Highest-paying jobs in Miami
Despite recession fears and falling consumer confidence, the job market in the United States has remained relatively stable in 2025 thus far. According to May 2025 Bureau of Labor Statistics data, around 177,000 new jobs were added in April, a slight decrease from the 185,000 new jobs added in the month before, but an extension of the country's 52-month streak of job growth. Unemployment rates also held relatively steady between April 2024 and April 2025, coming in at around 4%.
Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean Americans have it easy in the workplace. A December 2024 Payscale report found that nearly half (47%) of business organizations struggle to balance fair pay practices with spend optimization, and 18% plan to reduce pay increases in 2025 as a result.
For context, median weekly earnings across all employees in the U.S. stood at $1,194 in the first quarter of 2025. This represents an increase of 4.8% from a year prior and exceeds the Consumer Price Index's 2.7% increase in the same time period. However, there's one caveat: Earnings go much further in some places than in others.
In fact, the very definition of a "high-paying" job varies by location, as well as other factors such as industry and benefits. Even a six-figure salary may be considered low-income in places with an unusually high cost of living. Meanwhile, technology, finance, and health care jobs lead in terms of salary, but benefits like remote work can make other lower-paying jobs more desirable.
Regardless, anyone seeking a high-paying job should start by looking at the numbers. Stacker used BLS data to find the 50 highest-paying jobs in Miami. Jobs are ranked by their median annual pay as of May 2024, so any jobs without annual compensation figures available were excluded from this analysis.
- Median annual wage: $123,850 - Median hourly wage: $59.54 - Total employment: 260 people (0.1 of every 1,000 jobs in the area)
- Median annual wage: $124,330 - Median hourly wage: Not available - Total employment: Not available
- Median annual wage: $124,540 - Median hourly wage: $59.88 - Total employment: 50 people (0.02 of every 1,000 jobs in the area)
- Median annual wage: $124,870 - Median hourly wage: $60.03 - Total employment: 640 people (0.23 of every 1,000 jobs in the area)
- Median annual wage: $125,930 - Median hourly wage: $60.54 - Total employment: 350 people (0.13 of every 1,000 jobs in the area)
- Median annual wage: $126,320 - Median hourly wage: $60.73 - Total employment: 1,200 people (0.43 of every 1,000 jobs in the area)
- Median annual wage: $126,490 - Median hourly wage: $60.81 - Total employment: 1,110 people (0.4 of every 1,000 jobs in the area)
- Median annual wage: $126,570 - Median hourly wage: $60.85 - Total employment: Not available
- Median annual wage: $127,600 - Median hourly wage: Not available - Total employment: 3,810 people (1.37 of every 1,000 jobs in the area)
- Median annual wage: $128,320 - Median hourly wage: $61.69 - Total employment: 10,780 people (3.87 of every 1,000 jobs in the area)
- Median annual wage: $128,420 - Median hourly wage: $61.74 - Total employment: 2,370 people (0.85 of every 1,000 jobs in the area)
- Median annual wage: $129,130 - Median hourly wage: $62.08 - Total employment: 3,150 people (1.13 of every 1,000 jobs in the area)
- Median annual wage: $129,840 - Median hourly wage: $62.43 - Total employment: 17,710 people (6.37 of every 1,000 jobs in the area)
- Median annual wage: $129,920 - Median hourly wage: $62.46 - Total employment: 26,720 people (9.6 of every 1,000 jobs in the area)
- Median annual wage: $130,010 - Median hourly wage: $62.51 - Total employment: 2,570 people (0.92 of every 1,000 jobs in the area)
- Median annual wage: $131,690 - Median hourly wage: $63.31 - Total employment: 310 people (0.11 of every 1,000 jobs in the area)
- Median annual wage: $131,790 - Median hourly wage: $63.36 - Total employment: 1,260 people (0.45 of every 1,000 jobs in the area)
