“Great resignation” wave coming for companies(axios.com)
axios.com
“Great resignation” wave coming for companies
https://www.axios.com/resignations-companies-e279fcfc-c8e7-4955-8a9b-47562490ee55.html
1,052 comments
Every time a recruiter (especially internal) reaches out to me lately about "remote until after Covid" I politely tell them I have no intention of ever being forced back into an office every week and good luck with their search. Hopefully they'll realize quickly enough.
Agreed on the salary uptick now. I'm not actively looking, but I'll entertain interesting companies. I've had a lot more companies say "yeah, we can do that" when I tell them I want at least $200k base (8 YOE, full stack developer) than before.
Agreed on the salary uptick now. I'm not actively looking, but I'll entertain interesting companies. I've had a lot more companies say "yeah, we can do that" when I tell them I want at least $200k base (8 YOE, full stack developer) than before.
What do you mean "base"? Why so specifoc for only one part portion of your comp?
Cash is king. Stocks, bonuses, and RSU are never guaranteed.
This. The WeWorkRemotely posting silicon valley type companies are getting flooded and are quite picky currently. But once you apply to a few jobs elsewhere that have recruiters, you get flooded with small to medium size companies looking for devs. And the market is so hot that companies which previously had longer interview processes are condensing down to 1-2 interviews, because if they take any longer all their applicants have already taken offers elsewhere. For most devs, no matter what you're making someone else would pay you more, and they're willing to do it remotely.
Don't wait on your company to make a remote work plan once they've got you all back in the office. Start looking around now while they don't have a monopoly on your time. That doesn't necessarily mean taking interviews during work hours -- my previous job was 10-6 eastern, and east coast companies would happily interview me at 9, while west coast ones interviewed me at 7. Once your current company has you back in the office, they have a much stronger grasp on you, and they know it. That's why they want everyone back in the office before they talk about remote work.
But if you're not going to a company that is itself 100% remote, I'd still be wary about being the stranger that they only see online. I went with a job where I was only an hour away from the office but could still work remotely, and plan to be there once every couple months, so I still get some face time.
Don't wait on your company to make a remote work plan once they've got you all back in the office. Start looking around now while they don't have a monopoly on your time. That doesn't necessarily mean taking interviews during work hours -- my previous job was 10-6 eastern, and east coast companies would happily interview me at 9, while west coast ones interviewed me at 7. Once your current company has you back in the office, they have a much stronger grasp on you, and they know it. That's why they want everyone back in the office before they talk about remote work.
But if you're not going to a company that is itself 100% remote, I'd still be wary about being the stranger that they only see online. I went with a job where I was only an hour away from the office but could still work remotely, and plan to be there once every couple months, so I still get some face time.
[deleted]
Are you seeing the salaries at these smaller companies keeping up? When I was changing jobs just before the pandemic I also saw a ton of interest from small/med companies, but none with competitive offers. Big, publicly traded tech companies were able to offer more than double total compensation in some cases, and that's with equity you can actually sell for cash.
It probably depends where you are on your career path. For me, those silicon valley startups were offering less than my target salary and I was going to try to negotiate up. For the small company I ended up at, I gave my target salary range and they exceeded it by 10k. I wasn't shooting for big publicly traded companies, and I don't know how they're acting currently. From friends I do know that some are seriously considering changing their remote work policy obviously.
Why was your target so low?
I'm seeing a lot of colleagues leaving for substantial raises. But I've also noticed that we've been hiring a lot of entry-level folks. Not sure if we can extrapolate that industry-wide, but I suspect we can.
There are a lot of cities in the USA with an underpaid, but experienced workforce. While you might not find these offers to be competitive, someone from Springfield making $65k would absolutely jump at a $95k offer, even if that's still pretty well below the median national salary.
There are a lot of cities in the USA with an underpaid, but experienced workforce. While you might not find these offers to be competitive, someone from Springfield making $65k would absolutely jump at a $95k offer, even if that's still pretty well below the median national salary.
Holy Bubble Batman! I'm curious, what do you think the median national salary is?
Weworkremotely just seem to be targeted at "web"-devs judging by filter categories (fullstack, backend, frontend). Is those positions maybe easier to do remotely?
Im not seeing a lot of remote/hybrid offers in the midatlantic area (from my little checking around my area).
It's a lot more "we're remote right now and haven't determined our remote strategy" which like my current place generally means we'll expect you back, but might be a little more lenient on why you need to do a special WFH day.
I've done both full remote and full open office. I think being close enough to go in and get together to determine project path and then going remote to work on it seems to be the way to go. It doesn't look like my current employer believes the same way - even though they are doing very well right now and we're all remote.
It's a lot more "we're remote right now and haven't determined our remote strategy" which like my current place generally means we'll expect you back, but might be a little more lenient on why you need to do a special WFH day.
I've done both full remote and full open office. I think being close enough to go in and get together to determine project path and then going remote to work on it seems to be the way to go. It doesn't look like my current employer believes the same way - even though they are doing very well right now and we're all remote.
That's why people are looking for a new job that will specifically let them work remote. Like anything else, it's easier to get the change you want from a new company than your current one, and you work that out as part of the interview and offer. With the jobs in such demand, companies that wouldn't normally hire remote people will.
Wouldn't checking for remote jobs around your area sort of defeat the purpose?
Why would it be white hot right now though? I don’t think software would be particularly affected by COVID negatively or positively.
The forced year of remote has led to both a lot of companies opening up permanent remote work, and a lot of people to change jobs (because their current company doesn't support them remotely well, or because without the social component normalizing their work they've come to question it more). Further, with just the economy reopening, a lot of businesses are opening headcount that they've been sitting on the past year, reluctant to hire due to COVID uncertainties. Taken together, there is a lot of churn. There's a lot of opportunity, but also a lot of competition for roles.
At least where I am, companies are realizing that relying on people is unreliable, so they are investing more in technology.
Could you elaborate on your experience (as vaguely as necessary to protect your privacy)?
I don't work in this space currently, but have colleagues and former colleagues that do. So many companies still have people running around with clipboards or doing routine calculations in Excel or handing loan applications by hand or managing contracts by printing them out and filing them or having someone sit at a monitor and watch for an alert so they can tell someone else or manually processing reward point changes or fax out hotel booking confirmations.
This is ludicrous to people steeped in tech, but I have had former colleagues or classmates or even myself work on all of those in the past year and a bit.
This is ludicrous to people steeped in tech, but I have had former colleagues or classmates or even myself work on all of those in the past year and a bit.
Covid made it clear that many jobs can be automated
The fact that nothing has really changed seems to mean it is still cheaper to hire a minimum wage earner with zero benefits than to hire or contract software engineers to service your software and/or hardware that automates the job.
Stocks (and therefore RSUs) are up. I joined a FANG in 2019 with $500k RSUs. Now I have $740k in unvested RSUs, including $600k remaining from the initial grant.
Jesus that's unreal. You devs make so freaking much (coming from a penniless non-dev trying to remain at peace with his rsu package)
Yup, if you’re a dev and not a millionaire after 10 years you did it wrong IMO.
I feel you, and I spent most of my time at non-FANG earning much less.
It is here in Australia. I've spoken to a lot of people who are hiring (EY, Accenture and some small-caps) and they all say the same thing - super hard, and expensive to get tech people right now.
How is it for Product Managers and Product Owners? I've seen a slight bump in the past few weeks, but (anecdotally from my monitoring) the number of listings was still higher under Trump in 2019:
https://www.indeed.com/jobs?q=Technical+Product+Managers+%26...
https://www.indeed.com/jobs?q=Technical+Product+Managers+%26...
Is Product Owner a job?
Levels says E-7’s at Facebook get a nearly $1,000,000 compensation package
A) Is this annual? As in their unvested RSUs are nearly 4x this amount
B) This is not accounting for stock price appreciation?
or do I have it entirely wrong. Two years ago on Blind I could tell people were discussing their compensation packages in wildly differing ways. It was impossible to tell if people were discussing if they signed an offer that computed a particular dollar value that was only relevant a single year and they just liked to brag about it, or if they were discussing their annual tax filings from employment, or even something else. I feel like this discrepancy translates onto Levels as well.
A) Is this annual? As in their unvested RSUs are nearly 4x this amount
B) This is not accounting for stock price appreciation?
or do I have it entirely wrong. Two years ago on Blind I could tell people were discussing their compensation packages in wildly differing ways. It was impossible to tell if people were discussing if they signed an offer that computed a particular dollar value that was only relevant a single year and they just liked to brag about it, or if they were discussing their annual tax filings from employment, or even something else. I feel like this discrepancy translates onto Levels as well.
As someone who recently interviewed (although not at Facebook) the number is the _annual compensation package at the time they signed their offer_ (it includes base salary + annual stock grant + bonus). If someone got $1,000,000 in annual compensation 2 years ago, the stock portion per year will likely be larger now due to appreciation of the stock. These numbers are crazy high and before I interviewed this time around I was somewhat skeptic of how real these numbers were outside of a few outliers but now I'm pretty sure it's pretty common.
Super nice that trillion dollar companies are being extremely competitive with compensation now
Wages have stagnated for 30 years and, to me, progress is not achieved until a house in the same area as the economic center can be owned outright in 5 years or less just like the baby boomers experienced
This seems to accomplish that, but lets throw in paying off all other encumbrances like student debt as well
Wages have stagnated for 30 years and, to me, progress is not achieved until a house in the same area as the economic center can be owned outright in 5 years or less just like the baby boomers experienced
This seems to accomplish that, but lets throw in paying off all other encumbrances like student debt as well
Yes, annually.
Not counting appreciation.
It's pretty rare to see an e7 offer though.
It's pretty rare to see an e7 offer though.
Base + bonus + annual refresher should be in the 700s annually. Likely the way this gets to $1M is with stocks going up and stacked refreshers (getting a couple annual refreshers while the initial grant is still vesting).
But they shouldn't be reporting stocks going up or refreshers to Levels
They should be reporting offer letters that get verified by Levels admins
So its $1,000,000
They should be reporting offer letters that get verified by Levels admins
So its $1,000,000
At https://www.levels.fyi/addcomp.html I see someone could upload an offer letter, or a W2.
I see
So its likely heavily factoring in stock price appreciation as the RSUs vest and have a portion withheld for taxes based on current value.
So its likely heavily factoring in stock price appreciation as the RSUs vest and have a portion withheld for taxes based on current value.
Yes, I found a job in chicago while interviewing from nyc. It's a great time to find a new job.
Can I get an ELI5 on how to even start looking around? I'm someone that contracted via word of mouth for years, and I have zero recruiter relationships. My resume is probably very strong (principle engineer / architect level, strong mentor, JVM/distributed backend, nodejs react typescript frontend) but I haven't updated it for years. I know a lot of recruiters are lousy so I don't want to just cold-call one at random.
Here's what to do.
First of all, find out where the jobs are. Some board for your niche or something like that. For me it's efinancialcareers. Now efinancial is still a black hole if you try to use it to apply through, but what you're really after is the recruiter details.
You then phone up the rec, or you write to him on LinkedIn. A lot of them are crap at responding, but that's how it is. Phone a few, and convince them that you are the real deal for whatever it is he recruits for.
They'll all want an updated CV. They need it to be able to proceed, nobody will place you without one. Good news is it isn't that hard, just highlight the relevant bits for reach recruiter.
The rec will then say "I've got a job at X, Y, and Z. X is a this kind of co, Y is looking for blah..."
When they have some of those details it means they actually have something. Otherwise it's just a generic company that they will find later. By find, I mean they will forget you by the time the job comes. One guy told me straight up the ad I responded to was not a specific job, it was a honeypot to lure candidates.
So now the companies get your CVs, and they decide whether to interview. If the recruiter is good, they will interview you maybe 3/4 times. Companies often screw up their own internal hiring process and ask for CVs when they aren't ready. But the other companies should be willing to interview you. This is where you find out if the rec is crap, because a fair few of them will just not tell you anything about what happened to your CV.
It's still a numbers game. I've got over 20 recruiters listed on my Trello, most of them did nothing useful for me.
It's probably worth cultivating some relationships with the recruiters. You learn a lot about what the market is doing for free from them.
First of all, find out where the jobs are. Some board for your niche or something like that. For me it's efinancialcareers. Now efinancial is still a black hole if you try to use it to apply through, but what you're really after is the recruiter details.
You then phone up the rec, or you write to him on LinkedIn. A lot of them are crap at responding, but that's how it is. Phone a few, and convince them that you are the real deal for whatever it is he recruits for.
They'll all want an updated CV. They need it to be able to proceed, nobody will place you without one. Good news is it isn't that hard, just highlight the relevant bits for reach recruiter.
The rec will then say "I've got a job at X, Y, and Z. X is a this kind of co, Y is looking for blah..."
When they have some of those details it means they actually have something. Otherwise it's just a generic company that they will find later. By find, I mean they will forget you by the time the job comes. One guy told me straight up the ad I responded to was not a specific job, it was a honeypot to lure candidates.
So now the companies get your CVs, and they decide whether to interview. If the recruiter is good, they will interview you maybe 3/4 times. Companies often screw up their own internal hiring process and ask for CVs when they aren't ready. But the other companies should be willing to interview you. This is where you find out if the rec is crap, because a fair few of them will just not tell you anything about what happened to your CV.
It's still a numbers game. I've got over 20 recruiters listed on my Trello, most of them did nothing useful for me.
It's probably worth cultivating some relationships with the recruiters. You learn a lot about what the market is doing for free from them.
Not a big deal at all. A great number of people are always looking to change their job at any given time. During the pandemic maby were reluctant to act on it, so it could have created a big delayed volume of resignations. It is not a problem because would be a lot of candidates to fill in the ranks, who too have quit their previous jobs.
I can imagine a few other factors that might be playing into this:
* People who have moved, and now want a job closer to home if they want/need to go into the office.
* Companies who have hoarded cash during the recession and can now offer big salaries.
* Looser bonds with colleagues they only see remotely
I've no idea whether and to what extent any of these things are true, but it's definitely easy to imagine a big move around. That said... I'm not seeing much change in volume on the typical job boards so perhaps it's all hypothetical.
* People who have moved, and now want a job closer to home if they want/need to go into the office.
* Companies who have hoarded cash during the recession and can now offer big salaries.
* Looser bonds with colleagues they only see remotely
I've no idea whether and to what extent any of these things are true, but it's definitely easy to imagine a big move around. That said... I'm not seeing much change in volume on the typical job boards so perhaps it's all hypothetical.
You may be right but this seems extremely presumptuous—how do you know the people will go back vs taking a gap year or other extended hiatus or field change?
Not GP, but most people are not secure enough (either financially or psychologically) to just quit for a year. The overwhelming default is trading one job for another rather than trading your job for margaritas on the beach.
Synchronized resignations are definitely more of a headache than staggered ones. For example, in a normal situation if I quit my boss will be able to hire someone to replace me, knowing what my strengths and weaknesses are and what gaps my departure has created for the team. If they quit then I am a source of information to whoever is hired to replace them.
Of course anyone is replaceable but some knowledge will be lost. Also your model does not account for businesses which are aggressively expanding and doing a better job than the average employer retaining their employees by either being a genuinely great place to work or LTIPs
Of course anyone is replaceable but some knowledge will be lost. Also your model does not account for businesses which are aggressively expanding and doing a better job than the average employer retaining their employees by either being a genuinely great place to work or LTIPs
I'm not sure I believe the conclusion based on the survey. Resigning and "thinking about quitting [your] job" are very different things. I've spent my whole working life thinking about quitting but I've rarely actually quit, the pandemic hasn't changed that.
Meanwhile I've thought about quitting and then also quit a whole bunch of times. Business as usual over here.
(Turns out the grass is pretty much the same in most places.)
(Turns out the grass is pretty much the same in most places.)
Yeah I think 100% of workers think about quitting their job.
Unless rent and mortgage payments somehow evaporate, there won't be some massive wave of resignations.
And health insurance.
Damn, America really needs to get their act together.
Being from England, I hadn't even considered that healthcare is something that has to be factored into whether someone could take time off
Being from England, I hadn't even considered that healthcare is something that has to be factored into whether someone could take time off
After I left Airbnb, I paid $680 a month to keep my previously employer-paid health insurance. Very cool, loved to have the “freedom of choice” to “participate in the market”. Insurance feels like another little way businesses seek to own people in the US. Want to own yourself? Gotta pay the lease… on your own body.
I'm not clued up on US healthcare, but is $680 a lot, average, low?
Does it cover all procedures? Is there an excess? Value of coverage?
Does it cover all procedures? Is there an excess? Value of coverage?
It covers the basics, and very little beyond that.
Here is a good pdf where you can calculate it for your age:
https://www.state.nj.us/dobi/division_insurance/ihcseh/ihcra...
Basically, the metal levels are as follows: bronze, silver, gold, platinum are priced so that you the insurance company pays 60%, 70%, 80%, 90% of the healthcare costs.
Of course, this is an actuarial calculation, so it’s only true over a large population over a long timeline. But healthcare is a pretty certain need for everyone, so the cost for healthcare for everyone from age 0 to 65 (when government starts offering it called Medicare) is amortized into health insurance premiums for all of the 0 to 65 years.
The ACA law of 2010 requires a few things which cause the premiums to be adjusted such that younger people subsidize older people. The age rating factor table at the bottom of the linked pdf shows that the riskiest person (64 year old) must cost at most 3x what a 21 to 24 year old costs.
Also, healthy people subsidize unhealthy people because your health condition cannot be taken into account when determining premiums, and men subsidize women since gender cannot be taken into account (due to birthing).
As far as I know, smoking is the only activity that causes one’s premium to be higher.
Let’s take a silver HSA plan for example:
https://www.horizonblue.com/qhp/files/2021/2021_IHC_OMNIA_HS...
The out of pocket maximum for in network providers is $6,550. The premium is $350 per month. So $4,200 premium plus $6,550 out of pocket means a 21 to 24 year old pays at most $11k per year for healthcare if they get into trouble (most will only pay the $4.2k premiums since they are 21 to 24 and probably will not need healthcare).
A complication to these calculations is when employees pay, they can pay with pretax money, and HSA plans allow you to invest your HSA contributions tax free (max of a few thousand dollars per person per year).
https://www.state.nj.us/dobi/division_insurance/ihcseh/ihcra...
Basically, the metal levels are as follows: bronze, silver, gold, platinum are priced so that you the insurance company pays 60%, 70%, 80%, 90% of the healthcare costs.
Of course, this is an actuarial calculation, so it’s only true over a large population over a long timeline. But healthcare is a pretty certain need for everyone, so the cost for healthcare for everyone from age 0 to 65 (when government starts offering it called Medicare) is amortized into health insurance premiums for all of the 0 to 65 years.
The ACA law of 2010 requires a few things which cause the premiums to be adjusted such that younger people subsidize older people. The age rating factor table at the bottom of the linked pdf shows that the riskiest person (64 year old) must cost at most 3x what a 21 to 24 year old costs.
Also, healthy people subsidize unhealthy people because your health condition cannot be taken into account when determining premiums, and men subsidize women since gender cannot be taken into account (due to birthing).
As far as I know, smoking is the only activity that causes one’s premium to be higher.
Let’s take a silver HSA plan for example:
https://www.horizonblue.com/qhp/files/2021/2021_IHC_OMNIA_HS...
The out of pocket maximum for in network providers is $6,550. The premium is $350 per month. So $4,200 premium plus $6,550 out of pocket means a 21 to 24 year old pays at most $11k per year for healthcare if they get into trouble (most will only pay the $4.2k premiums since they are 21 to 24 and probably will not need healthcare).
A complication to these calculations is when employees pay, they can pay with pretax money, and HSA plans allow you to invest your HSA contributions tax free (max of a few thousand dollars per person per year).
Wait, so insurance doesn't even cover 100% of the costs?
So when you hear about those people who get lumped with $100k medical bills they still have to pay like $20k of that on top of your insurance?
What happens if you can't afford the remaining percentage?
So when you hear about those people who get lumped with $100k medical bills they still have to pay like $20k of that on top of your insurance?
What happens if you can't afford the remaining percentage?
Insurance in general typically has deductibles (auto, home, renters, etc). for which you are responsible for first before the insurance kicks in. This is beneficial since it allows for lower premiums and lets customers pay out of pocket for expenses that they can afford. As a concept, it only makes sense to purchase insurance for expenses that you cannot afford.
>So when you hear about those people who get lumped with $100k medical bills they still have to pay like $20k of that on top of your insurance?
It depends if the person was insured or not, and if the care was provided by healthcare providers who have contracts with the insurance company or not (referred to as being in network).
In the US, when you go to a healthcare provider, the first thing they will ask you to sign is a form acknowledging you know you are responsible for anything your insurance company does not pay for (unless you go to a vertically integrated healthcare / health insurance company like Kaiser Permanente). In fact, health insurance companies are better referred to as managed care organizations (MCOs) in the US.
What happens is people are not capable of knowing what healthcare services they need or do not need. They have no way to determine if they are being ripped of or not. So the MCOs employ legions of doctors and pharmacists and whatnot to double check the doctors performing the services. They also have enough knowledge about pricing healthcare procedures that they are more able to determine a "good" price to pay.
Anyway, after the ACA law, there is an out of pocket maximum for in network providers, so you would not get a $100k bill. the out of pocket maximum for individual / family is $8,550 / $17.1k in 2021:
https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/out-of-pocket-maximum-li...
So you would only be liable up to that amount at most in a calendar year for all healthcare you receive from an in network provider. Everything else is paid for by insurance.
>What happens if you can't afford the remaining percentage?
The healthcare provider can choose to go after you for it, since you signed the form that says you will pay them if insurance does not. If you feel your insurance denied the doctor inappropriately, you can appeal to a third party to determine if insurance is obliged to pay it (if it is evidence based medicine, then they most likely have to pay it).
>So when you hear about those people who get lumped with $100k medical bills they still have to pay like $20k of that on top of your insurance?
It depends if the person was insured or not, and if the care was provided by healthcare providers who have contracts with the insurance company or not (referred to as being in network).
In the US, when you go to a healthcare provider, the first thing they will ask you to sign is a form acknowledging you know you are responsible for anything your insurance company does not pay for (unless you go to a vertically integrated healthcare / health insurance company like Kaiser Permanente). In fact, health insurance companies are better referred to as managed care organizations (MCOs) in the US.
What happens is people are not capable of knowing what healthcare services they need or do not need. They have no way to determine if they are being ripped of or not. So the MCOs employ legions of doctors and pharmacists and whatnot to double check the doctors performing the services. They also have enough knowledge about pricing healthcare procedures that they are more able to determine a "good" price to pay.
Anyway, after the ACA law, there is an out of pocket maximum for in network providers, so you would not get a $100k bill. the out of pocket maximum for individual / family is $8,550 / $17.1k in 2021:
https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/out-of-pocket-maximum-li...
