Looking for $100,000 Salary?
June 1, 2022 1:29 AM Subscribe
See How Much the Biggest U.S. Companies Pay Workers Bigger paydays are on the way for many workers this year—for top earners and those lower down the scales. Amazon.com Inc. AMZN 4.40% is raising its cap on base pay to $350,000 from $160,000, while Apple Inc. AAPL -0.53% said it would raise salaries and its minimum hourly wage for U.S. workers to $22. Starbucks Corp. SBUX 2.33% has promised raises of at least 5% for baristas who have worked for two or more years, and Bank of America Corp. BAC 0.49% is lifting its minimum U.S. wage to $22 an hour starting in July.
Is $22 an hour even a living wage? For the hours worked?
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:01 AM on June 1, 2022 [7 favorites]
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:01 AM on June 1, 2022 [7 favorites]
at full time 22$ an hr is 45k, which is only 5k less than my wife makes as a tenured professor. that’s great and it’s the unionizing that made it possible. but it is not uncommon for workers to be refused full time shifts at sbux even if they want to work them, so more should be done. keep up the fight!
posted by dis_integration at 5:09 AM on June 1, 2022 [23 favorites]
posted by dis_integration at 5:09 AM on June 1, 2022 [23 favorites]
incidentally it’s no mistake that employment is high, wages are rising, and the stock market is tumbling down. capital hates tight labor markets and high wages and it will crash the economy to reset things
posted by dis_integration at 5:11 AM on June 1, 2022 [24 favorites]
posted by dis_integration at 5:11 AM on June 1, 2022 [24 favorites]
The (Canadian) project I'm on just gave all crafts ( electricians, millrights, welders, labourers, teamsters etc.) a 12% raise across the board because they were having trouble keeping and recruiting talent. I don't know if this is unprecedented but it certianly is rare.
posted by Mitheral at 5:12 AM on June 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by Mitheral at 5:12 AM on June 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
Yeah I'm seeing this too. I regularly hire for my team to work under me in Australia and also for adjacent teams, the lowest paid position we have is $100,000 for a junior analyst...
However we've been unable to get people in the door to interview for less than $110,000 and then after the interview they take another position elsewhere for $120,000. It will be fun explaining this to existing staff earning $100,000....
We're a 100% work from home organization of 2500 people within the country and I suspect the unstoppable force is going to meet the immovable object soon... workers are demanding higher pay, but shareholders are looking at this and wondering why we're paying $100,000 per head in Australia when we could be paying $20,000 per head in India or Thailand instead since it's all fully remote work nowadays.
I suspect the companies which aren't nimble enough will end up paying higher wages and then go bankrupt because they can't compete with the agile companies who will instead pivot to utilizing more remote work in cheaper regions...
(The transition effectively already started happening in 2008 when all the accountants globally were fired and all accounting work was instead done in India by a specialist team that knew all the different accounting standards and could rapidly consolidate all regions and produce the global reports for the company, which has been a real efficiency gain, but this whole 100% work from home thing has been a real eye opener)
posted by xdvesper at 5:14 AM on June 1, 2022 [5 favorites]
However we've been unable to get people in the door to interview for less than $110,000 and then after the interview they take another position elsewhere for $120,000. It will be fun explaining this to existing staff earning $100,000....
We're a 100% work from home organization of 2500 people within the country and I suspect the unstoppable force is going to meet the immovable object soon... workers are demanding higher pay, but shareholders are looking at this and wondering why we're paying $100,000 per head in Australia when we could be paying $20,000 per head in India or Thailand instead since it's all fully remote work nowadays.
I suspect the companies which aren't nimble enough will end up paying higher wages and then go bankrupt because they can't compete with the agile companies who will instead pivot to utilizing more remote work in cheaper regions...
(The transition effectively already started happening in 2008 when all the accountants globally were fired and all accounting work was instead done in India by a specialist team that knew all the different accounting standards and could rapidly consolidate all regions and produce the global reports for the company, which has been a real efficiency gain, but this whole 100% work from home thing has been a real eye opener)
posted by xdvesper at 5:14 AM on June 1, 2022 [5 favorites]
I can't read the article because its pay-walled, but does it say what Amazon will be paying contractors who work in its non-climate-controlled warehouses under draconian and wage-thieving surveillance or only what they are potentially paying data scientists and software developers?
posted by jacquilynne at 5:22 AM on June 1, 2022 [13 favorites]
posted by jacquilynne at 5:22 AM on June 1, 2022 [13 favorites]
jacquilynne, I believe they agreed that the warehouse workers can now go back for a second bowl of gruel (if they have time during their 30 second lunch break)
But yeah the “base rate” looks pretty good if you remove from the calculus all the slave wage workers that actually make the company happen
posted by caution live frogs at 5:59 AM on June 1, 2022 [11 favorites]
But yeah the “base rate” looks pretty good if you remove from the calculus all the slave wage workers that actually make the company happen
posted by caution live frogs at 5:59 AM on June 1, 2022 [11 favorites]
Note that the $22/hour wage is for Apple and Bank of America, not Starbucks. Starbucks, according to the quote, is only giving 5% raises to baristas who have worked there for more than two years.
The Amazon thing is quite misleading as it’s the upper limit of starting salaries (as folks have noted, only for certain categories of employees as well, since warehouse workers aren’t salaried), while two of the other wages mentioned are lower limits, and one is for more mid-level employees. The quote compares apples to oranges to asparagus, in addition to using different units of measurement for each (bushels to change rather than total amount to kg). It is an excellent example of rather poor reporting on a quantitative subject.
posted by eviemath at 6:14 AM on June 1, 2022 [15 favorites]
The Amazon thing is quite misleading as it’s the upper limit of starting salaries (as folks have noted, only for certain categories of employees as well, since warehouse workers aren’t salaried), while two of the other wages mentioned are lower limits, and one is for more mid-level employees. The quote compares apples to oranges to asparagus, in addition to using different units of measurement for each (bushels to change rather than total amount to kg). It is an excellent example of rather poor reporting on a quantitative subject.
posted by eviemath at 6:14 AM on June 1, 2022 [15 favorites]
In other, more opinion-based critiques, I don’t trust economic reporting from anywhere that includes stock prices of companies mentioned. That’s a good indication that it will be heavily biased against working folks. And oh look the link is to the Wall Street Journal. But the trend of increasing worker organization and power leading to higher wages is legit, which is excellent news.
Here’s an interesting bit from the business owner perspective that you don’t hear every day, though: Is your business struggling with the labor shortage? Consider a union
posted by eviemath at 6:31 AM on June 1, 2022 [21 favorites]
Here’s an interesting bit from the business owner perspective that you don’t hear every day, though: Is your business struggling with the labor shortage? Consider a union
posted by eviemath at 6:31 AM on June 1, 2022 [21 favorites]
In Canada, meanwhile, unions are doing some work to protect current members, but haven’t yet been as effective at expanding to help currently non-unionized workers. (Despite one of the earliest barista unions having formed in Halifax.)
posted by eviemath at 6:50 AM on June 1, 2022
posted by eviemath at 6:50 AM on June 1, 2022
My question, having worked for Citigroup and expecting this is how all other big banks work, is does this apply to contractors as well?
If not, we're gonna see a massive surge of contract positions at BoA so they can run their business on 100% hypocrisy.
posted by mephron at 6:55 AM on June 1, 2022 [13 favorites]
If not, we're gonna see a massive surge of contract positions at BoA so they can run their business on 100% hypocrisy.
posted by mephron at 6:55 AM on June 1, 2022 [13 favorites]
It will be fun explaining this to existing staff earning $100,000....
Your staff will mention how that explanation went over in their exit interviews.
posted by mhoye at 7:03 AM on June 1, 2022 [25 favorites]
Your staff will mention how that explanation went over in their exit interviews.
posted by mhoye at 7:03 AM on June 1, 2022 [25 favorites]
My question, having worked for Citigroup and expecting this is how all other big banks work, is does this apply to contractors as well?
Seconding this. I worked at UBS as a mostly-perma-temp for nearly ten years and I was far from the only one.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:03 AM on June 1, 2022 [7 favorites]
Seconding this. I worked at UBS as a mostly-perma-temp for nearly ten years and I was far from the only one.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:03 AM on June 1, 2022 [7 favorites]
In other, more opinion-based critiques, I don’t trust economic reporting from anywhere that includes stock prices of companies mentioned. That’s a good indication that it will be heavily biased against working folks.
For a lot of workers, this is the form of compensation at tech companies.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:08 AM on June 1, 2022 [3 favorites]
For a lot of workers, this is the form of compensation at tech companies.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:08 AM on June 1, 2022 [3 favorites]
I suspect the companies which aren't nimble enough will end up paying higher wages and then go bankrupt because they can't compete with the agile companies who will instead pivot to utilizing more remote work in cheaper regions...
Except that the shift to fully remote has been adjusting salaries in markets globally. The field isn't level yet, but most companies have also realized that people with skills cost anywhere in the world. That 80% cost reduction you suggest only works if you're willing to take a similar hit in productivity. Good people in India or Thailand cost enough that having teams separated by 12 hours often negates any gains by the slightly lower cost.
posted by Ickster at 7:12 AM on June 1, 2022 [14 favorites]
Except that the shift to fully remote has been adjusting salaries in markets globally. The field isn't level yet, but most companies have also realized that people with skills cost anywhere in the world. That 80% cost reduction you suggest only works if you're willing to take a similar hit in productivity. Good people in India or Thailand cost enough that having teams separated by 12 hours often negates any gains by the slightly lower cost.
posted by Ickster at 7:12 AM on June 1, 2022 [14 favorites]
Seconding this. I worked at UBS as a mostly-perma-temp for nearly ten years and I was far from the only one.
