tables/time-series/coh-owner/owner-tab.txt https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/tables/ti... [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N
    - no_wizard 3y ago
      It’s not the percentage one should be concerned with but rather who’s owning the homes. It is skewing older and older as people in their 30s get locked out of the market, and it’s harder for people even younger beyond that. The median age of home owners has steadily been rising. For many, and increasingly i think will be the majority unless something changes, the first home they buy is simply going to be the only one, as well. The rates of people moving homes has dropped steadily as well, as people can’t afford to own a home and then upgrade to a newer / different one down the line
      - kasey_junk 3y ago
        The median age of the whole population is rising, which may be concerning on its own, but makes age defined stats pretty meaningless.
- teaearlgraycold 3y ago
  One of the most mind-boggling things I've seen is Googlers making $500k (presumably with spouses making a comparable amount) whining on internal sites about not getting raises and how they're being paid under market rate. By all means, quit and go somewhere else if you want more money. But also understand how entitled and greedy you sound.
  - warent 3y ago
    There are almost no Googlers making 500k.
    - teaearlgraycold 3y ago
      If you allow me a lack of precision, that's high-end L5 pay (in a "premium plus" location), or low-end L6 pay. There are lots of L5s and L6s at Google.
    - alfalfasprout 3y ago
      Huh? This is patently false.
    - RobRivera 3y ago
      people wouldnt do that? just go on the internet and tell lies?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- RajT88 3y ago
  I used to run a web forum for friends from high school. Guys in tech making 300+k a year whining about how it's so hard to afford just the basics in America. Also with wives with great careers. (The basics include 30-40k/year private school for grade schoolers) Without a single exception, the essentials which are non-negotiable to these folks are things they themselves grew up without. They all went to public school! With me! It's wild.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > the essentials which are non-negotiable to these folks are things they themselves grew up without. They all went to public school I recently had this conversation with a high school friend. We went to public schools, and both to college on scholarships. She is beyond her wits about how to afford $100k/kid/year in San Francisco for their private tennis lessons and tutoring and counselling and summer camps (where the kids come home at night?! So you also need a sitter?) and god knows what else. Like, it’s terrific you’re giving them these experiences. But it’s not a necessity.
    - h0h0h0h0111 3y ago
      It's not a necessity, but also understandable that if you had that experience yourself you might feel you've failed as a parent if you can't provide that same experience (or better) for your child. Of course in reality that's not true.
      - pseudalopex 3y ago
        They didn't have that experience.
  - bugglebeetle 3y ago
    Well, in this market, the median reality is more like 150K max with mandatory return to office in cities with housing shortages and very high cost of living. Maybe if your spouse makes the same you can afford a house, but otherwise, you’re being forced into a shit deal to prop up real estate valuations on commercial and rental properties.
- alfalfasprout 3y ago
  Cost of living is absolutely a thing though. $75k in a major metro area is very tough in 2023. In a very rural area it's passable. One major issue is CPI doesn't seem to effectively capture cost of living. In practice, home ownership is effectively unattainable for a majority of household incomes in the US now.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > $75k in a major metro area is very tough in 2023 Most major metro areas are more productive and pay more per capita.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - brendoelfrendo 3y ago
      That makes a certain degree of logical sense, but doesn't really pan out in practice. According to the US Census Bureau, the median household income for New York City (all 5 boroughs) was $67,997 in 2021. This is actually less than the New York state median income of $74,314. By demographic breakdown, married-couples families with children do fare better: median income $106,000. Families fall somewhere in the middle, at $80,220. Non-family households are worst off, at $52,862 (probably not coincidentally, a figure that is roughly half the median income of a married couple family).[0] All this to say that cities are great hubs of productivity, but the resulting output is not necessarily evenly distributed. "Pay more per capita" isn't really the figure you should look at when actual income figures are out there. [0] https://data.census.gov/profile?g=160XX00US3651000#income-and-poverty https://data.census.gov/profile?g=160XX00US3651000#income-an...
- rtkwe 3y ago
  It's also true that better paying jobs are just more common in higher COL areas so the net effect of the higher pay is diminished by the ridiculous costs of housing etc. in major cities.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    There is also value in having more jobs available to you in case you lose your current job. I suspect that is a big variable in people’s calculations, volatility of income. It is a huge risk moving somewhere that is economically stagnant.
    - rtkwe 3y ago
      100% that's why people keep moving to cities despite all the issues they may have with them and the (sub)urban living standards, it's just way easier to get another job when your company decides to kick you to the curb.
- silisili 3y ago
  I think rent is the big wildcard. People who bought prior to 2021 or so are far better off than people who've been chosing to rent. My mortgage in 2015 was $1050 a month. I sold it in 2019, and today it rents for $2500, but likely could rent for more given that apartments in the area are now at 2k... That extra 18k/yr is going to affect how comfortable a house making say, 70k, feels at the moment.
ejb999 3y ago
Since ~55K is the median income in the USA, its seems like a reasonable place to draw the line. https://www.firstrepublic.com/insights-education/how-much-does-the-average-american-make https://www.firstrepublic.com/insights-education/how-much-do...
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  What does median income have to do with whether or not an employee should be eligible for overtime payrates?
  - kube-system 3y ago
