7 ms·

When I see people critique those numbers as being “too high”, or demands for additional compensation “unreasonable”, I can’t help but think those people don’t u

When I see people critique those numbers as being “too high”, or demands for additional compensation “unreasonable”, I can’t help but think those people don’t understand that $100k is very much the new $45k of the 2000s, and has much less purchasing power than the latter did at the time. Truth be told, for the present cost of living in the Northeast in general, you’re looking at a family income of $300k to be “comfortable”, or a single base income of $200k. That’s if you want to buy a new car (of which the bulk cost more than $50k), a starter home that doesn’t need major repairs ($800k+), and still have some money left over to save for retirement; in cities like NYC and Boston, you’re easily looking at $250k single/$400k couple for a “Middle Class” existence. The brutal reality is that everyone who has to work to survive is grossly underpaid relative to the current cost of living. To ignore this fact (or worse, try to compartmentalize it or limit its scope to a reduced “other” category) endangers both the economy and the state.

_heimdall 2y ago
Cost of living has gotten really insane today compared to a couple decades ago. Its pretty easy to go to college on loans and rack up $150k in debt for an average 4-year degree. Its easy to spend $35k-$50k on a new car, even 10 year old cars in good shape are $10k-$15k. Housing costs vary a lot more by area, but I think most would agree its extremely expensive these days. The idea that a young family could have $5,000/mo just in debt payments between school, vehicles, and housing is insane to me. That doesn't even account for day to day expenses, children, vacations, etc.
- tzs 2y ago
  > Its pretty easy to go to college on loans and rack up $150k in debt for an average 4-year degree. It isn't easy for a 4-year degree. To get to that level generally requires law school or medical school debt or an unfunded graduate degree. For 4-year degrees around 80% of students graduate with less than $30k in debt. For public schools only 7% of graduates have debt above $50k. For private nonprofit schools 12% have debt above $50k. For private for-profit schools it is 32%.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    The University of Alabama has estimates cost for in-state attendance of roughly $34k per year [1]. That is their general tuition unrelated to what school/department or degree you are there for. That does include estimates for housing, food, books, etc so there's wiggle room especially if you have family near by and live at home. For anyone going to school entirely on loans though, you wouldn't make it a year with only $30k in debt. [1] https://afford.ua.edu/cost/ https://afford.ua.edu/cost/
    - tzs 2y ago
      Sure, but most students at the University of Alabama don't go through entirely on loans. Only 42% of them take out loans. Median federal loan debt at graduation for them is $23k. 8% also take out private loans. The people with private loans have a median debt of $59k.
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        That wasn't actually my point though. My original comment was specifically calling out the cost to go to college entirely on loans, not what the average student ends up borrowing. To me its less interesting to look at what the average person who is able to afford college today borrows to pay for it. That's a self-selected population and doesn't show what the impact would be on anyone who gets into college but doesn't have family money, scholarships, or grants to help pay for it.
gruez 2y ago
>I can’t help but think those people don’t understand that $100k is very much the new $45k of the 2000s, and has much less purchasing power than the latter did at the time. False. $45k in 2005 is only $73k today, when adjusted for inflation[1]. Even if you use the most generous interpretation of "2000s" to mean 2000, that's only $82k. [1] https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
- dpkirchner 2y ago
  Does that account for increased housing prices? It probably doesn't, because housing prices (cash price, per the fed) more than doubled since 2005: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NYSTHPI https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NYSTHPI
  - gruez 2y ago
    >It probably doesn't, If you did a 30 second search, you'd see it's factored into the CPI, with "Shelter" (which further breaks down into rent and owners' equivalent rent) making up 36% of the CPI basket. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.t02.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.t02.htm
    - dpkirchner 2y ago
      Unfortunately, your source is offline, so I couldn't see where it got its data.
      - gruez 2y ago
        It's very much up for me. In any case here's an archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20241009171432/https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.t02.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20241009171432/https://www.bls.g...
        dpkirchner 2y ago
        I meant the original source, the inflation calculator site. Anyway, thanks for the figures. House prices more than doubled but I guess other things must have become cheaper to compensate.
chaostheory 2y ago
Remote work made so much sense for all the reasons you’ve listed.
- stego-tech 2y ago