- Median annual wage: $131,820 - Median hourly wage: $63.38 - Total employment: 210 people (0.08 of every 1,000 jobs in the area)
- Median annual wage: $132,160 - Median hourly wage: $63.54 - Total employment: 220 people (0.08 of every 1,000 jobs in the area)
- Median annual wage: $133,170 - Median hourly wage: $64.03 - Total employment: 470 people (0.17 of every 1,000 jobs in the area)
- Median annual wage: $134,220 - Median hourly wage: $64.53 - Total employment: 6,450 people (2.32 of every 1,000 jobs in the area)
- Median annual wage: $134,790 - Median hourly wage: $64.81 - Total employment: 560 people (0.2 of every 1,000 jobs in the area)
- Median annual wage: $135,250 - Median hourly wage: $65.02 - Total employment: 1,740 people (0.62 of every 1,000 jobs in the area)
- Median annual wage: $135,450 - Median hourly wage: $65.12 - Total employment: 9,200 people (3.31 of every 1,000 jobs in the area)
- Median annual wage: $137,170 - Median hourly wage: $65.95 - Total employment: 5,300 people (1.91 of every 1,000 jobs in the area)
- Median annual wage: $144,180 - Median hourly wage: $69.32 - Total employment: 110 people (0.04 of every 1,000 jobs in the area)
- Median annual wage: $146,050 - Median hourly wage: $70.21 - Total employment: Not available
- Median annual wage: $149,870 - Median hourly wage: $72.05 - Total employment: 1,780 people (0.64 of every 1,000 jobs in the area)
- Median annual wage: $154,470 - Median hourly wage: $74.27 - Total employment: 15,290 people (5.5 of every 1,000 jobs in the area)
- Median annual wage: $157,580 - Median hourly wage: Not available - Total employment: 3,340 people (1.2 of every 1,000 jobs in the area)
- Median annual wage: $164,240 - Median hourly wage: $78.96 - Total employment: 710 people (0.25 of every 1,000 jobs in the area)
- Median annual wage: $165,910 - Median hourly wage: $79.76 - Total employment: 8,840 people (3.18 of every 1,000 jobs in the area)
- Median annual wage: $167,270 - Median hourly wage: $80.42 - Total employment: 2,350 people (0.84 of every 1,000 jobs in the area)
- Median annual wage: $168,160 - Median hourly wage: $80.84 - Total employment: 1,530 people (0.55 of every 1,000 jobs in the area)
- Median annual wage: $185,730 - Median hourly wage: $89.29 - Total employment: 240 people (0.09 of every 1,000 jobs in the area)
- Median annual wage: $204,220 - Median hourly wage: $98.19 - Total employment: Not available
- Median annual wage: $219,070 - Median hourly wage: $105.32 - Total employment: Not available
- Median annual wage: At least $239,200 - Median hourly wage: At least $115.00 - Total employment: 500 people (0.18 of every 1,000 jobs in the area)
- Median annual wage: At least $239,200 - Median hourly wage: At least $115.00 - Total employment: 130 people (0.05 of every 1,000 jobs in the area)
- Median annual wage: At least $239,200 - Median hourly wage: At least $115.00 - Total employment: Not available
- Median annual wage: At least $239,200 - Median hourly wage: At least $115.00 - Total employment: 1,670 people (0.6 of every 1,000 jobs in the area)
- Median annual wage: At least $239,200 - Median hourly wage: At least $115.00 - Total employment: 100 people (0.04 of every 1,000 jobs in the area)
- Median annual wage: At least $239,200 - Median hourly wage: At least $115.00 - Total employment: 820 people (0.29 of every 1,000 jobs in the area)
- Median annual wage: At least $239,200 - Median hourly wage: At least $115.00 - Total employment: 440 people (0.16 of every 1,000 jobs in the area)
- Median annual wage: At least $239,200 - Median hourly wage: At least $115.00 - Total employment: 700 people (0.25 of every 1,000 jobs in the area)
- Median annual wage: At least $239,200 - Median hourly wage: At least $115.00 - Total employment: Not available
- Median annual wage: At least $239,200 - Median hourly wage: Not available - Total employment: 3,270 people (1.18 of every 1,000 jobs in the area)
This story features data reporting by Wade Zhou, writing by Cu Fleshman, and is part of a series utilizing data automation across 364 metros.