    Because FLSA exemptions were intended for higher-wage white collar employees who were compensated well enough that they didn't need overtime pay. The median is a very logical frame of reference for this.
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      “Needs” overtime pay is quite loaded. Nobody needs overtime in the US compared to quality of life of Bangladeshi garment workers and rice farmers. The relevant question is do we want employees in America to be able to work 40, 60, 80, and 100 hours per week for $55k per year and the quality of life that goes with it. I would say a more logical frame of reference is being sufficiently high up such that you can increase budgets and payrates, so as to ensure business leaders are incentivized to sufficiently spend on staffing.
      - kube-system 3y ago
        My use of "need" here is not referring to Maslow's hierarchy, but our society's standards of labor law. I personally don't believe that people should be working 80 hours per week for $55k, but, adjusted for inflation, I have done it. However, I definitely don't think that companies should be permitted to force people to work 100 hours per week for $36k, which is what the DOL is prohibiting here. > a more logical frame of reference is being sufficiently high up such that you can increase budgets and payrates It's not a frame of reference unless it is a number.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
abfan1127 3y ago
people can get ahead with 30k salaries or never get ahead with 500K salaries. Getting ahead has more to do with life style choices than salaries on an absolute number. How many people who "can't get ahead" have $1000 iPhones with $100/yr plans? How many people who "can't get ahead" have $300-$400 car payments? How many people who "can't get ahead" live alone in an apartment rather than have roommates? How many people choose "luxury apartments"? You can easily outspend your salary of any size, then complain you can't get ahead?
- alfalfasprout 3y ago
  $100/year plans? Even a modest phone plan is going to be much more than that. And that $1000 iphone isn't purchased every year. A $300/400 car payment? You do realize most new cars are well over $20k if not $30k now? So what, folks should continuously strive for poverty and we're ok with that?
  - Workaccount2 3y ago
    Their numbers are off, but their overall point is solid: Many people who complain about how expensive everything is are spending money objectively pretty recklessly. They can't get ahead because they also cannot sacrifice.
    - alfalfasprout 3y ago
      It's a false equivalency. Effective discretionary income for the vast majority of people has shrunk significantly due to how expensive housing has become. Yeah, people can sacrifice but folks are sacrificing MUCH more now than they've had to in the last 30+ years.
      - bugglebeetle 3y ago
        It’s pretty much a textbook example of why Adam Smith (of all people) hated landlords and saw them as a parasitic drag on market economies. We’ve allowed people speculating on real estate to wildly distort every aspect of our economy to the point that it’s destroying actually productive sectors.
usaar333 3y ago
> even people making >100K are reporting that they feel like they can't get ahead, let alone people who make less than that. This law doesn't give most people more money; it incentives employers to restrict work hours to 40 a week. If anything, the output is less take home money. How many people earning over > $100k are in such a captive position they can't find a job that pays similar per hour but tends to not exceed 40 hours a week?
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  > This law doesn't give most people more money; it incentives employers to restrict work hours to 40 a week. If anything, the output is less take home money. Thereby decreasing supply of labor, which would cause the price of labor to increase. Or people to have more time at home with their families and community.
  - usaar333 3y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy The net effects are likely lower household income across the board as this law systemically harms productivity. For instance, constraing childcare hours constrain parent work hours, etc. > Or people to have more time at home with their families and community. Yes this is where I agree you may have positive social benefits.
Gibbon1 3y ago
Problem the feds tend to have is imposing universal rules on an economically diverse country. 50k is good money some places and poverty wages other places. I once joked to my GF that I was going to write a book called, How to be Flat Fucking Broke in San Francisco for only $300/day. Old idea of mine was for salaried worker payroll taxes and withholding should be based on hours worked. With the employer picking up 100% of the difference. Example, $100k/year is $50/hour at a standard 40hr/week. If the employer has salaried workers working 50 hours a week. Then the adjusted income subject to taxes is $125k/year. And make the employer pay the difference in taxes and withholding.
- alfalfasprout 3y ago
  There is almost nowhere where "50k is good money". It may be above average in a certain area, but cost of housing has increased broadly nationwide even in rural areas.
  - Gibbon1 3y ago
    You're likely right about that. I'm often a bit gobsmacked of late how expensive housing has got in places where it shouldn't be.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  Feds only impose a floor. Higher cost states are always welcome to enact higher standards, and they do. Washington’s minimum exempt salary is $65.5k, and California is $65k, plus California requires overtime after 8 hours per day. Note that the Feds have not even actually increased it yet, it is just proposed and even if it goes into effect, it will probably be 2024 or maybe even later.
  - OkayPhysicist 3y ago
    IMO the >8 hrs/day rule should definitely go national. No one should feel compelled to throw away 100% of their waking hours to a job.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> even people making >100K are reporting that they feel like they can't get ahead I know people making $5+ million who say the same. This is the human condition. Anecdotes of not getting ahead and personal strife are terrible inputs for economic policy. American GDP per capita is about $75k [1]. Median household income around $70k [2]. If you want natural figure to revolve around, those are good ones. [1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=US https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?location... [2] https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2022/demo/p60-276.html https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2022/demo/p60-27...