Labour laws should severely limit the degree to which any business can use contractors to perform their core functions. They are significant restrictions in Canada, though the legal test is complicated enough to apply that lots of people who should be employees aren't treated that way because they don't know they should be.
posted by jacquilynne at 7:20 AM on June 1, 2022 [7 favorites]
Labour laws should severely limit the degree to which any business can use contractors to perform their core functions. They are significant restrictions in Canada, though the legal test is complicated enough to apply that lots of people who should be employees aren't treated that way because they don't know they should be.
posted by jacquilynne at 7:20 AM on June 1, 2022 [7 favorites]
Relevant post by MeFi's own Jacob Kaplan-Moss: "What is your labor worth? Tech compensation in 2021" which is about salaried workers at for-profit US tech companies and includes guidance on location adjustments and how to value stock or stock options as part of compensation.
...many tech workers have no idea what their labor is worth. There’s a huge information asymmetry here: employers have access to detailed industry data on salaries (e.g. Radford), but employees don’t.posted by brainwane at 7:38 AM on June 1, 2022 [18 favorites]
I want to share a method people can use to figure out what the “market rate” for their skills might be. I’m hoping this will help people evaluate their compensation or job offers.... This post is a distillation of what I do when I’m evaluating someone’s compensation.
The Amazon thing is quite misleading as it’s the upper limit of starting salaries (as folks have noted, only for certain categories of employees as well, since warehouse workers aren’t salaried), while two of the other wages mentioned are lower limits, and one is for more mid-level employees.
It's the upper limit on base salary, not starting salary. Especially for more senior employees, stock is a significant part of compensation. Amazon has/had an atypical vesting schedule that is much less favorable to employees than many other large tech companies, and that coupled with the $160k limit as well as their general reputation surely meant their hiring was taking a hit.
Basically the only good thing about interviewing at Amazon was that they were very transparent about their compensation structure. However it was really easy to see that they were trying throw stock at people and hoping to use the vesting schedule to keep people there, and that was more than five years ago.
posted by hoyland at 8:03 AM on June 1, 2022 [4 favorites]
It's the upper limit on base salary, not starting salary. Especially for more senior employees, stock is a significant part of compensation. Amazon has/had an atypical vesting schedule that is much less favorable to employees than many other large tech companies, and that coupled with the $160k limit as well as their general reputation surely meant their hiring was taking a hit.
Basically the only good thing about interviewing at Amazon was that they were very transparent about their compensation structure. However it was really easy to see that they were trying throw stock at people and hoping to use the vesting schedule to keep people there, and that was more than five years ago.
posted by hoyland at 8:03 AM on June 1, 2022 [4 favorites]
Ah, I work in a different area so was interpreting base salary differently; thanks for the clarification. Still an upper bound on the range rather than a lower bound or % increase of mid-level wage, so still comparing three different things with three different measures.
posted by eviemath at 8:32 AM on June 1, 2022
posted by eviemath at 8:32 AM on June 1, 2022
Amazon has/had an atypical vesting schedule
They still have it, although they've adjusted the percentages slightly to bias more towards the middle years and, at least for "valued" hires, they throw in a pretty huge bonus on the first year so your total comp is cash-heavy at first (as in, 95% cash).
...also, those of you not in the tech industry may not have heard of levels.fyi, which can make for interesting/infuriating reading (note, levels.fyi automatically populates the first page; I didn't choose which companies to compare for you). They're always a bit behind the current state of pay, but it's still a nice overview.
posted by aramaic at 8:39 AM on June 1, 2022 [9 favorites]
They still have it, although they've adjusted the percentages slightly to bias more towards the middle years and, at least for "valued" hires, they throw in a pretty huge bonus on the first year so your total comp is cash-heavy at first (as in, 95% cash).
...also, those of you not in the tech industry may not have heard of levels.fyi, which can make for interesting/infuriating reading (note, levels.fyi automatically populates the first page; I didn't choose which companies to compare for you). They're always a bit behind the current state of pay, but it's still a nice overview.
posted by aramaic at 8:39 AM on June 1, 2022 [9 favorites]
why we're paying $100,000 per head in Australia when we could be paying $20,000 per head in India or Thailand instead since it's all fully remote work nowadays.
that might work in your industry but at mine (tech), our comp was recently bought out by a corp that pays much higher than we did who kept our salaries at the same level upon purchase. so we're losing staff at a rate alarming enough for our CTO to send our regular, weekly emails acknowledging the attrition and saying that they're working on it, along with substantive actions by the new parent corp (though, as yet, not nearly enough)
they're doing all of this because in software, having the historical knowledge of how certain things were developed, and why, paired with the persistently poor documentation that occurs in pretty much all tech corps, is actually pretty crucial in not crashing the fuck out of your platform or breaking features completely, or releasing a product that just doesn't work. turns out, thorough documentation of dependencies is actually pretty crucial if you're going to start contracting work and doing a bunch of new hirings bc holy shit does not a single dev in the world want to or even know how to read through old code and figure out how everything works
this is, of course, something parent corp is now finding out the hard way as we build out new features with release dates that have been pushed back repeatedly across multiple quarters, so that's been fun
posted by paimapi at 9:12 AM on June 1, 2022 [22 favorites]
that might work in your industry but at mine (tech), our comp was recently bought out by a corp that pays much higher than we did who kept our salaries at the same level upon purchase. so we're losing staff at a rate alarming enough for our CTO to send our regular, weekly emails acknowledging the attrition and saying that they're working on it, along with substantive actions by the new parent corp (though, as yet, not nearly enough)
they're doing all of this because in software, having the historical knowledge of how certain things were developed, and why, paired with the persistently poor documentation that occurs in pretty much all tech corps, is actually pretty crucial in not crashing the fuck out of your platform or breaking features completely, or releasing a product that just doesn't work. turns out, thorough documentation of dependencies is actually pretty crucial if you're going to start contracting work and doing a bunch of new hirings bc holy shit does not a single dev in the world want to or even know how to read through old code and figure out how everything works
this is, of course, something parent corp is now finding out the hard way as we build out new features with release dates that have been pushed back repeatedly across multiple quarters, so that's been fun
posted by paimapi at 9:12 AM on June 1, 2022 [22 favorites]
Seeing the same pain here in tech where I’m having to pay much more for new people, and even then many of them drop out during the process (post offer). There’s no real plan to resolve discrepancies with existing staff either - that’s not something that most big companies even consider IMO. It sucks for retention, but I can’t imagine a public company just saying “ hey we’re giving all 30,000 of you a 20% raise because the market is hot”. The incentives (investors) to just kind of hope people stay are too high.
posted by freecellwizard at 9:16 AM on June 1, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by freecellwizard at 9:16 AM on June 1, 2022 [2 favorites]
but I can’t imagine a public company just saying “ hey we’re giving all 30,000 of you a 20% raise because the market is hot”
we just got a % pay raise across our entire division of thousands of people by our publicly owned parent corp bc of attrition so 🤷
posted by paimapi at 9:22 AM on June 1, 2022 [11 favorites]
we just got a % pay raise across our entire division of thousands of people by our publicly owned parent corp bc of attrition so 🤷
posted by paimapi at 9:22 AM on June 1, 2022 [11 favorites]
I guess Wal-Mart forced its competition under and brought suppliers to heel by demanding ever-lower prices for, and ever-larger quantities of, gallon jars of pickles. Now, FAANG (etc.) companies do it by being able to pay ludicrous salaries for tech employees.
Funny that in my small, highly-desirable Canadian city, according to levels.fyi, tech salaries are mostly in the dumpster, while an average house costs $1.4m. It's a city that promotes itself as a tech hub but few companies here pay well, and most tech workers are probably going remote and making 2-3x as much. I'd been wondering if I should quit my government science job and get a remote tech job, but I can't handle that much nihilism at this point in my life.
posted by klanawa at 9:24 AM on June 1, 2022 [7 favorites]
Funny that in my small, highly-desirable Canadian city, according to levels.fyi, tech salaries are mostly in the dumpster, while an average house costs $1.4m. It's a city that promotes itself as a tech hub but few companies here pay well, and most tech workers are probably going remote and making 2-3x as much. I'd been wondering if I should quit my government science job and get a remote tech job, but I can't handle that much nihilism at this point in my life.
posted by klanawa at 9:24 AM on June 1, 2022 [7 favorites]
One of my jobs is large corporation retail; part-time (because they rarely hire full time so they don't have to offer full benefits to part-timers.) Yearly raises are between $0.05 to $0.10 per hour - yes, that's 5-10 cents per hour raise. And none of the wage slaves are earning $15 per hour. The best way to gain a worthwhile raise is to quit and work elsewhere for 6 months then apply for the same job and get the new hire pay rate. They absolutely don't care if long time workers are quitting in droves because there's always another person to hire. There's no long-term thinking at corporate because it's all about shareholder profits and stock-market perception.
The store I'm at was the top seller in the region (120 stores). And, we didn't get raises; we received 200-400 dollars each. Our store manager received a very healthy bonus plus a $20k watch, plus other benefits. Yet, which of us was helping customers every day?
