The last 2 statements are so far from reality it's insane. I live in the south/the midwest (depending on who you ask) in an okay-sized city, I was a SWE making $85k/year gross and struggling to cover housing and bills, and I got laid off when the company "eliminated my position".
85k should definitely cover your expenses. You can rent out a bedroom instead of a house. Buy a cheap car. Eat canned beans. Even in SF, it’s doable on 85k.
> Most people didn’t go to college to eat canned beans. We went to college so we could stop eating canned beans.
Dreaming of something does not make it real.
Even in Germany, where going to university is very cheap, people have such dreams of social ascent by getting a degree. Here is a German article about how this does not always go well:
It was real here in the US for a great deal of time, and its decline of 'realness' seemingly coincided with the universal push for youth to attend it. The culture of college in the US i'm sure is quite different than germany or asian countries.
Talk about rent, how about an "adjacent" financial game incorporating this trend?
The "Rat-Race" playdata could be aggregated into a static (or not) database after a representative point has been reached, more or less like a present-day snapshot even if it is not expected to stand the test of time for very many years. How could it anyway? But it could be good for now. People don't play games forever either.
Now there is already a built-in predictive element to this data since players are optimizing for early retirement.
Then use that as your gameboard, kind of like in the appropriately named Monopoly[0] game. Now in parallel to the truly aspirational predictive element, you run an "economy" against it which is naturally more of a moving target.
So on that not-so-imaginary playing field, you the hypervisory player compete with other "policymakers" to see who can extract the most upcoming wealth from the FAANGsters before a fixed deadline or something.
The objective is to end up with as few as possible of the high-earners having much more to show for it compared to middle-class wage workers :\
Measured by how much your policies contributed to the greatest amount of predicted early retirement dates turning out to be as unrealistic as possible. Perhaps in dollars. Or maybe dollars/rat-race-player.
Without crashing the economy beyond the point where policy has no more leverage :0
[0] And Monopoly led to "Acquire", the 3M board game.
Acquire was not focusing on the rent-seeking itself but built on the "gameboard" assumption that the well-established underlying rent-seeking of those properties was as universal as ever.
Monopoly of course concentrating on the real estate aspect, seeking greater rents by building and/or making real estate deals for all of the homes and hotels in one market as possible. All but one winner goes bankrupt every time, that's why they call it Monopoly. Note a very fortunate player can sometimes bankrupt everyone else before building any hotels at all, in this case the game is over and nothing upscale ever arrives.
OTOH Acquire is shareholder-focused where the hotels are in chains and the trading action and cash comes from shares not real estate. Chains are built and merged on the board with inevitability, there is still a strong tendency toward a final monopoly when fully built out, but often a duopoly or even triopoly is where the market ends up. There is a higher strategy/luck ratio, and one of the most "rewarding" things is that no matter how things end up, everybody makes money and nobody goes bankrupt. Imagine that, but do consider where would all that money come from in the real world?
Monopoly is more of pure rent-seeking, these are of course hotels, but both games play exactly the same with the hotel feature completely abstracted away into any kind of such derivative behavior.
I remember taking pay cuts of 35-65% for a few jobs I thought sounded more cool or less stressful when I was younger, only to find out some of my coworkers were making far more at the same place. They placed me still at or above the median wage, and I learned a lot (I never vested, and stocks weren't a factor in the jobs).
In my personal experience, the jobs I have taken which paid less treated me as cheaper and more disposable. This is not to say all companies are like this, and indeed many do value tech employees they could not afford otherwise more, but making a blanket statement about any pay figure is sort of a bad idea.
The FAANG workplace environment is something you will pay for. There are reasons it pays well, and I never really understood this until I left. I do not mean merely 'doing your job'.
As for the last part of your reply, I am guessing it was meant to get reactionary replies (touché).
“ In my personal experience, the jobs I have taken which paid less treated me as cheaper and more disposable. ”
That’s my experience. The more I have made in my career, the better and with more respect I got treated. As freelance I did some projects with non profit “do gooders”. They didn’t pay well and treated people horribly. On the other hand, successful companies will treat you well and pay well.
I worked for all kinds of companies. They all treated me as a disposable resource. There is no difference beyond the amount of money they pay me. This is in Scandinavia so that might be different from what you experience in your part of our world.
