4 ms·

I feel that saying "120k is basically minimum wage for major metros" is absurd. As of 2022, there are only three metro areas in the US that have a per capita in

I feel that saying "120k is basically minimum wage for major metros" is absurd. As of 2022, there are only three metro areas in the US that have a per capita income greater than $120,000 [1] (Bay Area and Southwest Connecticut). Anywhere else in the US, 120k is doing pretty well for yourself, compared to the rest of the population. The average American working full time earns $60k [2]. I'm sure it's not a comfortable wage in some places, but "basically minimum wage" just seems ignorant. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_metropolitan_areas_by_per_capita_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_metropol... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_...

lamename 1y ago
I disagree. Your data doesnt make the grandparent's assertion false. Cost of living != per capita or median income. Factoring in sensible retirement, expensive housing, inflation, etc, I think the $120k figure may not be perfect, but is close enough to reality.
- BlueTemplar 1y ago
  Since when "minimum wage" means "sensible retirement" ? More like it means ending up with government-provided bare minimum handouts to not have you starve (assuming you somehow manage to stay on minimum wage all your life).
  - lamename 1y ago
    We agree, minimum wage doesnt mean that. And in a large metro area, that's why $120k is closer to min wage than a good standard of lliving and building retirement.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - tekla 1y ago
      Absolutely absurd. I lived in NYC making well less than that for years and was perfectly comfortable. The "min wage" of HN seems to be "living better than 98% of everyone else"
      - lamename 1y ago
        Adjusted for inflation? Without (crippling) debt accrual and adequate emergency fund, retirement, etc? Did you have children or childcare expenses? These all knock on that total compensation quickly these days, which is the main argument in this particular thread of replies.
        tekla 1y ago
        No to kids, yes to everything else (except debt, did have lots of school loans)
- nyarlathotep_ 1y ago
  Correct, I mean in the sense of "living a standard of life that my parents and friends parents (all of very, very modest means) had 20 years ago when I was a teenager." I mean a real wage associated with standards of living that one took for granted as "normal" when I was young.
impossiblefork 1y ago
It actually is basically minimum wage for major metros. If I took a job for ~100k in Washington, I'd live worse than I did as a PhD student in Sweden. It would basically suck. I'm not sure ~120k would make things that different.
- nyarlathotep_ 1y ago
  Yep exactly. I mean "maintaining a basic material standard of living that even non 'high-earners' had twenty years ago" The erosion of the standard of living in the US (and the West more broadly) is not something to be ignored in any discussion of wages.

lamename 1y ago

I disagree. Your data doesnt make the grandparent's assertion false. Cost of living != per capita or median income. Factoring in sensible retirement, expensive housing, inflation, etc, I think the $120k figure may not be perfect, but is close enough to reality.

BlueTemplar 1y ago
Since when "minimum wage" means "sensible retirement" ? More like it means ending up with government-provided bare minimum handouts to not have you starve (assuming you somehow manage to stay on minimum wage all your life).
- lamename 1y ago
  We agree, minimum wage doesnt mean that. And in a large metro area, that's why $120k is closer to min wage than a good standard of lliving and building retirement.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - tekla 1y ago
    Absolutely absurd. I lived in NYC making well less than that for years and was perfectly comfortable. The "min wage" of HN seems to be "living better than 98% of everyone else"
    - lamename 1y ago
      Adjusted for inflation? Without (crippling) debt accrual and adequate emergency fund, retirement, etc? Did you have children or childcare expenses? These all knock on that total compensation quickly these days, which is the main argument in this particular thread of replies.
      - tekla 1y ago
        No to kids, yes to everything else (except debt, did have lots of school loans)
nyarlathotep_ 1y ago
Correct, I mean in the sense of "living a standard of life that my parents and friends parents (all of very, very modest means) had 20 years ago when I was a teenager." I mean a real wage associated with standards of living that one took for granted as "normal" when I was young.

impossiblefork 1y ago

It actually is basically minimum wage for major metros. If I took a job for ~100k in Washington, I'd live worse than I did as a PhD student in Sweden. It would basically suck. I'm not sure ~120k would make things that different.

nyarlathotep_ 1y ago
Yep exactly. I mean "maintaining a basic material standard of living that even non 'high-earners' had twenty years ago" The erosion of the standard of living in the US (and the West more broadly) is not something to be ignored in any discussion of wages.