Skip to content

An independent salary reference. Not affiliated with BLS or any U.S. government agency.

Salary data from BLS Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics

Cost Estimators Salary: Alaska vs Washington

Cost Estimators earn a median of $68,310 in Alaska and $82,900 in Washington. That is a nominal gap of $14,590 (-17.6%), with Washington paying more before any cost-of-living adjustment.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics survey, May 2024 estimates. Cost-of-living adjustment uses BEA Regional Price Parities, most recent release.

$68,310
Alaska median
$66,736 after COL
$82,900
Washington median
$77,467 after COL
-17.6%
Nominal gap
Washington leads
-13.9%
Adjusted gap
Washington leads after COL

The story behind the numbers

On raw wages, Washington pays $14,590 more per year than Alaska for cost estimators, a gap of +17.6%.

After adjusting for cost of living, Washington still comes out ahead, with roughly $10,732 of extra purchasing power (+13.9% real gap). Local prices do not reverse the nominal advantage.

Full breakdown by location

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

Cost Estimators

Alaska

Median salary
$68,310
Mean salary
$80,130
Employment
160
Location quotient
0.34
Jobs per 1,000
0.5
COL-adjusted median
$66,736
Regional Price Parity
102.4%

Exact state RPP match.

Full Cost Estimators page for Alaska →

Cost Estimators

Washington

Median salary
$82,900
Mean salary
$92,010
Employment
7,320
Location quotient
1.45
Jobs per 1,000
2.1
COL-adjusted median
$77,467
Regional Price Parity
107.0%

Exact state RPP match.

Full Cost Estimators page for Washington →

Related pages

Keep digging into cost estimators 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.