So you would only be liable up to that amount at most in a calendar year for all healthcare you receive from an in network provider. Everything else is paid for by insurance.
>What happens if you can't afford the remaining percentage?
The healthcare provider can choose to go after you for it, since you signed the form that says you will pay them if insurance does not. If you feel your insurance denied the doctor inappropriately, you can appeal to a third party to determine if insurance is obliged to pay it (if it is evidence based medicine, then they most likely have to pay it).
Decent insurance plans typically have an out of pocket maximum--at least for what they cover.
All US health insurance plans have an out of pocket maximum, by law per ACA of 2010.
https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/out-of-pocket-maximum-li...
And they have to cover all non elective procedures.
https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/out-of-pocket-maximum-li...
And they have to cover all non elective procedures.
You just get the care anyway and get a bill later. It’s all pretty weird.
My wife got a medical bill for $100k after being hospitalized with a life threatening illness years ago called and told them she’d send them $6,000. They said fine and considered it paid in full. The whole system is really bizarre.
My uncle has cancer and no insurance and is on Medicare so all his costs are covered.
My daughter is disabled and is also on Medicare, which is a weird mix of private and public where Medicare pays her primary insurance deductible so if she gets a surgery any surgery or doctors visits we might need after that in the year are going to be free.
I was unemployed when my disabled daughter was born so it didn’t cost us a dime, if I’d been employed it would have cost at least several thousand dollars. I started a job a week later but that didn’t retroactively change the cost owed.
When my disabled daughter was in the NICU for six months while a recruiting firm was technically my employer, she ruined their health insurance plan by racking up a million dollars in fees because they only had 60 or so employees, so the cost was extreme and their health insurance renewal rates were more expensive for a worse plan. I left the plan and used a Health Insurance marketplace plan instead which was cheaper and better than what their organization was offering for the following year.
My wife got a medical bill for $100k after being hospitalized with a life threatening illness years ago called and told them she’d send them $6,000. They said fine and considered it paid in full. The whole system is really bizarre.
My uncle has cancer and no insurance and is on Medicare so all his costs are covered.
My daughter is disabled and is also on Medicare, which is a weird mix of private and public where Medicare pays her primary insurance deductible so if she gets a surgery any surgery or doctors visits we might need after that in the year are going to be free.
I was unemployed when my disabled daughter was born so it didn’t cost us a dime, if I’d been employed it would have cost at least several thousand dollars. I started a job a week later but that didn’t retroactively change the cost owed.
When my disabled daughter was in the NICU for six months while a recruiting firm was technically my employer, she ruined their health insurance plan by racking up a million dollars in fees because they only had 60 or so employees, so the cost was extreme and their health insurance renewal rates were more expensive for a worse plan. I left the plan and used a Health Insurance marketplace plan instead which was cheaper and better than what their organization was offering for the following year.
> she ruined their health insurance plan by racking up a million dollars in fees because they only had 60 or so employees
That is really bad. The gov or insurance providers (whoever is responsible) are essentially discouraging employing people with sick family members.
That is really bad. The gov or insurance providers (whoever is responsible) are essentially discouraging employing people with sick family members.
There was a lot of uproar from middle and upper middle class people when the original healthcare reform proposals in 2009 involved getting rid of all employer sponsored health plans.
Many leaders at that time did want to dump everyone into one insurance market so all healthy people subsidized all sick people, but there was tons of politics blowback from people who already had access to good healthcare who would see their costs rise because until then, they only had to share costs between healthy, employed workers.
Even today, you will read people lamenting how the ACA increased their health insurance premiums. Nevermind that it enabled millions more to actually get healthcare, so obviously the money was going to have to come from somewhere.
Many leaders at that time did want to dump everyone into one insurance market so all healthy people subsidized all sick people, but there was tons of politics blowback from people who already had access to good healthcare who would see their costs rise because until then, they only had to share costs between healthy, employed workers.
Even today, you will read people lamenting how the ACA increased their health insurance premiums. Nevermind that it enabled millions more to actually get healthcare, so obviously the money was going to have to come from somewhere.
$680 is probably somewhat typical, I pay $1000/mo for family coverage.
It only covers "medically necessary" procedures as deemed by the insurance company (there are some laws requiring certain procedures to be covered). You have to use specific doctors and facilities.
Typically you have a deductible as well. I have to pay $4,000 out of my own pocket before insurance kicks in. Preventative care (check-ups) are usually covered by a co-pay, mine is $30.
There's usually an out-of-pocket maximum you can pay every year (mine is $9,000). That's the real value of the insurance... if you're in a catastrophic event hopefully it caps your costs (but it doesn't always depending on facility, procedures, etc).
Not sure what you mean by excess or value of coverage, but the answer is probably no.
This does not include dental or vision services.
It only covers "medically necessary" procedures as deemed by the insurance company (there are some laws requiring certain procedures to be covered). You have to use specific doctors and facilities.
Typically you have a deductible as well. I have to pay $4,000 out of my own pocket before insurance kicks in. Preventative care (check-ups) are usually covered by a co-pay, mine is $30.
There's usually an out-of-pocket maximum you can pay every year (mine is $9,000). That's the real value of the insurance... if you're in a catastrophic event hopefully it caps your costs (but it doesn't always depending on facility, procedures, etc).
Not sure what you mean by excess or value of coverage, but the answer is probably no.
This does not include dental or vision services.
Medically necessary is still a rule in the UK NHS. It doesn't cover cosmetic surgery unless there's a very good reason (like something affecting a person's quality of life)
I think excess is what you call a deductible, as in if I have an accident in my car, I pay for the first £250 and that's the excess.
The value of the coverage is the maximum amount they'll pay out. I don't know if I have that on my car, but my house contents insurance is insured up to a certain value
I think excess is what you call a deductible, as in if I have an accident in my car, I pay for the first £250 and that's the excess.
The value of the coverage is the maximum amount they'll pay out. I don't know if I have that on my car, but my house contents insurance is insured up to a certain value
> I don't know if I have that on my car
This should be fairly standard around the EU. In Germany this is capped at around 1 million, I think.
Which sounds a lot, but bigger accidents can ramp up a lot of costs...
This should be fairly standard around the EU. In Germany this is capped at around 1 million, I think.
Which sounds a lot, but bigger accidents can ramp up a lot of costs...
I have insurance with Hastings Direct(because they were cheap) and their 3rd party liability maximum is 25 million pounds. When I was with Aviva last year theirs was 20 million.
I pay £300/year to insure my car.
And yeah, excess in US can be crazy I think. We have private health insurance from work and when I had to use it there was a £100 deductible for the year - I thought that was quite steep.
I pay £300/year to insure my car.
And yeah, excess in US can be crazy I think. We have private health insurance from work and when I had to use it there was a £100 deductible for the year - I thought that was quite steep.
Low-cost-of-living (that is: undesirable) US state here.
~$1800/m for bad family (married couple + kids) health insurance on the HCA Marketplace. There are no providers beyond the two on there still selling individual insurance to anyone in this state. Other providers are only interested in selling group insurance. Check with insurance providers directly, check with insurance brokers, that's what you hear. No, no-one sells individual insurance in this state except those two providers you've never heard of. Other providers will only deal with businesses or other organizations.
How is the insurance bad? Well, for one thing, it still leaves you with ~$25,000 of risk exposure per year. That is, if things go very poorly (two family members get very sick, basically—nb, because US healthcare is actually, no-joke, insane, "gets very sick" includes "gets pregnant"), you could potentially have to pay $25,000, total, in a given year, on top of the monthly premiums. For another, US insurance plans have a concept of a "network", that is, particular places (hospitals, clinics, testing centers) where the insurance applies. For most insurance, you'll pay most or all costs if you go "out of network". These two providers each have very different networks, such that, for our location, one must choose between having the only children's hospital in the area "in network" (and of course said hospital is itself a "network" of locations and they've bought up everydamnthing related to children's healthcare in our city, because healthcare in the US is batshit insane) or having either of the two nearest normal hospitals to us be in-network.
Oh, and get this: US healthcare plans like to restrict coverage geographically. I think they all have to cover emergency room visits anywhere, but I wouldn't want to see what happens if you get in a bad car wreck, or have a heart attack, or whatever, in another state and can't be moved and are transferred out of the ER to any other part of the hospital. My guess is you get hit with five to six figures of bills that insurance won't touch. That's right: it's probably advisable to get travel healthcare insurance to travel in your own goddamn country. Further, lots of people live within tens of miles of a state border and might routinely travel—even just to commute to work—outside the area their insurance covers. Hope they never need anything but ER care while doing that!
US healthcare: fucked top-to-bottom, and we pay a huge premium for the "privilege" of "enjoying" it, because freedom or something.
~$1800/m for bad family (married couple + kids) health insurance on the HCA Marketplace. There are no providers beyond the two on there still selling individual insurance to anyone in this state. Other providers are only interested in selling group insurance. Check with insurance providers directly, check with insurance brokers, that's what you hear. No, no-one sells individual insurance in this state except those two providers you've never heard of. Other providers will only deal with businesses or other organizations.
How is the insurance bad? Well, for one thing, it still leaves you with ~$25,000 of risk exposure per year. That is, if things go very poorly (two family members get very sick, basically—nb, because US healthcare is actually, no-joke, insane, "gets very sick" includes "gets pregnant"), you could potentially have to pay $25,000, total, in a given year, on top of the monthly premiums. For another, US insurance plans have a concept of a "network", that is, particular places (hospitals, clinics, testing centers) where the insurance applies. For most insurance, you'll pay most or all costs if you go "out of network". These two providers each have very different networks, such that, for our location, one must choose between having the only children's hospital in the area "in network" (and of course said hospital is itself a "network" of locations and they've bought up everydamnthing related to children's healthcare in our city, because healthcare in the US is batshit insane) or having either of the two nearest normal hospitals to us be in-network.
Oh, and get this: US healthcare plans like to restrict coverage geographically. I think they all have to cover emergency room visits anywhere, but I wouldn't want to see what happens if you get in a bad car wreck, or have a heart attack, or whatever, in another state and can't be moved and are transferred out of the ER to any other part of the hospital. My guess is you get hit with five to six figures of bills that insurance won't touch. That's right: it's probably advisable to get travel healthcare insurance to travel in your own goddamn country. Further, lots of people live within tens of miles of a state border and might routinely travel—even just to commute to work—outside the area their insurance covers. Hope they never need anything but ER care while doing that!
US healthcare: fucked top-to-bottom, and we pay a huge premium for the "privilege" of "enjoying" it, because freedom or something.
+1 similar scenario here
Most businesses would very much prefer NOT to have to deal with employee health plans. Forgetting the cost to them - it's a massive annoying overhead and nightmare to manage.
Big businesses would prefer it. They already have the huge HR departments to manage it, and it serves as price obfuscation so the worker cannot accurately compare alternative employers’ offerings.
It also works against small businesses that cannot afford to offer health insurance, because the small businesses’ employees cannot purchase health insurance with pre tax money, while the big businesses can compensate people with pretax health insurance that they subsidize.
It also works against small businesses that cannot afford to offer health insurance, because the small businesses’ employees cannot purchase health insurance with pre tax money, while the big businesses can compensate people with pretax health insurance that they subsidize.
It’s also a huge disincentive to switching jobs: I’ve known people who took or stayed at jobs they didn’t love just for the benefits who would have preferred to be independent or at small companies but had families, various conditions which didn’t prevent working normally but would have made individual insurance prohibitive. The ACA helped, but not enough and not in every state — especially because large group plans can mean less pushback on every charge.
That may be true, but it’s not annoying enough for them to prioritize doing anything about it. We’d see them forming coalitions to counter the insurance lobby were it otherwise.
Also I’m skeptical that they don’t actually want it, per the sibling commenter’s remarks. I think bigger businesses are all too happy to have another lever of informational asymmetry to pull to manage their actual biggest cost: salary.
Also I’m skeptical that they don’t actually want it, per the sibling commenter’s remarks. I think bigger businesses are all too happy to have another lever of informational asymmetry to pull to manage their actual biggest cost: salary.
It’s much less of an issue than it was a decade+ ago. Unemployed people in the US get free health coverage through Medicaid pretty much everywhere but the Deep South, albeit with a limited selection of doctors.
What does free health coverage entail? If there's free coverage, why doesn't everyone have it?
You get an insurance card that you can take to any doctor that accepts Medicaid, they'll treat you for free or for a nominal (say, $5) copay and bill the state. Mental health treatment is covered, prescription drugs are covered, the only major thing it's missing, as far as I know, is dental. But the main catch is that many doctors don't accept it, since Medicare generally reimburses at a lower rate than private insurance. Anecdotally, I was on Medicare in the rural Midwest several years ago and I think I had two choices of GP within a 25 mile radius.
Everyone doesn't have it because it's means-tested - if you make more than very roughly $1,200 a month you don't qualify. You still qualify for income-based subsidies at that point (under a totally different government program), but at higher income levels the expectation is that either you pay for your own health insurance premiums out of pocket, or your employer pays them for you. It's all very complicated, but that complexity is the price we pay so that we higher-income Americans can say that our employer is paying a "premium" and not a "tax." Evidently some of us care an awful lot about that sort of thing.
Everyone doesn't have it because it's means-tested - if you make more than very roughly $1,200 a month you don't qualify. You still qualify for income-based subsidies at that point (under a totally different government program), but at higher income levels the expectation is that either you pay for your own health insurance premiums out of pocket, or your employer pays them for you. It's all very complicated, but that complexity is the price we pay so that we higher-income Americans can say that our employer is paying a "premium" and not a "tax." Evidently some of us care an awful lot about that sort of thing.
But thats the same as Germany, no? You still have to pay for health insurance when you quit your job, so thats something to take into consideration before you resign, not only in USA.
> Unless rent and mortgage payments somehow evaporate, there won't be some massive wave of resignations
The prediction isn’t a massive wave of unemployment. It’s people switching jobs. They will still be earning money, just perhaps elsewhere.
The prediction isn’t a massive wave of unemployment. It’s people switching jobs. They will still be earning money, just perhaps elsewhere.
There might be a bump as a few employers try to capitalize on the work-from-home to get good talent. ...but in the long term, employee performance will be better in the office, and so most employees will end up back at work.
The thing the that the article misses is that the vast majority of CEOs want all employees back in the office.
The thing the that the article misses is that the vast majority of CEOs want all employees back in the office.
[deleted]
I think that's the whole point. It doesn't really matter what the CEO'S want. It's about what the employees want.
This is why "quit rate" is a sign of economic strength. If workers are confident enough that resigning will result in both speedy re-employment and a better job than before, there is probably good overall confidence in the markets.
Circle jerk, anyone?
I know a lot of people who are looking for alternative jobs because their companies expect a full return to the office. They are all looking for more flexible, or remote-first, employers.
I've spent a lot of time thinking about quitting and have had 6 jobs in 14 years. The first 1-2 years of employment is usually fairly interesting and then you hit a rut in which you're no longer learning, IMO.
I am curious to know if it still has an impact. An employee who no longer plans to stick around has substantially different motivations.
I suspect what the authors are presuming is a relationship between the variable "proportion of workers thinking about quitting" and the variable "near future quitting rate".
Imagine if I told you that the number of people "thinking of buying a Tesla" had gone up dramatically. Now, most people can't afford a Tesla, so no, not everyone is going to buy a Tesla. But if overall the proportion of people thinking about it went up, you wouldn't be surprised if the number of Tesla sales went up soon, and would probably be surprised if it fell.
What I'm saying here is that it would be weird if those two variables are completely independent.
Imagine if I told you that the number of people "thinking of buying a Tesla" had gone up dramatically. Now, most people can't afford a Tesla, so no, not everyone is going to buy a Tesla. But if overall the proportion of people thinking about it went up, you wouldn't be surprised if the number of Tesla sales went up soon, and would probably be surprised if it fell.
What I'm saying here is that it would be weird if those two variables are completely independent.
But that's kind of the point - the article is not saying that the proportion of workers thinking about quitting has gone up dramatically. They're saying that "25% to upwards of 40%" are thinking about this, but it seems a completely reasonable rate even in normal conditions, for all we know it may not be an increase at all.
Then I think you make a very good point.
The difference is that there’s not normally a mass catalyst like the end of WFH. Many people think of quitting their job, few actually do.
That’s largely because of status quo bias. People don’t like to make any major changes to their life situation unless prompted. But if a company exists on ending the WFH arrangements that people have become accustomed to over the past year, all bets are out the window.
That’s largely because of status quo bias. People don’t like to make any major changes to their life situation unless prompted. But if a company exists on ending the WFH arrangements that people have become accustomed to over the past year, all bets are out the window.
> Surveys show anywhere from 25% to upwards of 40% of workers are thinking about quitting their jobs.
How does this compare to the figure over a longer period of time?
How does this compare to the figure over a longer period of time?
This is the important question. At my previous job the results of internal surveys would have these fairly high numbers, like 20% of employees don't think they will be here in a year.
But if you looked at the previous year's numbers, it was something like 18% or 15%. And the previous year's actual attrition was closer to 5-8%. So perhaps you could extrapolate if you had the attrition rates combined with survey data, but surveys are a much weaker signal.
But if you looked at the previous year's numbers, it was something like 18% or 15%. And the previous year's actual attrition was closer to 5-8%. So perhaps you could extrapolate if you had the attrition rates combined with survey data, but surveys are a much weaker signal.
I am more impressed that people would confess to thinking of leaving their position to an internal survey. I have no confidence that a company sponsored survey will be confidential and 'worrisome' results would not be shared with my direct management.
Good point. That said, in many countries employee protection is solid enough that people would not need to worry. If within the EU, then GDPR regulations could also lead to pretty massive fines if a supposedly anonymous survey turned out not to be.
Exactly. I'm sure people are often thinking about quitting their jobs, but are they actually likely to quit within the next 12 months or are they just thinking about it?
Well another way to frame this is "X% are willing to quit their jobs if they can find a better offer" but only a fraction of that actually manage to find that something better. Not being able to do so could be due to those employee's shortcomings, but more likely its about how many better jobs there are and how competitive it is to get those jobs.
This is the real question. How many people are never actually considering leaving their job if another better opportunity comes along? The journalists asked a loaded question to exaggerate the idea that employees are ready to quit in droves because they don’t want to go back to the office or something. In reality many people are always looking for the next step in their career.
There was a similarly hyperbolic headline yesterday about a spike in resignations. Buried in the article it said that monthly employee turnover had moved from typical mid 1% to a higher mid 2% rate.
There might be a slight increase in turnover due to the hot job market and booming economy, but journalists like this one are working hard to make the situation sound like a dramatic change that’s going to change everything.
There was a similarly hyperbolic headline yesterday about a spike in resignations. Buried in the article it said that monthly employee turnover had moved from typical mid 1% to a higher mid 2% rate.
There might be a slight increase in turnover due to the hot job market and booming economy, but journalists like this one are working hard to make the situation sound like a dramatic change that’s going to change everything.
The next step is to ask yourself -why- journalists are asking loaded questions and pushing certain narratives. I don't believe it's coincidence, or just that they're just not very good at their jobs. There's economic, political, and social power to be gained for them and their ideology if they push these narratives.
Or they need to land clicks to put food on the table. Which individual journalists would you qualify as having economic, political, and social power?
100% agree that journalists emphasize the sensational for the clicks instead of the moderate and reasonable.
That said, I don't agree with this framing of your question with regard to "individual" journalists. It's unlikely that any "individual" journalist has economic, political, and social power. Journalists' power results from their collective efforts as a group. I would be hard-pressed to name more than five individual NYT reporters but collectively, the NYT has unquestionable social and political power, if not economic. The NYT's angles on stories, its decisions to pursue certain trends and not others, its portrayals as somethings as good and others as not good, etc. - these efforts have tremendous power and shape society.
Why do you think someone like Bezos was so interested in buying WaPo? To anyone who fails to appreciate the power of journalism, start with Walter Lippmann's Public Opinion.
That said, I don't agree with this framing of your question with regard to "individual" journalists. It's unlikely that any "individual" journalist has economic, political, and social power. Journalists' power results from their collective efforts as a group. I would be hard-pressed to name more than five individual NYT reporters but collectively, the NYT has unquestionable social and political power, if not economic. The NYT's angles on stories, its decisions to pursue certain trends and not others, its portrayals as somethings as good and others as not good, etc. - these efforts have tremendous power and shape society.
Why do you think someone like Bezos was so interested in buying WaPo? To anyone who fails to appreciate the power of journalism, start with Walter Lippmann's Public Opinion.
A few charts showing 20-year quit rates via FRED:
* ALL Non-Farm: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/JTSQUR
* Professional and Business Services (which I believe captures software) https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/JTS540099QUL
List of all the options https://fred.stlouisfed.org/categories/32247
* ALL Non-Farm: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/JTSQUR
* Professional and Business Services (which I believe captures software) https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/JTS540099QUL
List of all the options https://fred.stlouisfed.org/categories/32247
Interesting. Looks like a rising trend since the last financial crises. The effect of corona seems to be limited to a dip around the beginning of the pandemic, presumably due to uncertainty. No great resignation wave though, judging by the graph.
No great resignation wave, are we looking at the same charts? Both charts have the highest values ever since they started tracking this in 2001, and we've only seen increases in monthly quits since the start of 2021.
All non-farm looks like the continuation of existing trends and professional and business services looks lower than existing trends.
Hiring is just picking up. If you didn’t grab the best people during the pandemic because you had an incredible glut of qualified people applying, good luck doing that shit now.
Should be good for wages then.
Unfortunately my company already did our yearly compensation adjustment. 2%, of course.
Unfortunately my company already did our yearly compensation adjustment. 2%, of course.
Sounds like my employer, and I’ve been on-site for 1 year. Their excuse for 2% raises was that the economy was bad, despite record earnings and productivity during the pandemic. Now that inflation is 5%, I’m gone with another 2% raise.
Found the Amazonian
Google's yearly raises are generally the same as Amazon I've learned, for what it's worth. The difference is the bonus and refreshers, and the fact that there are more evaluation periods with more achievement buckets.
During the pandemic it was almost impossible to find qualified engineers.
Because everyone is clinging to their jobs in times of uncertainty.
+1. We froze all hiring during the initial lockdowns, while continuing to advertise our positions. Now we're hiring again but, in aggregate, all of the good engineers who were made redundant have already been hired and those that remain are the bad ones.
Im quitting and not looking for another job. Gonna use the savings to take a gap year, or a couple, work on some stuff I want maybe. Maybe more involvement in OSS is coming too?
I've never had a gap year, it was all school, then immigration, work, university, more work. Any holiday time you fly back home. I kept hearing its not unusual for people in the west to take gap years, so thats what Im doing.
edit: thank you all for advice, encouragement as well as for cautious pessimism. By the amount of upvotes Im hoping Im not the only one doing this. See you out there!