© Stacker Media, LLC.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
How Trump's Tariffs and Immigration Policies Could Make Housing Even More Expensive
President Donald Trump owes his second electoral victory, in no small part, to voter frustration over the rising cost of living. Over the course of Joe Biden's presidency, the price of a typical American house increased by nearly 40 percent, and rents followed a similar trajectory. As of 2024, approximately 771,480 Americans lack reliable shelter—at once a new high and a new low. All of these issues are most acute in states governed by Biden's fellow Democrats. In California, the median home price is now more than 10 times the median household income. Economists generally view three to five as a healthy ratio. Polling data suggest that many key voting blocs in the 2024 presidential election were primarily motivated by the rising cost of living and by out-of-control housing costs in particular. For all the network news preoccupation with transgender athletes and campus protests, it was mortgages and rents—the single largest line items in a typical household's budget—that moved voters to toss out incumbents. On April 2, after months of empty threats and false starts, the administration finally launched its global trade war, including a 25 percent tariff on various goods from Canada and Mexico. But Canadian softwood lumber and Mexican gypsum used for drywall—the (literal) pillars of a typical American single-family home—would be exempt. The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) was quick to celebrate it as a win: Canada accounts for 85 percent of all U.S. lumber imports. If the tariffs had taken effect as planned, the per-unit cost of a home might have increased by as much as $29,000. In a sector characterized by thin margins, that would have meant a lot of idle construction sites. And yet the partial rollback will offer only a temporary reprieve. Tariffs already in effect will increase the cost of a new home by $10,900 on average, according to an April 2025 estimate by the NAHB—an increase of $1,700 over its March estimate. This is on top of a 41.6 percent increase in building materials since 2020, brought on by pandemic-related supply chain disruptions. Those cost increases could hit renters hardest. After a decade of underbuilding in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, America is short roughly 5 million homes—most of them apartments. Perhaps the most robust finding in urban economics is that when vacancy rates increase, rents fall. But driving up vacancy rates requires cities to build more housing. Thanks to the YIMBY ("yes in my backyard") movement, a handful of cities—including Austin and Minneapolis—have recently had building booms that have brought prices back down. But those cities have been the exception. Meanwhile, a new wave of tariffs is about to make it a lot more expensive to build. On February 11, the administration imposed a 25 percent tariff on steel and aluminum—much of it imported from allies such as Brazil and Germany. On February 25, the administration announced an investigation into copper imports, presumably with future tariffs in the works. Depending on their country of origin, other key inputs like iron and cement are also now subject to steep tariffs. Even if you can get new housing built, the appliances needed to make all these new homes livable could soon cost hundreds of dollars more. Not only are microwaves, refrigerators, and air conditioners now more expensive to import, but tariffs on key inputs mean they are also more expensive to produce domestically. Uncertainty around tariffs has put many construction projects on pause, sending homebuilder stocks plummeting. Many small, local developers are exiting the market altogether. Following in the mold of autarkic Cuba—where international trade is strictly limited and medical doctors drive taxis for a living—your next Uber driver could very well be an out-of-work former developer. Never mind that the typical American city desperately needs them to build. If tariffs weren't bad enough, the administration's program of mass deportations could kick the housing crisis into overdrive. As things stand, the construction industry is already short 250,000 workers. This is partly a legacy of Trump's first term, in which an immigration clampdown suppressed what might have been an overdue housing construction boom. Even today, approximately 30 percent of construction workers are immigrants, many of them undocumented. In California, which is already a basket case on housing affordability, immigrants make up 41 percent of all construction labor. In Texas—one of the few bright spots for housing affordability in recent years, thanks to an ongoing construction boom—nearly 60 percent of all immigrant construction workers are undocumented. If 2024 was any indication, expecting voters to put up with all this in 2026 is a risky gamble. On some level, the Trump administration must appreciate that this is an existential threat. And yet its current proposals are out of sync with the scale of the housing crisis: Releasing more federally owned lands for housing development remains the only proposal the administration has seriously offered up to address the housing shortage. It's a fine enough idea if properly designed. But it would, at best, provide only modest relief to a handful of Western cities. Worse yet, the administration seems to have regressed to the implicitly regulatory "protect the suburbs" rhetoric that so failed Trump in the 2020 election. In February, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) chief Scott Turner announced that he would be scrapping the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule in order to "cut red tape" and "advance market-driven development." Except the rule was essentially just a reporting exercise that required local governments to disclose—and ideally remove—local red tape standing in the way of housing. In 2018, then–HUD Secretary Ben Carson embraced the AFFH rule as a way of nudging cities to remove regulatory barriers to housing production, as part of his brief flirtation with YIMBYism. In a move that would make Orwell blush, Carson joined Trump in a Wall Street Journal op-ed two years later announcing that they would "protect America's suburbs" and scrap the rule if reelected. Trump lost that election. It's all a very strange state of affairs—a developer in chief with evidently little interest in getting America building again. It didn't need to be this way. Over the course of the first Trump administration, housing