no_wizard 3y ago
I agree with this and I should have clarified - The cost of living is rising fast enough that the majority of people making between 100K and 250K are feeling like they can't get ahead, with record low numbers of home ownership (not just single family homes either, but condos etc) among this group of traditionally "automatic" home buyers, as well as record lows of asset accumulation. The dollar just isn't going as far as it used to, and there is no signs of that letting up any time soon, even with rising interest rates, you see no knock off effects on things like grocery prices or home prices, even though corporations are making record profits currently.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > record low numbers of home ownership…among this group of traditionally "automatic" home buyers Source? I see evidence of this in supply-restricted cities. But not in the country broadly. > dollar just isn't going as far as it used to Real wages are near historical highs and at par with the pre-Covid economy.
  - deepsun 3y ago
    The parent poster probably talks about 1970x, not pre-covid.
    - jonas21 3y ago
      Real wages are also higher today than they were in 1970.
      - deepsun 3y ago
        > In fact, despite some ups and downs over the past several decades, today’s real average wage (that is, the wage after accounting for inflation) has about the same purchasing power it did 40 years ago. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/08/07/for-most-... That's 1980x, not 1970x, but should be close.
        jonas21 3y ago
        Let's use the actual numbers [1] instead of a statement from 5 years ago that things are "about the same" as 40 years before. The average hourly wage for Production and Nonsupervisory Employees in the highest month of 1970 was $3.50, or $26.88 in current dollars. The current average hourly wage is $28.96. Thus, real wages are higher today than they were in 1970. [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AHETPI https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AHETPI
  - no_wizard 3y ago
    Business Insider[0] and WSJ[1][2] have reported on this over the years. I also do not think its fair to discount away people who live in "highly desirable" urban environments. Beyond a simple dislike of that idea, most of the jobs that do pay over 100K existed near them for decades, and with RTO in full swing, it seems most of them are going back to those cities one way or another. WFH does not appear to be a permanent boon for employees at large. Given this reality, the metrics around those cities are important to consider as well. [0]: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-to-buy-house-six-figure-salary-not-enough-2021-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-to-buy-house-six-fi... [1]: https://www.wsj.com/articles/three-million-u-s-households-making-over-150-000-are-still-renting-48bd48e4 https://www.wsj.com/articles/three-million-u-s-households-ma... [2]: Tried getting an archive link for WSJ but it kept failing. I know its paywalled, will comment if I get a working link
- kasey_junk 3y ago
  In 1960 61%[0] of Americans owned their own home, it’s around 66%[1] now. Go back to before WW2 and you’ll see a homeowner rate in the 40% (which makes sense as our current public policy was largely enacted post war). When people say home ownership rates are down they are comparing it to the pre-2008 bubble deflate when it was a whopping 3% more homeowners. We have more homeowners now than during the childhood of any of the home owning cohort. That is to say we don’t have record low home ownership rates, we have rates within the normal band for our current public policy. [0] https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/tables/time-series/coh-owner/owner-tab.txt https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/tables/ti... [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N
  - no_wizard 3y ago
    It’s not the percentage one should be concerned with but rather who’s owning the homes. It is skewing older and older as people in their 30s get locked out of the market, and it’s harder for people even younger beyond that. The median age of home owners has steadily been rising. For many, and increasingly i think will be the majority unless something changes, the first home they buy is simply going to be the only one, as well. The rates of people moving homes has dropped steadily as well, as people can’t afford to own a home and then upgrade to a newer / different one down the line
    - kasey_junk 3y ago
      The median age of the whole population is rising, which may be concerning on its own, but makes age defined stats pretty meaningless.
teaearlgraycold 3y ago
One of the most mind-boggling things I've seen is Googlers making $500k (presumably with spouses making a comparable amount) whining on internal sites about not getting raises and how they're being paid under market rate. By all means, quit and go somewhere else if you want more money. But also understand how entitled and greedy you sound.