I've never had a gap year, it was all school, then immigration, work, university, more work. Any holiday time you fly back home. I kept hearing its not unusual for people in the west to take gap years, so thats what Im doing.
edit: thank you all for advice, encouragement as well as for cautious pessimism. By the amount of upvotes Im hoping Im not the only one doing this. See you out there!
>Maybe more involvement in OSS is coming too?
Yep, that's what I'm seeing already.
Financially incentivized OSS (much of which falls under the label 'crypto') is very attractive if you're in the top percentiles of competence & drive.
Has there ever been an open, competitive, global, beurocracy-free, low barrier to entry market like this?
Yep, that's what I'm seeing already.
Financially incentivized OSS (much of which falls under the label 'crypto') is very attractive if you're in the top percentiles of competence & drive.
Has there ever been an open, competitive, global, beurocracy-free, low barrier to entry market like this?
Can you give some examples of this financially incentivized OSS that falls under 'crypto' ?
Much of crypto codebases are open source, where at the end of the day you're pushing to an OSS codebase.
If you're paid by a crypto co., foundation, grants, or are financially incentivized by your crypto holdings to contribute, you're often within the bounds of both OSS & crypto.
example: devs that've contributed to Defi projects e.g. uniswap, or received ethereum or solana grants for their OSS code (i think nearly everything user-facing in these organizations is OSS).
If you're paid by a crypto co., foundation, grants, or are financially incentivized by your crypto holdings to contribute, you're often within the bounds of both OSS & crypto.
example: devs that've contributed to Defi projects e.g. uniswap, or received ethereum or solana grants for their OSS code (i think nearly everything user-facing in these organizations is OSS).
Best of luck!
I didn't do a gap year either. I left education at 16 and immediately went into FTE and have been there ever since (for longer than I dare count) and now that I am all wrapped up in a mortgage and kids I'm not sure I'll be taking a gap year any time soon (voluntarily, anyway!)
FWIW I have worked with several colleagues who took a gap year and never stopped. They pick up remote contract work along their travels and continue living the life of a modern day nomad. Not one of them is unhappy :)
I didn't do a gap year either. I left education at 16 and immediately went into FTE and have been there ever since (for longer than I dare count) and now that I am all wrapped up in a mortgage and kids I'm not sure I'll be taking a gap year any time soon (voluntarily, anyway!)
FWIW I have worked with several colleagues who took a gap year and never stopped. They pick up remote contract work along their travels and continue living the life of a modern day nomad. Not one of them is unhappy :)
>I kept hearing its not unusual for people in the west to take gap years, so thats what Im doing.
You hear a heck of a lot more about it on HN than happens in reality.
Maybe I don't hang out with the trust fund crowd enough but I don't know ANYONE who's taken a "gap year" where they weren't doing something for ~40hr/wk in order to make a buck. I know a few people who didn't jump right into career stuff after college but even they did low pay large applicant pool type jobs at least tangentially related to their careers (e.g. working as basically unskilled labor on tourist fishing charters in Miami before getting a real entry level job on a container ship). Heck, even the people who took a year off before college were doing stuff tangentially related to their career/skillset in that time (e.g. working for geek squad prior to going to school for CE). I know a couple people who went from full time to part time or to less demanding jobs in their field prior to retirement. I know a couple people who did jobs not related to their vocational training for less than a year after they got out of the military but that was more of a stopgap to keep a roof over their head. I don't know anyone who's gone from full time to part time or less unless it's part of a career transition or approach to retirement. I'm sure there's someone somewhere who's managed to pay their rent by waiting tables and stripping for a grand total of 15hr/wk and spent the rest of the time doing art or writing a book or something. I'm sure there's someone who's banked a ton of money and taken a year off in the middle of their career. I don't know anyone who's pulled something like that off.
You hear a heck of a lot more about it on HN than happens in reality.
Maybe I don't hang out with the trust fund crowd enough but I don't know ANYONE who's taken a "gap year" where they weren't doing something for ~40hr/wk in order to make a buck. I know a few people who didn't jump right into career stuff after college but even they did low pay large applicant pool type jobs at least tangentially related to their careers (e.g. working as basically unskilled labor on tourist fishing charters in Miami before getting a real entry level job on a container ship). Heck, even the people who took a year off before college were doing stuff tangentially related to their career/skillset in that time (e.g. working for geek squad prior to going to school for CE). I know a couple people who went from full time to part time or to less demanding jobs in their field prior to retirement. I know a couple people who did jobs not related to their vocational training for less than a year after they got out of the military but that was more of a stopgap to keep a roof over their head. I don't know anyone who's gone from full time to part time or less unless it's part of a career transition or approach to retirement. I'm sure there's someone somewhere who's managed to pay their rent by waiting tables and stripping for a grand total of 15hr/wk and spent the rest of the time doing art or writing a book or something. I'm sure there's someone who's banked a ton of money and taken a year off in the middle of their career. I don't know anyone who's pulled something like that off.
I only heard about it from friends here in UK, and they would typically do it between collage and uni. Thats when I came here and had to start working to support myself.
Pretty common for a sizeable portion of high school graduates in Australia to take a gap year either immediately after graduation or after their first year of uni
A good fraction of people I’ve come across in uni in the US have taken gap years (or just take forever to finish college). This is not normal for regular immigrants these days. I did not have saturdays off from when I was 15 till I turned 32. Even then I was in a tech job which had great vacation but still not months at a time. It’s literally alien for folks like us to have an entire year where we don’t need to report to anything at all. I wish the OP the best, I’m still waiting for the day I can do the same but that’s at least years away.
I learnt of this sort of thing only after I moved to the UK, where it's traditional for wealthy and middle-upper-class kids to take a long break between college and university - a habit that probably comes from the times of the "grand tours" of continental Europe in XVIII and XIX century.
I've met people who do it on a 6-months basis - 6 months travelling, 6 months earning. They don't make much, their career is somewhat stalled, it would have probably ended when/if they had a kid, but they did it. They were conscious that they were sacrificing something (money, comforts) in exchange for this lifestyle.
I've met people who do it on a 6-months basis - 6 months travelling, 6 months earning. They don't make much, their career is somewhat stalled, it would have probably ended when/if they had a kid, but they did it. They were conscious that they were sacrificing something (money, comforts) in exchange for this lifestyle.
In the US, before Jerry Garcia died, it used to be called 'touring with the Dead'
Its pretty common for ordinary middle class kids - and remember in the UK a degree is three years not the US four years (or even longer in Europe)
Bit harder now post Brexit though
Bit harder now post Brexit though
Between Brexit and COVID most of the typical destinations are out for a while, by the sound of it.
Almost all of the people I knew who did gap years before or after university went to either Australia or New Zealand (from the UK) following a three teaching-year degree with an extra industrial placement year - Australia in particular have (had?) a scheme where someone can live and work for a year with few restrictions provided they are under 30, and could extend that to two years if working in a rural area for some of that time.
Almost all of the people I knew who did gap years before or after university went to either Australia or New Zealand (from the UK) following a three teaching-year degree with an extra industrial placement year - Australia in particular have (had?) a scheme where someone can live and work for a year with few restrictions provided they are under 30, and could extend that to two years if working in a rural area for some of that time.
It's called the working holiday visa. I went to New Zealand on that after my first job. You have to work in agriculture for 3 months to extend your one year visa.
This is my experience too. The impact on career progression is very minimal when it done intentionally. There are of course people who think it's a lark, but before 2020 there were many folks developing skills that will catapult them forward after they graduated.
I've moved to the US and can see how things are very different culturally with regard to travel. Others have mentioned that the US is not into backpacking. I think it's less about that, and more about travel being a prize for retirement.
I've seen this changing a bit in my time in the US, but it's still the norm for a lot of people who then end up being unable to travel. The US has many more people who are skilled and equipped for a backpacking lifestyle than I found in the UK.
I've moved to the US and can see how things are very different culturally with regard to travel. Others have mentioned that the US is not into backpacking. I think it's less about that, and more about travel being a prize for retirement.
I've seen this changing a bit in my time in the US, but it's still the norm for a lot of people who then end up being unable to travel. The US has many more people who are skilled and equipped for a backpacking lifestyle than I found in the UK.
>Others have mentioned that the US is not into backpacking.
I assume "backpacking" in this context tends to mean riding trains around Europe, staying in hostels/couchsurfing/etc.
The US has a fair bit of backpacking and camping in National Parks/Forests/long-distance trails although it's not necessarily a fully mainstream activity. But much less of the "European-style" backpacking.
I think it's partly a difference of scale and ability to get around without a car once you get out of a handful of (mostly expensive) cities.
I assume "backpacking" in this context tends to mean riding trains around Europe, staying in hostels/couchsurfing/etc.
The US has a fair bit of backpacking and camping in National Parks/Forests/long-distance trails although it's not necessarily a fully mainstream activity. But much less of the "European-style" backpacking.
I think it's partly a difference of scale and ability to get around without a car once you get out of a handful of (mostly expensive) cities.
There is no UK wide education system - first degrees in Scotland are usually 4 years.
I did this. I worked for the year cleaning toilets. It’s not all rich middle class folk who do it :)
I wonder if maternity/paternity leave laws in UK have any affect on making this more feasible?
My understanding is that workers get a year of maternity leave, a few weeks of paternity leave, and there is some sort of sharing arrangement whereby maternity leave can be used to extend paternity leave.
When maternity/paternity leave ends, the worker must be given their job back.
I'd expect that at many employers they can't just have the work that someone on leave would have done go undone so they are going to have to bring on someone else to do it--someone who knows that they will only be needed until the person they are filling in for comes back from leave.
Thus, I'd expect there to be a need across nearly all industries and at nearly all skill levels for people who want to fill a 6 month to a year opening.
Compare to the US (Federal 12 weeks maternity leave if your company has 50 people, no legally required maternity leave otherwise--individual states sometimes add more), where openings for people to work a temporary job for a few months tend to either be low end jobs or very specialized consulting jobs. The former don't pay enough to afford a 6 on/6 off lifestyle, and the latter are out of reach of most people. There aren't many good middle-class jobs to support 6 on/6 off.
My understanding is that workers get a year of maternity leave, a few weeks of paternity leave, and there is some sort of sharing arrangement whereby maternity leave can be used to extend paternity leave.
When maternity/paternity leave ends, the worker must be given their job back.
I'd expect that at many employers they can't just have the work that someone on leave would have done go undone so they are going to have to bring on someone else to do it--someone who knows that they will only be needed until the person they are filling in for comes back from leave.
Thus, I'd expect there to be a need across nearly all industries and at nearly all skill levels for people who want to fill a 6 month to a year opening.
Compare to the US (Federal 12 weeks maternity leave if your company has 50 people, no legally required maternity leave otherwise--individual states sometimes add more), where openings for people to work a temporary job for a few months tend to either be low end jobs or very specialized consulting jobs. The former don't pay enough to afford a 6 on/6 off lifestyle, and the latter are out of reach of most people. There aren't many good middle-class jobs to support 6 on/6 off.
Maternity temping is definitely a thing. Also, hospitality - outside London, the flow of tourists is typically too low in the Winter months to sustain jobs, but picks up significantly in Summer. The Christmas Rush also starts around mid-October now, in terms of recruiting, so that will give you around 3 months of steady employment in bookshops and other retail.
well, it's not usual for first-gen immigrants doing a gap year unless rich, so i applaud parent for living his dream. it's pretty usual in western europe for middle-class children doing this.
In Germany, gap years after school or sometimes university are pretty common (at least for the middle class). They do often work, but rarely in a field related to what they studied or want to do. Instead, it’s travel-financing jobs.
It used to be that it was more a thing for women, but that probably changed since draft was abandoned (before that the gap year for men would usually have been military service or alternative civilian service)
It used to be that it was more a thing for women, but that probably changed since draft was abandoned (before that the gap year for men would usually have been military service or alternative civilian service)
Are you sure about middle class O_o
Higher-middle and upper class more likely? Kids which need to earn their money usually go straight into apprenticeship or university and earn money promptly.
Higher-middle and upper class more likely? Kids which need to earn their money usually go straight into apprenticeship or university and earn money promptly.
Do we really have a precise scale for those things?
People tend to flip flop between the classical "wealthy people but not born into centuries old familial wealth on the top end and successful doctors, lawyers and financial professionals on the bottom end" definition and the "blue collar workers plus or minus a little" definition based on whichever is more convenient for the point they are trying to make that minute.
Basically the GP is using the former definition and the person you're replying to is using the latter definition.
Crap on the Marxists all you want but they do at least have a fairly unambiguous taxonomy for these distinctions.
Basically the GP is using the former definition and the person you're replying to is using the latter definition.
Crap on the Marxists all you want but they do at least have a fairly unambiguous taxonomy for these distinctions.
Most HN readers would be more than a little flummoxed at what "middle class" actually is in the US. The median household income is somewhere between $50-60k depending on where you look. The median individual income is a solid $15-20k less than that. And yet people will still nearly break their own spine trying to convolute a $200k cash comp tech worker as "middle class" because they happen to pay $4k/mo for a shared apartment in San Francisco.
Well that depends on whether you're defining middle class as an income or a lifestyle. If the latter, I would certainly not consider any shared living arrangements as "middle class" in the US. Even if your income band puts you in the top 1%. Now, it's quite possible that they're choosing a lesser lifestyle now in order to save and transition to another lifestyle elsewhere. That's what my brother did -- two years in SV saving as much as possible, then moved back to Seattle and bought a house.
This is why any of these definitions get really murky, fast.
This is why any of these definitions get really murky, fast.
Its "class" we are talking about here and it does exist in the US compare Bill Gates vs Steve Jobs and Woz.
Are those three not in the same "class"?
While Gates was richer than Jobs, once you're in the $100B vs. $10B, you're mostly in the keeping score category. Woz is apparently worth about $100M which is still in the you can buy pretty much anything you want category. So I would say yes.
On the other hand, someone who is worth, say, $10M or $20M is obviously still quite wealthy. But not necessarily in the doesn't need to think twice about hopping on a private plane or owning a private island category.
On the other hand, someone who is worth, say, $10M or $20M is obviously still quite wealthy. But not necessarily in the doesn't need to think twice about hopping on a private plane or owning a private island category.
Not initially anyway its not all about money
So what is it about? You're acting like we should all know what you mean. Typically when someone talks about class they referring to income, wealth, and sometimes debt.
> at what "middle class" actually is in the US.
I think it is deeper than that, the country just has a confused relationship with the entire concept of class by both rejecting and embracing it.
I think it is deeper than that, the country just has a confused relationship with the entire concept of class by both rejecting and embracing it.
> Basically the GP is using the former definition
I actually oriented myself more on the numbers for Germany. Which means middle class is a single household with about 2000€ net income per month. That includes a lot of trade workers. It is perfectly possible to finance a gap year without or just minor parental support.
I actually oriented myself more on the numbers for Germany. Which means middle class is a single household with about 2000€ net income per month. That includes a lot of trade workers. It is perfectly possible to finance a gap year without or just minor parental support.
In the UK it's very common. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... is some UK gov research that suggests it's about 20% of UK university students, which matches my experiences.
Obviously it's easier with rich parents, but it doesn't really require as much cash as you're imagining. It's pretty common to work a little first then use all the cash to travel later for example, or to work while you travel, e.g. by teaching English (TEFL - https://www.tefl.org/blog/why-tefl-on-your-gap-year/).
Obviously it's easier with rich parents, but it doesn't really require as much cash as you're imagining. It's pretty common to work a little first then use all the cash to travel later for example, or to work while you travel, e.g. by teaching English (TEFL - https://www.tefl.org/blog/why-tefl-on-your-gap-year/).
Doesn't university student already imply financial security? I don't know how socialist education is in the UK nowadays. I know in the Netherlands it used to be that your education is effectively paid for (either free / you get a scholarship like I did, or a very attractive loan scheme). But they changed the system so it's a loan for everyone now, which will put a damper on how many people go to college / university AND everybody that graduates will be in debt, which works against them if they're looking for a house in an already overheated market.
It's a bit above £9000 a year but everyone gets a student loan guaranteed, same with some level of means tested maintenance loan. This means that it's usually a "free" upfront cost to go to uni, however you eventually have to pay it off once you become financially eligible to do so
Your last point is important. If you don't earn enough, the loan is never repaid. Also, in the last 10 years or so the cost was tripled.
The loan in the UK is effectively a tax, and doesn’t really directly play into anything when getting a mortgage for example (but of course your take home is reduced)
The point is though - you don’t get anything at all until you actually attend classes. So taking a gap year means having to fund it yourself, or have generous parents but what this comments author describes is closer to ‘normal’ - a large number, not necessarily a majority, of 18year olds will plan out a gap year contingent on taking a part time job at some point and then using that to fund travel or something - before taking up a place on a course (and hence receiving the money)
If you have luck/motivation/connections/skillset - you might find a job related to your (future) degree too. I knew several people on my CS course who worked IT support at a local office for a few months whilst living with their parents - then set off on a backpacking trip somewhere exotic.
The point is though - you don’t get anything at all until you actually attend classes. So taking a gap year means having to fund it yourself, or have generous parents but what this comments author describes is closer to ‘normal’ - a large number, not necessarily a majority, of 18year olds will plan out a gap year contingent on taking a part time job at some point and then using that to fund travel or something - before taking up a place on a course (and hence receiving the money)
If you have luck/motivation/connections/skillset - you might find a job related to your (future) degree too. I knew several people on my CS course who worked IT support at a local office for a few months whilst living with their parents - then set off on a backpacking trip somewhere exotic.
Not really. It's not free, but its dramatically cheaper than the US, and usually paid via government-provided loans with good terms (low interest, fixed repayment of 9% percent of your salary above a reasonable minimum, taken automatically by employers). It's closer to a graduate tax than a traditional loan.
Everybody can have a loan for the full cost if they want one, people from poorer families get outright grants instead.
Certainly not perfect, but my impression is it hasn't significantly hindered uptake from lower income students and its not a major financial burden in practice.
Everybody can have a loan for the full cost if they want one, people from poorer families get outright grants instead.
Certainly not perfect, but my impression is it hasn't significantly hindered uptake from lower income students and its not a major financial burden in practice.
That's not been my experience here in the UK. Plenty of my friends spent 6 months working to pay for 6 months of low-budget travelling before heading off to university or whatever they were planning to do next (or sometimes they hadn't figured out what they were wanting to do next yet)
Might be a difference in terminology tbh.
In the UK "upper class" is used almost exclusively for aristocrats. No matter how rich you are, unless there is a viable way for you to hold a title (e.g. Earl), you will not be considered upper class.
Middle class is basically anyone who does knowledge work and has aspirations of home ownership.
Your description of "Kids which need to earn their money usually go straight into apprenticeship or university and earn money promptly" would be very likely to be working class kids in the UK i.e. unlikely to be middle class.
In the UK "upper class" is used almost exclusively for aristocrats. No matter how rich you are, unless there is a viable way for you to hold a title (e.g. Earl), you will not be considered upper class.
Middle class is basically anyone who does knowledge work and has aspirations of home ownership.
Your description of "Kids which need to earn their money usually go straight into apprenticeship or university and earn money promptly" would be very likely to be working class kids in the UK i.e. unlikely to be middle class.
And technically upper class is doesn't need to work and can live of investments / property.
Its a bit more complex in the UK ABc1 is middle but their are social distinctions dependant on job not income.
For example A Plumber Miner or train driver might make more than an engineer but would be working class.
Basically what sort of honour would you get for doing charity work is a good marker
Its a bit more complex in the UK ABc1 is middle but their are social distinctions dependant on job not income.
For example A Plumber Miner or train driver might make more than an engineer but would be working class.
Basically what sort of honour would you get for doing charity work is a good marker
Yeah, I am sure (or at least for the time I left school around 15 years ago) I’d even include upper-lower class.
I know quite a few people from various background (finance, multinational corporations, non-profits) doing things like these. Depends on employer. In hindsight always regarded as one of the best decisions of their lives (along with reducing workload to 80%, usually 4 days/week).
We all know that once old, the amount of money earned/saved will mean absolutely nothing in terms of happiness/achievement. Work achievements for office type jobs mean mean even less. The life lived well will mean everything. So some act accordingly when/if possible.
I haven't done gap year myself, but did a shorter variant - 2 times 3 months backpacking around India and Nepal. Remote Himalaya in the north, swimming in coral reefs on Amdamans, Thar desert in the west, and thousands of years of history, culture and people to meet everywhere in between. I still barely scratched the surface of what this place can offer.
Literally the best decision in my life. It changed me for the better. It motivated me to make changes in my career, go for consulting, move to Switzerland etc.
Have met tons of people from all over the world who were like this - traveling like this for 3-24 months, and then continuing work/study/beginning someplace else.
These trips I've done when having a pretty high mortgage and very little savings, and they both meant losing at least 2 salaries each time while expenses mounted. No rich family to cover for me anyhow if I would hit the financial wall. Still well worth the risk. If one doesn't have kids yet, there is practically nothing to lose with doing this, just gain.
We all know that once old, the amount of money earned/saved will mean absolutely nothing in terms of happiness/achievement. Work achievements for office type jobs mean mean even less. The life lived well will mean everything. So some act accordingly when/if possible.
I haven't done gap year myself, but did a shorter variant - 2 times 3 months backpacking around India and Nepal. Remote Himalaya in the north, swimming in coral reefs on Amdamans, Thar desert in the west, and thousands of years of history, culture and people to meet everywhere in between. I still barely scratched the surface of what this place can offer.
Literally the best decision in my life. It changed me for the better. It motivated me to make changes in my career, go for consulting, move to Switzerland etc.
Have met tons of people from all over the world who were like this - traveling like this for 3-24 months, and then continuing work/study/beginning someplace else.
These trips I've done when having a pretty high mortgage and very little savings, and they both meant losing at least 2 salaries each time while expenses mounted. No rich family to cover for me anyhow if I would hit the financial wall. Still well worth the risk. If one doesn't have kids yet, there is practically nothing to lose with doing this, just gain.
> We all know that once old, the amount of money earned/saved will mean absolutely nothing in terms of happiness/achievement.
I dont think this is true at all. Money in retirement means the difference between mostly maintaining your standard of living after work an “choosing between medicine and food each week”. I think a lot of people saving up and then spending all their savings to party every 5 years are in for a shock when they are 60 and their joints are sore and their knees don’t work and they can no longer make a salary.
I dont think this is true at all. Money in retirement means the difference between mostly maintaining your standard of living after work an “choosing between medicine and food each week”. I think a lot of people saving up and then spending all their savings to party every 5 years are in for a shock when they are 60 and their joints are sore and their knees don’t work and they can no longer make a salary.
US vs Europe perspective - here you can rely on healthcare much more to actually take care of you while not ruining you. One of the benefits of not living in a society which more in the mode of 'everybody for themselves, and fuck the rest'
I guess we have different social circles, but I know many people who have done this and none of them are "trust fund crowd". Have done it myself for multiple half-year-or-so periods as well. Maybe it's more of a European thing to do.
