What was your starting salary (approx.)? - Page 17

So the metric of dollar per hour is not the problem but whether one refers to it as a "rate" or "wage?" Why that makes perfect sense.

I write software for a living, as does my colleague sitting next to me. He gets payed an hourly wage. I get payed a salary. I am a professional. He is a labourer. Got it. Thanks for showing me the light. I really need to get out of this po'dunk corner of Manhattan more often. See the world and all. The issue is a semantic one? Sweet.

No, but it will slap your ass with huge fines if you don't follow the guidelines to determine who is and is not exempt. What becomes clear is that you have never had your own P&L to concern yourself with.

Using smilies doesn't effect an argument...

And yes, there is a difference: just as you say that the consultant receives his or her rate for the completion of a particular task (through their expert advice or input) rather than a specified wage that is indexed against their supposed productivity.

I've only just read the link you provided and have no idea what you think it proves.

Needless to say, a wage is defined as an hourly or job specific form of payment, a salary is a periodic form of payment. Perhaps I didn't make that clear before.

I equally have a good friend who writes software who works in the same fashion as your friend: he, like your friend (I presume) is a freelance developer, i.e., he is a consultant and professional.

I'm really at a loss as to why so many people are taking umbrage at this differentiation between professionals and labourers, or between the differentiation of salaries and wages...


It's semantics if the words mean the same thing, I'm contending that they don't, and nor do they when individuals use them in discourse.

Interesting banter. I work for a Staff Augmentation Contractor where we have admins thru PhD Scientists, and everything in between that are hourly. It is the nature of our contract to a "Contractor to the US Government". We can not be salaried as we have to charge and account for every hour we work, and we get 1.5 * for OT even at $90/hr. We are probably paid at 0-50% above our counterparts depending on the situation which is very inconsistent. I have worked side by side with a company employee doing the same work and I earned 1.5* his salary (based on 2080 hrs/yr.) My position requires 15+ yrs experience and a college education FWIW. I much prefer to be an hourly contractor.

This is the stupidest semantic arguement since that shoe threak turned into 10 pages on the definition of Townhouse.

No, I said a consultant gets an hourly. You may have to pay them part or all even if they do not complete a particular task.

This has been fun but for all business purposes the definitions of the wage and hour laws define who may and may not be a salaried employee and it has zero to do with a "professional ethic."

Not to derail the current derail...

I started at 59K + bonus (~10%) in 2009 with a BA and MA in Math. I work exactly 40 hours a week FWIW.

Mid 40s with performance bonus and extensive amount of money spent to train me. Public accounting with large multinational firm.

It seems like just yesterday you were a frosh. *sniff* You're all grown up now!

Think I pulled in 21 thousand this year.

'Professional ethic' isn't stipulated by any national or supranational body - what type of 'ethic' is? And again, I've read your link, and I'm completely at a loss as to what you think it proves...

And it isn't semantics to say that a wage is hour specific whilst a salary is a periodic form of payment - this is elementary.

Look at this:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salary


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage

Accordingly people attach an air of professionalism (and shock horror, it's isn't a set of principles expounded upon by the state) to salaried individuals against their wage-receiving peers. Are you arguing against this point?

It seems to me that you take offence to that differentiation... not really much I can say to that only please don't take offence...

And a consultant is paid an hour rate pursuant to the task in which they've been asked / hired to complete; the whole point of the consultant is that they're contractually obliged to undertake a particular activity for which they receive an hourly rate against a total amount of time in which it's believed they are needed / required to complete said task, that isn't the same as someone receiving a reward for labour expended per hour (a wage). Again, read this:


This may seem like semantics, but obviously it isn't because the words have specific meanings in the labour market - and all this argument stems from the fact that this man took issue with me differentiating between wages & salaries. I would have thought that this difference would be elementary...