  And yet, remote work alone is not the solution to this issue. For those of us unable to drive, we must live in expensive cities with comprehensive mass transit systems if we want a decent quality of life and opportunities. For those of us who are LGBTQ+, we might not have the safety or support structures to thrive in different states. For those with chronic health issues, living in states with better patient protection laws or healthcare subsidies may be a necessity, driving up our costs on housing or transport to ensure our survival. This is a global problem, and it requires solutions at all levels. Remote work is amazing, and I 100% support it (and exist on hybrid despite being in a major metro), but we need more on a local, state, and federal level as well. Heck, it’s so bad that we can’t even blame a singular or group of enployers anymore: the system is broken, and desperately needs updating so it can work again.
  - chaostheory 2y ago
    It is an immediately available solution for most if not almost all white collar workers. COVID was proof that it worked. However, the incentives and goals are not aligned with both employers and local governments.
bigstrat2003 2y ago
> I can’t help but think those people don’t understand that $100k is very much the new $45k of the 2000s It really isn't.
- kylebenzle 2y ago
  I'd bet it's young people making these outlandish comparisons.
whywhywhywhy 2y ago
> I can’t help but think those people don’t understand that $100k is very much the new $45k of the 2000s Yeah but if they're remote they can live in cheaper parts of the country so the 100K+ range of inner expensive cities is less justified and they're competing on a country wide market.
interludead 2y ago
You're absolutely right. Purchasing power has shifted in just a couple of decades
z3ncyberpunk 2y ago
So what, if it costs you 300k to be comfortable then you are being suckered. When people are struggling to make it by on $30 and $40k and see these privileged propagandists complain about making six figures, no one has sympathy.
- kylebenzle 2y ago
  Here, here! Minimum wage is $15,000/yr. With an MS in the life sciences I can make $16/ at the big local public university doing research. Anyone making over $100k is doing fine and has no sympathy from me.
- dan-0 2y ago
  Sorry, I don't see a valid point in any of these salary arguments. In fact, they're down right insulting and ignorant. I did strenuous manual labor for next to nothing once upon a time. After about 8 years of that, on top of regular 60 hour work weeks, I spent almost every waking moment of 4-5 years to learn and better myself with about every sacrifice you could imagine short of divorce. I'm now making significantly more and working much less with an extremely happy family. I'm not some trust fund kid. I have a high school education. My father worked 3-5 jobs to provide for my family growing up. So if you haven't picked it up, I know what the other side looks like. I work in tech now, I wouldn't even reply to a recruiter presenting a 190k job offer if it meant living in New York. I can get more working remote. It's not because I'm spoiled, it's not because I make bad financial decisions, it's because I know my value and won't compromise and I sure won't reduce my family's quality of life because some multi million dollar company wants to short change me. I get paid fairly for my experience and what I bring to the table, I make sure of that. If my employer isn't matching what I know I can get on the market, I will first negotiate (which is right where the NYT Tech workers are at), then leave for greener pastures if that falls through. I can do that because I worked hard to bring more value to myself in an in demand field. I'm sorry if you're making a lower salary, but that doesn't mean everyone should just take what they're given. That's how people are exploited. These arguments aren't just wrong. They are backwards and self limiting.
  - 9x39 2y ago
borkt 2y ago
I make ~30,000/yr doing seasonal physical work. Prior to this role I was a municipal engineer. Be careful what you whistleblow.
- stego-tech 2y ago
  At the end of the day, we’re all on the same side. I make ~5x the rest of my household combined, but spend a plurality of my time and energy advocating for their enrichment and support because I know that if they’re taken care of, I will be too, when I really need it. If you have to work to live, then we’re on the same side, and we all deserve more money to help us offset this cost of living crisis.
setgree 2y ago
Purchasing power is part of the equation. Part of the dispute is about mandating that workers come into the office at least part time, which basically means living in a high-cost area. However, journalism in general is a struggling business, which will probably push wages down on average across the profession. Double however, the NYT has been doing really well at adapting to the modern media landscape and currently has record subscribers and profits [0], so I can see why the union thought it would be a good time to play hardball. Triple however, I'd quibble a bit with your numbers, even if I think the overall point is well taken. It might be hard to live on the UES on 100K. It's not so hard to live by the Cortelyou stop in Brooklyn or in Sunset Park, both lovely areas. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/07/business/media/new-york-times-earnings.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/07/business/media/new-york-t...
no_wizard 2y ago
Funny enough that it’s always “too high” for non executives but executive pay is never policed and any attempts to do so are met with fierce resistance. Which reminds me of another thing. A good friend of mine is currently getting their MBA from a fairly well regarded school. One thing they recently learned about is structuring compensation. The general adage is that whatever you pay an employee must be in reflection of the multiple you get back from that employee. For example a ratio of 5:1 would be for every 1 dollar you pay you get 5 back. When you start thinking about it like that, you realize just how underpaid people are. So many companies - in fact the vast majority - it’s much higher, in tech for example it’s usually around 10:1 and often as high as 25:1 or more. This makes it much more straightforward in understanding things and the power imbalance when thinking about it like this