Don't talk to me about raising wages for corporate and union workers because most of the lower end workers are NOT in that category. The Wall Street Journal is not speaking about the custodian, the housekeeper, the daycare worker, the retail slave, the nightshift stocker.
posted by mightshould at 9:56 AM on June 1, 2022 [23 favorites]
The store I'm at was the top seller in the region (120 stores). And, we didn't get raises; we received 200-400 dollars each. Our store manager received a very healthy bonus plus a $20k watch, plus other benefits. Yet, which of us was helping customers every day?
Don't talk to me about raising wages for corporate and union workers because most of the lower end workers are NOT in that category. The Wall Street Journal is not speaking about the custodian, the housekeeper, the daycare worker, the retail slave, the nightshift stocker.
posted by mightshould at 9:56 AM on June 1, 2022 [23 favorites]
An historical note: Around 1974, during galloping inflation, the (tech) company I worked for was forced to offer new hires about 50% more than their current employees were receiving. So one day, everyone's salaries were, as I recall, doubled
posted by hexatron at 9:57 AM on June 1, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by hexatron at 9:57 AM on June 1, 2022 [5 favorites]
"Retention is the company's biggest priority right now" says my director, from his workshop, and his restored antique car lovingly set in the background on the Zoom call. Employees stuck in their living rooms and kitchens, muted for their kids, spouses, and roommates, sigh wearily.
posted by meowzilla at 10:24 AM on June 1, 2022 [7 favorites]
posted by meowzilla at 10:24 AM on June 1, 2022 [7 favorites]
> Apple Inc. AAPL -0.53% said it would raise salaries and its minimum hourly wage for U.S. workers to $22
That's one facet of their anti-Union effort which also includes intimidating employees and hiring sleazy union busters.
posted by Poldo at 10:50 AM on June 1, 2022 [6 favorites]
That's one facet of their anti-Union effort which also includes intimidating employees and hiring sleazy union busters.
posted by Poldo at 10:50 AM on June 1, 2022 [6 favorites]
For a lot of workers, this is the form of compensation at tech companies.
For the ones cleaning the toilets?
Actually I guess with fully remote a person probably uses their own toilet and at $100k to start you can probably pay some exploited contractor a pittance to clean it for you.
posted by aspersioncast at 10:51 AM on June 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
For the ones cleaning the toilets?
Actually I guess with fully remote a person probably uses their own toilet and at $100k to start you can probably pay some exploited contractor a pittance to clean it for you.
posted by aspersioncast at 10:51 AM on June 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
I'm feeling it today several of my US based staff are leaving - often after getting 18-25% salary increases recently plus an additional 25% bonus, and multiple 5% bonuses through the year.
But good on them, more power to them, and if you aren't looking around you should be! But holy cow is the job market wild at the moment and making my head spin....spoke with a 3rd year out of college employee last week who was disappointed they weren't on $200k yet. They started on around $80k out of school in mid-2019, and are on approx. $135k within three years (so just shy of 20% salary growth year on year for 3 years), not including probably 30-40k of bonuses during that time. (Edit: large global consulting firm in case anyone wondering)
posted by inflatablekiwi at 10:57 AM on June 1, 2022 [5 favorites]
But good on them, more power to them, and if you aren't looking around you should be! But holy cow is the job market wild at the moment and making my head spin....spoke with a 3rd year out of college employee last week who was disappointed they weren't on $200k yet. They started on around $80k out of school in mid-2019, and are on approx. $135k within three years (so just shy of 20% salary growth year on year for 3 years), not including probably 30-40k of bonuses during that time. (Edit: large global consulting firm in case anyone wondering)
posted by inflatablekiwi at 10:57 AM on June 1, 2022 [5 favorites]
The chairman of the Fed, in his first interview in basically ever, took time to talk about higher wages being bad, and the efforts of the Fed to try and drive wages down.
I'll admit that my knowledge of economics is from about 25 years ago when I took an intro to economics cours as part of my degree requirements. So I'm hardly an expert.
But... Is there any actual, real, non-evil, reason to want people who work to work for table scraps? To actively seek to **LOWER** wages so we have less money, less abiliy to spend and are forced into economic stress?
I'm asking becasue that seemed to be Skeletor level scenery chewing Saturday morning cartoon level evil for its own sake mwahahahahah type stuff the Fed chair was saying.
He was even talking about inflation, so it's not as if he was unaware that wages buy less today than they did last year, and the year before that, etc.
Is there really a valid economic reason why it is preferable for Elon Musk to add another zero to his net worth than it is for poor people to have more money?
IIRC during the 1950's, one of those fabled boom times in the economy, (white) people got real increases in their spending power as time passed, not less.
So serously asking: is there a reason other than just love of billionaires and/or hatred of me that the Fed wants me to have less and be more economically stressed?
If so, under what circumstances would it be acceptable to people like the Fed chair for working people to have more money? Is there any economic theory or circumstance in which the Very Serious Economists would say that it's good for working people to have more?
posted by sotonohito at 11:27 AM on June 1, 2022 [9 favorites]
I'll admit that my knowledge of economics is from about 25 years ago when I took an intro to economics cours as part of my degree requirements. So I'm hardly an expert.
But... Is there any actual, real, non-evil, reason to want people who work to work for table scraps? To actively seek to **LOWER** wages so we have less money, less abiliy to spend and are forced into economic stress?
I'm asking becasue that seemed to be Skeletor level scenery chewing Saturday morning cartoon level evil for its own sake mwahahahahah type stuff the Fed chair was saying.
He was even talking about inflation, so it's not as if he was unaware that wages buy less today than they did last year, and the year before that, etc.
Is there really a valid economic reason why it is preferable for Elon Musk to add another zero to his net worth than it is for poor people to have more money?
IIRC during the 1950's, one of those fabled boom times in the economy, (white) people got real increases in their spending power as time passed, not less.
So serously asking: is there a reason other than just love of billionaires and/or hatred of me that the Fed wants me to have less and be more economically stressed?
If so, under what circumstances would it be acceptable to people like the Fed chair for working people to have more money? Is there any economic theory or circumstance in which the Very Serious Economists would say that it's good for working people to have more?
posted by sotonohito at 11:27 AM on June 1, 2022 [9 favorites]
Very Serious Economists used to be pretty conservative politically, and not interested in working class wage increases except under a very tight correlation to increased productivity.
That hasn't been so for a while. Pretty much every Very Serious Economist assigns a very high value to the working increasing real wages, including increases decorrelated to productivity (i.e., a shift in wealth from capital to labor).
However, wage increases that are part of an inflationary spiral, no, they don't like that -- but they would tell you it's more because of how high inflation hurts the working class, than the notion of trying to deliver any benefit to billionaires.
posted by MattD at 12:16 PM on June 1, 2022 [2 favorites]
That hasn't been so for a while. Pretty much every Very Serious Economist assigns a very high value to the working increasing real wages, including increases decorrelated to productivity (i.e., a shift in wealth from capital to labor).
However, wage increases that are part of an inflationary spiral, no, they don't like that -- but they would tell you it's more because of how high inflation hurts the working class, than the notion of trying to deliver any benefit to billionaires.
posted by MattD at 12:16 PM on June 1, 2022 [2 favorites]
sotonohito - Chairman Powell's argument, as I understand it, is ostensibly laid out in this quote from the same press conference you cite:
See also:
-The Guardian on how corporate profits are up and the costs of inflation are being passed on to consumers.
-How Target and Walmart got hammered by investors when they tried not just jacking up prices. Their CEOs basically tried to argue "hey we're making money hand over fist from the pandemic because people are buying more groceries and stuff to do at home, let's continue to grow market share by not pissing customers off by jacking prices" and investors were like "no, fuck you, give me money. "
posted by Wretch729 at 12:26 PM on June 1, 2022 [20 favorites]
But the bigger point is this: I do not at this time see the two sides of the mandate as in tension. I don’t, because you can see that the labor market is out of balance. You can see that it’s—there is a labor shortage. There aren’t enough people to fill these job openings and companies can’t hire and wages are moving up at levels that would not over time be consistent with 2 percent inflation over time. And of course, everyone loves to see wages go up and it’s a great thing, but you want them to go up at a sustainable level because these wages are to some extent being eaten up by inflation.So in essence he's blaming price inflation at least in part on wages rising at what he considers an unsustainable rate. This article lays out the argument in more detail but that's the gist. Of course many people think this is total BS, including economists smarter about this than I am (Mark Blyth at Brown is one example off the top of my head). But I guess it lets him sleep at night while the rich profit handsomely.
So what that really means is to get the kind of labor market we really want to get—we really want to have a labor market that serves all Americans, especially the people in the lower-income part of the distribution, especially them. To do that, you’ve got to have price stability. And we’ve got to get back to price stability so that we can have a labor market where people’s wages aren’t being eaten up by inflation and where we can have a long expansion, too. That’s the good thing, is you can have—as we have. We’ve had—several of the longest expansions in U.S. history have been in the last 40 years, and that’s because it’s been a time of low inflation. And long expansions are good for people and good for the labor market.
See also:
-The Guardian on how corporate profits are up and the costs of inflation are being passed on to consumers.
-How Target and Walmart got hammered by investors when they tried not just jacking up prices. Their CEOs basically tried to argue "hey we're making money hand over fist from the pandemic because people are buying more groceries and stuff to do at home, let's continue to grow market share by not pissing customers off by jacking prices" and investors were like "no, fuck you, give me money. "
posted by Wretch729 at 12:26 PM on June 1, 2022 [20 favorites]
Another data point, I worked at Motorola when I got out of college in December 1997. In mid-1998 there was a widespread 11% raise because of the dot com hiring pressure. So this kind of thing isn’t exactly new, although it might be a little larger scale.
posted by notoriety public at 12:29 PM on June 1, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by notoriety public at 12:29 PM on June 1, 2022 [2 favorites]
But good on them, more power to them, and if you aren't looking around you should be! But holy cow is the job market wild at the moment and making my head spin....spoke with a 3rd year out of college employee last week who was disappointed they weren't on $200k yet.