- warent 3y ago
  There are almost no Googlers making 500k.
  - teaearlgraycold 3y ago
    If you allow me a lack of precision, that's high-end L5 pay (in a "premium plus" location), or low-end L6 pay. There are lots of L5s and L6s at Google.
  - alfalfasprout 3y ago
    Huh? This is patently false.
  - RobRivera 3y ago
    people wouldnt do that? just go on the internet and tell lies?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
RajT88 3y ago
I used to run a web forum for friends from high school. Guys in tech making 300+k a year whining about how it's so hard to afford just the basics in America. Also with wives with great careers. (The basics include 30-40k/year private school for grade schoolers) Without a single exception, the essentials which are non-negotiable to these folks are things they themselves grew up without. They all went to public school! With me! It's wild.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > the essentials which are non-negotiable to these folks are things they themselves grew up without. They all went to public school I recently had this conversation with a high school friend. We went to public schools, and both to college on scholarships. She is beyond her wits about how to afford $100k/kid/year in San Francisco for their private tennis lessons and tutoring and counselling and summer camps (where the kids come home at night?! So you also need a sitter?) and god knows what else. Like, it’s terrific you’re giving them these experiences. But it’s not a necessity.
  - h0h0h0h0111 3y ago
    It's not a necessity, but also understandable that if you had that experience yourself you might feel you've failed as a parent if you can't provide that same experience (or better) for your child. Of course in reality that's not true.
    - pseudalopex 3y ago
      They didn't have that experience.
- bugglebeetle 3y ago
  Well, in this market, the median reality is more like 150K max with mandatory return to office in cities with housing shortages and very high cost of living. Maybe if your spouse makes the same you can afford a house, but otherwise, you’re being forced into a shit deal to prop up real estate valuations on commercial and rental properties.
alfalfasprout 3y ago
Cost of living is absolutely a thing though. $75k in a major metro area is very tough in 2023. In a very rural area it's passable. One major issue is CPI doesn't seem to effectively capture cost of living. In practice, home ownership is effectively unattainable for a majority of household incomes in the US now.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > $75k in a major metro area is very tough in 2023 Most major metro areas are more productive and pay more per capita.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - brendoelfrendo 3y ago
    That makes a certain degree of logical sense, but doesn't really pan out in practice. According to the US Census Bureau, the median household income for New York City (all 5 boroughs) was $67,997 in 2021. This is actually less than the New York state median income of $74,314. By demographic breakdown, married-couples families with children do fare better: median income $106,000. Families fall somewhere in the middle, at $80,220. Non-family households are worst off, at $52,862 (probably not coincidentally, a figure that is roughly half the median income of a married couple family).[0] All this to say that cities are great hubs of productivity, but the resulting output is not necessarily evenly distributed. "Pay more per capita" isn't really the figure you should look at when actual income figures are out there. [0] https://data.census.gov/profile?g=160XX00US3651000#income-and-poverty https://data.census.gov/profile?g=160XX00US3651000#income-an...
rtkwe 3y ago
It's also true that better paying jobs are just more common in higher COL areas so the net effect of the higher pay is diminished by the ridiculous costs of housing etc. in major cities.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  There is also value in having more jobs available to you in case you lose your current job. I suspect that is a big variable in people’s calculations, volatility of income. It is a huge risk moving somewhere that is economically stagnant.
  - rtkwe 3y ago
    100% that's why people keep moving to cities despite all the issues they may have with them and the (sub)urban living standards, it's just way easier to get another job when your company decides to kick you to the curb.
silisili 3y ago
I think rent is the big wildcard. People who bought prior to 2021 or so are far better off than people who've been chosing to rent. My mortgage in 2015 was $1050 a month. I sold it in 2019, and today it rents for $2500, but likely could rent for more given that apartments in the area are now at 2k... That extra 18k/yr is going to affect how comfortable a house making say, 70k, feels at the moment.