- Xelynega 2y ago
  It is interesting that the person you're replying to used the compensation numbers for other guild employees rather than executives. I wonder why they made that decision
  - no_wizard 2y ago
    Seems like obfuscation. I doubt the NYT guild is striking to take money away from the lesser group, but instead to negotiate better working conditions and potentially a bigger slice of the profits pie for their workers, as would be their right.
- geodel 2y ago
  Well executives are few and non-executives are many. So total outgoing money is more as per accounting department. Nothing funny or conspiratorial here. > A good friend of mine is currently getting their MBA from a fairly well regarded school... Let that good friend of yours get actual job in some non-superlative companies like Wall street banks or FAANG. They will learn how their fantastical ratios of 5:1, 10:1, or 25:1 work in real life. > ... you realize just how underpaid people are... If that were true those 100s of thousands companies be making enormous unheard of profits. But that doesn't seem to be happening.
xcrjm 2y ago
Just because you can't be comfortable in a used car with a fixer upper home doesn't mean other people can't be. You're talking about your preferences like they're a bare minimum and they're not. Plenty of people live perfectly comfortable lives without those luxuries.
- stego-tech 2y ago
  Careful with those assumptions. I drive a 16-year old used Honda and have already set aside cash for necessary home repairs when I finally buy a place. However, I do refuse to spend half a million dollars on an uncared-for shithole that hasn’t been renovated or repaired since the 60s; I have standards, and one of them involves not paying inflated rates for someone else’s crap, especially when doing so also eradicates my budget for repairs and maintenance. You’re right that personal standards, subjective as they are, can make an argument highly misleading. However, you’d be careful not to make the mistaken assumption that your personal standards are the norm, either. I’m seeing a lot of “you’re wrong, no sympathy for anyone over $100k” responses to my argument here, all of them making the same assumptions: that anyone making that much dosh must obviously be whinging about paying more for their Maserati or unable to afford rent on that high-rise condo anymore. Everyone is extrapolating some false narrative despite overwhelming evidence that even the most highly-paid among us are getting squeezed out of the housing market or struggling to make ends meet, and that’s exactly what the powers that be (people who don’t have to work to live, because they have all the money) want us to devolve into. At the end of the day, there’s exactly two groups: those who must work to survive, and those who don’t need to due to immense wealth. Statistically speaking, you’re never going to be the latter, so you should be just as concerned about “highly paid” workers struggling to make ends meet as you are “low-skilled” workers, because we’re all workers.
quotemstr 2y ago
And it's the uneven propagation of price information through the popular consciousness that makes inflation so insidious. You're absolutely right: a lot of people are calibrated on 2010 prices for income despite 2024 prices for expenses.
- stego-tech 2y ago
  I will unashamedly admit I was one of those people until recently. When I got into the housing market, I thought $650k for a turnkey property fit for four adults would be sufficient, with another $70k set aside for repairs and projects (HVAC, oil tank removal, etc). Turns out I was wrong, and my failure to adapt my standards has likely cost me an opportunity to own a home sans a significant pay rise. Once I accepted that new data, however, I was able to see the immense gap between reality and expectation, as well as understand that it’s not necessarily my fault for missing that opportunity. I went with the widely-propagated programming for new homeowners at the time, and missed the pitfalls despite my ample additional research. Housing is complicated, and it’s the biggest hindrance to a more stable, equitable, and productive society in my personal opinion.
  - quotemstr 2y ago
    I thank my lucky stars I was able to get something like a 2.5% mortgage locked in in a few years ago
rolandog 2y ago
I'd love it if we could tie down salaries in terms of what they can pay for: - Minimum is 1.0 Living Wage ™ (after taxes, rent, insurance, utilities, savings... you get to eat 3 meals and 2 snacks per person per home). Having the mental stress of trying to determine when would be the right moment to approach the moody boss to make a case for your livelihood shouldn't be a thing. I'd like the freedom of not having to pay the time tax of determining if I'll make rent or not...
jkestner 2y ago
I don't give a shit whether the workers are asking for "too much", whether they've got a cushy desk job, whether they want to eat avocado toast and drive a nice car. Everyone's entitled to whatever they can bargain for. Applying some kind of value judgement to it is doing ownership's work for free.
corimaith 2y ago
Pretty sure other countries with similar CoL but much lower salaries are handling a middle class existence fine. 100k is literally better than 99% of other countries, if that isn't good enough what is?
next_xibalba 2y ago
Interesting that you didn't address the demands over pet bereavement and the scents of cleaning supplies. It makes sense that you chose to, of course. It's these types of demands that give away the underlying absurdity of these unions and their demands. > grossly underpaid relative to the current cost of living This is just very, very out of touch. The vast majority of the world lives just fine on far, far less than what the median worker at NYT currently makes.