I would love to know where these wild jobs are and how I can get one. I don't even care what it is any more.
The COVID-era job market has absolutely slaughtered my prospects as an office professional, an instructional designer / technical writer / training developer by trade. On-site opportunities, for the most part, vanished when offices closed and workers went remote. Remote opportunities have increased, but the worker base vying for those remote opportunities has EXPLODED exponentially.
I have been firing resumes and cover letters off to whomever I can find on Monster, Indeed, ZipRecruiter and CareerBuilder that seems promising. No one responds positively... ever. Occasionally, I'll get a polite rejection; typically, I don't even get an indication that anyone ever looked at my submissions. I have reviewed those resumes a thousand times; there are no spelling errors, no blatant red flags, and no indications that I am anything but a reasonably talented professional. There is a work gap -- that tends to happen when one cannot find work -- and it seems more poisonous to my future the longer that it becomes.
I get about ten emails per day from recruiters. (Curiously, 95% of them are from agents with Southeast Asian names; not that is problematic in any way, but I hadn't expected that kind of near-monopolization of the recruiting space.) Most of those are people who simply matched up a keyword or two and fired off an automated letter my way, clearly not having actually examined my resume.
(No, I am not going to relocate my family halfway across the country for a 3-month, $30-an-hour contract. No, "Remote until COVID" does not mean that I'd be willing to relocate five minutes after someone decides "Time's up, everyone back to the office now!" No, if your position mandates experience in a specific industry or with specific software or a degree and those things are NOT on my resume, I cannot whip those qualifications out of thin air on demand.)
On LinkedIn, positions denote how many other applicants have applied. It's disheartening to see something that's less than a week old and looks promising and then read "270 applicants." Sure, I'll throw my hat into the ring as well, but how does one stand out in such a glut? (This is the problem with "oh, remote means that you can work anywhere!" It means that you are also competing with everyone else in the country for the same positions.)
And when I do get a nibble, a recruiter who's at least interested enough to talk with me directly, submit applications on my behalf and get my virtual nose in the door somewhere... they disappear. They vanish into the ether without a phone call or email, and ignore mine asking for an update, even though all of them swore up and down that they'd certainly keep me in the loop. (One recent one at least apologized for that and explained that the company never got back to her regarding the job opening, once I tracked her down.)
I'm a big boy; I can take a 'no.' I got one today, and I was fine with that. But living in limbo, unable to even get that 'no,' is horrifying.
At this point, I am about to crack open my last 401k, and that won't last long. Something that's Monday-to-Friday, nine-to-five, and maybe $20/hour would suffice to let my wife and I break even and at least make next month's rent. It doesn't even have to be in my field, at this point; I'd take anything that I could find if someone is willing to bring me on board, and maybe have a better spot within their company down the road.
But I have absolutely no idea where to look.
posted by delfin at 12:53 PM on June 1, 2022 [15 favorites]
I would love to know where these wild jobs are and how I can get one. I don't even care what it is any more.
The COVID-era job market has absolutely slaughtered my prospects as an office professional, an instructional designer / technical writer / training developer by trade. On-site opportunities, for the most part, vanished when offices closed and workers went remote. Remote opportunities have increased, but the worker base vying for those remote opportunities has EXPLODED exponentially.
I have been firing resumes and cover letters off to whomever I can find on Monster, Indeed, ZipRecruiter and CareerBuilder that seems promising. No one responds positively... ever. Occasionally, I'll get a polite rejection; typically, I don't even get an indication that anyone ever looked at my submissions. I have reviewed those resumes a thousand times; there are no spelling errors, no blatant red flags, and no indications that I am anything but a reasonably talented professional. There is a work gap -- that tends to happen when one cannot find work -- and it seems more poisonous to my future the longer that it becomes.
I get about ten emails per day from recruiters. (Curiously, 95% of them are from agents with Southeast Asian names; not that is problematic in any way, but I hadn't expected that kind of near-monopolization of the recruiting space.) Most of those are people who simply matched up a keyword or two and fired off an automated letter my way, clearly not having actually examined my resume.
(No, I am not going to relocate my family halfway across the country for a 3-month, $30-an-hour contract. No, "Remote until COVID" does not mean that I'd be willing to relocate five minutes after someone decides "Time's up, everyone back to the office now!" No, if your position mandates experience in a specific industry or with specific software or a degree and those things are NOT on my resume, I cannot whip those qualifications out of thin air on demand.)
On LinkedIn, positions denote how many other applicants have applied. It's disheartening to see something that's less than a week old and looks promising and then read "270 applicants." Sure, I'll throw my hat into the ring as well, but how does one stand out in such a glut? (This is the problem with "oh, remote means that you can work anywhere!" It means that you are also competing with everyone else in the country for the same positions.)
And when I do get a nibble, a recruiter who's at least interested enough to talk with me directly, submit applications on my behalf and get my virtual nose in the door somewhere... they disappear. They vanish into the ether without a phone call or email, and ignore mine asking for an update, even though all of them swore up and down that they'd certainly keep me in the loop. (One recent one at least apologized for that and explained that the company never got back to her regarding the job opening, once I tracked her down.)
I'm a big boy; I can take a 'no.' I got one today, and I was fine with that. But living in limbo, unable to even get that 'no,' is horrifying.
At this point, I am about to crack open my last 401k, and that won't last long. Something that's Monday-to-Friday, nine-to-five, and maybe $20/hour would suffice to let my wife and I break even and at least make next month's rent. It doesn't even have to be in my field, at this point; I'd take anything that I could find if someone is willing to bring me on board, and maybe have a better spot within their company down the road.
But I have absolutely no idea where to look.
posted by delfin at 12:53 PM on June 1, 2022 [15 favorites]
the labor market is out of balance. You can see that it’s—there is a labor shortage.
And Biden basically continuing Trump's slow/harsh immigration policies is having an effect too. Under regular immigration policies, immigration would increase, meaning there are slack people who get bottom of the barrel wages (minimum wages) that would allow productivity to grow.
That Mark Blyth article is pretty good.
Inflation (especially fast inflation) plays really well politically too. Like gas prices for example: even though the yearly expenditure of fuel for the median household is about 3 months of payments on cars, rising gas prices anger people and rising car prices or home prices don't. Also hence why public transport is tough to make in-roads in the US: the marginal costs of car ownership are far exceeded by the cost to purchase a car, so prices would have to be even higher than they are to drive any mass change in behavior.
posted by The_Vegetables at 12:54 PM on June 1, 2022
And Biden basically continuing Trump's slow/harsh immigration policies is having an effect too. Under regular immigration policies, immigration would increase, meaning there are slack people who get bottom of the barrel wages (minimum wages) that would allow productivity to grow.
That Mark Blyth article is pretty good.
Inflation (especially fast inflation) plays really well politically too. Like gas prices for example: even though the yearly expenditure of fuel for the median household is about 3 months of payments on cars, rising gas prices anger people and rising car prices or home prices don't. Also hence why public transport is tough to make in-roads in the US: the marginal costs of car ownership are far exceeded by the cost to purchase a car, so prices would have to be even higher than they are to drive any mass change in behavior.
posted by The_Vegetables at 12:54 PM on June 1, 2022
@delfin I feel your pain. I was looking for 7 months last year and not much more than a peep from all the jobs I applied for. It wasn't until a couple internal recruiters at companies found me that I had any traction. Looking back I think there was a lot about the automation recruiting algorithms that didn't like my resume or background. Ultimately I replaced by barely good enough job with one in March that paid 130% more. 6 weeks later I left that position for another I had a multi-month interview process with and got another 25% bump. If I had it to do over again I would actually reach out to my network and directly to people inside target companies. It's a bit uncomfortable but it will get you out of the automation hell.
posted by ShakeyJake at 1:21 PM on June 1, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by ShakeyJake at 1:21 PM on June 1, 2022 [5 favorites]
And Biden basically continuing Trump's slow/harsh immigration policies is having an effect too. Under regular immigration policies, immigration would increase, meaning there are slack people
Yeah, not sure I have a problem with the labor market being tight.
In fact, I want a permanently tight labor market. If it can be automated, automate it. If it requires a human being to do the job, pay them a living fucking wage. If it requires a human, and you don't want to pay them a living wage, then it just doesn't get done. Either we'll deal, or we'll realize that maybe we can afford to pay more for that service.
As for the offshoring risk, I would like to see that behavior seen for what it is: hiring scabs.
I don't think that being a scab should be prima facie illegal, but I do think hiring anyone from a market with less worker protections in order to avoid paying higher salaries ought to be. And I wouldn't mind if it was backed up by the occasional Molotov cocktail onto some rich asshole's Mercedes (brake fluid is an acceptable substitute if the wildfire danger is high), or a well-dressed effigy hanging from a lamppost outside their house, just to make the point super clear.
Do not fuck with labor. It's about time labor gets to do some fucking.
posted by Kadin2048 at 1:27 PM on June 1, 2022 [13 favorites]
Yeah, not sure I have a problem with the labor market being tight.