I spent 3 months as a research assistant in Australia and used savings from that period to travel in South-East Asia and South America for 6 months or so. Shortly after graduating, having saved a bit as a student (again - Europe, I managed without student debt, having done web development next to my studies), I went to a conference in Taiwan with my MSc thesis and traveled back home over land. Then after working a little bit on my first job again I traveled, hitchhiking to/through the Middle East and Russia.
It's all very doable if you don't spend a lot - during many of these trips I spent $400-$1000/month.
Highly recommend it, traveling in Turkey/Iran/Oman/Georgia/Russia/Ukraine definitely shaped my perspective on the world.
I spent 3 months as a research assistant in Australia and used savings from that period to travel in South-East Asia and South America for 6 months or so. Shortly after graduating, having saved a bit as a student (again - Europe, I managed without student debt, having done web development next to my studies), I went to a conference in Taiwan with my MSc thesis and traveled back home over land. Then after working a little bit on my first job again I traveled, hitchhiking to/through the Middle East and Russia.
It's all very doable if you don't spend a lot - during many of these trips I spent $400-$1000/month.
Highly recommend it, traveling in Turkey/Iran/Oman/Georgia/Russia/Ukraine definitely shaped my perspective on the world.
It is a very popular thing to do in the UK before or after university. Around 20% of people at my university did the whole travel around Europe or Australia thing.
Edit - Sorry, see all the peer comments made the same point.
Edit - Sorry, see all the peer comments made the same point.
I'm studying at a UK university too, and I always scratch my head as to how on earth people get the money to travel around Europe or Australia before they go to uni. Who funds it?
> Who funds it?
Generally, I think family does. Some families have more money than others. It also depends how much the parents are willing and able to sacrifice, of course.
The same way you might scratch your head wondering how some fellow students pay for rentals you can't imagine affording, and alcohol binges you can't imagine affording. Students from poorer families rarely go on gap years. But even some poorer parents will sacrifice a lot, if they can find a way, to pay for their children to travel.
That said, the costs aren't outrageous. Travelling around Europe or Australia is fairly cheap for a young person (or at least used to be). There are schemes to allow travelling costs to be lower for young people, visas tend to be cheaper and easier to get, and people do local, temporary work e.g. in bars in kitchens to supplement the money they brought with them, to make it last longer.
I went to university in the UK a long time ago. And I struggled to understand how people afforded gap years (or rent) then, too. I never had a gap year, and it makes me a little sad. But as I couldn't even afford to eat regular meals, and certainly couldn't join people for socialising when they went out to places like Pizza Hut (too expensive), it was the right decision not to take a gap year :/
Generally, I think family does. Some families have more money than others. It also depends how much the parents are willing and able to sacrifice, of course.
The same way you might scratch your head wondering how some fellow students pay for rentals you can't imagine affording, and alcohol binges you can't imagine affording. Students from poorer families rarely go on gap years. But even some poorer parents will sacrifice a lot, if they can find a way, to pay for their children to travel.
That said, the costs aren't outrageous. Travelling around Europe or Australia is fairly cheap for a young person (or at least used to be). There are schemes to allow travelling costs to be lower for young people, visas tend to be cheaper and easier to get, and people do local, temporary work e.g. in bars in kitchens to supplement the money they brought with them, to make it last longer.
I went to university in the UK a long time ago. And I struggled to understand how people afforded gap years (or rent) then, too. I never had a gap year, and it makes me a little sad. But as I couldn't even afford to eat regular meals, and certainly couldn't join people for socialising when they went out to places like Pizza Hut (too expensive), it was the right decision not to take a gap year :/
There is a wide distribution of wealth in capitalist societies, and a lot of it is hidden from sight. Financing a relatively low-budget formative and educational gap year is something thrifty and financially conservative people would do for their kids.
I had my moments, worrying about a friend's finances and professional decisions, only to learn later that, well, there was clearly nothing to worry about.
I had my moments, worrying about a friend's finances and professional decisions, only to learn later that, well, there was clearly nothing to worry about.
The exchange rate is what makes it possible. Any $1000USD goes a long way in many places. If you save $24.000USD you can live like an itinerant mid-to-upper-middle-class for a full year in most or all of Latin America, for example.
Yup. When I played online poker for a living for a bit after college, coming home for a few months and staying with my parents was more expensive than traveling.
Here in Brazil minimum wage is currently in USD a bit less than $200/month. In my city, which is one of the biggest, you can live confortably with $400/month in my lifestyle, which admitedly is quite frugal. $2k month is quite high-class imo.
> Maybe it's more of a European thing to do.
Yeah, for Americans it means buying health insurance which is quite a lot more expensive than what you get from your employer.
Yeah, for Americans it means buying health insurance which is quite a lot more expensive than what you get from your employer.
You can get travel insurance for extended trips. I'm American and I've taken multiple 6-month trips abroad (usually after quitting a job). Backpacking just isn't part of the American culture.
Regular travel insurance != health insurance. It will basically cover you getting stabilized and shipped back home but then you're on your own. (And lost travel deposits.)
Don't even bother with the travel insurance, pay for health care out of pocket in another country. Travel insurance is only needed for traveling in America for the reason you stated.
IMO travel insurance sometimes makes sense. Circumstances like high altitude trekking that may require expensive evacuation. Expensive non-refundable trips, especially those that a broken ankle before or during the trip could put a rapid stop to.
That said, I've only purchased travel insurance maybe a half-dozen times out of probably hundreds of trips.
That said, I've only purchased travel insurance maybe a half-dozen times out of probably hundreds of trips.
You need to make sure it covers that altitude. They top out around a certain altitude in the fine print you usually need to pay a little extra for altitudes like Kilimanjaro. Make sure it has helo evacuation covered for all altitudes.
Good point. The few times I was up at that sort of elevation or higher, the insurance was always through someone the guide company specifically recommended. Fortunately, I've never had any significant altitude issues.
No. A two week stay at a private hospital in SE Asia could set you back more than the deductible and co-insurance in the US.
And trust me, you want a private hospital in some of those countries. Even the locals wouldn’t go to a public hospital if they had a choice.
And trust me, you want a private hospital in some of those countries. Even the locals wouldn’t go to a public hospital if they had a choice.
You can continue your employer insurance for 18 months. But, as you say, it's more out of your pocket because your employer is now no longer subsidizing it.
You're referring to COBRA, and when my wife and I had a month lapse because of her switching jobs, it would have cost us $1300/month to continue her insurance. Not cheap.
I just got off 2 months of it between jobs, was around $1,100 for me as well. Certainly not cheap without the subsidization but also probably not a real concern if you're looking at taking a year off work anyways.
If you aren’t earning an income you can get free healthcare
Citation?
How about the entirety of the US medicaid program? If you literally have no income you get free healthcare, even if you have limited income you may qualify for Medicaid or a heavily discounted marketplace plan.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid
Though I suspect it's a lot more complicated than calling them up, telling them you've decided to take a gap year, and asking for your insurance card. It also wouldn't surprise me, never having looked into it, if the coverage is US only.
There's an online form where you upload your info, they verify your income level (duration does not matter), and that's it (at least in NY). I don't think any government healthcare programs cover care outside that government's country, do they? I suppose the EU ones cover care in other EU countries but that's the only case I can think of.
Based on that article, the programs vary widely by state including eligibility standards and rates of reimbursement.
> As of 2013, Medicaid is a program intended for those with low income, but a low income is not the only requirement to enroll in the program. Eligibility is categorical—that is, to enroll one must be a member of a category defined by statute; some of these categories are: low-income children below a certain wage, pregnant women, parents of Medicaid-eligible children who meet certain income requirements, low-income disabled people who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and/or Social Security Disability (SSD), and low-income seniors 65 and older.
This makes it seem like it's not just "low income", but also membership in one of those other categories.
I also didn't see anything on the page that indicated what share of expenses were covered by medicaid, but perhaps I missed it.
> As of 2013, Medicaid is a program intended for those with low income, but a low income is not the only requirement to enroll in the program. Eligibility is categorical—that is, to enroll one must be a member of a category defined by statute; some of these categories are: low-income children below a certain wage, pregnant women, parents of Medicaid-eligible children who meet certain income requirements, low-income disabled people who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and/or Social Security Disability (SSD), and low-income seniors 65 and older.
This makes it seem like it's not just "low income", but also membership in one of those other categories.
I also didn't see anything on the page that indicated what share of expenses were covered by medicaid, but perhaps I missed it.
You are not getting health insurance in most European countries unless you are working or registered as unemployed and remain at disposal of the local job centre.
And the whole meme that a 65% tax rate +25% vat on most products on top of it (I am in Sweden) is somehow worth it financially because "fReE HeAlThCaRe" is laughable.
And the whole meme that a 65% tax rate +25% vat on most products on top of it (I am in Sweden) is somehow worth it financially because "fReE HeAlThCaRe" is laughable.
How do you figure you have a 65% tax rate in Sweden? Are you including social security contributions?
I certainly am.
Mostly this.
Maybe it's more lax in the more worker friendly socialist regions like France or Scandinavia but in Austria you only get healthcare coverage if you work or are unemployed and registered as a job seeker which means staying in the country and proving to your local job center on a regular basis that you are looking for work.
Traveling abroad for leisure while unemployed automatically disqualifies you from receiving any healthcare coverage and unemployment benefits until you return.
Doesn't mean there aren't people cheating the system and taking vacations abroad while receiving unemployment but the rules are strict and being caught cheating is really bad for you.
Also doing courses on your own dime during unemployment, that are not on the job center's curriculum, like a boot camp in data science, automatically disqualifies you from unemployment benefits during that period. I tried explaining to my case worker at the job center that a data science certification gives me the opportunity for a better paid job afterwards and I need the unemployment benefits for that period and her response was "sorry sir, that's the law".
Yeah, the system is extremely stupid and archaic in some cases here and if you're an ambitious high achiever it can screw you over sometimes more than it helps you.
Maybe it's more lax in the more worker friendly socialist regions like France or Scandinavia but in Austria you only get healthcare coverage if you work or are unemployed and registered as a job seeker which means staying in the country and proving to your local job center on a regular basis that you are looking for work.
Traveling abroad for leisure while unemployed automatically disqualifies you from receiving any healthcare coverage and unemployment benefits until you return.
Doesn't mean there aren't people cheating the system and taking vacations abroad while receiving unemployment but the rules are strict and being caught cheating is really bad for you.
Also doing courses on your own dime during unemployment, that are not on the job center's curriculum, like a boot camp in data science, automatically disqualifies you from unemployment benefits during that period. I tried explaining to my case worker at the job center that a data science certification gives me the opportunity for a better paid job afterwards and I need the unemployment benefits for that period and her response was "sorry sir, that's the law".
Yeah, the system is extremely stupid and archaic in some cases here and if you're an ambitious high achiever it can screw you over sometimes more than it helps you.
I find that strange for Austria, considering that in Romania; when unemployed, and not being registered as a job seeker, you can still have insurance.
It's automatic in those situations you've described, but you can buy into the system otherwise.
At today's exchange rate if you'd like to benefit from the healthcare system, for a year, you'd have to make a 271 EUR contribution, with no other criteria required.
It's automatic in those situations you've described, but you can buy into the system otherwise.
At today's exchange rate if you'd like to benefit from the healthcare system, for a year, you'd have to make a 271 EUR contribution, with no other criteria required.
The system in Austria is extremely rigid and sometimes verges on idiotic in some cases due to how archaic and pro-business it is.
As a Romanian I can say you'd be surprised how many things the Romanian system gets right in favor of the workers in comparison to some western countries. At least on paper.
As a Romanian I can say you'd be surprised how many things the Romanian system gets right in favor of the workers in comparison to some western countries. At least on paper.
In Germany, there is obligatory health insurance (when you're employed in a normal job up to certain income, or receiving welfare), and voluntary insurance (otherwise), but having health insurance is compulsory. In other words, if you're not obliged to have obligatory health insurance, you must take out voluntary insurance.
With some historical context it can be made to make some sense, but when dealing with it the first time it is prima facie absurd.
With some historical context it can be made to make some sense, but when dealing with it the first time it is prima facie absurd.
To be clear, I'm merely saying "the complexities of the American healthcare system might be why Europeans are more inclined to take gap years". That said, I didn't know that European public health insurance was commonly contingent on employment. I would be curious to know more about this.
I am honestly very bitter about Americans glorifying the European system while happily taking home 2/3rds of their 100k+ developer salaries and enjoying much lower prices of everything.
With regards to insurance:
- in some countries (UK, Sweden) - the insurance is contingent on having a social security number, so the coverage is pretty much universal for residents, but people coming from other EU countries will still need to work or register as unemployed to get it.
- in other countries, you generally need to be working or looking for work (i.e. answer phones / invitations from job centre and attend any interviews/courses they send you to) to be covered.
Some countries (Poland for example, I'm Polish) allow you to buy insurance if you are neither working nor looking for work. But as of December 2020, about 1.5 mln Poles are not insured at all. [1]
[1] https://tvn24.pl/polska/szczepionka-na-koronawirusa-czy-osob...
With regards to insurance:
- in some countries (UK, Sweden) - the insurance is contingent on having a social security number, so the coverage is pretty much universal for residents, but people coming from other EU countries will still need to work or register as unemployed to get it.
- in other countries, you generally need to be working or looking for work (i.e. answer phones / invitations from job centre and attend any interviews/courses they send you to) to be covered.
Some countries (Poland for example, I'm Polish) allow you to buy insurance if you are neither working nor looking for work. But as of December 2020, about 1.5 mln Poles are not insured at all. [1]
[1] https://tvn24.pl/polska/szczepionka-na-koronawirusa-czy-osob...
> I am honestly very bitter about Americans glorifying the European system while happily taking home 2/3rds of their 100k+ developer salaries and enjoying much lower prices of everything.
I agree, although I think the ignorance extends to Europeans as well. Europeans are often surprised to hear that American software professional salaries are ~60% higher than European salaries even after adjusting for taxes, healthcare, vacation, etc. Some will argue that the US cost of living is more expensive, but they're almost always comparing some major US metropolis with some European village or perhaps an Eastern European city. I've seen other arguments that the cost of housing in the US is comparable or more expensive, but they're typically comparing some relatively tiny European apartment with a much larger American home. Europeans seem to fixate on medical bankruptcies, as though these are commonplace for upper-middleclass Americans.
This was all a surprise to me, an American, who has tried earnestly to live in Western Europe for a few years, but found that I can either live in Europe or I can travel in Europe but trying to do both would likely be economically infeasible (even if I can find gainful work as a software professional, it would specifically be difficult for my wife who isn't in a hot field). Fortunately, now that remote work is catching on, it seems likely that my wife and I will be able to do more frequent 1-3 month stints in Europe while remaining employed by our American companies.
To be clear, I think the United States healthcare system should be reformed, because it doesn't serve the poorest Americans very well. However, the US healthcare system works pretty well for the upper middle class (if not the whole of the middle class) and above, contrary to perceptions I frequently hear from some Americans and Europeans.
I agree, although I think the ignorance extends to Europeans as well. Europeans are often surprised to hear that American software professional salaries are ~60% higher than European salaries even after adjusting for taxes, healthcare, vacation, etc. Some will argue that the US cost of living is more expensive, but they're almost always comparing some major US metropolis with some European village or perhaps an Eastern European city. I've seen other arguments that the cost of housing in the US is comparable or more expensive, but they're typically comparing some relatively tiny European apartment with a much larger American home. Europeans seem to fixate on medical bankruptcies, as though these are commonplace for upper-middleclass Americans.
This was all a surprise to me, an American, who has tried earnestly to live in Western Europe for a few years, but found that I can either live in Europe or I can travel in Europe but trying to do both would likely be economically infeasible (even if I can find gainful work as a software professional, it would specifically be difficult for my wife who isn't in a hot field). Fortunately, now that remote work is catching on, it seems likely that my wife and I will be able to do more frequent 1-3 month stints in Europe while remaining employed by our American companies.
To be clear, I think the United States healthcare system should be reformed, because it doesn't serve the poorest Americans very well. However, the US healthcare system works pretty well for the upper middle class (if not the whole of the middle class) and above, contrary to perceptions I frequently hear from some Americans and Europeans.
How difficult is it to work remotely in a different country? I’ve thought about doing this but it seems like it’s be a lot of hassle with my employer and navigating local laws in Europe.
My wife and I work for smaller firms. Both of our managers seem okay with it provided we keep American-ish hours. I get the vibe that they're just not worried about it, perhaps out of ignorance or perhaps because it just seems unlikely that a single employee working remotely for a short amount of time is likely to provoke the ire of any tax authorities.
> To be clear, I think the United States healthcare system should be reformed, because it doesn't serve the poorest Americans very well.
This depends on the state; Medicaid expansion is doing good things for the poorest people in states where it exists.
The US benefit system is tilted towards the poor, old, and people with children (distant 3rd.) It has some bad welfare cliffs for disabled people, and is the worst for middle class self-employed who aren't on their parents' insurance.
Unfortunately this last group includes all online writers and popular social media users, which is why they pretend it doesn't exist for anyone.
This depends on the state; Medicaid expansion is doing good things for the poorest people in states where it exists.
The US benefit system is tilted towards the poor, old, and people with children (distant 3rd.) It has some bad welfare cliffs for disabled people, and is the worst for middle class self-employed who aren't on their parents' insurance.
Unfortunately this last group includes all online writers and popular social media users, which is why they pretend it doesn't exist for anyone.
> I am honestly very bitter about Americans glorifying the European system while happily taking home 2/3rds of their 100k+ developer salaries and enjoying much lower prices of everything.
Why do you believe those salaries are the result of the American healthcare system? Per-capita, Americans pay more than anyone for healthcare, just in a very unbalanced way that dramatically favors those with a job over those without.
Regarding comparing tax rates, those six figure job numbers don't include the substantial amount the employer is paying to the healthcare company.
Bitterness about the salary gap is understandable, but it's misguided to say that the fucked-up parts of the US system are what has produced the high-revenue/high-profit companies that are driving the compensation levels.
Why do you believe those salaries are the result of the American healthcare system? Per-capita, Americans pay more than anyone for healthcare, just in a very unbalanced way that dramatically favors those with a job over those without.
Regarding comparing tax rates, those six figure job numbers don't include the substantial amount the employer is paying to the healthcare company.
Bitterness about the salary gap is understandable, but it's misguided to say that the fucked-up parts of the US system are what has produced the high-revenue/high-profit companies that are driving the compensation levels.
Notably, Americans pay more per capita for Medicare and Medicaid alone than many European countries pay per capita for universal coverage.
> Regarding comparing tax rates, those six figure job numbers don't include the substantial amount the employer is paying to the healthcare company.
To be fair, in many European countries - and certainly for Sweden - there's substantial payroll taxes paid by employers as well. Though to end up at 65% in Sweden even with employers payroll taxes tacked on, you're already earning a multiple of an average salary.
> Regarding comparing tax rates, those six figure job numbers don't include the substantial amount the employer is paying to the healthcare company.
To be fair, in many European countries - and certainly for Sweden - there's substantial payroll taxes paid by employers as well. Though to end up at 65% in Sweden even with employers payroll taxes tacked on, you're already earning a multiple of an average salary.
> Why do you believe those salaries are the result of the American healthcare system? Per-capita, Americans pay more than anyone for healthcare, just in a very unbalanced way that dramatically favors those with a job over those without.
It doesn't really matter whether or not the salary difference is caused by healthcare or indeed that Americans pay more for healthcare. The only thing that matters is the post-healthcare take-home pay; if that figure is larger in American than Sweden for a given individual, then that individual is economically better off in America pretty much tautologically.
It doesn't really matter whether or not the salary difference is caused by healthcare or indeed that Americans pay more for healthcare. The only thing that matters is the post-healthcare take-home pay; if that figure is larger in American than Sweden for a given individual, then that individual is economically better off in America pretty much tautologically.
But what matters from the perspective of the American complaining about their healthcare system, though, is if they would be even better off with their same salary but a less fucked up healthcare system.
As long as that seems to be true, you'll see people complaining about it, and they'll have a valid reason for their complaints.
As long as that seems to be true, you'll see people complaining about it, and they'll have a valid reason for their complaints.
Your point is valid, but I don't think that's what we're talking about in this thread. Rather, we're talking about Europeans and Americans who have the perception that the overall economic situation of professional employees is dramatically rosier in Europe.
Personally, I think we should have a single payer system if only for the fact that it likely better serves poorer Americans.
Personally, I think we should have a single payer system if only for the fact that it likely better serves poorer Americans.
Yeah, I was talking specifically about the "it would be nice to easily take a gap year"-sourced comparison of healthcare alone - though even that apparently is not so pro-Europe after all, with the folks discussing how you'd have to be actively seeking work to be covered.
The other advantage of a universal system is, it still works when you're so sick you lose your job. COBRA is not good enough.
In Switzerland at least, health insurance is definitely _not_ contingent on employment. It is specifically a private issue.
Most (all?) European health care is not contingent on employment. With a few exceptions (notably the UK) it is contingent on being able to afford it, and one way to do that is following the rules to have the gov't pay for it. It's guaranteed, and highly regulated in price; it's not free.
The easiest way to afford it is to have a job. However, if you are willing to pay more (still much less than equivalent US health insurance, e.g. in Germany around 180€/mo) you can buy it directly. Or, you can participate in that country's social safety net which, yes, usually requires you to actively seek a job (often for some loose definition of "actively.")
The easiest way to afford it is to have a job. However, if you are willing to pay more (still much less than equivalent US health insurance, e.g. in Germany around 180€/mo) you can buy it directly. Or, you can participate in that country's social safety net which, yes, usually requires you to actively seek a job (often for some loose definition of "actively.")
This is just semantics. If you have to pay more because of your employment status, then the system in question is contingent on employment for all useful purposes.
The claim is that "European public health insurance is commonly contingent on employment", not "European public health insurance monthly payments vary based on employment status."
The only way you could end up paying more is if you previously made an average amount of money, have a lot of savings, but now make nothing. Normally this is called "retirement" and if you didn't save enough for it, you don't do it.
The only way you could end up paying more is if you previously made an average amount of money, have a lot of savings, but now make nothing. Normally this is called "retirement" and if you didn't save enough for it, you don't do it.
Indeed. In Canada if you’re out of the country longer than 6 months you’re not longer insured (in Canada). And in fact, insurance doesn’t cover you outside the country anyways.
Varies by province. In Quebec, they have a similar absence rule to what you described (for being outside Quebec even if in another Canadian province), but they entirely exclude absences of under 21 days from the calculation, and they have a bunch of exceptions, including a "once every 7 years" exception for miscellaneous personal reasons including leisure vacations that just requires you to notify them in order to qualify. And in theory they will reimburse expenses outside of Quebec, even outside of Canada, but only at Quebec's very low rates.