_heimdall 2y ago

Cost of living has gotten really insane today compared to a couple decades ago. Its pretty easy to go to college on loans and rack up $150k in debt for an average 4-year degree. Its easy to spend $35k-$50k on a new car, even 10 year old cars in good shape are $10k-$15k. Housing costs vary a lot more by area, but I think most would agree its extremely expensive these days. The idea that a young family could have $5,000/mo just in debt payments between school, vehicles, and housing is insane to me. That doesn't even account for day to day expenses, children, vacations, etc.

tzs 2y ago
> Its pretty easy to go to college on loans and rack up $150k in debt for an average 4-year degree. It isn't easy for a 4-year degree. To get to that level generally requires law school or medical school debt or an unfunded graduate degree. For 4-year degrees around 80% of students graduate with less than $30k in debt. For public schools only 7% of graduates have debt above $50k. For private nonprofit schools 12% have debt above $50k. For private for-profit schools it is 32%.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  The University of Alabama has estimates cost for in-state attendance of roughly $34k per year [1]. That is their general tuition unrelated to what school/department or degree you are there for. That does include estimates for housing, food, books, etc so there's wiggle room especially if you have family near by and live at home. For anyone going to school entirely on loans though, you wouldn't make it a year with only $30k in debt. [1] https://afford.ua.edu/cost/ https://afford.ua.edu/cost/
  - tzs 2y ago
    Sure, but most students at the University of Alabama don't go through entirely on loans. Only 42% of them take out loans. Median federal loan debt at graduation for them is $23k. 8% also take out private loans. The people with private loans have a median debt of $59k.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      That wasn't actually my point though. My original comment was specifically calling out the cost to go to college entirely on loans, not what the average student ends up borrowing. To me its less interesting to look at what the average person who is able to afford college today borrows to pay for it. That's a self-selected population and doesn't show what the impact would be on anyone who gets into college but doesn't have family money, scholarships, or grants to help pay for it.