In fact, I want a permanently tight labor market. If it can be automated, automate it. If it requires a human being to do the job, pay them a living fucking wage. If it requires a human, and you don't want to pay them a living wage, then it just doesn't get done. Either we'll deal, or we'll realize that maybe we can afford to pay more for that service.
As for the offshoring risk, I would like to see that behavior seen for what it is: hiring scabs.
I don't think that being a scab should be prima facie illegal, but I do think hiring anyone from a market with less worker protections in order to avoid paying higher salaries ought to be. And I wouldn't mind if it was backed up by the occasional Molotov cocktail onto some rich asshole's Mercedes (brake fluid is an acceptable substitute if the wildfire danger is high), or a well-dressed effigy hanging from a lamppost outside their house, just to make the point super clear.
Do not fuck with labor. It's about time labor gets to do some fucking.
posted by Kadin2048 at 1:27 PM on June 1, 2022 [13 favorites]
If I had it to do over again I would actually reach out to my network and directly to people inside target companies.
Ironically, one of the places to which I have applied (four times now) is my last (contract) employer, from whom I have a glowing reference from my last boss screaming PLEASE HIRE THIS PERSON, HE WAS GREAT HERE. Hasn't made a dent yet. I applied to my previous (full-time) employer of fifteen years today, both for a position resembling the one they laid me off from and a generic guy-who-wrangles-equipment position they had at a local office.
For all the talk of job-hopping, everyone I know is basically clinging like a barnacle to the job they have now, staring at desperate waters if it should disappear for any reason.
posted by delfin at 1:40 PM on June 1, 2022 [4 favorites]
Ironically, one of the places to which I have applied (four times now) is my last (contract) employer, from whom I have a glowing reference from my last boss screaming PLEASE HIRE THIS PERSON, HE WAS GREAT HERE. Hasn't made a dent yet. I applied to my previous (full-time) employer of fifteen years today, both for a position resembling the one they laid me off from and a generic guy-who-wrangles-equipment position they had at a local office.
For all the talk of job-hopping, everyone I know is basically clinging like a barnacle to the job they have now, staring at desperate waters if it should disappear for any reason.
posted by delfin at 1:40 PM on June 1, 2022 [4 favorites]
spoke with a 3rd year out of college employee last week who was disappointed they weren't on $200k yet
slow your roll though. to use a legal term, this sounds like puffery. jobs that pay that much in salary usually require some pretty highly specialized skills that call for advanced degrees, not just undergrad. maybe if you're a finance genius or a software engineer that would do the trick, but a salary around 3x to 4x the US median is not something the average joe blow who got a BA in 2019 is earning.
posted by wibari at 1:42 PM on June 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
slow your roll though. to use a legal term, this sounds like puffery. jobs that pay that much in salary usually require some pretty highly specialized skills that call for advanced degrees, not just undergrad. maybe if you're a finance genius or a software engineer that would do the trick, but a salary around 3x to 4x the US median is not something the average joe blow who got a BA in 2019 is earning.
posted by wibari at 1:42 PM on June 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
"Sure, I'll throw my hat into the ring as well, but how does one stand out in such a glut?"
Use LinkedIn Alerts so you can apply the first DAY. Applying is so easy now, and so automated, that it makes a difference to wait a week. There's just such a wild VOLUME of applicants. (It's kind-of like college applications these days -- kids can basically one-click apply to a dozen colleges with the same application, so they do, so it's harder to get your application taken seriously.)
Sign up with some target companies' job portals so you'll get their listings directly and immediately, and can apply directly rather than through LinkedIn.
Fake "recruiters" on resume sites are legion now. If you click through and it's a recruiter not in your country/region, and they don't have a reputable recruiting company listed (or aren't an internal recruiter for a real company), that's just somebody running a scam. I guess it's probably a phishing scam, but if you're a female-presenting person, sometimes they send you dick pics. On LinkedIn. Because the world is terrible. I had exactly ONE recruiter who contacted me on linkedin proactively turn out to be legit. In every other case, legit recruiters got in touch after I applied with a particular company.
My personal strategy was to sit down every evening, look at the brand new LinkedIn listings, and apply to one job, no matter how qualified or unqualified I thought I was. I figured it'd give me practice applying, get a lot of resumes out there over time without making me feel overwhelmed with the project, and make it so jobs I actually wanted didn't feel too intense to apply to because of anxiety. They were just one more nightly job application to knock off my list, not something I was hanging my future on. And I figured if I got responses or even interviews from random jobs or jobs I wasn't super-interested in, I'd at least know what on my resume was appealing and I'd get some practice interviewing.
As it turned out, a nightly job I applied for that I wasn't a super-great fit for put me in the internal system of that company, and an internal recruiter snatched my resume out of the slush for a job I was an EXCELLENT fit for. So my "apply to jobs every night even if random" worked out even better than intended -- I didn't realize how many companies now search existing resumes for other positions.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 1:45 PM on June 1, 2022 [20 favorites]
Use LinkedIn Alerts so you can apply the first DAY. Applying is so easy now, and so automated, that it makes a difference to wait a week. There's just such a wild VOLUME of applicants. (It's kind-of like college applications these days -- kids can basically one-click apply to a dozen colleges with the same application, so they do, so it's harder to get your application taken seriously.)
Sign up with some target companies' job portals so you'll get their listings directly and immediately, and can apply directly rather than through LinkedIn.
Fake "recruiters" on resume sites are legion now. If you click through and it's a recruiter not in your country/region, and they don't have a reputable recruiting company listed (or aren't an internal recruiter for a real company), that's just somebody running a scam. I guess it's probably a phishing scam, but if you're a female-presenting person, sometimes they send you dick pics. On LinkedIn. Because the world is terrible. I had exactly ONE recruiter who contacted me on linkedin proactively turn out to be legit. In every other case, legit recruiters got in touch after I applied with a particular company.
My personal strategy was to sit down every evening, look at the brand new LinkedIn listings, and apply to one job, no matter how qualified or unqualified I thought I was. I figured it'd give me practice applying, get a lot of resumes out there over time without making me feel overwhelmed with the project, and make it so jobs I actually wanted didn't feel too intense to apply to because of anxiety. They were just one more nightly job application to knock off my list, not something I was hanging my future on. And I figured if I got responses or even interviews from random jobs or jobs I wasn't super-interested in, I'd at least know what on my resume was appealing and I'd get some practice interviewing.
As it turned out, a nightly job I applied for that I wasn't a super-great fit for put me in the internal system of that company, and an internal recruiter snatched my resume out of the slush for a job I was an EXCELLENT fit for. So my "apply to jobs every night even if random" worked out even better than intended -- I didn't realize how many companies now search existing resumes for other positions.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 1:45 PM on June 1, 2022 [20 favorites]
jobs that pay that much in salary usually require some pretty highly specialized skills that call for advanced degrees, not just undergrad. maybe if you're a finance genius or a software engineer that would do the trick
Indeed it does. You will find that software engineers are everywhere, even (especially?) posting on MeFi.
posted by pwnguin at 1:56 PM on June 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
Indeed it does. You will find that software engineers are everywhere, even (especially?) posting on MeFi.
posted by pwnguin at 1:56 PM on June 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
It feels strange to be interacting with LinkedIn, but I'll put in the effort. I can't say that I've ever encountered a single person who's had good experiences with it.
posted by delfin at 2:22 PM on June 1, 2022
posted by delfin at 2:22 PM on June 1, 2022
LinkedIn is how I find out what my coworkers actually do for a living.
posted by pwnguin at 2:29 PM on June 1, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by pwnguin at 2:29 PM on June 1, 2022 [5 favorites]
I'd been wondering if I should quit my government science job and get a remote tech job, but I can't handle that much nihilism at this point in my life.
Fellow government STEM-type here, I've considered this many times and still haven't ruled it out. Seeing all these stupid-high salaries does not help (I found levels.fyi a while back and yikes - regretting certain past career choices now).
posted by photo guy at 2:46 PM on June 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
Fellow government STEM-type here, I've considered this many times and still haven't ruled it out. Seeing all these stupid-high salaries does not help (I found levels.fyi a while back and yikes - regretting certain past career choices now).
posted by photo guy at 2:46 PM on June 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
Regarding stock as compensation: "But short of some catastrophic event, I can be pretty sure they’ll be worth something, and probably something within, say, 25% of what they’re worth today."
I've got bad news about the 30+% drop in FAANG..
posted by abulafa at 3:12 PM on June 1, 2022
I've got bad news about the 30+% drop in FAANG..
posted by abulafa at 3:12 PM on June 1, 2022
Data point: I am in senior tech leadership in a big company and have been a developer/manager/etc. for TWENTY FIVE YEARS and I do not make 200k. Before that career I lived as an adult on tiny amounts ($4-6/hr) for years. So even though I’m in a high bracket vs. the overall job market, I kinda hate people who are 25 and making that much. Living on minimum wage for a while as a young person sucks but without paying some sort of dues, we breed a generation of new leaders who have zero experience or empathy with people who are scraping by. I’m convinced that if I had gotten a fintech job right out of college I’d be a Republican now.
posted by freecellwizard at 3:30 PM on June 1, 2022 [14 favorites]
posted by freecellwizard at 3:30 PM on June 1, 2022 [14 favorites]
My org has taken the approach of aiming to set their salaries at the exact midpoint of the national average, which means that I get a lot of opportunities to wave goodbye to my above-average employees
posted by ook at 3:52 PM on June 1, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by ook at 3:52 PM on June 1, 2022 [2 favorites]
It will be fun explaining this to existing staff earning $100,000....
