Skip to content
uswages .org

Cooks, Institution And Cafeteria Salary: Alaska vs Washington

Cooks, Institution And Cafeteria earn a median of $48,580 in Alaska and $49,670 in Washington. That is a nominal gap of $1,090 (-2.2%), with Washington paying more before any cost-of-living adjustment.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics survey, May 2025 estimates. Cost-of-living adjustment uses BEA Regional Price Parities, most recent release.

$48,580
Alaska median
$47,460 after COL
$49,670
Washington median
$46,415 after COL
-2.2%
Nominal gap
Washington leads
+2.3%
Adjusted gap
Alaska leads after COL

The story behind the numbers

On raw wages, Washington pays $1,090 more per year than Alaska for cooks, institution and cafeteria, a gap of +2.2%.

After adjusting for cost of living, the picture flips. Alaska actually offers more purchasing power, effectively paying $1,045 more in national-price-level terms (a +2.3% real gap). The higher nominal wage in the other location is eaten up by higher local prices.

Full breakdown by location

Detailed wage, employment, and cost-of-living figures for cooks, institution and cafeteria in each location. Click through to the full local salary page for percentiles, outlook, and peer areas.

Cooks, Institution And Cafeteria

Alaska

Median salary
$48,580
Mean salary
$49,410
Employment
1,430
Location quotient
1.55
Jobs per 1,000
4.4
COL-adjusted median
$47,460
Regional Price Parity
102.4%

Exact state RPP match.

Full Cooks, Institution And Cafeteria page for Alaska →

Cooks, Institution And Cafeteria

Washington

Median salary
$49,670
Mean salary
$51,290
Employment
9,780
Location quotient
0.97
Jobs per 1,000
2.8
COL-adjusted median
$46,415
Regional Price Parity
107.0%

Exact state RPP match.

Full Cooks, Institution And Cafeteria page for Washington →

Related pages

Keep digging into cooks, institution and cafeteria from a different angle.

Common questions about this comparison

What does the cost-of-living adjustment actually do? +

It divides each location's nominal median wage by its Regional Price Parity (RPP), which measures how local prices compare to the national average (100 = national). A wage of $100,000 in an area with RPP 120 has the same purchasing power as roughly $83,000 nationally.

Why would the nominal and adjusted winners disagree? +

High-cost metros often pay higher salaries, but not by enough to fully offset the higher cost of housing, goods, and services. When that happens, the location with the lower nominal wage actually offers more real purchasing power.

What is a location quotient? +

The location quotient measures how concentrated an occupation is in a given area versus the national average. A value of 2.0 means the occupation is twice as common there as nationally. It is a signal of what a state specializes in.