gruez 2y ago

>I can’t help but think those people don’t understand that $100k is very much the new $45k of the 2000s, and has much less purchasing power than the latter did at the time. False. $45k in 2005 is only $73k today, when adjusted for inflation[1]. Even if you use the most generous interpretation of "2000s" to mean 2000, that's only $82k. [1] https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

dpkirchner 2y ago
Does that account for increased housing prices? It probably doesn't, because housing prices (cash price, per the fed) more than doubled since 2005: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NYSTHPI https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NYSTHPI
- gruez 2y ago
  >It probably doesn't, If you did a 30 second search, you'd see it's factored into the CPI, with "Shelter" (which further breaks down into rent and owners' equivalent rent) making up 36% of the CPI basket. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.t02.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.t02.htm
  - dpkirchner 2y ago
    Unfortunately, your source is offline, so I couldn't see where it got its data.
    - gruez 2y ago
      It's very much up for me. In any case here's an archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20241009171432/https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.t02.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20241009171432/https://www.bls.g...
      - dpkirchner 2y ago
        I meant the original source, the inflation calculator site. Anyway, thanks for the figures. House prices more than doubled but I guess other things must have become cheaper to compensate.

chaostheory 2y ago

Remote work made so much sense for all the reasons you’ve listed.

stego-tech 2y ago
And yet, remote work alone is not the solution to this issue. For those of us unable to drive, we must live in expensive cities with comprehensive mass transit systems if we want a decent quality of life and opportunities. For those of us who are LGBTQ+, we might not have the safety or support structures to thrive in different states. For those with chronic health issues, living in states with better patient protection laws or healthcare subsidies may be a necessity, driving up our costs on housing or transport to ensure our survival. This is a global problem, and it requires solutions at all levels. Remote work is amazing, and I 100% support it (and exist on hybrid despite being in a major metro), but we need more on a local, state, and federal level as well. Heck, it’s so bad that we can’t even blame a singular or group of enployers anymore: the system is broken, and desperately needs updating so it can work again.
- chaostheory 2y ago
  It is an immediately available solution for most if not almost all white collar workers. COVID was proof that it worked. However, the incentives and goals are not aligned with both employers and local governments.

bigstrat2003 2y ago

> I can’t help but think those people don’t understand that $100k is very much the new $45k of the 2000s It really isn't.

kylebenzle 2y ago
I'd bet it's young people making these outlandish comparisons.

whywhywhywhy 2y ago

> I can’t help but think those people don’t understand that $100k is very much the new $45k of the 2000s Yeah but if they're remote they can live in cheaper parts of the country so the 100K+ range of inner expensive cities is less justified and they're competing on a country wide market.

interludead 2y ago

You're absolutely right. Purchasing power has shifted in just a couple of decades

z3ncyberpunk 2y ago

So what, if it costs you 300k to be comfortable then you are being suckered. When people are struggling to make it by on $30 and $40k and see these privileged propagandists complain about making six figures, no one has sympathy.