Your staff will mention how that explanation went over in their exit interviews.
Ironically, the only person who left my team in the past 3 years is someone who was a huge extrovert and absolutely hated working from home, and he specifically looked for a job that guaranteed him minimum 3 days in the office with his whole team... he was one of the brightest and most conscientious analysts I'd ever worked with that we had already concurred at management level that he was a top performer in his cohort, which has us wondering if 100% work from home is all upside or not.
I'd have to assume once you get beyond $100,000 compensation each additional dollar in compensation is worth less than actually making it a job you enjoy doing, which I see is MY main job...
The union is fighting tooth and nail for price increases in line with inflation, but management staff aren't allowed to be part of the union (it's union vs management) and most management are at about 1% increases for the past few year and we're mostly worried that with cost blowouts the shareholders (board, really) will just tell us to shutter the entire facility and do the work remotely from another country, so for me a win is really just keeping this job at the same pay or even reduced pay for the next 5-10 years...
posted by xdvesper at 4:12 PM on June 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
Your staff will mention how that explanation went over in their exit interviews.
Ironically, the only person who left my team in the past 3 years is someone who was a huge extrovert and absolutely hated working from home, and he specifically looked for a job that guaranteed him minimum 3 days in the office with his whole team... he was one of the brightest and most conscientious analysts I'd ever worked with that we had already concurred at management level that he was a top performer in his cohort, which has us wondering if 100% work from home is all upside or not.
I'd have to assume once you get beyond $100,000 compensation each additional dollar in compensation is worth less than actually making it a job you enjoy doing, which I see is MY main job...
The union is fighting tooth and nail for price increases in line with inflation, but management staff aren't allowed to be part of the union (it's union vs management) and most management are at about 1% increases for the past few year and we're mostly worried that with cost blowouts the shareholders (board, really) will just tell us to shutter the entire facility and do the work remotely from another country, so for me a win is really just keeping this job at the same pay or even reduced pay for the next 5-10 years...
posted by xdvesper at 4:12 PM on June 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
I've got bad news about the 30+% drop in FAANG..
I'm not one of them, but I hear the following:
- Smart engineers automatically sell their stock grants immediately upon vesting, so they're not exposed to their employers' stock price fluctuations
- Smart engineers are using the drop in stock price as leverage to demand even more stock grants, because it feels like a pay cut to them
posted by meowzilla at 4:18 PM on June 1, 2022 [5 favorites]
I'm not one of them, but I hear the following:
- Smart engineers automatically sell their stock grants immediately upon vesting, so they're not exposed to their employers' stock price fluctuations
- Smart engineers are using the drop in stock price as leverage to demand even more stock grants, because it feels like a pay cut to them
posted by meowzilla at 4:18 PM on June 1, 2022 [5 favorites]
I think rather than say "fuck tech workers who get to make six figures and work remote", we should all be like, "this is the ideal situation for everyone and what can we do to get everyone have jobs like this?"
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:23 PM on June 1, 2022 [14 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:23 PM on June 1, 2022 [14 favorites]
I've got bad news about the 30+% drop in FAANG..
You mean the shares that are still up over 30 percent per year since 2020? They'll be fine. My heuristic for annual budgeting is 80 percent of FMV on Jan 1, and shortfalls just mean Interactive Brokers sees a bit less business from me -- live on salary, (re)invest the equity.
But sure, FB and NFLX are kinda in trouble. Amazon less so but they've been raising wages to retain staff, which takes some of the sting off. FB has supposedly been focusing on virtual reality which is like, incredibly dumb: Zuckerberg had his shot at shaping the metaverse with FaceBook and started with voting on sorority sister hotness and somehow went downhill from there. I see no signs his second shot will go any differently. Netflix... may be an incumbent in video streaming but the competition has decades of IP monopolies that were ever only on lease to them.
Smart engineers are using the drop in stock price as leverage to demand even more stock grants, because it feels like a pay cut to them
I've heard from Amazon employees this is a double edged sword and that stock grants in boom years are reduced when an employee is "over target."
posted by pwnguin at 4:31 PM on June 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
You mean the shares that are still up over 30 percent per year since 2020? They'll be fine. My heuristic for annual budgeting is 80 percent of FMV on Jan 1, and shortfalls just mean Interactive Brokers sees a bit less business from me -- live on salary, (re)invest the equity.
But sure, FB and NFLX are kinda in trouble. Amazon less so but they've been raising wages to retain staff, which takes some of the sting off. FB has supposedly been focusing on virtual reality which is like, incredibly dumb: Zuckerberg had his shot at shaping the metaverse with FaceBook and started with voting on sorority sister hotness and somehow went downhill from there. I see no signs his second shot will go any differently. Netflix... may be an incumbent in video streaming but the competition has decades of IP monopolies that were ever only on lease to them.
Smart engineers are using the drop in stock price as leverage to demand even more stock grants, because it feels like a pay cut to them
I've heard from Amazon employees this is a double edged sword and that stock grants in boom years are reduced when an employee is "over target."
posted by pwnguin at 4:31 PM on June 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
As a cynical person, I can’t help but wonder if the purpose of articles like this is a) a public relations boost for companies that are fighting their laborers tooth and nail (at least one person is gonna read this and think “these warehouse workers at Amazon are complaining even though they make $300k??”), and/or b) laying the groundwork for Powell’s claim that the real problem with the US economy is that employees are earning too much, which seems like a hell of a thing to suggest at a time when high inflation is diluting most people’s income.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 5:36 PM on June 1, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by evidenceofabsence at 5:36 PM on June 1, 2022 [5 favorites]
slow your roll though. to use a legal term, this sounds like puffery. jobs that pay that much in salary usually require some pretty highly specialized skills that call for advanced degrees,
Actually cybersecurity and the folks we hire generally are bachelors level starting around $80k, or more like $85-$90k if you have a masters. Most of them its a first job out of college. And yes most of them have some skills (maybe they did an internship in a SOC or something like that) but I’m not talking about being a super security engineer here - most of them are doing compliance driven assessments (NIST etc) that honestly most grads could do. Just so happens cyber is a prime job market at the moment and the numbers are eye popping so I totally get why you called me out.
posted by inflatablekiwi at 5:38 PM on June 1, 2022
Actually cybersecurity and the folks we hire generally are bachelors level starting around $80k, or more like $85-$90k if you have a masters. Most of them its a first job out of college. And yes most of them have some skills (maybe they did an internship in a SOC or something like that) but I’m not talking about being a super security engineer here - most of them are doing compliance driven assessments (NIST etc) that honestly most grads could do. Just so happens cyber is a prime job market at the moment and the numbers are eye popping so I totally get why you called me out.
posted by inflatablekiwi at 5:38 PM on June 1, 2022
klanawa, photo guy (et al): if you decide you want to get into tech, and assuming you get some offers, you should be aware that there exists a small ecosystem of "compensation consultants" who will advise you on negotiation strategies to maximize your compensation and/or level.
I don't know where specifically you live, but if the position could be thought of as "Silicon Valley adjacent" (regardless of actual employment location), they may be able to help -- most of them just take a slice of whatever increase they get you (that is, if your starting offer was $100K, you hire them and then you settle out at $150K, they take a slice of that 50K paid out over a couple years). Different firms have different specializations and fee structures, so ask around, but for example there's even a group that specializes in women and underrepresented minorities coming from academia/govt/nonprofits into tech.
A friend of mine recently used one such group to increase her offer by 20%, and her pay would already probably curl your hair. Now, mind, she is a highly profitable and unstoppable war machine for a specific tech niche, so she's highly sought after -- but EVEN AT THAT she still didn't really know how to negotiate job offers and appears to be highly satisfied with the outcome.
posted by aramaic at 7:06 PM on June 1, 2022 [8 favorites]
I don't know where specifically you live, but if the position could be thought of as "Silicon Valley adjacent" (regardless of actual employment location), they may be able to help -- most of them just take a slice of whatever increase they get you (that is, if your starting offer was $100K, you hire them and then you settle out at $150K, they take a slice of that 50K paid out over a couple years). Different firms have different specializations and fee structures, so ask around, but for example there's even a group that specializes in women and underrepresented minorities coming from academia/govt/nonprofits into tech.
A friend of mine recently used one such group to increase her offer by 20%, and her pay would already probably curl your hair. Now, mind, she is a highly profitable and unstoppable war machine for a specific tech niche, so she's highly sought after -- but EVEN AT THAT she still didn't really know how to negotiate job offers and appears to be highly satisfied with the outcome.
posted by aramaic at 7:06 PM on June 1, 2022 [8 favorites]
"So even though I’m in a high bracket vs. the overall job market, I kinda hate people who are 25 and making that much"
I just had my first experience of visiting a West Coast tech company headquarters full of programmers in their 20s making six figures, and while I was leaving the building, a group of about six of them were stumbling drunk and arguing loudly with the building security guard who told them they were not allowed to carry open containers out onto city streets, so they had to either finish their beer inside or get rid of their beer. It was two in the afternoon, they were at work. The person I was visiting saw how shocked I was, and told me, "yeah, that happens, they're just programmers who've never been told no."
I felt an onrushing of my own mortality, as I looked at these children and went, "honestly, what the fuck, when did people start acting like this?" And felt an irresistible near-divine compulsion to shout, Get off my lawn!