Still, yeah, very different than how US health insurance works, agreed.
Still, yeah, very different than how US health insurance works, agreed.
Anything that starts "In Canada, ..." is generally suspect. Canada is a confederation. Most things are in the purview of the provinces, so there's rarely a globally applicable rule. Canada does not have a single healthcare system, but thirteen separate provincial and territorial healthcare plans.
You're not guaranteed to be covered for 6 months. If you leave permanently and settle within Canada, BC will cover you for the remainder of the month plus two months (enough time to establish residency in the destination and get coverage). If you leave the country, you are covered for the remainder of the month.
If it's a temporary leave, however, several of the provinces do cover you outside of the province, and many will extend your coverage for quite a long time depending on the circumstances. BC allows you to retain coverage for a 2 year trip during every 5 year period. They also (like many provinces) will extend your coverage as long as you're in school full time in another location.
You're not guaranteed to be covered for 6 months. If you leave permanently and settle within Canada, BC will cover you for the remainder of the month plus two months (enough time to establish residency in the destination and get coverage). If you leave the country, you are covered for the remainder of the month.
If it's a temporary leave, however, several of the provinces do cover you outside of the province, and many will extend your coverage for quite a long time depending on the circumstances. BC allows you to retain coverage for a 2 year trip during every 5 year period. They also (like many provinces) will extend your coverage as long as you're in school full time in another location.
Fair point on each province being different.
BC does not cover care outside of Canada (assuming that’s what you meant by “2 year trip”) with the exception of emergency care at a max of $75 per day.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/health/health-drug-covera...
BC does not cover care outside of Canada (assuming that’s what you meant by “2 year trip”) with the exception of emergency care at a max of $75 per day.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/health/health-drug-covera...
> You are not getting health insurance in most European countries unless you are working or registered as unemployed and remain at disposal of the local job centre.
Not the case in France (at least for the past 20 years), and I doubt it's the case in most other European countries.
Not the case in France (at least for the past 20 years), and I doubt it's the case in most other European countries.
>Not the case in France (at least for the past 20 years), and I doubt it's the case in most other European countries.
Nope, your parent is right, in Austria you also don't get healthcare if you don't work or are looking for work via your local job center.
Maybe France is an exception due to having stronger social system that heavily favors the workers (insert memes about strikes) while in Austria the system is very rigid, designed to favor businesses and the government rather than the workers and to discourage abuse.
Nope, your parent is right, in Austria you also don't get healthcare if you don't work or are looking for work via your local job center.
Maybe France is an exception due to having stronger social system that heavily favors the workers (insert memes about strikes) while in Austria the system is very rigid, designed to favor businesses and the government rather than the workers and to discourage abuse.
I'm pretty sure that's not the case in the UK either, given how it's financed.
It is not - you get access to healthcare at all times (employed or otherwise, young or old) and simply pay a slightly higher tax rate when you are working to pay for it.
definitely the case in Germany. If you're unemployment and not looking for a job or exempt from it(sickness, poverty, ...), you're going to need to pay on your own.
So... not the case in Germany. You don't need to be employed or in social programs, you can just pay money. In Germany it's a fixed amount, less than you would pay if you had income, and they can't refuse you.
I know to a European this might sound like the only two options, but pre-Obamacare, and very possibly again if the US can't get its shit together, it was impossible to buy health insurance no matter how much money you had for a large number of unemployed or self-employed people.
I know to a European this might sound like the only two options, but pre-Obamacare, and very possibly again if the US can't get its shit together, it was impossible to buy health insurance no matter how much money you had for a large number of unemployed or self-employed people.
> You don't need to be employed or in social programs, you can just pay money
If there are different pricing tiers based on employment status, then the healthcare system is contingent on employment by definition. It's commendable that the American and European healthcare systems aren't contingent on pre-existing conditions, but that's a distinct issue.
If there are different pricing tiers based on employment status, then the healthcare system is contingent on employment by definition. It's commendable that the American and European healthcare systems aren't contingent on pre-existing conditions, but that's a distinct issue.
If you are employed the employer pays half and if you are not they don't (somewhat obviously, since if they don't exist they can't). This is only "pricing tiers" in the most vapid sense.
That description could just as easily be for the US. Maybe you disagree with the terminology, but when people talk about their health insurance being predicated on their employment, this is what they are talking about.
Obamacare, for all its controversy and limitations, removed the ability to screen for pre-existing condition which was a very important feature. Prior, some people who weren't covered by an employer's group policy simply couldn't get insurance for any amount of money.
Now, yes insurance is expensive, but anyone can get it for about 2x what most people who get healthcare as a benefit are paying into an employer's health care plan.
Now, yes insurance is expensive, but anyone can get it for about 2x what most people who get healthcare as a benefit are paying into an employer's health care plan.
> You are not getting health insurance in most European countries unless you are working or registered as unemployed and remain at disposal of the local job centre.
Or your partner has health insurance. Or you are studying (even if you take gap year at university). Or you happen to have farming land. Etc, etc - lots of exceptions.
Or you pay for it yourself from your savings (under 100 USD a month last I've checked).
Or your partner has health insurance. Or you are studying (even if you take gap year at university). Or you happen to have farming land. Etc, etc - lots of exceptions.
Or you pay for it yourself from your savings (under 100 USD a month last I've checked).
The vast majority in Sweden pays nothing like "65% tax rate + 25% vat", though. To get to that tax rate you need to earn far above average.
Someone who is single with no child earning 167% of an average wage pays ~35% income tax and social security contributions [1].
The effective VAT also for most ends up far lower as a proportion of income, as most people don't spend anywhere near their whole income on VAT-rated products. For starters, you can't spend what you've already paid in tax. As such the VAT rate has a relatively low impact on total tax paid - the difference between the UK vat rate when I moved here (at the time 17.5%) and the Norwegian VAT rate of 25% added up to only about 1 percentage point difference in total taxation for me.
[1] Source: OECD Taxing Wages 2021
Someone who is single with no child earning 167% of an average wage pays ~35% income tax and social security contributions [1].
The effective VAT also for most ends up far lower as a proportion of income, as most people don't spend anywhere near their whole income on VAT-rated products. For starters, you can't spend what you've already paid in tax. As such the VAT rate has a relatively low impact on total tax paid - the difference between the UK vat rate when I moved here (at the time 17.5%) and the Norwegian VAT rate of 25% added up to only about 1 percentage point difference in total taxation for me.
[1] Source: OECD Taxing Wages 2021
> The vast majority in Sweden pays nothing like "65% tax rate + 25% vat", though. To get to that tax rate you need to earn far above average.
First of all, the OP is including the social security tax in the 65% figure. But more importantly, arguing that "the average Swede doesn't pay that much in tax" isn't very consoling for the American who would have to (1) take a salary hit to live in Sweden and (2) have to pay that higher tax rate. Universal healthcare doesn't remotely make up the difference in take-home pay.
As a reference point, taxes, retirement/pension/social-security, and healthcare account for ~30% of my gross salary in the U.S. If I moved to just about any Western European country (not sure about Sweden in particular), my take-home pay would likely fall by 40% (conservatively) while taxes and cost of living would likely rise.
Of course, the tradeoff for the Swedish system is that you have a stronger social safety net, which is certainly worth something. But the issue at hand is the notion that the European systems are better than the American system for professional employees.
First of all, the OP is including the social security tax in the 65% figure. But more importantly, arguing that "the average Swede doesn't pay that much in tax" isn't very consoling for the American who would have to (1) take a salary hit to live in Sweden and (2) have to pay that higher tax rate. Universal healthcare doesn't remotely make up the difference in take-home pay.
As a reference point, taxes, retirement/pension/social-security, and healthcare account for ~30% of my gross salary in the U.S. If I moved to just about any Western European country (not sure about Sweden in particular), my take-home pay would likely fall by 40% (conservatively) while taxes and cost of living would likely rise.
Of course, the tradeoff for the Swedish system is that you have a stronger social safety net, which is certainly worth something. But the issue at hand is the notion that the European systems are better than the American system for professional employees.
The numbers I quoted also include the social security taxes (I edited to make that clear, so apologies if you replied before I made that edit). Swedish marginal rates certainly are among the highest in Europe, but the proportion who pay that much is tiny.
And yes, there are people who will end up paying more, and it sucks for them.
The point is there's always this scaremongering about tax rates when it comes to Europe, and most of the time the tax rates that comes up are marginal rates that are not at all representative.
And yes, there are people who will end up paying more, and it sucks for them.
The point is there's always this scaremongering about tax rates when it comes to Europe, and most of the time the tax rates that comes up are marginal rates that are not at all representative.
As a self-employed person, my marginal rate starts at over 50% (ignoring the rather insignificant yearly allowance).
As self-employed, you'll be paying social security rates set to cover what would otherwise be paid by the employer via payroll taxes, as otherwise using self employed people would be an easy way of evading tax.
(My point was not to dismiss that you might well pay a very high tax rate, by the way, because the rate you gave is certainly possible, but to point out that paying a rate that high is highly unusually high, even in Sweden)
(My point was not to dismiss that you might well pay a very high tax rate, by the way, because the rate you gave is certainly possible, but to point out that paying a rate that high is highly unusually high, even in Sweden)
> The point is there's always this scaremongering about tax rates when it comes to Europe, and most of the time the tax rates that comes up are marginal rates that are not at all representative.
As an American, I find the tax rates much less scary than the raw differences in salary. If I could keep my US salary, healthcare, tax rates, etc and move to Europe for a few years, I would do so in a heartbeat.
As an American, I find the tax rates much less scary than the raw differences in salary. If I could keep my US salary, healthcare, tax rates, etc and move to Europe for a few years, I would do so in a heartbeat.
I don't think that's a considerations for most. Salary differences internally in both the US and Europe are large enough that there's a huge overlap. For my part in the instances where taking US jobs have come up the salary differences ended up being small enough not to be worthwhile.
Tax rates also depends greatly on which locations you're comparing. Between e.g. California and the UK the difference was small enough when I looked into it that it'd be easily eaten up by healthcare.
For my part, I spend about $5k/month total on living costs including sending a kid to private school and mortgage on a 3 bedroom house in London, and ordering food in most days, and I'm being hugely wasteful and could make do with far less of I had to.
The rest goes into investments.
Tax rates also depends greatly on which locations you're comparing. Between e.g. California and the UK the difference was small enough when I looked into it that it'd be easily eaten up by healthcare.
For my part, I spend about $5k/month total on living costs including sending a kid to private school and mortgage on a 3 bedroom house in London, and ordering food in most days, and I'm being hugely wasteful and could make do with far less of I had to.
The rest goes into investments.
> I don't think that's a considerations for most. Salary differences internally in both the US and Europe are large enough that there's a huge overlap.
How does that work? Presumably if the median salary for a given field is 40% lower, then the jobs which pay at my well-above-the-median salary are going to be much fewer and farther between with more competition. Add to that laws that (understandably) favor EU citizens and it seems like it would be quite difficult to get one's hands on those positions?
> Tax rates also depends greatly on which locations you're comparing. Between e.g. California and the UK the difference was small enough when I looked into it that it'd be easily eaten up by healthcare.
Yeah, like I said, I'm less concerned about tax rates. No surprise that California tax rates are comparable to London tax rates though; California is notoriously expensive and many Californians seem eager to move to other parts of the country.
How does that work? Presumably if the median salary for a given field is 40% lower, then the jobs which pay at my well-above-the-median salary are going to be much fewer and farther between with more competition. Add to that laws that (understandably) favor EU citizens and it seems like it would be quite difficult to get one's hands on those positions?
> Tax rates also depends greatly on which locations you're comparing. Between e.g. California and the UK the difference was small enough when I looked into it that it'd be easily eaten up by healthcare.
Yeah, like I said, I'm less concerned about tax rates. No surprise that California tax rates are comparable to London tax rates though; California is notoriously expensive and many Californians seem eager to move to other parts of the country.
> How does that work?
The point is that it's meaningless to make blanket statements about whole continents when the differences are so substantial within them, and mobility within them is much less than you might expect. E.g. consider the number of Eastern European developers who could significantly increase their salaries by moving to higher paid locations in Europe, but you instead stay and e.g. work for local agencies. As such, you're not competing against all of Europe if you go to the highest paid locations in Europe any more than you're competing against all of the US in Silicon Valley.
The point is that it's meaningless to make blanket statements about whole continents when the differences are so substantial within them, and mobility within them is much less than you might expect. E.g. consider the number of Eastern European developers who could significantly increase their salaries by moving to higher paid locations in Europe, but you instead stay and e.g. work for local agencies. As such, you're not competing against all of Europe if you go to the highest paid locations in Europe any more than you're competing against all of the US in Silicon Valley.
How many medical bankruptcies occur in those European countries?
That might not be an accurate way to measure it, because "bankruptcy" can mean very different things by country.
In some countries, individuals often don't qualify for bankruptcy. In others you might be able to restructure your debts, but they might not be discharged. In some, you may need to give up significant possessions to pay for your debts.
The US, for all of its healthcare issues, actually has a relatively progressive and accessible bankruptcy system. The majority of people in the US who file Chapter 7 have all of their assets exempted from liquidation by law. For these people, bankruptcy is literally as simple as a matter of trading all of their debt for 10 years of a bad mark on their credit report.
In some countries, individuals often don't qualify for bankruptcy. In others you might be able to restructure your debts, but they might not be discharged. In some, you may need to give up significant possessions to pay for your debts.
The US, for all of its healthcare issues, actually has a relatively progressive and accessible bankruptcy system. The majority of people in the US who file Chapter 7 have all of their assets exempted from liquidation by law. For these people, bankruptcy is literally as simple as a matter of trading all of their debt for 10 years of a bad mark on their credit report.
Even worse: Unless you pay private insurance yourself, the quality of the free insurance (at your nearest vårdcentralen) is absolutely laughable.
My family of 4 pays about 1800 SEK/month for private insurance to actually have a chance to see a competent doctor.
My family of 4 pays about 1800 SEK/month for private insurance to actually have a chance to see a competent doctor.
In the US, we pay 5x-10x that amount for a crappy high deductible plan that has measurably worse outcomes than your free insurance.
It is hard to overstate how bad US healthcare is for the typical American. If you are wealthy, you have access to some of the best doctors in the world, but for the rest of us we are entirely dependent on our employer for access to reasonable health care.
It is hard to overstate how bad US healthcare is for the typical American. If you are wealthy, you have access to some of the best doctors in the world, but for the rest of us we are entirely dependent on our employer for access to reasonable health care.
While I agree that vårdcentralen-level health care is hit or miss, the point is that _everyone_ has a basic level of health care and getting sick won’t bankrupt you.
This has the second-order effect that _I_ won’t have to worry about _someone dear to me_ will be personally bankrupted by a medical condition. It saves me having to decide whether or not I should indebt myself to pay for their treatment.
Not having to raise fundraisers for my family members cancer treatment is worth a whole lot of disposable income for me.
This has the second-order effect that _I_ won’t have to worry about _someone dear to me_ will be personally bankrupted by a medical condition. It saves me having to decide whether or not I should indebt myself to pay for their treatment.
Not having to raise fundraisers for my family members cancer treatment is worth a whole lot of disposable income for me.
Most gap years happen in the early 20s where most Americans can be on their parents coverage. Even if they're not, it's pretty cheap with subsidies for a young healthy person to buy insurance on the marketplace. Possibly even free depending on income.
Though anyone that has bought global health insurance will note that if you opt out of coverage for the US, the price is usually reduced by half.
It might get a bit more common since after the ACA you can stay on your parent's health insurance till you're 26 now if they have it.
In Germany, I can buy travel health insurance that covers an unlimited number of trips abroad of up to 8 weeks each (including basically any doctors and hospitals abroad, as well as transport back home when medically recommended) for about 15 USD a year, and similar insurance for trips up to 1 year for about 500 USD a year. (Valid worldwide, or excluding North America for a cheaper rate.)
(Recommendations (in German): https://www.finanztip.de/krankenversicherung/auslandsreisekr... )
(Recommendations (in German): https://www.finanztip.de/krankenversicherung/auslandsreisekr... )
Travel insurance doesn't cover chronic stuff, its goal is to make you able to travel home as soon as you able to in case you need long-term treatment.
What’s the limit on that? If it’s like 100-200k then i got bad news for you… also as other thread says they will deny everything that is even remotely chronic and likely also that wasn’t preapproved with them before the visit
If you live in NY or CA (not sure about other states) and are under retirement age, Medicaid is a thing and works great. No asset limit, just income, so regardless of what you've saved you're likely eligible - so you can quit your job and without paying COBRA things will be ok
I don’t think any country with single payer national health care covers travel insurance, so this would not put Americans in any different situation than others who are travelling for that gap year, which seems to be the topic here.
It assume it depends on the destination. I suspect most European healthcare systems cover you in most of Europe (maybe Schengen or EU?) while American systems only cover you in America. But yes, I suspect traveling to Africa or Asia puts the American and the European on equal footing.
Maybe a western/northern european thing to do.
In eastern Europe it's normal for your degree to take anywhere from 1-3 year longer than it should have for various reasons including "taking a year off to chill", but actual, planned gap years where you're not in education are basically unheard of. Let alone gap years where you travel around and spend money.
I know a few people who signed up for master degrees in say Germany and found that almost everyone in the program is a few years older then them.
In eastern Europe it's normal for your degree to take anywhere from 1-3 year longer than it should have for various reasons including "taking a year off to chill", but actual, planned gap years where you're not in education are basically unheard of. Let alone gap years where you travel around and spend money.
I know a few people who signed up for master degrees in say Germany and found that almost everyone in the program is a few years older then them.
> I know a few people who signed up for master degrees in say Germany and found that almost everyone in the program is a few years older then them.
Is that because of gap years, or an interest in actually getting industry experience before continuing academic education? I think I was about 6 years into my career before I thought I could really squeeze a lot of value out of a graduate program. (I didn't ever go back for one, though.)
Is that because of gap years, or an interest in actually getting industry experience before continuing academic education? I think I was about 6 years into my career before I thought I could really squeeze a lot of value out of a graduate program. (I didn't ever go back for one, though.)
The Bologna alignment in Germany created a lot of weird situations. The old Diplom degree varied a lot and could be counted as a bachelors or masters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplom#International_compariso...) leading to some Germans to go back to get a firm masters. Also if it was more than 10 years ago, some Germans I know did their first degree, then their conscripted service, then their second, which caused a 1-2 year gap.
[deleted]
> Maybe I don't hang out with the trust fund crowd enough
I'm not sure that's a fair characterization of people taking a gap year, especially people in tech. The industry pays well relatively early and there is a surplus of jobs. If you keep your expenses low relative to your salary, don't let your lifestyle inflate beyond your means, and are fortunate enough not to be burdened with debt, health problems, or other large expenses, a gap year seems completely doable.
I think failure to save money is by far the most likely reason sabbaticals are uncommon, though I've been told by hiring managers they're more common in tech than you'd think. There's also probably some stigma against being unemployed, especially in professional circles, as well as fear of the dreaded "resume gap." As far as I can tell, that concern is fairly overblown for those in tech as well.
I'm not sure that's a fair characterization of people taking a gap year, especially people in tech. The industry pays well relatively early and there is a surplus of jobs. If you keep your expenses low relative to your salary, don't let your lifestyle inflate beyond your means, and are fortunate enough not to be burdened with debt, health problems, or other large expenses, a gap year seems completely doable.
I think failure to save money is by far the most likely reason sabbaticals are uncommon, though I've been told by hiring managers they're more common in tech than you'd think. There's also probably some stigma against being unemployed, especially in professional circles, as well as fear of the dreaded "resume gap." As far as I can tell, that concern is fairly overblown for those in tech as well.
In the Europe I know, "sabbatical" means unpaid time off (commonly 6 months) while staying with the company. You don't get paid and don't accrue holidays/other benefits, but continue right where you left off when you're back.
I think option for this is required by law in some countries, though I've never taken it so I'm not exactly sure.
My former company allowed this after two years of continuous employment to let employees try their wings with building their own product. I thought this was pretty cool, and definitely a recruitment carrot. On the downside (for the company) lots of those colleagues ended up leaving after their sabbatical was up, but I figure that those people would have left soonish anyway. It's not like they would've had a problem getting a new job.
I think option for this is required by law in some countries, though I've never taken it so I'm not exactly sure.
My former company allowed this after two years of continuous employment to let employees try their wings with building their own product. I thought this was pretty cool, and definitely a recruitment carrot. On the downside (for the company) lots of those colleagues ended up leaving after their sabbatical was up, but I figure that those people would have left soonish anyway. It's not like they would've had a problem getting a new job.
Here in the UK _most_ of the people I met at university didn't know gap years were an option. Post university it's been the same. The few who do take it absolutely love it. I personally didn't know either until I met a few people at university who got to the UK through the Erasmus programme.
It's sad really. As a young person this is the time to be able to do it. Often as you get older life gets in the way. I've been wanting to do it ever since I found out about it but every time something else has gotten in the way. If you're young and reading this, and everything has aligned for you, take a gap year or two.
It's sad really. As a young person this is the time to be able to do it. Often as you get older life gets in the way. I've been wanting to do it ever since I found out about it but every time something else has gotten in the way. If you're young and reading this, and everything has aligned for you, take a gap year or two.
Few do that in France. Is it because we already have plenty of PTO (5 weeks, plus often 12 more days because the legal week is 35 hours but we usually do more)?
Anyway, I took a gap time at age 36 for a 3 months trip in South America. And this allowed me to take an turn in my career when I came back.
Anyway, I took a gap time at age 36 for a 3 months trip in South America. And this allowed me to take an turn in my career when I came back.
> trust fund crowd
You're on a discussion board filled with software developers and tech employees generally. The vast majority of such workers make a lot of money. If you're working in tech and you can't bank enough to take 6m-1yr off, you're doing your finances wrong. It doesn't require a trust fund to avoid the hedonic treadmill and save up.
You're on a discussion board filled with software developers and tech employees generally. The vast majority of such workers make a lot of money. If you're working in tech and you can't bank enough to take 6m-1yr off, you're doing your finances wrong. It doesn't require a trust fund to avoid the hedonic treadmill and save up.
That's not true everywhere.
Yes and no. Depends on your seniority and where you live to some degree. I was pretty burnt out at 28 after a year that included things like a 110 hour work week. At the time I couldn't afford 6 months or a year off.
I did take a year off 2 years later.
I did take a year off 2 years later.
Yeah, I easily make twice as much as I spend.
So I take a year of now and then, if I feel like it.
So I take a year of now and then, if I feel like it.
Do you ever find this makes finding a new job on return difficult?
> Do you ever find this makes finding a new job on return difficult?
I am not the same person you asked the question to, but I guess if you work on a couple of hobby projects and actually release those in your break year, you won't have holes in your CV.
I am not the same person you asked the question to, but I guess if you work on a couple of hobby projects and actually release those in your break year, you won't have holes in your CV.