kylebenzle 2y ago
Here, here! Minimum wage is $15,000/yr. With an MS in the life sciences I can make $16/ at the big local public university doing research. Anyone making over $100k is doing fine and has no sympathy from me.
dan-0 2y ago
Sorry, I don't see a valid point in any of these salary arguments. In fact, they're down right insulting and ignorant. I did strenuous manual labor for next to nothing once upon a time. After about 8 years of that, on top of regular 60 hour work weeks, I spent almost every waking moment of 4-5 years to learn and better myself with about every sacrifice you could imagine short of divorce. I'm now making significantly more and working much less with an extremely happy family. I'm not some trust fund kid. I have a high school education. My father worked 3-5 jobs to provide for my family growing up. So if you haven't picked it up, I know what the other side looks like. I work in tech now, I wouldn't even reply to a recruiter presenting a 190k job offer if it meant living in New York. I can get more working remote. It's not because I'm spoiled, it's not because I make bad financial decisions, it's because I know my value and won't compromise and I sure won't reduce my family's quality of life because some multi million dollar company wants to short change me. I get paid fairly for my experience and what I bring to the table, I make sure of that. If my employer isn't matching what I know I can get on the market, I will first negotiate (which is right where the NYT Tech workers are at), then leave for greener pastures if that falls through. I can do that because I worked hard to bring more value to myself in an in demand field. I'm sorry if you're making a lower salary, but that doesn't mean everyone should just take what they're given. That's how people are exploited. These arguments aren't just wrong. They are backwards and self limiting.
- 9x39 2y ago

borkt 2y ago

I make ~30,000/yr doing seasonal physical work. Prior to this role I was a municipal engineer. Be careful what you whistleblow.

stego-tech 2y ago
At the end of the day, we’re all on the same side. I make ~5x the rest of my household combined, but spend a plurality of my time and energy advocating for their enrichment and support because I know that if they’re taken care of, I will be too, when I really need it. If you have to work to live, then we’re on the same side, and we all deserve more money to help us offset this cost of living crisis.

setgree 2y ago

Purchasing power is part of the equation. Part of the dispute is about mandating that workers come into the office at least part time, which basically means living in a high-cost area. However, journalism in general is a struggling business, which will probably push wages down on average across the profession. Double however, the NYT has been doing really well at adapting to the modern media landscape and currently has record subscribers and profits [0], so I can see why the union thought it would be a good time to play hardball. Triple however, I'd quibble a bit with your numbers, even if I think the overall point is well taken. It might be hard to live on the UES on 100K. It's not so hard to live by the Cortelyou stop in Brooklyn or in Sunset Park, both lovely areas. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/07/business/media/new-york-times-earnings.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/07/business/media/new-york-t...

no_wizard 2y ago

Funny enough that it’s always “too high” for non executives but executive pay is never policed and any attempts to do so are met with fierce resistance. Which reminds me of another thing. A good friend of mine is currently getting their MBA from a fairly well regarded school. One thing they recently learned about is structuring compensation. The general adage is that whatever you pay an employee must be in reflection of the multiple you get back from that employee. For example a ratio of 5:1 would be for every 1 dollar you pay you get 5 back. When you start thinking about it like that, you realize just how underpaid people are. So many companies - in fact the vast majority - it’s much higher, in tech for example it’s usually around 10:1 and often as high as 25:1 or more. This makes it much more straightforward in understanding things and the power imbalance when thinking about it like this

Xelynega 2y ago
It is interesting that the person you're replying to used the compensation numbers for other guild employees rather than executives. I wonder why they made that decision
- no_wizard 2y ago
  Seems like obfuscation. I doubt the NYT guild is striking to take money away from the lesser group, but instead to negotiate better working conditions and potentially a bigger slice of the profits pie for their workers, as would be their right.
geodel 2y ago
Well executives are few and non-executives are many. So total outgoing money is more as per accounting department. Nothing funny or conspiratorial here. > A good friend of mine is currently getting their MBA from a fairly well regarded school... Let that good friend of yours get actual job in some non-superlative companies like Wall street banks or FAANG. They will learn how their fantastical ratios of 5:1, 10:1, or 25:1 work in real life. > ... you realize just how underpaid people are... If that were true those 100s of thousands companies be making enormous unheard of profits. But that doesn't seem to be happening.