ejb999 3y ago

Since ~55K is the median income in the USA, its seems like a reasonable place to draw the line. https://www.firstrepublic.com/insights-education/how-much-does-the-average-american-make https://www.firstrepublic.com/insights-education/how-much-do...

lotsofpulp 3y ago
What does median income have to do with whether or not an employee should be eligible for overtime payrates?
- kube-system 3y ago
  Because FLSA exemptions were intended for higher-wage white collar employees who were compensated well enough that they didn't need overtime pay. The median is a very logical frame of reference for this.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    “Needs” overtime pay is quite loaded. Nobody needs overtime in the US compared to quality of life of Bangladeshi garment workers and rice farmers. The relevant question is do we want employees in America to be able to work 40, 60, 80, and 100 hours per week for $55k per year and the quality of life that goes with it. I would say a more logical frame of reference is being sufficiently high up such that you can increase budgets and payrates, so as to ensure business leaders are incentivized to sufficiently spend on staffing.
    - kube-system 3y ago
      My use of "need" here is not referring to Maslow's hierarchy, but our society's standards of labor law. I personally don't believe that people should be working 80 hours per week for $55k, but, adjusted for inflation, I have done it. However, I definitely don't think that companies should be permitted to force people to work 100 hours per week for $36k, which is what the DOL is prohibiting here. > a more logical frame of reference is being sufficiently high up such that you can increase budgets and payrates It's not a frame of reference unless it is a number.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