Good point. I guess it depends on what kind of break you want...
If you make twice as much as you need without being extremely frugal, you likely have the skills to compensate that.
[deleted]
Job searching with "stranger" companies becomes harder.
But if you leave enough coworkers who want to work with you again at each job, you can always find jobs through them.
But if you leave enough coworkers who want to work with you again at each job, you can always find jobs through them.
Yep, makes sense :-)
Heck, I’m a poor grad student who gets a stipend from my program and is lucky enough to have parents willing and able to pay my rent. My total income including that family support is probably around $40k and I saved a ton of money this past year since I couldn’t do anything. I can only imagine how much someone in my situation with a FAANG income would have saved.
Obviously if your parents are paying your largest expense, you can save a ton of money. I would assume most people aren't that fortunate.
My point is even with that money my income isn’t that high compared to software engineers.
If you were suddenly responsible for your room and board how long could you coast without a job or other support?
As long as my grad school stipend keeps going. I just wouldn't be able to save anymore.
Understood, but your expenses as a student are also unlikely to be very high, especially if your parents are covering rent/medical/etc, especially if you're comparing to SWEs in SV.
[deleted]
Sure if you don't have a family to provide for. It turns out that it becomes a lot harder to take a gap year when you've still got a spouse and little people depending on you.
I don't see this as much different from "sure, if you don't have a million dollar mortgage and 2 car payments to cover!"
Having a family is partially a financial decision. People should make the decision with eyes wide open, having planned for it. Achieving a financial position above sustenance before having the expensive family is generally a good idea. Same as buying the house and cars.
Having a family is partially a financial decision. People should make the decision with eyes wide open, having planned for it. Achieving a financial position above sustenance before having the expensive family is generally a good idea. Same as buying the house and cars.
Having a family is the bedrock of society. If only the top 10% of earners had one, we'd find ourselves in some trouble.
You are thinking from the point of view of someone with no mortgage, no family and you can choose what to do with your spare income. Some of us have a family or a house and that means they have renounced traveling.
You can have a family, a house be sustainable but not earning enough to be able to pay for a year off of work. Which is the lot of 99.99% of people on this planet.
You can have a family, a house be sustainable but not earning enough to be able to pay for a year off of work. Which is the lot of 99.99% of people on this planet.
> You can have a family, a house be sustainable but not earning enough to be able to pay for a year off of work.
I think we have different definitions of "sustainable", then.
What you're describing sounds one step up from living paycheck to paycheck. And the fact that "most people are in that position!" doesn't make it a good position to be in, or a necessary one.
I think we have different definitions of "sustainable", then.
What you're describing sounds one step up from living paycheck to paycheck. And the fact that "most people are in that position!" doesn't make it a good position to be in, or a necessary one.
You can travel with your family too. You won't be able to quit your job, go backpacking, and stay in youth hostels.
But, you can go on road trips, go camping, you can take a cruise, or find an all inclusive resorts. You won't have as much time for yourself like you did in your youth, but you can still travel and you'll make memories with your family, and show them new things about the world.
But, you can go on road trips, go camping, you can take a cruise, or find an all inclusive resorts. You won't have as much time for yourself like you did in your youth, but you can still travel and you'll make memories with your family, and show them new things about the world.
> If you're working in tech and you can't bank enough to take 6m-1yr off, you're doing your finances wrong.
Why would you assume to know what other people's financial situations are, let alone their wage scale in an industry where not everyone is a US-based SWE?
Why would you assume to know what other people's financial situations are, let alone their wage scale in an industry where not everyone is a US-based SWE?
Not to mention, even if you can save this much, put it in your 401(k), not a vacation savings account. The financial impact of taking a whole year without pay in your 20s probably adds 5 years to your retirement date, due to compounding interest and investment growth. Is it really worth it, just so you can fill your Insta with pictures of you windsurfing in Ibiza?
If you're writing so much software you hang out on HackerNews for fun, and you're not saving enough to max out your 401k AND have savings left over for 6 months off, you're doing your finances wrong (and/or you can get a 4x pay bump in a new job)
Oh I hang out on Hacker News for fun but it comes at the expense of not "writing so much software" ;)
Most people here, even most software engineers, don’t make the sky high salaries that “very high-level FAANG engineers who also live in the Bay Area” make. Many have families, kids, education expenses, parents they support, expensive health issues, etc. It’s a huge assumption to think that everyone on HN can max out a 401(k) at all, let alone have any left over to save and blow on extended unpaid vacations.
EDIT: Obviously (from the voting) I hit a raw nerve with that original comment. Who knew “save for retirement” was such controversial advice. I personally plan to ensure I do not have to eat dog food when I’m 80 because I partied in my 20s but I guess to each their own. Given the average American’s retirement savings rate, my plan is clearly unpopular!
EDIT: Obviously (from the voting) I hit a raw nerve with that original comment. Who knew “save for retirement” was such controversial advice. I personally plan to ensure I do not have to eat dog food when I’m 80 because I partied in my 20s but I guess to each their own. Given the average American’s retirement savings rate, my plan is clearly unpopular!
So you're saying that you're single-handedly pulling in between 2x and 5x the median household US income, yet can't set aside $20k a year for your 401k?
That means you're either not living on a budget at all, or you're doing something ridiculous like paying out of pocket for prescription medication without using the ACA.
That means you're either not living on a budget at all, or you're doing something ridiculous like paying out of pocket for prescription medication without using the ACA.
Why wait until one is old to have fun? Why assume one will even live to enjoy retirement? Can one even pick up windsurfing at a typical retirement age?
I took off 3 years in my 20’s. 34 now, and back on track to retire in my early 40’s. Saving for retirement and enjoying life today are not mutually exclusive.
I took off 3 years in my 20’s. 34 now, and back on track to retire in my early 40’s. Saving for retirement and enjoying life today are not mutually exclusive.
This sums up my (admittedly naive) view towards retirement. Why would I sacrifice so much of my youth for a future so far down the road that I will 1) most definitely be in worse shape for, and 2) may not even reach? I think the wringer of grad school is enough of an investment in my future.
"Is it really worth it, just so you can fill your Insta with pictures of you windsurfing in Ibiza?"
Do you really think all these folks want to do is fill their Instagram with pictures of windsurfing in Ibiza?
That misses the entire point of travel. It isn't to show off on instagram (although that can be a fun component, it isn't the driver for 99% of people); it isn't to tell other people you did it.
It is to have this amazing experience with a foreign culture and place. And that is very hard to value.
Yes, planning for retirement is important. But you may also be dead before you get there. It takes balance.
Do you really think all these folks want to do is fill their Instagram with pictures of windsurfing in Ibiza?
That misses the entire point of travel. It isn't to show off on instagram (although that can be a fun component, it isn't the driver for 99% of people); it isn't to tell other people you did it.
It is to have this amazing experience with a foreign culture and place. And that is very hard to value.
Yes, planning for retirement is important. But you may also be dead before you get there. It takes balance.
It depends on the person. I think I'd rather go windsurfing in my 20s then try to do it in my 60s when my health is not as good. I probably won't remember posting it on Instagram, but I will remember going wind surfing.
Counter-point: Enjoy your youth while you're young.
There's a balance to find between saving for retirement and not spending your entire adulthood just working towards it.
You may not be able to windsurf anywhere in your 50s...
There's a balance to find between saving for retirement and not spending your entire adulthood just working towards it.
You may not be able to windsurf anywhere in your 50s...
I agree. I had two weeks off between grad school and my current job. I’ve been maxing out my 401k for 25 years and have zero debt (mortgage paid off 2 years ago). Could actually retire now at 49.
I did. I took almost a year off. It cost me about $35k in 2005 USD.
I was really burnt out. But I'm not sure that taking the time did anything for me. I was a little stressed about the "unknown" the whole time and I mostly wish I had left that money in my savings.
Your mileage may vary.
I was really burnt out. But I'm not sure that taking the time did anything for me. I was a little stressed about the "unknown" the whole time and I mostly wish I had left that money in my savings.
Your mileage may vary.
It’s not very difficult to do financially if you don’t mind moving to a lower cost of living country. You can live pretty well for 20k USD in many parts of the world.
This differs by gender. A married woman taking time off for domestic/child rearing/continuing education is very common. An adult male, it’s very uncommon unless you’re rich, which most posters here obviously are.
I did. I took a year and sailed. Sold my house and used some savings. I couldn't have done it if I had kept my house though. I was mid 30's at the time (40 now). I don't work in the valley though, I just do data and analytic design for corporations so finding a new job only took a week when I moved back to Columbus, OH after sailing.
While I did figure out I didn't love single handing a sailboat long term I don't regret any part of that year. I came back significantly happier than I was.
While I did figure out I didn't love single handing a sailboat long term I don't regret any part of that year. I came back significantly happier than I was.
OP here, learning to sail is one of my dreams and a potential candidate for first thing Ill want to do this year after quitting. Do you have any tips? I have some very small experience in it.
It's interesting reading the comments on HN because, although everyone isn't making say $300-600k+ TC/yr here, I think it's safe to assume the TC distribution shifts the median earner here safely above the median US earner, perhaps by even a multiple of two. This, in theory means if you lived a lifestyle akin to a median labor earner, you should only need to work about half the amount--part time, every other year, FIRE / retire early strategies and so on.
Most the advice is quite the opposite (and I would agree with them). To me, this really shows just how toxic the control is across the labor force. Job mobility is about the only vote or voice you have if you're in the labor force and if empty positions can be readily filled, you have no voice. The only reason things are interesting now is because the mass layoffs and turnover haven't been well stagged due to the pandemic so labor has more leverage. When true unemployment returns to norms, positions are largely re-filled, and attrition begins to follow traditional rates, the voice of the labor market voting will their feet will again fall on deaf ears and your voice will again disappear in the noise. It would take another global catastrophe to change this balance and give labor a voice again.
Most the advice is quite the opposite (and I would agree with them). To me, this really shows just how toxic the control is across the labor force. Job mobility is about the only vote or voice you have if you're in the labor force and if empty positions can be readily filled, you have no voice. The only reason things are interesting now is because the mass layoffs and turnover haven't been well stagged due to the pandemic so labor has more leverage. When true unemployment returns to norms, positions are largely re-filled, and attrition begins to follow traditional rates, the voice of the labor market voting will their feet will again fall on deaf ears and your voice will again disappear in the noise. It would take another global catastrophe to change this balance and give labor a voice again.
You do not need to be a trust fund kid to travel the world cheaply. I did when I was 23 (2004-ish) and realized I didn't like working. Took out a credit card with 5k credit limit, saved money for a month or two (I was making 40k so not exactly tons). Bought a ticket to Eastern Europe, kicked around hostels for a few months, when I finally almost ran out of money, bought a ticket back. I met other people who picked up side jobs in hostels or bars to help cover their costs too.
What you can't do is continue to have an expensive quality of life if you're no longer producing income.
What you can't do is continue to have an expensive quality of life if you're no longer producing income.
I have many rock climbing friends who live on less than 15k a year. They often do it for years, working seasonally 3-5 months a year. the trick is to go somewhere with a very cheap lifestyle. It can be accomplished by living in your car in the mountains, or traveling to SE Asia, etc. The climbing provides something to do and a sense of community.
There are other cultures like this. I’ve seen kids from Europe doing a gap year staying in hostels for very little (they sometimes do some light work for the hostel to get a free place to stay)
There are other cultures like this. I’ve seen kids from Europe doing a gap year staying in hostels for very little (they sometimes do some light work for the hostel to get a free place to stay)
I did a gap year at 25 and I only had 20k in savings and I traveled all over SE Asia and East Africa on that. Was a blast.
You hear a heck of a lot more about it on HN than happens in reality.
In my industry, and the one my wife works in, if you have a gap year it's a red flag that makes potential employers wonder if you got fired from your last job and just aren't listing it, or did time in prison, or are simply unreliable.
It's great that in the tech bubble people don't think much about gap years. But in the real world, they can doom your chances of getting a new job.
Especially since these days you don't get to explain the gap since your application is vetted, filtered, and ranked by a computer and not a person.
In my industry, and the one my wife works in, if you have a gap year it's a red flag that makes potential employers wonder if you got fired from your last job and just aren't listing it, or did time in prison, or are simply unreliable.
It's great that in the tech bubble people don't think much about gap years. But in the real world, they can doom your chances of getting a new job.
Especially since these days you don't get to explain the gap since your application is vetted, filtered, and ranked by a computer and not a person.
You might be surprised by what is possible when you set goals and live below your means. You might also be surprised by how little money it costs to take off a year mid-career.
When I finished university, I had a few weeks between graduation and my start date at a well known Midwestern embedded electronics company. I had a $7k signing bonus and I found a $500 round trip ticket to Rome, so I went to Rome. While I was there, I learned about the world of backpacking and hostels. I ended up spending 6 weeks in Europe before returning home. During that time I decided that travel was something I wanted to pursue in my life.
The salary at my entry level SWE job was $58k, which was pretty modest. I didn’t buy a new car. I didn’t buy a new house. I cooked most meals at home and I brought lunch to work. I tracked my expenses and budget using Mint, and set a goal to save $30k so I could leave and travel in SE Asia where I calculated the daily burn rate should be around $30/day. After three years I hit my savings goal and bought a one way ticket to Hawaii, then from Hawaii to Thailand. I ended up spending over a year outside of the country and returned home with a $10k cushion to get back on my feet.
The biggest leg up I had was graduating with $2000 in student loan debt, but that was made possible mostly through merit based scholarships. No trust fund.
I inspired a friend to do the same thing, except with a destination of Australia on a working holiday visa. Also no trust fund, just living below his means and saving over time.
My advice to you is to find a way to do the things you want to do instead of limiting yourself with beliefs that only the ultra-rich can take time off from work to pursue personal passions.
When I finished university, I had a few weeks between graduation and my start date at a well known Midwestern embedded electronics company. I had a $7k signing bonus and I found a $500 round trip ticket to Rome, so I went to Rome. While I was there, I learned about the world of backpacking and hostels. I ended up spending 6 weeks in Europe before returning home. During that time I decided that travel was something I wanted to pursue in my life.
The salary at my entry level SWE job was $58k, which was pretty modest. I didn’t buy a new car. I didn’t buy a new house. I cooked most meals at home and I brought lunch to work. I tracked my expenses and budget using Mint, and set a goal to save $30k so I could leave and travel in SE Asia where I calculated the daily burn rate should be around $30/day. After three years I hit my savings goal and bought a one way ticket to Hawaii, then from Hawaii to Thailand. I ended up spending over a year outside of the country and returned home with a $10k cushion to get back on my feet.
The biggest leg up I had was graduating with $2000 in student loan debt, but that was made possible mostly through merit based scholarships. No trust fund.
I inspired a friend to do the same thing, except with a destination of Australia on a working holiday visa. Also no trust fund, just living below his means and saving over time.
My advice to you is to find a way to do the things you want to do instead of limiting yourself with beliefs that only the ultra-rich can take time off from work to pursue personal passions.
Is it a gap year if you do something in-between jobs? I've done that
Good luck, and have fun!
I recommend traveling. See all the places, you want to see, with no pressure of having to go back to work by a fixed date, soon. Meet people, make new connections, chances are, you will find new opportunities to work, along the way.
Bonus points, if you have all your stuff packed somewhere and not have to pay any rent. But it depends what you want, if you like your home, keep it. Have projects in your home ...
There are lots of things to be done. Doing nothing is also fine for a while, but gets booring very soon and puts you in lethargic state ... wasting your time.
Bonus points, if you have all your stuff packed somewhere and not have to pay any rent. But it depends what you want, if you like your home, keep it. Have projects in your home ...
There are lots of things to be done. Doing nothing is also fine for a while, but gets booring very soon and puts you in lethargic state ... wasting your time.
I took 3 years off, didn’t do anything other than read, watch tv, go to the movies, and walk/ride my bicycle. Never traveled once. Loved every minute of it.
Doing nothing doesn’t get boring for everyone. And it’s my time not yours so who’s to say what a waste is?
My biggest advice is to do what you want and don’t feel like you have to live up to some HN-gap-year fantasy. You might regret sitting in your apartment surfing the internet (I didnt) but you might also regret traveling. It’s your time. Do what you want.
Doing nothing doesn’t get boring for everyone. And it’s my time not yours so who’s to say what a waste is?
My biggest advice is to do what you want and don’t feel like you have to live up to some HN-gap-year fantasy. You might regret sitting in your apartment surfing the internet (I didnt) but you might also regret traveling. It’s your time. Do what you want.
What did you end up doing after the 3 years? Why did you end it?
Got a job. Had 6 months of expenses left in the bank and didn’t want to risk dipping into stocks.
I wasn’t wealthy in the HN sense though. This was 2010-2013 and my rent for a tiny studio apartment was $550 a month. Other major expenses were just internet (50 a month), groceries (few hundred a month), gym (35 a month) and electricity (20 a month). No cell phone. No car.
For the 5 years leading up to that I was working full time during the day and doing freelance SEO writing side. Was able to save quite a bit. But I was really fortunate to be in the right time/place. Rent in my city had basically doubled (and then some) since then, for example.
I wasn’t wealthy in the HN sense though. This was 2010-2013 and my rent for a tiny studio apartment was $550 a month. Other major expenses were just internet (50 a month), groceries (few hundred a month), gym (35 a month) and electricity (20 a month). No cell phone. No car.
For the 5 years leading up to that I was working full time during the day and doing freelance SEO writing side. Was able to save quite a bit. But I was really fortunate to be in the right time/place. Rent in my city had basically doubled (and then some) since then, for example.
This is crazy impressive to me man, props. No phone/no car is rebellious in this day and age.
Lol thanks. I'm nearly 40 and still holding out on both. Never driven, never owned a smartphone. I have a pay as you go flip phone I got at Office Depot for work in 2015 but I never turn it on unless I need to make a call that won't go through Google Voice.
I just want to thank you for sharing your story and for me it's really a wholesome one. Best of luck to you on your further ways.
"Doing nothing doesn’t get boring for everyone. And it’s my time not yours so who’s to say what a waste is?"
You didn't do nothing for 3 years. You enjoyed your time, and you did things, so no, you did not waste it.
Otherwise I very strongly agree with, that you just should do, what you really want and not what others want.
After I decided to leave university, I planned a bike trip from germany to portugal. I wanted to do this. And I did it. But then, along the way, on the border to spain, at a nice place I stayed for a while ... I decided I had enough. Or I realized, that I had wanted this for a while already.
It was fun, but "accomplishing" my trip would have only meaning for my travel blog and the expectations of other people - but not for me.
I enjoyed the trip very much, but did not felt like moving further and spend the whole winter in the south. So screw other peoples expecations, I am doing what I want, so I flew back home.
You didn't do nothing for 3 years. You enjoyed your time, and you did things, so no, you did not waste it.
Otherwise I very strongly agree with, that you just should do, what you really want and not what others want.
After I decided to leave university, I planned a bike trip from germany to portugal. I wanted to do this. And I did it. But then, along the way, on the border to spain, at a nice place I stayed for a while ... I decided I had enough. Or I realized, that I had wanted this for a while already.
It was fun, but "accomplishing" my trip would have only meaning for my travel blog and the expectations of other people - but not for me.
I enjoyed the trip very much, but did not felt like moving further and spend the whole winter in the south. So screw other peoples expecations, I am doing what I want, so I flew back home.
OP here. This is the best advice. Although I do intend to do some travelling, I always detest when people put some sort of life-worth qualifier onto it, as if you havent lived your life if you havent done some milage. Thats just bullshit, or probably marketing effect.
>Im quitting and not looking for another job. Gonna use the savings to take a gap year, or a couple, work on some stuff I want maybe. Maybe more involvement in OSS is coming too?
Unless you have some serious FU money saved up, I'd strongly reconsider. A "gap year" as an adult can make you radioactive to potential employers. And that cash goes quick when there's none coming in. Trust me I know. It's alluring to just walk away. But trying to get a job when you're unemployed is literally 10x harder than while employed, regardless of the actual circumstances of your departure.
Just try taking a few weeks off first. And if that's not enough, ask for a sabbatical. At the very least have something lined up for a few months after you leave. Don't fall for the "I can have another job in two weeks" meme. It's rarely true in reality for all but the very top of the market.
Unless you have some serious FU money saved up, I'd strongly reconsider. A "gap year" as an adult can make you radioactive to potential employers. And that cash goes quick when there's none coming in. Trust me I know. It's alluring to just walk away. But trying to get a job when you're unemployed is literally 10x harder than while employed, regardless of the actual circumstances of your departure.
Just try taking a few weeks off first. And if that's not enough, ask for a sabbatical. At the very least have something lined up for a few months after you leave. Don't fall for the "I can have another job in two weeks" meme. It's rarely true in reality for all but the very top of the market.
I think this is horrible advice. I’ve hired all sorts of people with voluntary time off on their resume. Your experience doesn’t ‘expire’ in a single year. Life is about more than just working, if you have the money to take time off to enjoy your life you shouldn’t not do it out of fear.
He's right about it being harder to get a job while unemployed. You finish your gap year and then spend another 6 months trying to get hired. Maybe if you lived in SF it'd be easier.
Key thing, when you quit, don't burn bridges. I took a year off, did some traveling after working at my job for 8 years. At the end of the year, I applied to a few jobs, but my old boss contacted me to rehire me. I went back as if I never left. I am in a different field, so you experience may vary, but if you are in a good team, your old boss is likely to rehire you instead of investing in someone they don't know and have to train.
There are 200 resumes in this pile. 199 of them need to go for one reason or another. 'no recent experience' is one of those reasons.
My experience with tech hiring is getting three decent resumes for 5 open positions, everyone qualified gets an interview and serious consideration. It's not that way for junior people in entry level positions and non-IT staff (there the "200 resumes, no reason to interview most of them" scenario often applies), but if we're talking about e.g. mid-level developers, then every decent manager I know is in a "always be hiring" mode.
Old economy jobs in the midwest, sure. I applied to FAANG jobs after a year off and no one even brought it up.
I don't care about this at all, I'd assume you still remember how to do things after a year (or even two.) Of course before it gets to the team it might be filtered elsewhere.
It was easier for me to get into Google when I had lots of free time for leetcode.
>Your experience doesn’t ‘expire’ in a single year
You're right, it doesn't. But it brings up all sorts of questions in the mind of your interviewer as to the true nature of your departure, and it immediately puts you at a huge disadvantage.
You're right, it doesn't. But it brings up all sorts of questions in the mind of your interviewer as to the true nature of your departure, and it immediately puts you at a huge disadvantage.
As an interviewer I recognize people might take time off work for a variety of reasons and never give a lot of thought to unemployment gaps. I’ve found very short stays at previous positions (say less than a year) to be more of a warning; I want people who are likely to stick around.
[deleted]
Depends how you present it.
Being open-minded, seeing something different, meeting other people, working hard to be able to follow your objectives and take calculated risks. That can be a valuable experience and an advantage over ten similar candidates.