Is it possible that the causation is the other way? FAANG doesn't pay well because its dispiriting and toxic, its toxic because it pays well. This attracts all sorts of behavior.
I mean, it paid well in the early-mid 2010s also and was way less toxic.
My feeling was multiple generations of optimizing for promo packets had made the entire culture cynical at G and Amazon. It's one thing when people give lip service to the right things but sometimes the wrong things are rewarded. It hits another level when leaders are actively coaching and advocating cynicism. Throw in layoff fear on top of that and now it's a political mess.
Mmm. The way users are talked about at web and software companies now is almost nothing like 20-30 years ago. Aside from a few times when things got a bit too annoying (like maybe a few hours every month or so) I barely remember the negativity at all. We almost never talked about users, just the product. There was wayyy less cynicism and anger in the workplace.
The happiest a was when our entire team was laid off and my whole balance was 10k dollars and I went on to live off that from r a year and a half in Thailand.
When I lived abroad and was going for cheap, since I was so damned burnt out, most of the people who did not manage to totally convince locals to treat them like a local paid way more for things like rent (though still very cheap by American standards). I mean, you could find cheaper places, but I wouldn't expect not to pay for it in other ways. I mean unless you were just sort of roaming around, couch surfing (easier a couple decades ago, before AirB&B got so popular probably).
The most I could imagine ten thousand lasting, even scrounging, anywhere I lived, was probably around half a year at most (much less if rent was not factored in, or if you are sharing a place of course; I was not). That'd mostly include parts of Asia, and Central America. And most places like that, connectivity came at sort of a premium price. The internet between a vps in the states and southeast asia was damn slow fifteen years ago.
Couldn't have been too fun when that ten thou ran out. I would never have left the country with no modicum of a guarantee of income upon returning. Gutsy move.
It was some time ago (2012), and the rent on Ko Pa was less than 500 USD I believe. I'm not sure how much more expensive it is now, but cheap places are cheap.
Yeah, I was operating on the idea of a Southeast Asian or Central American range of around $500-650ish a month rent depending on the size (these are like prices from a decade, decade and a half ago, no clue how much they have changed just sure they did not go down). For sure a lot of places were better and cost more though still cheap by American or EU standards. But you still need clothes, food, utilities, fun, basic essentials, money to get from place to place, and some padding for an emergency, etc. And the cheaper places, you would be competing with locals. $10k a year to them was and often is a lot. And if you were local it would be for you also since you would have local connections and family etc. You would not live as an American would, though.
The part about living on that $10k was not so much what threw me (I mean, you CAN live on $1k a month, and I know people did it, certainly back in 2012, but you are not going to be eating much Western food, or springing for many extravagances like Western brand liquors, probably). What threw me was how, halfway or 2/3rds of the way through that year, without that ongoing idea of replacing that $1k a month, anything going wrong would seriously suck. Locals work and replace spent money with money. So do expats.
Not eating fancy and not drinking at all was a big part of it of course. The idea was to freelance a bit here and there to stretch it out, but eventually I did run out of money, packed my shit and flied back to places where getting a job was an option. Finding jobs was much easier back there and back then.
> You would not live as an American would, though.
yeah, not being American was definitely contributing factor too.
I've found that when I was making $85k I was just as miserable as when I was making $200k+ at FAANG, just without the money. The corporate politics and shittiness of being an employee were the exact same. At least, I was living in a VHCOL city.
It actually really hurt when I pulled up the page. It's why I'm trying to bootstrap my own software company off of my savings.
I'm aiming for 85k (or there abouts) after a few years of earning nothing. But I can't help but feel like a failure because distribution and convincing people to use my software is extremely difficult. I don't want to go back to the tech industry but at the same time I don't know if I have it in me to go "yeah, I'm still working on my <insert dream here> but I have 0 - 10 users" for the next few years.
Not entirely true. I work in "boring" State government as a programmer. I constantly see juniors starting private industry jobs at close to what I make after being with my employer for 10 years straight.
However, money is not everything to me. While the salary is not truly impressive, my job has a lot of benefits. People sleep on these jobs while chasing MegaCorp clout which is cool and all, but I am just a redneck clever enough to write bad code. I don't want FAANG, and FAANG doesn't want me.