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:12 PM on June 1, 2022 [7 favorites]
I just had my first experience of visiting a West Coast tech company headquarters full of programmers in their 20s making six figures, and while I was leaving the building, a group of about six of them were stumbling drunk and arguing loudly with the building security guard who told them they were not allowed to carry open containers out onto city streets, so they had to either finish their beer inside or get rid of their beer. It was two in the afternoon, they were at work. The person I was visiting saw how shocked I was, and told me, "yeah, that happens, they're just programmers who've never been told no."
I felt an onrushing of my own mortality, as I looked at these children and went, "honestly, what the fuck, when did people start acting like this?" And felt an irresistible near-divine compulsion to shout, Get off my lawn!
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:12 PM on June 1, 2022 [7 favorites]
I should add that making six figures (and a decent amount above that) means a life where one can 1) support a whole family with on one income and live in 2) a house in a decent suburb. It’s not endless luxury. My grandfather had a similar life to mine and refilled cigarette machines. My father dug ditches and fixed pipes. My other grandfather was a baker. All one income, house in suburbs near where I live. I have a PhD from one of the most prestigious institutions in the world and work at a high tech startup. Where’s the progress???
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:10 AM on June 2, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:10 AM on June 2, 2022 [3 favorites]
For sure -- my Dad had less than an eighth grade education and operated heavy equipment in a union sawmill. I have two degrees and am a senior policy analyst for the Canadian Federal Government, and adjusted for inflation, I make less money than he did before he retired. I'm not crying poverty or anything -- I do very well, relatively speaking, but relative to my peers, not relative to my parents.
posted by jacquilynne at 10:19 AM on June 2, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by jacquilynne at 10:19 AM on June 2, 2022 [1 favorite]
When I graduated from college, a senior software engineer (not called that in those days) at peak earnings made maybe $70,000(1). In today's money, according to the BLS CPI inflation calculator, that would be just shy of $210K.
I don't know any software engineers who are paid like that.(2) Backscaling my ~$100K salary to that date, I get about $33K equivalent. Which wasn't a starting salary in those days... IIRC the people with the kind of specialized STEM education I had could look forward to about $20K as new grads. Which works out to about $63K in today's money. My peak earnings were after the retention raises in the dotcom boom, and when my then-employer went tits-up(3) after the bust I took a big pay cut that I have never recovered from. If I had merely maintained the earnings I had then and never gotten another raise in 20 years, I would be making $140K.
$100K is not all that great, is what I'm saying.
(1) This was not a Silicon Valley salary. Silicon Valley did not exist yet, or wasn't called that anyway. This was in the Midwest.
(2) I am not a Silicon Valley guy, so maybe that signifies.
(3) I blame executive management. We had a best-in-class product that they just could not brand or sell.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 11:09 AM on June 2, 2022
I don't know any software engineers who are paid like that.(2) Backscaling my ~$100K salary to that date, I get about $33K equivalent. Which wasn't a starting salary in those days... IIRC the people with the kind of specialized STEM education I had could look forward to about $20K as new grads. Which works out to about $63K in today's money. My peak earnings were after the retention raises in the dotcom boom, and when my then-employer went tits-up(3) after the bust I took a big pay cut that I have never recovered from. If I had merely maintained the earnings I had then and never gotten another raise in 20 years, I would be making $140K.
$100K is not all that great, is what I'm saying.
(1) This was not a Silicon Valley salary. Silicon Valley did not exist yet, or wasn't called that anyway. This was in the Midwest.
(2) I am not a Silicon Valley guy, so maybe that signifies.
(3) I blame executive management. We had a best-in-class product that they just could not brand or sell.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 11:09 AM on June 2, 2022
$100K is not all that great, is what I'm saying.
I think I understand what you're trying to say, but please realize how staggeringly privileged and out-of-touch this sounds. If you were making $20k you'd realize how incredibly awesome $100k is.
posted by a_masterpiece_of_cold_cuts at 5:13 PM on June 2, 2022 [2 favorites]
I think I understand what you're trying to say, but please realize how staggeringly privileged and out-of-touch this sounds. If you were making $20k you'd realize how incredibly awesome $100k is.
posted by a_masterpiece_of_cold_cuts at 5:13 PM on June 2, 2022 [2 favorites]
[blinks in $16k]
posted by brook horse at 5:50 PM on June 2, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by brook horse at 5:50 PM on June 2, 2022 [1 favorite]
So if you're connected in on software salaries they're highly tied to stock options or other complicated financial machinery. I was all over Reddit looking to make sure I was asking not too high or not too low because I don't know what to ask anymore and I'm happy to get health care. I routinely see people refer to "TC," which is total compensation, say they're making like 300k+ two years out of school. This gets further complicated with RSU or other things that keep the number high but mean you don't have a lot of cash in your pocket.
I think there's a small subset of jobs that really do pay a lot but after you get out of the FAANG world of Ivy League grads chasing the handful or so open jobs thing become normalized. I saw the same thing 20 years ago with finance jobs that are no longer around.
In the real world, real take home money rarely exceeds 200k for people who have been doing it their entire careers. Again you might find a rare company without a budget and I've landed jobs with sticker shot salaries but as of right now that's topping out without going into the executive side.
Pretty much everyone I know who is doing above that got simply lucky, are DINKs or more likely born into money. After around 200k salaries get crazy inflated. Also people with real money seemingly don't do actual work.
posted by geoff. at 6:48 PM on June 2, 2022 [1 favorite]
I think there's a small subset of jobs that really do pay a lot but after you get out of the FAANG world of Ivy League grads chasing the handful or so open jobs thing become normalized. I saw the same thing 20 years ago with finance jobs that are no longer around.
In the real world, real take home money rarely exceeds 200k for people who have been doing it their entire careers. Again you might find a rare company without a budget and I've landed jobs with sticker shot salaries but as of right now that's topping out without going into the executive side.
Pretty much everyone I know who is doing above that got simply lucky, are DINKs or more likely born into money. After around 200k salaries get crazy inflated. Also people with real money seemingly don't do actual work.
posted by geoff. at 6:48 PM on June 2, 2022 [1 favorite]
All one income, house in suburbs near where I live.
I don't think comparisons like this are nearly so accurate if you look more closely. First depending on where you live, the number of homes constructed are way less, so you are dealing with lots of housing inflation. Also, life was simply worse back then --far less eating out, far fewer decent vacations, far worse food, far worse tv, no cell phones, far worse medical care, far worse cars. If you want their life, you can probably get it it for far less, but people generally don't really want their life - they want current amenities at older prices. Obviously that life still exists - lower middle class people survive and many thrive on similar incomes. It's just that upper class people don't want to live like that.
$100K is not all that great, is what I'm saying.
I get what you are trying to say, but it's completely the same as my point above. Taking a fixed point in 19XX whatever and playing that exponentially forward is not correct. Software has gotten a lot simpler, some positions outsourced, and the number of people doing it have increased so the salary band is lower. You could grouse just the same about being a train driver in 1866 or whatever. Or an engineer making washing machines in 1920. They probably got paid pretty well back then, but now that's where the lesser talent goes, and the pay is commiserate.
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:24 PM on June 2, 2022
I don't think comparisons like this are nearly so accurate if you look more closely. First depending on where you live, the number of homes constructed are way less, so you are dealing with lots of housing inflation. Also, life was simply worse back then --far less eating out, far fewer decent vacations, far worse food, far worse tv, no cell phones, far worse medical care, far worse cars. If you want their life, you can probably get it it for far less, but people generally don't really want their life - they want current amenities at older prices. Obviously that life still exists - lower middle class people survive and many thrive on similar incomes. It's just that upper class people don't want to live like that.
$100K is not all that great, is what I'm saying.
I get what you are trying to say, but it's completely the same as my point above. Taking a fixed point in 19XX whatever and playing that exponentially forward is not correct. Software has gotten a lot simpler, some positions outsourced, and the number of people doing it have increased so the salary band is lower. You could grouse just the same about being a train driver in 1866 or whatever. Or an engineer making washing machines in 1920. They probably got paid pretty well back then, but now that's where the lesser talent goes, and the pay is commiserate.
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:24 PM on June 2, 2022
the pay is commiserate
I don't know if it was an intentional word choice or an autocorrect freakout, but either way this usage was brilliant and I want to point it out to others.
posted by aramaic at 7:12 AM on June 3, 2022 [2 favorites]
I don't know if it was an intentional word choice or an autocorrect freakout, but either way this usage was brilliant and I want to point it out to others.
posted by aramaic at 7:12 AM on June 3, 2022 [2 favorites]
OK, so another serious question:
Do the billions hoarded by billionaires and corporate profits add to inflation as well, or are their incomes unrelated to inflation?
How do working people get more money without us being the bad guys who cause inflation? I know the classic answer is "growth" but since the mid 1970's the billionaires have been taking pretty close to 100% of the growth.
Is there a way to force them to give back some of that growth? Is there a way to at least force them to stop absorbing 100% of future growth so we can grow our share of the pie?
posted by sotonohito at 10:11 AM on June 3, 2022
Do the billions hoarded by billionaires and corporate profits add to inflation as well, or are their incomes unrelated to inflation?
How do working people get more money without us being the bad guys who cause inflation? I know the classic answer is "growth" but since the mid 1970's the billionaires have been taking pretty close to 100% of the growth.
Is there a way to force them to give back some of that growth? Is there a way to at least force them to stop absorbing 100% of future growth so we can grow our share of the pie?
posted by sotonohito at 10:11 AM on June 3, 2022
sotonohito, this Frontline documentary discusses the role of the Federal Reserve in fueling inflation and wealth and income inequality. The interview with the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Neel Kashkari (at 21:22) is especially illuminating/infuriating.
posted by flamk at 10:43 AM on June 3, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by flamk at 10:43 AM on June 3, 2022 [1 favorite]
Do the billions hoarded by billionaires and corporate profits add to inflation as well, or are their incomes unrelated to inflation?