Being open-minded, seeing something different, meeting other people, working hard to be able to follow your objectives and take calculated risks. That can be a valuable experience and an advantage over ten similar candidates.
Assuming I would even notice a six month gap, if someone told me they had taken a year off to work on an open source project, hike the Appalachian Trail, or whatever, I'd find it far more of a conversation starter than a negative. Maybe you're either imagining things or talking to the wrong employers.
I can’t imagine wanting to work for someone who thinks this way, and it’s certainly not a common mindset in my experience.
> and it immediately puts you at a huge disadvantage.
Great - it can add to the list of disadvantages I have with companies I would never want to work for.
Great - it can add to the list of disadvantages I have with companies I would never want to work for.
I've done about a 10 mo break after my first job and after my second and it has never been an issue with employment. You're overestimating how much hr and hiring managers care.
Learn to prevaricate better... And meet a friend who will do it for you.
"Yeah, I was the CTO of a startup. I learned a lot. Call this guy who was the CEO, he'll tell you about it."
"Yeah, I was the CTO of a startup. I learned a lot. Call this guy who was the CEO, he'll tell you about it."
>"Yeah, I was the CTO of a startup. I learned a lot. Call this guy who was the CEO, he'll tell you about it."
Ah yes, an intricate lie. The very foundation of a solid working relationship.
Ah yes, an intricate lie. The very foundation of a solid working relationship.
No one you work for has a "relationship" with you unless there is nepotism involved. They will lie to you. They will throw you out when you don't make them money. The only "lie" is that there is a "relationship" and if you believe it, it will end up making you very unhappy. Live for yourself and your family.
> Ah yes, an intricate lie.
Not a joke -- what do you think resumes are?
Not a joke -- what do you think resumes are?
I've never had reason to embellish my resume, but let's not pretend employers don't exaggerate, are "aspirational" or outright lie what the job is about "You'll be working on cutting-edge technology" vs. "Actually, we plan on migrating to that cutting-edge platform soon, in the meantime, add features to our 'legacy' PHP5 and Java 1.7 platforms" and "We offer unlimited vacation" vs. "Everyone usually only takes the week between Christmas and new years as our clients shut down then. Currently, the team really needs your contribution to make the release deadline, so now is not a good time"
Both interviewer and interviewee have to be diligent during interview process to dig out the truth about important aspects of what they expect, and not just take it at face-value (asking pointed questions usually reveals the truth, for either party)
Both interviewer and interviewee have to be diligent during interview process to dig out the truth about important aspects of what they expect, and not just take it at face-value (asking pointed questions usually reveals the truth, for either party)
If my prospective employer has an issue with me having taken a sabbatical, I'd rather not work with them.
Its far more nuanced than that.
you won't be marked as radioactive, but you will have to reassure people that you're not planning to do it again with little to no notice. apart from that, I would plan to get back a month earlier than planned so you have a money buffer to get a job you want, rather than _need_
you won't be marked as radioactive, but you will have to reassure people that you're not planning to do it again with little to no notice. apart from that, I would plan to get back a month earlier than planned so you have a money buffer to get a job you want, rather than _need_
Always assume that you will have bad luck and will need a few months to get a job. More importantly, you will have higher standards for your next job if you have the financial security to do so.
That said, I forsee a lot of gap years in 2021-2023. The key is to have something to show for it. Did you spend a year in another country and learn the language? Do you have a series of open source pull requests? Do you have a game? A novel, even if unpublished? We live in a capitalist society and people expect that you are always working on something.
That said, I forsee a lot of gap years in 2021-2023. The key is to have something to show for it. Did you spend a year in another country and learn the language? Do you have a series of open source pull requests? Do you have a game? A novel, even if unpublished? We live in a capitalist society and people expect that you are always working on something.
I feel like I'm seeing a larger than normal wave of retirements. Which isn't surprising. People who were thinking that way anyway probably figured they might as well keep collecting a salary during the pandemic given everything was closed anyway. But now that travel is creaking back to life, etc. people are ready to pull the trigger.
Beyond the distasteful idea that we should always act in a way demonstrating obedience to potential employers, the solution to this is extremely easy. Gap year? No! I am merely doing independent consulting. Do I actually have any contracts? So many questions!
Plus if you actually use the time to work on OSS instead of traveling or whatever I have no idea how an employer (that you'd want to work at) could fault you for that. Seems like a huge asset.
You may enjoy this article by our friend NNT: https://medium.com/incerto/how-to-legally-own-another-person...
Plus if you actually use the time to work on OSS instead of traveling or whatever I have no idea how an employer (that you'd want to work at) could fault you for that. Seems like a huge asset.
You may enjoy this article by our friend NNT: https://medium.com/incerto/how-to-legally-own-another-person...
>Gap year? No! I am merely doing independent consulting. Do I actually have any contracts? So many questions!
People aren't stupid. They'll have questions. And lies are extremely hard to keep straight in the long term. The sad fact of the matter is that you are not a person to them in the initial hiring process. You are a piece of paper. And unless you are some rock star 10x top level candidate with impressive credentials, they'll have a dozen other pieces of paper that look just as appealing and don't have those questions attached.
People aren't stupid. They'll have questions. And lies are extremely hard to keep straight in the long term. The sad fact of the matter is that you are not a person to them in the initial hiring process. You are a piece of paper. And unless you are some rock star 10x top level candidate with impressive credentials, they'll have a dozen other pieces of paper that look just as appealing and don't have those questions attached.
See my other comment on why this isn't lying. And stop being scared of your own shadow around interviewers.
Seconded one of my regrets was not really going for a place on a round the world boat race a few years ago and taking a sabbatical to do the whole thing.
Id just been diagnosed which a chronic illness and though it would have been fair on the rest of the crew.
Id just been diagnosed which a chronic illness and though it would have been fair on the rest of the crew.
fwiw, I hire people and a 6 month gap on a CV doesn’t weigh negatively at all for me vs the relevant experience they have.
Ultimately I’m looking to hire the most effective person for that job.
I’ve got my own views on how terrible some HR depts. can be for an initial CV elimination round, esp. when hiring for technical positions.
Ultimately I’m looking to hire the most effective person for that job.
I’ve got my own views on how terrible some HR depts. can be for an initial CV elimination round, esp. when hiring for technical positions.
> People aren't stupid. They'll have questions
i interview and i've never looked at the dates of employment on someone's resume. i don't care one whit when you did what in the past, just what you're capable of right now.
i interview and i've never looked at the dates of employment on someone's resume. i don't care one whit when you did what in the past, just what you're capable of right now.
Yeah. There's no doubt age discrimination and people in PR who filter on meaningless stuff. But the idea that you can never do anything non-standard seems pretty ridiculous to me. And I'm pretty sure that no one who has hired me would think twice about it. I never have taken a real sabbatical--never seemed like a great time--but I have taken a number of month-long vacations and it's never been an issue.
> Beyond the distasteful idea that we should always act in a way demonstrating obedience to potential employers
Maybe even more than distasteful, perhaps soul nullifying? (Pardon the awkward phrase, it's what I get when looking for an antonym for affirming.)
For myself, when I leave the engineering field it will not be to return to engineering again unless it's strictly on my own terms. More than likely teaching or similar would follow a "gap year".
Maybe even more than distasteful, perhaps soul nullifying? (Pardon the awkward phrase, it's what I get when looking for an antonym for affirming.)
For myself, when I leave the engineering field it will not be to return to engineering again unless it's strictly on my own terms. More than likely teaching or similar would follow a "gap year".
I think the advice is a reasonable thing to consider; a lot of responses (and presumably downvotes) are either "It doesn't matter to potential employers", which is categorically untrue - it'll matter to some, raise a question to others, and be irrelevant to others yet. How you answer that question is important, and it's fascinating that other half of comments is, basically, "Lie!".
When I'm interviewing candidates, a gap year is a data point - no more, no less. It may lead to more substantial data points, or it may be a non-issue. If you do as many here suggest and lie through your teeth about it ("I was a CTO! I was working on startup! Independent consulting"), you may get away with it, but likely not (even if you think you did); and if caught in prevaricating or lying about your experience and work activities, that is a far far bigger and more immediate red flag than the gap year itself.
Also - sure, knowledge doesn't expire, but oh boy skills do get rusty! A year into my new management-y role, I felt how rusty my sysadmin skills were getting. Two years in and you shouldn't give me root access again without some catchup :-).
When I'm interviewing candidates, a gap year is a data point - no more, no less. It may lead to more substantial data points, or it may be a non-issue. If you do as many here suggest and lie through your teeth about it ("I was a CTO! I was working on startup! Independent consulting"), you may get away with it, but likely not (even if you think you did); and if caught in prevaricating or lying about your experience and work activities, that is a far far bigger and more immediate red flag than the gap year itself.
Also - sure, knowledge doesn't expire, but oh boy skills do get rusty! A year into my new management-y role, I felt how rusty my sysadmin skills were getting. Two years in and you shouldn't give me root access again without some catchup :-).
You mind seems to be trapped in the employment binary where you're either a full-time W-2 employee or you're unemployed. With contracting and startups it isn't so simple. Contractors (especially ones working in boutique niches on scoped projects) might work for a month with much time between contracts. During that down time maybe they write blog posts or contribute to OSS or hang out with someone else prototyping some neat ideas that don't pan out (which might reasonably be called a startup after the fact) or just do literally nothing so as to recover from burnout, which is lethal to the contractor in a way it isn't to an employee. All of which feed into more people dropping into their inbox inquiring about their contracting availability. It isn't "lying" to say time spent not working on a paid contract is time spent in service of contracting.
1. All of it is true in general and explicitly not the case for the OP/GP I was responding to, which indicated a traveling/no-work year, so it feels you're fighting a straw man.
As well, all of it is easily discussable during interview, and my team and myself will not see any of these in a negative light.
2. >> "It isn't "lying" to say time spent not working on a paid contract is time spent in service of contracting."
Of course not. At the time of my post however, a lot of advice in comments was explicitly to lie and "Say you were in a startup / independent consulting / working on OSS / CTO even if you weren't, rather than admitting to gap / traveling year", and my reaction to them is: That lie will harm you much more than any honest discussion of the gap year.
So again, I feel we are talking past each other here a bit. I've been a contractor, I've been a consultant, and I'm a full-time employee now; I've taken a time to write a book/techmanual, I've run a photography business for a bit,and I've taken extended paternity leave; so I don't think my mind is trapped into thinking of employment as binary. But I do think honesty during interview is paramount - on my team, I don't care how good your technical or functional skillset is, if we cannot trust your integrity. I understand that this is a tricky position for the candidate as market at times rewards dishonesty; but I try to be convincingly upfront in what we're looking for.
As well, all of it is easily discussable during interview, and my team and myself will not see any of these in a negative light.
2. >> "It isn't "lying" to say time spent not working on a paid contract is time spent in service of contracting."
Of course not. At the time of my post however, a lot of advice in comments was explicitly to lie and "Say you were in a startup / independent consulting / working on OSS / CTO even if you weren't, rather than admitting to gap / traveling year", and my reaction to them is: That lie will harm you much more than any honest discussion of the gap year.
So again, I feel we are talking past each other here a bit. I've been a contractor, I've been a consultant, and I'm a full-time employee now; I've taken a time to write a book/techmanual, I've run a photography business for a bit,and I've taken extended paternity leave; so I don't think my mind is trapped into thinking of employment as binary. But I do think honesty during interview is paramount - on my team, I don't care how good your technical or functional skillset is, if we cannot trust your integrity. I understand that this is a tricky position for the candidate as market at times rewards dishonesty; but I try to be convincingly upfront in what we're looking for.
Someone who has been doing "independent consulting" for six months or a year is pretty transparently obfuscating that they were unemployed. I'd probably view it in a better light--not that there's anything wrong with doing or trying to do some consulting on the side--if they were just open about taking some time off.
> Someone who has been doing "independent consulting" for six months or a year is pretty transparently obfuscating that they were unemployed.
Lol, what? I did exactly that after getting pissed off with $LARGE_CRAPPY_EMPLOYER. Worked for 3-4 companies for 6-8 week periods over that time on a short term basis, and made more than $LARGE_CRAPPY_EMPLOYER by a factor n > 2, and did some work on a startup. But then $LARGE_EMPLOYER came along with an offer I couldn’t refuse.
Don’t project what “independent consulting” might mean for you onto everyone. It would be interview-ending if I caught a hiring manager suggested this was a euphemism, and I’d subsequently recommend every person that asked me about said company steered clear.
Lol, what? I did exactly that after getting pissed off with $LARGE_CRAPPY_EMPLOYER. Worked for 3-4 companies for 6-8 week periods over that time on a short term basis, and made more than $LARGE_CRAPPY_EMPLOYER by a factor n > 2, and did some work on a startup. But then $LARGE_EMPLOYER came along with an offer I couldn’t refuse.
Don’t project what “independent consulting” might mean for you onto everyone. It would be interview-ending if I caught a hiring manager suggested this was a euphemism, and I’d subsequently recommend every person that asked me about said company steered clear.
Heh, I did "independent consulting" for over a decade.
It's also the most densely packed section of my resume because it was by far the most interesting and diverse range of work in that time.
It's also the most densely packed section of my resume because it was by far the most interesting and diverse range of work in that time.
I didn't express things very well, Sure, I know lots of independent consultants who are legitimately work full-time or at least on a regular basis. I was more referring to someone who just sticks "consulting" on their resume so they don't have a gap but didn't actually do anything.
> Unless you have some serious FU money saved up, I'd strongly reconsider.
You're talking to the HN crowd. I get the impression that a lot of the people here think of $200k/yr as poverty level. "FU money" to them is probably on the order of $100M.
You're talking to the HN crowd. I get the impression that a lot of the people here think of $200k/yr as poverty level. "FU money" to them is probably on the order of $100M.
> A "gap year" as an adult can make you radioactive to potential employers.
Nope. Not true in tech at all.
Nope. Not true in tech at all.
I disagree. Whilst some employers would be dead against it, others may look positively on people taking sabbaticals/gap years. As long as you have a good CV/resume and if you are older, consistent work history and are taking the time off in a manner which is within your means, I would say go for it.
> A "gap year" as an adult can make you radioactive to potential employers.
I'm not sure where you got this idea in your head but it is demonstrably false in tech right now.
I took a gap year after getting fired from an extremely toxic company. I didn't want to rush into a new role right away after such an awful experience.
Once I was ready to go back it took ~1 month to go from starting my search to signing an offer letter. I interviewed at a large range of companies and was pretty picky after my previous experience.
My apply -> interview rate was consistent with what it had been in the past, and nobody cared about either my being fired or taking time off.
> trying to get a job when you're unemployed is literally 10x harder than while employed
The only thing that changed for me interview wise was that I was much pickier after not having to work for an organization for such a long time.
The rest of the interview is much easier since you have much more time to do things like practice for coding interviews, doing take home work etc.
On top of all that, because I was so grossed out from looking at linkedin during that time, I've never bothered update my profile, and I still get the same constant stream of recruiters reaching out even though it looks like I'm still unemployed.
In retrospect I wish I had had the sense to just quit earlier. Very often interviewing when you're employed at a place you are not happy with makes you too eager to find someplace else, making you more likely to ignore warning signs during the interview.
I'm not sure where you got this idea in your head but it is demonstrably false in tech right now.
I took a gap year after getting fired from an extremely toxic company. I didn't want to rush into a new role right away after such an awful experience.
Once I was ready to go back it took ~1 month to go from starting my search to signing an offer letter. I interviewed at a large range of companies and was pretty picky after my previous experience.
My apply -> interview rate was consistent with what it had been in the past, and nobody cared about either my being fired or taking time off.
> trying to get a job when you're unemployed is literally 10x harder than while employed
The only thing that changed for me interview wise was that I was much pickier after not having to work for an organization for such a long time.
The rest of the interview is much easier since you have much more time to do things like practice for coding interviews, doing take home work etc.
On top of all that, because I was so grossed out from looking at linkedin during that time, I've never bothered update my profile, and I still get the same constant stream of recruiters reaching out even though it looks like I'm still unemployed.
In retrospect I wish I had had the sense to just quit earlier. Very often interviewing when you're employed at a place you are not happy with makes you too eager to find someplace else, making you more likely to ignore warning signs during the interview.
I interviewed at a large range of companies and was pretty picky after my previous experience.
I wonder, realistically, how many people out there actually get to be "pretty picky after my previous experience"?
I wonder, realistically, how many people out there actually get to be "pretty picky after my previous experience"?
In the world? Very, very few. I know it's it a tremendous fortune and privileged to be able to search for a job you think is a good match. Most people work in near slavery conditions with little choice.
At the same time, squandering that privilege out of some misplaced guilt only helps employers exert control of employees.
In tech? Virtually everyone has that level of privilege so long as they have some experience. I'm fairly certain I couldn't get hired by a FAANG company (I don't have too much interest in it, but I won't deny the possibility of sour grapes), so I'm not in some super-elite category of tech worker.
In addition, not everything lasts forever. I used to work for minimum wage in customer support jobs and I wouldn't be surprised if in 10-20 years (or sooner) I'm back in a much less desirable role.
It took me a long time to recognize that my market value had increase over time, and one of my biggest career mistakes was underestimating that and not acting on it sooner. As the saying goes, from a time when most people had to work on farms, "make hay while the sun shines".
At the same time, squandering that privilege out of some misplaced guilt only helps employers exert control of employees.
In tech? Virtually everyone has that level of privilege so long as they have some experience. I'm fairly certain I couldn't get hired by a FAANG company (I don't have too much interest in it, but I won't deny the possibility of sour grapes), so I'm not in some super-elite category of tech worker.
In addition, not everything lasts forever. I used to work for minimum wage in customer support jobs and I wouldn't be surprised if in 10-20 years (or sooner) I'm back in a much less desirable role.
It took me a long time to recognize that my market value had increase over time, and one of my biggest career mistakes was underestimating that and not acting on it sooner. As the saying goes, from a time when most people had to work on farms, "make hay while the sun shines".
I did when my previous place made me redundant, I didn't need to jump into the first job and I could claim unemployment whist waiting to.
It well be more experienced people though and you will need enough $ to do this.
It well be more experienced people though and you will need enough $ to do this.
The only places I have known who would care much about 'CV gaps' have been toxic workplaces who also discriminated against other groups for spurious reasons unrelated to their competence or likelihood of succeeding in the job.
Your attitude reinforces the corresponding attitude by many employers. If 50% of us signed a pledge not to have children, never to take any health risks, never to join a union, not sue our employers, etc, many employers would be delighted and would hire them preferentially, making things harder for the other 50%.
Your attitude reinforces the corresponding attitude by many employers. If 50% of us signed a pledge not to have children, never to take any health risks, never to join a union, not sue our employers, etc, many employers would be delighted and would hire them preferentially, making things harder for the other 50%.
I've done this twice: the first time back in 2007 when I got made redundant and decided to use the time and money to study and indulge in my dream of writing a book; more recently (which is still ongoing) to recover from burnout and rediscover the joy of coding.
I do not consider this time to be "gap year", but rather an investment in, and a reward for, myself. Why do I need such luxuries? Because time is short and nothing is destined. None of us are guaranteed to make it to retirement age. My Dad died when he was 54; my brother when he was 53. My sister survived her heart attack when she was 60 - luckily it happened when she was at work; she was a cleaner at a hospital.
Keep a roof over your head, make sure you have enough food to live on. Don't leave it until the last minute to start looking for paid work. Most importantly, enjoy your time away from the capitalist treadmill - with good fortune this can become an investment in yourself that you'll never regret!
I do not consider this time to be "gap year", but rather an investment in, and a reward for, myself. Why do I need such luxuries? Because time is short and nothing is destined. None of us are guaranteed to make it to retirement age. My Dad died when he was 54; my brother when he was 53. My sister survived her heart attack when she was 60 - luckily it happened when she was at work; she was a cleaner at a hospital.
Keep a roof over your head, make sure you have enough food to live on. Don't leave it until the last minute to start looking for paid work. Most importantly, enjoy your time away from the capitalist treadmill - with good fortune this can become an investment in yourself that you'll never regret!
Any tips on rediscovering the joy of coding?
Make the work fun, and the result something that gives you (quiet) pride: https://codepen.io/kaliedarik/pen/ExyZKbY
Huh. Funny that you mention it. I decided this exact same thing for myself this winter, and just started. Same reasoning too. Is it only among technologists who have great recent returns in the stock market, or is this a wider trend?
I think the FIRE movement is going to see a huge surge.
Financial Independence Retire Early
Financial Independence Retire Early
I find the FIRE movement fascinating but also slightly depressing.
Among the actually old (my parents' generation - in their 60s and 70s) retirees I know, around half of those retiring from decent 'knowledge worker' jobs have kept on working part-time to some extent. They are consultants, advisers, board members, independent researchers, and so on. They seem to be very happy - they are working at something they are good and believe in, while not having any economic constraint forcing them to work more than they want to, or for anyone they don't get along with.
I can't imagine having 'Financial Independence', but not wanting to do something like this. I enjoy my work in general, and I would enjoy it much more if I had almost complete freedom to plan my day and to walk away from toxic situations. But all the FIRE people that I see online seem to be basing their lives on the other type of retiree - the ones who take leisure activities and sports such as bowling and tennis far too seriously, read and watch constantly but quite aimlessly, and go on endless trips to 'tick off' different world destinations.
Among the actually old (my parents' generation - in their 60s and 70s) retirees I know, around half of those retiring from decent 'knowledge worker' jobs have kept on working part-time to some extent. They are consultants, advisers, board members, independent researchers, and so on. They seem to be very happy - they are working at something they are good and believe in, while not having any economic constraint forcing them to work more than they want to, or for anyone they don't get along with.
I can't imagine having 'Financial Independence', but not wanting to do something like this. I enjoy my work in general, and I would enjoy it much more if I had almost complete freedom to plan my day and to walk away from toxic situations. But all the FIRE people that I see online seem to be basing their lives on the other type of retiree - the ones who take leisure activities and sports such as bowling and tennis far too seriously, read and watch constantly but quite aimlessly, and go on endless trips to 'tick off' different world destinations.
I've been following this movement for well over a decade now, and it's not a heterogenous community. You see the entire spectrum, from people who just want to get really rich and indulge in expensive hobbies like keeping their own private jet, people who end up working and earning more after they're financially independent, to people who are burned out and can only imagine a retirement existence consisting of beaches and Netflix, plus quite a few bitter folks who mostly care about tearing others down.
The 'RE' sort of implies not working, but I've seen plenty of accounts of people who ended up with varying degrees of work and income after they quit their regular jobs. For the folks who seem to seek retirement above all else, I wouldn't be surprised if burnout is both a big part of the motivation and the reason for why that is their main focus.