production recovered at a steady clip, with a muted increase in housing costs as a result. The administration's deregulating zeal could have been focused on unnecessary federal mandates that increase costs. Instead, the United States is poised to experience a run-up in housing prices through 2028 that could make the pandemic-era increases like a minor blip. So what could the federal government do? From a constitutional perspective, not much. The bulk of the blame for America's housing crisis lies with local governments that maintain onerous zoning regulations and unpredictable permitting processes—and the state governments that control them. The federal government has little role to play in zoning, even if it once did a lot of the heavy lifting to promote it. But that isn't to imply there is nothing the federal government could do. In recent years, the idea of tying federal dollars to local deregulation has gained acceptance within the Beltway. Bills with unsubtle names like the "Build More Housing Near Transit Act" or the "Yes In My Backyard Act" would variously condition money for transit or other public facilities on local jurisdictions cutting back on red tape. At the same time, the federal government could turn up the tax pressure. If homeowners in cities with high costs and low production were suddenly ineligible for benefits like the mortgage interest deduction or the state and local tax credit, it would transform the local politics of housing. Homeowners who might otherwise be fully bought into government constraints on housing production could flip their script. More likely, however, the onus will fall on state and local legislators to pull out all the stops on housing production. State and local elected officials can't control tariffs or immigration policy. But they can control "make or break" factors such as zoning regulations, permitting timelines, and impact fees. According to a recent RAND study, variations in these policies explain why it's nearly twice as expensive to build housing in California as in Texas. At least some state legislators are rising to the occasion. In recent months, states as diverse as Republican-supermajority Montana and Democratic-supermajority Washington have moved forward legislation restricting the right of local governments to block housing. Even California is starting to see the light. All these bills will help to get more housing built, no matter what's happening at the federal level. The Trump administration had better hope those state-level efforts are successful—and scrap the trade and immigration policies that could plunge America into another housing crisis. The post How Trump's Tariffs and Immigration Policies Could Make Housing Even More Expensive appeared first on
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Should You Buy ChargePoint While It's Trading Below $1?
High prices could hurt electric vehicle adoption rates. Tariffs are adding more pressure to the electric vehicle (EV) industry. ChargePoint's sales are falling, and the company isn't profitable. 10 stocks we like better than ChargePoint › The electric vehicle (EV) industry is facing a multitude of headwinds right now. Tariffs, rising EV prices, and a worsening political environment for electric vehicles are causing turmoil among automakers. And the effects are being felt among the broader EV industry, including for electric vehicle charging company ChargePoint (NYSE: CHPT). The company's share price has fallen 60% over the past year and is now priced below $1. The pullback has some investors wondering whether they should buy the beaten-down EV stock. Here's why you shouldn't. EV sales are increasing in the U.S., but it's been slow going. Electric vehicles accounted for 8.1% of vehicle sales last year, a modest increase from 7.8% in 2023. One of the biggest hurdles to their adoption is that they're far too expensive for many buyers. The average transaction cost for a new electric vehicle was $59,200 in April, up nearly 4% from the same time last year, and 23% more expensive than the average selling price for gas-powered vehicles. ChargePoint doesn't sell EVs, but for the company's electric vehicle charging station business to do well, it needs Americans to begin adopting EVs at a much higher rate -- and they won't do that if prices continue rising. ChargePoint does operate in Europe, Mexico, and Canada, but the vast majority of its business is in the U.S., making it very dependent on American EV adoption rates. The political climate isn't exactly conducive to further EV growth, and as an EV investor myself, I think this is one of the biggest problems for the industry right now. Tariffs on automotive imports are already negatively impacting U.S.-based EV makers, including Rivian and Lucid. Both companies said on their recent earnings calls that tariffs are making the cost of vehicle production rise, sometimes by thousands of dollars. While some tariffs are paused and others are being negotiated, investors need to understand that uncertainty around them couldn't be any higher. Ford Motor Company, Stellantis, and General Motors all recently pulled their 2025 guidance because of uncertainty around tariffs. What's more is that Republicans in the House recently passed a bill that rolls back tax credit incentives for electric vehicle purchases, which are currently worth up to $7,500 for new bill is headed to the Senate, and there are differing views on whether it'll pass, but the point is that the party currently in power is inhospitable toward EV credits. With ChargePoint dependent on a strong EV industry, high tariffs, and the potential for EV tax credit elimination are significant problems. It's not just outside EV forces that are hurting ChargePoint; the company has its own problems as well. ChargePoint's sales dropped by 18% in fiscal 2025 to $417 million, and things don't seem to be getting better, considering that management says first-quarter 2026 sales will be $100 million at the midpoint of guidance, a nearly 7% drop from the year-ago quarter. ChargePoint was able to increase its subscription sales by 20% last year, but its largest revenue segment -- networked charging system sales -- fell by 35%. It's also important to note that ChargePoint isn't profitable. The company reported a non-GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles) net loss of about $159 million last year. That was an improvement from its loss of about $297 million in 2024, but with sales falling, it's going to be very difficult for ChargePoint to continue narrowing its losses. ChargePoint's stock is technically cheap right now, with the company's price-to-sales multiple just 0.75. But just because it's cheap doesn't make it a good value. I think the company and the broader EV industry will continue to face serious headwinds over the next few years that could slow growth further. With ChargePoint already seeing sales falling before some of the outside hurdles like tariffs and political turmoil showed up, I think it has too many obstacles to overcome right now for investors to hope for market-beating returns from its stock any time soon. Before you buy stock in ChargePoint, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and ChargePoint wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $651,049!