abfan1127 3y ago

people can get ahead with 30k salaries or never get ahead with 500K salaries. Getting ahead has more to do with life style choices than salaries on an absolute number. How many people who "can't get ahead" have $1000 iPhones with $100/yr plans? How many people who "can't get ahead" have $300-$400 car payments? How many people who "can't get ahead" live alone in an apartment rather than have roommates? How many people choose "luxury apartments"? You can easily outspend your salary of any size, then complain you can't get ahead?

alfalfasprout 3y ago
$100/year plans? Even a modest phone plan is going to be much more than that. And that $1000 iphone isn't purchased every year. A $300/400 car payment? You do realize most new cars are well over $20k if not $30k now? So what, folks should continuously strive for poverty and we're ok with that?
- Workaccount2 3y ago
  Their numbers are off, but their overall point is solid: Many people who complain about how expensive everything is are spending money objectively pretty recklessly. They can't get ahead because they also cannot sacrifice.
  - alfalfasprout 3y ago
    It's a false equivalency. Effective discretionary income for the vast majority of people has shrunk significantly due to how expensive housing has become. Yeah, people can sacrifice but folks are sacrificing MUCH more now than they've had to in the last 30+ years.
    - bugglebeetle 3y ago
      It’s pretty much a textbook example of why Adam Smith (of all people) hated landlords and saw them as a parasitic drag on market economies. We’ve allowed people speculating on real estate to wildly distort every aspect of our economy to the point that it’s destroying actually productive sectors.

usaar333 3y ago

> even people making >100K are reporting that they feel like they can't get ahead, let alone people who make less than that. This law doesn't give most people more money; it incentives employers to restrict work hours to 40 a week. If anything, the output is less take home money. How many people earning over > $100k are in such a captive position they can't find a job that pays similar per hour but tends to not exceed 40 hours a week?

lotsofpulp 3y ago
> This law doesn't give most people more money; it incentives employers to restrict work hours to 40 a week. If anything, the output is less take home money. Thereby decreasing supply of labor, which would cause the price of labor to increase. Or people to have more time at home with their families and community.
- usaar333 3y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy The net effects are likely lower household income across the board as this law systemically harms productivity. For instance, constraing childcare hours constrain parent work hours, etc. > Or people to have more time at home with their families and community. Yes this is where I agree you may have positive social benefits.

Gibbon1 3y ago

Problem the feds tend to have is imposing universal rules on an economically diverse country. 50k is good money some places and poverty wages other places. I once joked to my GF that I was going to write a book called, How to be Flat Fucking Broke in San Francisco for only $300/day. Old idea of mine was for salaried worker payroll taxes and withholding should be based on hours worked. With the employer picking up 100% of the difference. Example, $100k/year is $50/hour at a standard 40hr/week. If the employer has salaried workers working 50 hours a week. Then the adjusted income subject to taxes is $125k/year. And make the employer pay the difference in taxes and withholding.

alfalfasprout 3y ago
There is almost nowhere where "50k is good money". It may be above average in a certain area, but cost of housing has increased broadly nationwide even in rural areas.
- Gibbon1 3y ago
  You're likely right about that. I'm often a bit gobsmacked of late how expensive housing has got in places where it shouldn't be.
lotsofpulp 3y ago
Feds only impose a floor. Higher cost states are always welcome to enact higher standards, and they do. Washington’s minimum exempt salary is $65.5k, and California is $65k, plus California requires overtime after 8 hours per day. Note that the Feds have not even actually increased it yet, it is just proposed and even if it goes into effect, it will probably be 2024 or maybe even later.
- OkayPhysicist 3y ago
  IMO the >8 hrs/day rule should definitely go national. No one should feel compelled to throw away 100% of their waking hours to a job.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]