41–50 of 381 posts
Since it's working for Dan and his company, great! > in Seattle that wasn't enough to afford a decent home. Because the population in Seattle has grown by leaps and bounds, if everyone could afford one of the supply of homes, the prices would go up until demand equals supply.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By the other interpretation of $6500 dollars in 1950 (roughly equivalent to 70k today), it would be much higher than the average family income of 1950 of $3,300 and put you in the top 10-20% of earners, which is probably not as far as 70k gets you today.
The true inflation rate is probably a lot higher than CPI which is what most calculators use. Somewhere between 7-13% [0] (for example) [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/if-people-knew-the-actual-in...
In any case, I agree that inflation (or more precisely, the price level) is a finicky statistic to agree on. So if you are making an argument, it's better if you can avoid inflation.
Eg people like to argue whether median real income has stagnated or not. And that crucially hinges on inflation. But what they actually want to talk about seems to be whether workers get 'exploited' more. So we can instead look at the labour share of GDP over time. No inflation adjustment necessary.
The article you linked to is somewhat hilarious. It suggests eg China is cooperating with the US in massaging American inflation numbers. (See point 2 in their list.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can not even buy a house built on the 1950s on 70k a year. And while most quality claims (which usually lack actual numbers) certainly look subjective, the quality of a dirt lot or vial of insulin has obviously not changed while their adjusted inflation price has sky rocketed. At any rate, the claim that "stuff" is more expensive because it is better implies that decades of technical improvements have resulted in…
Dirt has become enormously more expensive. The more dignified term to use here is 'land prices have increased.' One could argue that the quality of the dirt has improved a lot; or at least the quality of its location. The US in 2020 is a much richer place than the US in 1950; so we'd expect land to cost more. (But in addition, there are those restrictions on housing supply that I already mentioned.) You are right abo…
I spent the first several years of my career working in academia for a poverty level wage.
I can confirm from my own experience that when you worry about not being able to pay rent and all the bills, it's very difficult to be productive, much less in a job that requires any kind of focus or creative thinking.
Just to clarify - the article mentions that he put everyone in the company on a minimum salary of $70K. I would think that high level technical staff on $100K+ would have been more than a little upset to have their salary slashed. Junior staff members are the winners here!
I can't find any mention of technical staff having their salary slashed. The only mention of pay cuts is the one the CEO took. Would you mind sharing a source where this is stated?
It’s in the title. ‘Everyone on 70k’ is a pay cut if you were in more than 70k, as any professional would be. It’s clearly wrong as it doesn’t make any sense, but that’s the source they were referring to.
I think it's important to mention some other sides of this story, namely that the raise came right around the time his brother filed a lawsuit for him overpaying himself and domestic abuse allegations. I don't remember the articles exactly but there were some rumors that this change was a PR stunt and shield for him Some articles that talk about the other side: https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-gravity-ceo-dan-…
Btw, I think Google could already either pay 70k+ to every employee or is pretty close. They just need to make sure that all the janitors and baristas are employed by subcontractors.
> "When money is not at the forefront of your mind when you're doing your job, it allows you to be more passionate about what motivates you," she says. I spent the first several years of my career working in academia for a poverty level wage. I can confirm from my own experience that when you worry about not being able to pay rent and all the bills, it's very difficult to be productive, much less in a job that requir…
Not only do you worry about your own small income; but grants, scholarships, registration fees and a myriad of other things have in recent times become volatile and can be taken away from year to year.
Most of the issues is due to 1) our government being corrupt and 2) promises the government made about free education.
I am not against free education, but I am against impoverished professors.
This is why I decided to side-step academia. It is delaying my PhD by probably 3–7 years (I am at year 2's start now) but it's better than having in theory 100% time spent on a PhD but actually worrying about the University and your peers, your own future, etc. in reality.