xcrjm 2y ago

Just because you can't be comfortable in a used car with a fixer upper home doesn't mean other people can't be. You're talking about your preferences like they're a bare minimum and they're not. Plenty of people live perfectly comfortable lives without those luxuries.

stego-tech 2y ago
Careful with those assumptions. I drive a 16-year old used Honda and have already set aside cash for necessary home repairs when I finally buy a place. However, I do refuse to spend half a million dollars on an uncared-for shithole that hasn’t been renovated or repaired since the 60s; I have standards, and one of them involves not paying inflated rates for someone else’s crap, especially when doing so also eradicates my budget for repairs and maintenance. You’re right that personal standards, subjective as they are, can make an argument highly misleading. However, you’d be careful not to make the mistaken assumption that your personal standards are the norm, either. I’m seeing a lot of “you’re wrong, no sympathy for anyone over $100k” responses to my argument here, all of them making the same assumptions: that anyone making that much dosh must obviously be whinging about paying more for their Maserati or unable to afford rent on that high-rise condo anymore. Everyone is extrapolating some false narrative despite overwhelming evidence that even the most highly-paid among us are getting squeezed out of the housing market or struggling to make ends meet, and that’s exactly what the powers that be (people who don’t have to work to live, because they have all the money) want us to devolve into. At the end of the day, there’s exactly two groups: those who must work to survive, and those who don’t need to due to immense wealth. Statistically speaking, you’re never going to be the latter, so you should be just as concerned about “highly paid” workers struggling to make ends meet as you are “low-skilled” workers, because we’re all workers.

quotemstr 2y ago

And it's the uneven propagation of price information through the popular consciousness that makes inflation so insidious. You're absolutely right: a lot of people are calibrated on 2010 prices for income despite 2024 prices for expenses.

stego-tech 2y ago
I will unashamedly admit I was one of those people until recently. When I got into the housing market, I thought $650k for a turnkey property fit for four adults would be sufficient, with another $70k set aside for repairs and projects (HVAC, oil tank removal, etc). Turns out I was wrong, and my failure to adapt my standards has likely cost me an opportunity to own a home sans a significant pay rise. Once I accepted that new data, however, I was able to see the immense gap between reality and expectation, as well as understand that it’s not necessarily my fault for missing that opportunity. I went with the widely-propagated programming for new homeowners at the time, and missed the pitfalls despite my ample additional research. Housing is complicated, and it’s the biggest hindrance to a more stable, equitable, and productive society in my personal opinion.
- quotemstr 2y ago
  I thank my lucky stars I was able to get something like a 2.5% mortgage locked in in a few years ago

rolandog 2y ago

I'd love it if we could tie down salaries in terms of what they can pay for: - Minimum is 1.0 Living Wage ™ (after taxes, rent, insurance, utilities, savings... you get to eat 3 meals and 2 snacks per person per home). Having the mental stress of trying to determine when would be the right moment to approach the moody boss to make a case for your livelihood shouldn't be a thing. I'd like the freedom of not having to pay the time tax of determining if I'll make rent or not...

jkestner 2y ago

I don't give a shit whether the workers are asking for "too much", whether they've got a cushy desk job, whether they want to eat avocado toast and drive a nice car. Everyone's entitled to whatever they can bargain for. Applying some kind of value judgement to it is doing ownership's work for free.

corimaith 2y ago

Pretty sure other countries with similar CoL but much lower salaries are handling a middle class existence fine. 100k is literally better than 99% of other countries, if that isn't good enough what is?

next_xibalba 2y ago

Interesting that you didn't address the demands over pet bereavement and the scents of cleaning supplies. It makes sense that you chose to, of course. It's these types of demands that give away the underlying absurdity of these unions and their demands. > grossly underpaid relative to the current cost of living This is just very, very out of touch. The vast majority of the world lives just fine on far, far less than what the median worker at NYT currently makes.