So it looks like your bang doesn’t go tooo far for your buck even if you live in a LCOL state when you are on minimum wage I guess
Is this useful? What do you think? I honestly don’t know, but seen that I already had the data from this discussion, why not plot it?
I tried to find a map with it, but my searching skills seem to have deteriorated (or search engines aren’t great nowadays)
Data taken from St. Louis Fed’s FRED (Federal Reserve Economic Data) for “Regional Price Parities (RPP): All Items” and “State Minimum Wage Rate”
Latest data available for RPP is 2024, so I used same date for wages. For states with no minimum-wage law or a minimum wage below the federal minimum wage, federal minimum wage was applied like the folks at Economic Policy Institute do
Convertion based on following formula:
real wage = nominal wage * (100 / RPP)
Plotted with ultimaps.com, if anyone has another alternative that shows data + state abbreviation, lmk
What flaws do you see on this map? Where does it fail? I guess metro areas are always complicated and a more granular approach with county data would be more useful, right?
This is kinda misleading because the legal minimum wage doesn’t represent what the actual lowest wages are.
Here in Wisconsin, we only have the federal minimum, but the de facto minimum wage is around $15/hr. McDonald’s starts at $16 or so.
New Hampshire wtf you doin?
Reddest state in new england. There are many maps like this. Also locally known in Massachusetts for where all the racist from high school move.
So lucky to be in Oregon jfc
I’m dumb. Is higher better or worse?
Higher minimum wage is better, ie:
Alabama and Georgia on paper have the same min federal wage, $7.25, but after maths, you can actually buy more stuff in Alabama than Georgia, so it’s like getting paid $8.16 vs $7.53, but you still get less money than if you worked the same hour in Oregon, and get paid $15.43
On paper, minimum wage in California, $16, might be higher than Oregon, $15.95, but you can actually buy less stuff bc costs are higher in both places, but even higher in CA, so after maths, Oregon minimum wage goes down, to $15.43, but it’s is still higher than CA, which also went down, to $14.45.
Even if cost of living is higher in Oregon and lower in Alabama, minimum wage in Oregon is still higher
I guess the map is only good at that and it won’t tell you much more. And I guess that’s why we dont see it lol
Let’s say you are a remote worker and get $100/hr, this map doesnt tell you much, but this one is more useful and tells you where you can get more for your money:
edit: idk if above image is showing up, if it isnt, you can find it here
Here you go. The
format seems to work best on PieFed and most Lemmy clients. Mbin users see a link with the alt text instead.Why does this seem to contradict the OPs map.
It’s because minimum wages are generally higher in states with high cost of living. OP’s map does a good job demonstrating that, even though everything is more expensive in New England and the west coast, the minimum wages there are high enough that you can afford it. Unless you’re from New Hampshire.
I don’t understand what I’m seeing here
This is cool! But it would be easier to understand if the actual minimum wage for each state was also listed.
I need to order RAM from Utah!
This is a cool map! One thing I would highlight is that the “All Items” RPP is expenditure-weighted, not a simple average of Goods, Rents, and Other Services (the 3 categories FRED lists). The weights are supposed to reflect how much consumers actually spend in those categories – so this could also be considered a very rough quality-of-life map too. That said, I couldn’t find what the FRED “all items” calculation was using for these weighted component values. The best I could find was one example from the Bureau of Economic Analysis that shows how the value is arrived at.