Well, if I give you a billion dollars and you put it under your bed, no inflation. What matters is the size of the money supply and the velocity with which it travels between us in the economy. Billionaires and companies don't just sit on cash though. They usually put it into asset markets, where it maybe increases every other investor's paper net worth a smidge. So somewhat paradoxically, billionaires may reduce inflation, since their propensity to consume the marginal dollar is lower. If we gave a billion dollars to the working class, they might save & invest some of it but more will go into demand for consumer goods and services than otherwise would.
But look, even if we had no billionaires, the wage-price spiral would still exist. Fundamentally, nobody wants money, they want money to buy stuff with. You can't eat money, and the checking account balance wont keep you warm at night. You spend 8 hours a weekday and 4 hours overtime on Saturdays pounding out dishwasher impeller blades for the money to get things you can eat, and can keep you comfy at night. So "how do working people get more money" is the wrong question. The right question is "how to we get more stuff in the world?" How do we get more lumber, more single family homes, more 3d graphics cards, more infant formula, more airplane tickets. That form of growth is called "productivity."*
Productivity is why people try to cite "profit per employee" of FAANG to show why an engineer making $100-200k is maybe being underpaid. Howeever, it's not a panacea, or a substitute for good governance, it is the simply the necessary but not sufficient condition for non-inflationary wage growth. Of course, you also need a DoJ willing to go after asshole CEOs who badger and collude to suppress wages. You need an economy vibrant enough that you can easily walk across the street to a competitor, or perhaps the safety social net to strike it out on your own without risking medical bankruptcy. You need a society that expects and rewards education and innovation over dogma and deference. You need trading partners, ones who specialize on areas complementary to your own specializations, who don't jail people in their own homes instead of importing vaccines, or recklessly wage war with their neighbors. All of these factors mix together.
Some of them even cancel out -- China's industrialization made a lot more stuff -- more steel, more textiles, more iPhones -- and brought a lot of people out of subsistence farming but shows up in the U.S. as factory wage stagnation. The CCP pandemic response may be exacerbating the situation but there are signs that manufacturing reshoring may be more permanent.
posted by pwnguin at 2:36 PM on June 3, 2022 [1 favorite]
Well, if I give you a billion dollars and you put it under your bed, no inflation. What matters is the size of the money supply and the velocity with which it travels between us in the economy. Billionaires and companies don't just sit on cash though. They usually put it into asset markets, where it maybe increases every other investor's paper net worth a smidge. So somewhat paradoxically, billionaires may reduce inflation, since their propensity to consume the marginal dollar is lower. If we gave a billion dollars to the working class, they might save & invest some of it but more will go into demand for consumer goods and services than otherwise would.
But look, even if we had no billionaires, the wage-price spiral would still exist. Fundamentally, nobody wants money, they want money to buy stuff with. You can't eat money, and the checking account balance wont keep you warm at night. You spend 8 hours a weekday and 4 hours overtime on Saturdays pounding out dishwasher impeller blades for the money to get things you can eat, and can keep you comfy at night. So "how do working people get more money" is the wrong question. The right question is "how to we get more stuff in the world?" How do we get more lumber, more single family homes, more 3d graphics cards, more infant formula, more airplane tickets. That form of growth is called "productivity."*
Productivity is why people try to cite "profit per employee" of FAANG to show why an engineer making $100-200k is maybe being underpaid. Howeever, it's not a panacea, or a substitute for good governance, it is the simply the necessary but not sufficient condition for non-inflationary wage growth. Of course, you also need a DoJ willing to go after asshole CEOs who badger and collude to suppress wages. You need an economy vibrant enough that you can easily walk across the street to a competitor, or perhaps the safety social net to strike it out on your own without risking medical bankruptcy. You need a society that expects and rewards education and innovation over dogma and deference. You need trading partners, ones who specialize on areas complementary to your own specializations, who don't jail people in their own homes instead of importing vaccines, or recklessly wage war with their neighbors. All of these factors mix together.
Some of them even cancel out -- China's industrialization made a lot more stuff -- more steel, more textiles, more iPhones -- and brought a lot of people out of subsistence farming but shows up in the U.S. as factory wage stagnation. The CCP pandemic response may be exacerbating the situation but there are signs that manufacturing reshoring may be more permanent.
posted by pwnguin at 2:36 PM on June 3, 2022 [1 favorite]
bachelors level starting around $80k, or more like $85-$90k if you have a masters
that makes sense, but the figure in previous post mentioned being bummed at not making 200k. 80k with just a bachelors is a lot, but not crazy. 150-200k with a bachelors just 3 years old is bananas and raises my bs detector.
posted by wibari at 12:13 PM on June 4, 2022
that makes sense, but the figure in previous post mentioned being bummed at not making 200k. 80k with just a bachelors is a lot, but not crazy. 150-200k with a bachelors just 3 years old is bananas and raises my bs detector.
posted by wibari at 12:13 PM on June 4, 2022
Not for me. If someone graduated with a CS degree from Stanford and worked for Google for 3 years, I’d absolutely expect them to make 150-200k. First year post PhD jobs pay around there.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:08 PM on June 5, 2022
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:08 PM on June 5, 2022
I think I understand what you're trying to say, but please realize how staggeringly privileged and out-of-touch this sounds. If you were making $20k you'd realize how incredibly awesome $100k is.
Both things can be true. My perspective is maybe a little shifted because I'm Canadian, and our dollar is worth less than $USD, but the same kind of inflationary shift is happening in both places.
There was a time not that long ago that making $100K was making big money. "Six-figure salary" was a thing people talked about it was seen as meaning a *very* nice life. Not 1% money -- 1%ers don't earn money in salary, anyway -- but if you made $100k a year, you were doing really well. Doctors and lawyers and senior executives earned that money. Now, it is money that is in the reach of mid-tier public servants, nurses, cops, other people with a decent union job who work some overtime, etc. And it doesn't buy as much, especially in terms of housing, as it did.
Ontario has what is called the Sunshine List, which was started in the mid-90s to allow the sun to shine on what top executives in publicly funded agencies were making. It covers any provincial public employee who makes over $100,000 a year. In 1996, that was about 4,500 people. In 2021, that was about 250,000 people. Also in 1996, the median house price in Toronto was about twice that. Now its about 12 times that much.
Which doesn't mean that 100K isn't *good* money, but especially if its your family income and not one of two family incomes, or if you are paying a fortune in day care, or missed a few years of your second income while your kids were young, it is just middle class money, and you probably still have a lot of worries about where you can live and what you can afford in terms of housing. That represents big privilege over worrying about whether you will have a place to live or something to eat this week at all, obviously, yes, but it is not "no major financial concerns" money, not anymore.
A lot needs to be done in terms of minimum wage and universal basic income to ensure that people aren't trying to survive on small fractions of that money, but in the class war, we'll probably get there sooner by trying to convince 100K earners that their sympathies should lie with wage workers rather than treating them like they are part of the capitalist class, because for the vast majority of 100K earners, that's where their interests actually align better.
posted by jacquilynne at 7:43 AM on June 6, 2022
Both things can be true. My perspective is maybe a little shifted because I'm Canadian, and our dollar is worth less than $USD, but the same kind of inflationary shift is happening in both places.
There was a time not that long ago that making $100K was making big money. "Six-figure salary" was a thing people talked about it was seen as meaning a *very* nice life. Not 1% money -- 1%ers don't earn money in salary, anyway -- but if you made $100k a year, you were doing really well. Doctors and lawyers and senior executives earned that money. Now, it is money that is in the reach of mid-tier public servants, nurses, cops, other people with a decent union job who work some overtime, etc. And it doesn't buy as much, especially in terms of housing, as it did.
Ontario has what is called the Sunshine List, which was started in the mid-90s to allow the sun to shine on what top executives in publicly funded agencies were making. It covers any provincial public employee who makes over $100,000 a year. In 1996, that was about 4,500 people. In 2021, that was about 250,000 people. Also in 1996, the median house price in Toronto was about twice that. Now its about 12 times that much.
Which doesn't mean that 100K isn't *good* money, but especially if its your family income and not one of two family incomes, or if you are paying a fortune in day care, or missed a few years of your second income while your kids were young, it is just middle class money, and you probably still have a lot of worries about where you can live and what you can afford in terms of housing. That represents big privilege over worrying about whether you will have a place to live or something to eat this week at all, obviously, yes, but it is not "no major financial concerns" money, not anymore.
A lot needs to be done in terms of minimum wage and universal basic income to ensure that people aren't trying to survive on small fractions of that money, but in the class war, we'll probably get there sooner by trying to convince 100K earners that their sympathies should lie with wage workers rather than treating them like they are part of the capitalist class, because for the vast majority of 100K earners, that's where their interests actually align better.
posted by jacquilynne at 7:43 AM on June 6, 2022
For those intereseted in that Frontline Power of the Fed documentary linked by flamk above, there is also a transcript, thanks to PBS.
posted by kristi at 8:22 PM on June 8, 2022
posted by kristi at 8:22 PM on June 8, 2022
« Older The Mountain of Hell, the biggest mountain bike... | upholds the permanently ricketty elaborate... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by seanmpuckett at 4:39 AM on June 1, 2022 [19 favorites]