> Unless you have a family, want to travel
We have generous PTO, sick leave, bereavement leave, 6 weeks of paternity leave for mothers AND fathers, 16 holidays off, etc.. Plus, many offices are 100% remote (mine is 3/5 days a week).
> want an ample retirement fund
I have a Pension, 401k, and a 457(b) all through my employer. I am fortunate that the pension is also fully funded for over 30 years in advance. Plus, PTO rolls into sick time annual and sick time can be used to purchase service time, thus one can retire even faster than the typical 30 year timeframe.
> have complex health issues
We have great health insurance plans, and my office has been wonderful in dealing with people with very complex health issues. Way more than what I expect the private industry would do.
Guess how many people have been laid off from my office? ;)
That assumes one has the chops to get into FAANG. I highly doubt I could pass a basic interview -- even with ample time to prepare. Besides, if I were truly anything special, then I am sure one of the FAANG companies would have tried to contact me already.
Sure, if one was FAANG caliber, then a few mill would be left on the table periodically. However, when is enough ever enough? I seriously feel like I do not need millions to be happy in life.
Only if you seek them out (ski resorts and such). I've lived in both of the most expensive major inland cities (Chicago and Denver) and $85k is plenty in both, even for a small family.
Honestly these days even the MCOL (medium cost of living) interior cities like Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Columbus, Charlotte, etc. would be tight on 85K especially with any dependents.
Our family lived in HCOL places like Boston and LA before returning to Cincinnati a few years ago. It’s still cheaper than those but wow… I remember it being a lot cheaper when I left. Since we returned it’s gone up even more. Some neighborhoods went up by as much as 25% in the last 5 years and are not coming down.
I’ve been convinced for years that the inflation numbers are cooked. Or at least “massaged.” I don’t understand how people with only near median salaries live. It’s amazing there aren’t riots.
Cbus has been designated as the "Silicon Valley of the Midwest" in recent years, and the prices have reflected. Fortunately, you can make FAANG or coastal money if you have the right skills, even though our fellow "real" Silicon Valley devs might not want to admit it.
And yet, the majority of people in those cities make less than that amount. Like Charlotte the median HOUSEHOLD income is $82K. Median wage is ~$53k. As someone making below the median, I don't understand how people are making so much more money and not feeling rich. We have house, boat, golf carts, kids in private school, decent cars, take multiple vacations. We didn't even get lucky and buy cheap housing with low interest, our interest rate is 7.5%. We certainly aren't stacking lots of savings and sometimes have to juggle bills, but we have a lot going on and aren't even making the median right now. But once you drop much below our level, if you don't own anything you actually get a lot of assistance.
I wish. I live in the midwest in a stable but unsexy city (probably around like 50th biggest in the nation? So recognizable but not particularly major). 85k is pretty painful here.
Cost of living has risen dramatically everywhere. Unless you live in a small town in a poor state like I do then 85K sounds pretty bad. That's barely above the poverty line at this point.
The median household income in the US is like 83K, which means half of all households survive with less than that. And most households have two earners.
Even New York City has a median household income of ~80K. Half of all households in NYC survive on that.
I do not make a ton more than that, and I live in the downtown area of the largest city in my southern state. I still am able to save about 30%-40% of my gross income every year, pay my bills, etc..
I think too many people just have poor spending habits (or children).
If you work in industry, at a place that pays developers $85K, you are very unlikely to be part of some sort of downsizing. This is entrenched company territory and the kind of place that just goes about it's business, not trying to hang the moon or "ramp up" areas. Yeah they can be subject to wider economic influences, but at tech companies layoffs happen just because of a change in the wind while profits are breaking records.
Like there's a place near me, I don't even think they would pay $85K though. Maybe for higher positions, but closer to $70k. They are pretty much always hiring lots of IT positions. They make firetrucks and pretty much only sell them regionally, but are set with orders for like 25+ years. Their low skill positions fill up fast though.
what a wonderful way to reflect reality for a good population of devs.
you can hack the game i.e real life
1. live in a cheaper location 2. do things that don't scale & do the ugly work
that naturally extends your runway, you don't need to apply to YC
remember the median Pay in the US - is 61800 based on ADP the largest payroll provider.
so before aiming for millions aim for 85K. yeah a far cry from the FAANG wage - but one - you will never get laid off.
85K - you can live everywhere besides the coastal US cities comfortably.