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $828,224!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 979% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 171% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of May 19, 2025 Chris Neiger has positions in Rivian Automotive. The Motley Fool recommends General Motors and Stellantis. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Should You Buy ChargePoint While It's Trading Below $1? was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Vice President JD Vance Just Delivered Incredible News to Bitcoin Investors
Vice President JD Vance gave the keynote speech at the Bitcoin 2025 conference in Las Vegas. Vance highlighted recent moves by the White House to create pro-crypto policies. Vance also emphasized that Bitcoin is a long-term strategic asset for the government, as well as a potential source of competitive advantage. 10 stocks we like better than Bitcoin › On May 28, Vice President JD Vance gave the keynote speech at the Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) 2025 conference in Las Vegas. He offered a broad overview of what's coming next for crypto, as well as a few insights into how the White House is thinking about Bitcoin right now. Last year, President Donald Trump attended this same event, outlining the major pro-Bitcoin policies of his 2024 campaign platform. So now that top political leaders are openly embracing crypto, what should Bitcoin investors expect? A major focus of Vance's speech was a reiteration of the pro-crypto regulatory approach of the Trump administration. In just five months, the White House has already taken a number of big steps -- including a major shakeup at the Securities and Exchange Commission to make it more crypto-friendly, and the creation of the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve. All of this is good news for Bitcoin investors, of course. It opens the door to more innovation, economic growth, and wealth for everyday Americans. As Vance pointed out in his keynote, millions of Americans now own Bitcoin. So any moves that can help Bitcoin grow and prosper will help everyday Americans as they save for the future. And there's more good news on the way. Next up, says Vance, is new legislation for dollar-pegged stablecoins, as well as a comprehensive regulatory framework for crypto that will help to establish the official rules of the road for Bitcoin. Once that's in place, the mainstream adoption of crypto can really start. Institutions will no longer have an excuse not to get involved with Bitcoin. Vance also emphasized that the White House is thinking about Bitcoin as a long-term strategic asset. That was the stated purpose of creating the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve back in March. The next major step, says Vance, is new legislation that will codify the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve in law. Otherwise, the next administration could just as easily reverse the existing executive order with a new executive order of its own. There's a key reason the White House is thinking about Bitcoin as a "strategically important asset" these days. And that's because Bitcoin represents the sort of American values -- innovation, entrepreneurship, freedom, and lack of censorship -- that are anathema to countries such as China. In fact, as Vance pointed out, the U.S. should look to use Bitcoin as a source of competitive advantage against China. All of that should give hope to current Bitcoin investors. There's simply too much invested in Bitcoin for the U.S. government to back off now. The government is going all-in on Bitcoin. As a result, crypto has moved from the fringe to the mainstream. All of that sounds great, of course. It's great to hear that the government is embracing Bitcoin. It's fantastic to hear that Bitcoin could become the answer to some of the economic and strategic problems currently facing the Trump administration. However, it has become impossible to ignore the potential conflicts of interest that may exist. Vance, by his own admission, holds close to $500,000 worth of Bitcoin. Just days before the conference, Donald Trump's media company announced that it was planning to buy $2.5 billion worth of Bitcoin. And Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. (both of whom showed up at the Bitcoin 2025 conference) are engaged in Bitcoin ventures of their own. Even if there is no wrongdoing involved, the optics aren't great. It's the reason many people now think that tighter safeguards should be imposed on politicians to prevent them from enacting certain policies or taking certain actions that could be used to enrich themselves. The White House has given a strong signal of its support for Bitcoin. Crypto investors no longer need to worry about regulatory overreach, or about government policies specifically designed to limit innovation in the crypto sector. All of that is incredible news for Bitcoin. Suddenly, all the sky-high price forecasts for Bitcoin no longer seem so unattainable. As long as you are willing to buy and hold for the long haul, investing in Bitcoin right now might be the best way to turbo-charge the performance of your entire portfolio for years to come. Before you buy stock in Bitcoin, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Bitcoin wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $651,049!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $828,224!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 979% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 171% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of May 19, 2025 Dominic Basulto has positions in Bitcoin. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Bitcoin. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Vice President JD Vance Just Delivered Incredible News to Bitcoin Investors was originally published by The Motley Fool