The 'RE' sort of implies not working, but I've seen plenty of accounts of people who ended up with varying degrees of work and income after they quit their regular jobs. For the folks who seem to seek retirement above all else, I wouldn't be surprised if burnout is both a big part of the motivation and the reason for why that is their main focus.
Yeah - FIRE comes in many flavors depending on what you're goals are. https://partnersinfire.com/finance/fire-fundamentals-basics-...
Yes, it kinda doesn't make sense. You don't want to "retire". You want to work on the things you care about. There are jobs that pay poorly but are still very interesting. Retirement is what you do when you can't work anymore.
Traveling the world is fun but it's not incompatible with work. You just need to ask for long chunks of vacation, say two to four weeks in a row. If all you do is work a 40 hour work week then given the right schedule you still have half a day plus weekends left for leisure.
What people truly want is FU money. They want negotiation power.
Traveling the world is fun but it's not incompatible with work. You just need to ask for long chunks of vacation, say two to four weeks in a row. If all you do is work a 40 hour work week then given the right schedule you still have half a day plus weekends left for leisure.
What people truly want is FU money. They want negotiation power.
Retirement is what you do when you can't work anymore.
I wouldn't get hung up on the name. The main part is the FI, so you can pick and choose what you want to work on or if you want to work on anything. Arguing over whether it's a real retirement or not is missing the point.
I wouldn't get hung up on the name. The main part is the FI, so you can pick and choose what you want to work on or if you want to work on anything. Arguing over whether it's a real retirement or not is missing the point.
I would suspect that the online communities skew a certain way that may not be reflective of the people actually doing it. One of the most well-known FIRE bloggers is known for saying that he is as active after retiring as he was before, but that he now gets to choose his projects - and despite his blog bringing in an income comparable to his pre-retirement income, blogging was not one of the major 'pulls' in his life after a while. I imagine people who spend a lot of time contributing to such forums may temperamentally enjoy the fantasy better than the reality.
I think for people who got two very senior levels but stayed as hands-on engineers don’t really have the option of consulting. I am extremely senior and while I could do contract dev, they are actually aren’t that many low-commitment consulting jobs for people like me.
I'm literally on that right now, working on fun projects. When you get older you just call it a sabbatical.
I haven't taken a gap year myself but a good friend took a six month unpaid travel-leave period in the company we both used to work for. He had a great time. When he finished and got back into work he realised that his break very similar to a female employee taking maternity leave. As it happened, our company was quite good with maternity leave, and many of the women who took it resumed very successful careers. So, perhaps worth checking at your own place to see how maternity leave is handled.
He didn't notice any long term career effects although he had to re-establish himself somewhat with new people and projects that had appeared in his absence.
He didn't notice any long term career effects although he had to re-establish himself somewhat with new people and projects that had appeared in his absence.
> When he finished and got back into work he realised that his break very similar to a female employee taking maternity leave.
I have not met a single woman who would compare maternity leave to a travel leave and a “great” time.
Infants are a ton of work, and between recovering from the birthing process (a vaginal tear with a few stitches is considered one of the best outcomes), learning how to breastfeed, only sleeping 2 hours at a time due to breastfeeding, diastesis recti ruining your abs and making your core weak, pain from clogged milk ducts, pumping breast milk for storage since the US does not provide adequate leave so the kid has to go in daycare, hemorrhoids for a good portion of women, etc.
I have no doubt anyone who has been through this would rather work an office job for 6 months.
I have not met a single woman who would compare maternity leave to a travel leave and a “great” time.
Infants are a ton of work, and between recovering from the birthing process (a vaginal tear with a few stitches is considered one of the best outcomes), learning how to breastfeed, only sleeping 2 hours at a time due to breastfeeding, diastesis recti ruining your abs and making your core weak, pain from clogged milk ducts, pumping breast milk for storage since the US does not provide adequate leave so the kid has to go in daycare, hemorrhoids for a good portion of women, etc.
I have no doubt anyone who has been through this would rather work an office job for 6 months.
I think all he meant was it was a similar break in terms of length of time and the company did a good job of re-integrating women who went on maternity leave for that length of time, leading to a good company culture in general for getting employees out for long amounts of time back into the thick of things.
Yes, I should have considered that! However, I do not think it is tenable for most employers due to the risk of the employee leaving permanently.
My interpretation of the post you're responding to wasn't that the experiences were similar, but that the work culture responses and company infrastructure for handling extended absences worked the same way for him as they did for mothers. I think the point was that if there are good systems in place at a company for maternity leave, that maybe people can use those same system to take non-maternity time off.
Yes, that's a good point! However, the biggest risk to employer is the employee using those systems to try out a new employer and then resigning just after the sabbatical.
> Maybe more involvement in OSS is coming too?
Maybe not this directly, but I expect more people quitting "megacorp" jobs, will lead to another big wave of "innovation" in tech in the next few years as people spin up small companies to 'scratch that itch' they've had for a while.
Maybe not this directly, but I expect more people quitting "megacorp" jobs, will lead to another big wave of "innovation" in tech in the next few years as people spin up small companies to 'scratch that itch' they've had for a while.
In 2016 I took about half a year off, staying in Thailand and working on my hobby projects.
Was one of the best, most happy periods in my life.
It made me more focused on trying to reach early “retirement” so I can work fulltime on my hobbies. Hopefully I can achieve this goal before I’m 45 years old.
Was one of the best, most happy periods in my life.
It made me more focused on trying to reach early “retirement” so I can work fulltime on my hobbies. Hopefully I can achieve this goal before I’m 45 years old.
Me too! I made this site to help: https://fiers.co
Nice, seems like a useful tool!
Same same!. I am going to start my gap yea in September and focus on finally getting that ski instructor certification that i've been dreaming about for years.
I am going to start off my gap year with full time skiing and working on side projects on off/rest days and evenings.
I am going to start off my gap year with full time skiing and working on side projects on off/rest days and evenings.
I have taken a year off before and a couple of months in between jobs. I think many of us have undergone once-in-a-lifetime type of stress in the past year that few would consider taking some time off as toxic. We all processed the events of the past year differently, and we all coped in different ways, but it still took a toll. I would encourage taking time off.
The one major issue of taking some time off right now to travel is that it is incredibly difficult to do so. Many countries are still closed, or if open, have some sort of curfew. In the US, national parks are overwhelmed with tourists. If traveling solo, social distancing (either laws or new culture) makes it difficult to connect with strangers.
The one major issue of taking some time off right now to travel is that it is incredibly difficult to do so. Many countries are still closed, or if open, have some sort of curfew. In the US, national parks are overwhelmed with tourists. If traveling solo, social distancing (either laws or new culture) makes it difficult to connect with strangers.
A 6 month gap was the healthiest emotional choice I ever made. Just be prepared that you have no idea how you'll react to it until you do it. I strongly recommend setting very light goals for the first month while you adjust, otherwise you'll stress yourself out.
For me, I went with "Take one great photo a day."
For me, I went with "Take one great photo a day."
I've done two 366 photo-a-day projects (the first was in 2012, the second was 2020). Last year was simultaneously the worst and best time to do one; worst because of obvious reasons, but best because it was a quarantine monotony barometer ("monotometer") and helped me plan my days so that at least one interesting photographable thing would happen. I definitely felt burnout and oversharing, but I'd probably do it again and just keep the photos in a private album or print them immediately.
If you want and can take it - take it. You never know if you’ll be able to afford it in the near future.
I’ve not taken a gap year or heard of anybody else that has either. My peers and I are all 1-2 jobs out of college, and we’re all terrified of having a gap in our resume. Apparently this concern is overblown, but we all seem to have learned it from our parents.
> we’re all terrified of having a gap in our resume
I took a 1 year break and have had to answer a simple recruiter/interview inquiry regarding it for the next 5 years. I don't think it ever eliminated me from consideration but it was more like a necessary precaution. Not so great answers would include:
* Anything beginning with "uh uh uh". Answer confidently.
* "I was searching for work the whole time and just couldn't pass interviews"
* criminal activity
* anything indicating a bad work ethic or difficult employee
* apathy, indifference, numb, lazy. Even if you felt that way the whole time, LIE. You took a year off, you want to look like you had an undying passion for something every day even a hobby.
I took a 1 year break and have had to answer a simple recruiter/interview inquiry regarding it for the next 5 years. I don't think it ever eliminated me from consideration but it was more like a necessary precaution. Not so great answers would include:
* Anything beginning with "uh uh uh". Answer confidently.
* "I was searching for work the whole time and just couldn't pass interviews"
* criminal activity
* anything indicating a bad work ethic or difficult employee
* apathy, indifference, numb, lazy. Even if you felt that way the whole time, LIE. You took a year off, you want to look like you had an undying passion for something every day even a hobby.
I started a startup, but it failed.... how about that.
Easy peasy. It really depends on what you did. If you are an engineer and were keeping your skills sharp by doing a side project, then you shouldn't have any problem saying: I was working on my project/trying to do a startup.
99% of people will understand. Failed startups are neither a plus but not a negative thing either.
Easy peasy. It really depends on what you did. If you are an engineer and were keeping your skills sharp by doing a side project, then you shouldn't have any problem saying: I was working on my project/trying to do a startup.
99% of people will understand. Failed startups are neither a plus but not a negative thing either.
Gap years, or as they used to be called sabaticals, are common once you reach 8+ years of experience. If you are a good engineer, you can take mutiple years, and still be ok, as long as you keep your skills sharp. (i.e. have some kind of personal project that you work during those times)
[deleted]
I left my job in May and I'm hiking the Appalachian Trail now. I saved more than enough for living in a tent for 5 months (admittedly the tent was expensive but I already had it). So far it's been great. I've met a lot of folks who are burned out and taking some time to think.
If long-distance hiking appeals, I'd be happy to discuss it.
Long-distance hiking isn't for everyone but
If long-distance hiking appeals, I'd be happy to discuss it.
Long-distance hiking isn't for everyone but
My brother and I both got burnout last year and picked up thru-hiking, albeit more of the weekend warrior (3-7 days) variety. It has been a life-changer for both of us. We are planning on hiking part of the PCT for a month next year.
Good luck on the AT!
Good luck on the AT!
I had a buddy who disappeared for 6 months after our deployment, who we eventually found out was just hiking the Appalachian trail. It ended up being very helpful for him, and it’s something I’ve considered for myself on occasion.
Good luck out there.
Good luck out there.
A cousin of my was a multiple-tour forward observer for the U.S. Army in the Korean War. He spent a lot of time doing extended hiking after that.
I'm not sure if it was a result of his experience in Korea, but I get the impression he really wanted some extended alone time. I never asked because I didn't want to risk dragging him into some terrible memories.
I'm not sure if it was a result of his experience in Korea, but I get the impression he really wanted some extended alone time. I never asked because I didn't want to risk dragging him into some terrible memories.
It's a fairly popular activity for people in the military to get engaged in, for many reasons. Particularly people who were deployed in the field.
The back country is an environment where one is able to apply physical skills and tools, earned over years of experience, and to which most civilians attribute no value. The solitude is nice, however I think most veterans actually prefer company on activities like this, there just aren't many people who can cope with the mileage or the off-the-grid aspects.
I've never been in the military myself, but I'm a reasonably experienced backpacker. Discussions on the subject have made friends out of many coworkers, who had been deployed in the field while serving in the military.
You should ask your cousin about it, maybe even ask if you can join him sometime; he'd probably actually really enjoy you expressing an interest and wanting to tag along.
The back country is an environment where one is able to apply physical skills and tools, earned over years of experience, and to which most civilians attribute no value. The solitude is nice, however I think most veterans actually prefer company on activities like this, there just aren't many people who can cope with the mileage or the off-the-grid aspects.
I've never been in the military myself, but I'm a reasonably experienced backpacker. Discussions on the subject have made friends out of many coworkers, who had been deployed in the field while serving in the military.
You should ask your cousin about it, maybe even ask if you can join him sometime; he'd probably actually really enjoy you expressing an interest and wanting to tag along.
How much savings for that 5 months?
I saved low five figures but I don’t expect to need all of that. On very rainy days, or when I need to do laundry, I typically go to a hostel or split a hotel room with fellow hikers. Other than that it’s really just food and miscellany…having said that I am carrying like $1500-$2000 worth of gear at any given time so there is a real startup cost.
I hiked the northern half of the trail a couple years back. You should expect to spend $1,000/month at a minimum for a good experience. I spent $2,000/month and felt like I was living large. (I'd eat like a pig at every hotel/bar/restaurant I entered when arriving into a town. Most people lose weight on the trail; my weight stayed the same.) Expect your gear to cost around the same as your monthly budget.
Oh, the HN bubble.
My brother hiked the length of the AT a few years back and spent about $300/month for the 5 months it took him end to end He had a great time. Even when new his gear was less than $1000 all in, though it was all 5+ years old and very well used when he started.
My brother hiked the length of the AT a few years back and spent about $300/month for the 5 months it took him end to end He had a great time. Even when new his gear was less than $1000 all in, though it was all 5+ years old and very well used when he started.
$300/month would be tough for me but maybe doable. At $10/day, you're having peanut butter, tortillas, and mashed potatoes for just about every dinner (maybe tuna and ramen sometimes?); you're only rarely staying in hotels or hostels; and if you're getting a ride somewhere, it's from a trail angel, never a taxi or a shuttle.
It's possible but I really enjoy getting into town and having a real meal. Everyone hikes their own hike.
It's possible but I really enjoy getting into town and having a real meal. Everyone hikes their own hike.
Hah, yes, perhaps I should say that I would need to spend $1,000/month to have a good time. For context, I had never camped a day in my life before setting out on my hike (I didn't even camp out a single night as a test run with my gear before flying out). So I was pretty green, and definitely not a tough lad. :)
I have seen others recommend a budget of $500/month as a reasonable amount.
I have seen others recommend a budget of $500/month as a reasonable amount.
Have you done something like this before or was this on a whim?
Trying to figure out how much training / prep one needs to do. I want to do long distance cycling, I am not concerned about the stamina. I am concerned about camping in the wild, packing and repairing the bicycle when it breaks.
Trying to figure out how much training / prep one needs to do. I want to do long distance cycling, I am not concerned about the stamina. I am concerned about camping in the wild, packing and repairing the bicycle when it breaks.
I had done a 10-day section hike 7 years ago, yes; and a few 3-4 day trips in the meantime.
A week or so out there was invaluable to me, YMMV
A week or so out there was invaluable to me, YMMV
That sounds superb and I wish you good luck and lots of trail magic. The AT looks beautiful (I've only seen pictures of it in blogs).
Forests are wonderful. I grew up around forests, playing in them as a child. A few years ago while day hiking in a forest I came to a Sun-warmed opening in pine barrens from amidst taller pines. That specific scent of the ground and the pines etc., the heat and the wind -- all these, but mostly the strong scent, took me vividly back to my childhood. I remembered so many things as if I were there again, I saw these memories just flowing at me. For a moment, I was transported back to my grandparents place at a summer when I was 6-8 years old. I felt how much they loved me and what a good and carefree place I had been in.
For some time, I stood there in awe with my mouth open, trying to process what just happened. It was such a powerful influx of memories.
I don't know if you've experienced something like this, but I hope you will! Maybe some years from now your hike will come back to you.
Forests are wonderful. I grew up around forests, playing in them as a child. A few years ago while day hiking in a forest I came to a Sun-warmed opening in pine barrens from amidst taller pines. That specific scent of the ground and the pines etc., the heat and the wind -- all these, but mostly the strong scent, took me vividly back to my childhood. I remembered so many things as if I were there again, I saw these memories just flowing at me. For a moment, I was transported back to my grandparents place at a summer when I was 6-8 years old. I felt how much they loved me and what a good and carefree place I had been in.
For some time, I stood there in awe with my mouth open, trying to process what just happened. It was such a powerful influx of memories.
I don't know if you've experienced something like this, but I hope you will! Maybe some years from now your hike will come back to you.
Good for you, I hope this is a new journey of self-reflection and recharging for your next adventure.
If you have the financial means to do so, I highly recommend taking a gap year. It was a very rewarding time for me - just working on projects that interested me (tech and non-tech) and at my own pace, instead of racing towards arbitrary deadlines set by the employer. It was also the time where I could actually learn some new skills, which is quite difficult when you have a full time job. I cannot wait for the next time I can take a year off!
Good on you. You will probably love it.
I’m about 15 months into my “gap year,” similar story (except no immigration). I traveled on the cheap, switched careers, found a new city I love (and is way cheaper), and settled down with my gf.
Word of warning: depending on what kind of friends and family you have, you might lose some people along the way. Taking a leap like that brought out a new side of people I thought I knew. Most were supportive, but some not at all. Focus on the “keepers” instead of the “haters,” stay positive, and enjoy it!
I’m about 15 months into my “gap year,” similar story (except no immigration). I traveled on the cheap, switched careers, found a new city I love (and is way cheaper), and settled down with my gf.
Word of warning: depending on what kind of friends and family you have, you might lose some people along the way. Taking a leap like that brought out a new side of people I thought I knew. Most were supportive, but some not at all. Focus on the “keepers” instead of the “haters,” stay positive, and enjoy it!
I graduated in 2020 and immediately started working full time during covid. I didn't have time to do anything once I graduated.
Quit my SE role to drive across the country with my cousin. Definitely recommend taking time off to pursue anything you want to do for yourself.
Quit my SE role to drive across the country with my cousin. Definitely recommend taking time off to pursue anything you want to do for yourself.
I never too time off. Even not between from job to owning a business.
During the early Covid lock down was the best time. Had a really good sleep. Learned cooking. Biked with my son everyday. Walked in the evening everyday.
Right before the covid-19, I visited my parents for a month in India and didn't do anything. Screen time reduced to 1-2 hrs a day - hardly any emails, no business calls, no Reddit, no HN or no news. That was the best time. Slept from 10pm - 6am everyday.
During the early Covid lock down was the best time. Had a really good sleep. Learned cooking. Biked with my son everyday. Walked in the evening everyday.
Right before the covid-19, I visited my parents for a month in India and didn't do anything. Screen time reduced to 1-2 hrs a day - hardly any emails, no business calls, no Reddit, no HN or no news. That was the best time. Slept from 10pm - 6am everyday.
Obviously "the West" is a big place and there are lots of cultures and in-groups within it.
I can tell you as a non-elite, middle-class American that I've almost never heard of someone taking a gap year after beginning professional work. The one case that comes to mind was an ex's father who was burnt out on his accountant career. He took a year to follow his dreams on music-related stuff, which didn't pan out in terms of turning a passion into a career, and he went back to being an accountant (also, after causing his wife and kids some stress related to running low on money).
I did however take a 6 week gap between jobs a few years back. I think things like that are common enough. I flew to Costa Rica, intending to spend a month backpacking around the country ... and honestly I got kind of bored after 2 weeks so I flew home early. Then I hopped in the car and drove cross-country at my own pace, seeing sights that I wanted to see, etc. Absolutely one of my favorite memories and I'd love to do something similar again.
The important thing to remember is that this is for your growth, happiness, and well-being. You set the rules for your time off. If you travel the whole time or stay at home, or a mix, that's your call. If you do something to try to set yourself up for your next opportunity professionally or you completely stay away anything related to your profession, that's up to you. Don't follow a path just because you think it'll look good on Instagram or because you think it'll sound cool when you talk about it at parties in the future. (Or do, if those are high enough priorities for you). Good luck!
I can tell you as a non-elite, middle-class American that I've almost never heard of someone taking a gap year after beginning professional work. The one case that comes to mind was an ex's father who was burnt out on his accountant career. He took a year to follow his dreams on music-related stuff, which didn't pan out in terms of turning a passion into a career, and he went back to being an accountant (also, after causing his wife and kids some stress related to running low on money).
I did however take a 6 week gap between jobs a few years back. I think things like that are common enough. I flew to Costa Rica, intending to spend a month backpacking around the country ... and honestly I got kind of bored after 2 weeks so I flew home early. Then I hopped in the car and drove cross-country at my own pace, seeing sights that I wanted to see, etc. Absolutely one of my favorite memories and I'd love to do something similar again.
The important thing to remember is that this is for your growth, happiness, and well-being. You set the rules for your time off. If you travel the whole time or stay at home, or a mix, that's your call. If you do something to try to set yourself up for your next opportunity professionally or you completely stay away anything related to your profession, that's up to you. Don't follow a path just because you think it'll look good on Instagram or because you think it'll sound cool when you talk about it at parties in the future. (Or do, if those are high enough priorities for you). Good luck!
>I did however take a 6 week gap between jobs a few years back.
I've never had enough time off between (my few) jobs since grad school. The circumstances have never been quite right. I did get a 3-4 week vacation the last time and that was mostly because I had done everything except pull the trigger while waiting to see if an offer came through--then pushed things out as far as I could.
I actually had a month off the prior time as well but that was because of a post-9/11 layoff. As it turned out a conversation I had with someone I knew pretty much the following day panned out. But I didn't know that of course and it wasn't the time to just head off and vacation.
I've never had enough time off between (my few) jobs since grad school. The circumstances have never been quite right. I did get a 3-4 week vacation the last time and that was mostly because I had done everything except pull the trigger while waiting to see if an offer came through--then pushed things out as far as I could.
I actually had a month off the prior time as well but that was because of a post-9/11 layoff. As it turned out a conversation I had with someone I knew pretty much the following day panned out. But I didn't know that of course and it wasn't the time to just head off and vacation.
As an European tech-sphere data point: it seems somewhat normal to travel the world for half a year before your first job. Gap time later on is not so common. Still, I can easily name five colleagues who took one to six months off, some as unpaid vacation, some between jobs.
Personally, six weeks sounds more like an extra-long vacation. I always took four to six months off before looking for a new job, or when on-job an unpaid month or two every other year. But that's definitively nowhere near the norm, many people don't understand it. I usually end up coding 20h per week on geek projects or random open source stuff. After six months I predictably get bored with it.
I rarely end up doing the project I planned to do. So if you want any advice from me: Don't force yourself to do what you thought you wanted to do, before you had time. Look around and don't feel guilty for following that new interest you just discovered.
Personally, six weeks sounds more like an extra-long vacation. I always took four to six months off before looking for a new job, or when on-job an unpaid month or two every other year. But that's definitively nowhere near the norm, many people don't understand it. I usually end up coding 20h per week on geek projects or random open source stuff. After six months I predictably get bored with it.
I rarely end up doing the project I planned to do. So if you want any advice from me: Don't force yourself to do what you thought you wanted to do, before you had time. Look around and don't feel guilty for following that new interest you just discovered.
Careful with gap years to clear your plate to work on slower pace stuff - if you're anything like me, you'll have trouble doing the one thing day in and day out. Even with full freedom, it is hard to manage one's output
FYI, frame this as freelance consulting when you apply for your next job. You can talk about wanting something new and striking out on your own for a bit.
IMO what you find out is a year is a long time without work from a time perspective. Hope you enjoy your year off!
IMO what you find out is a year is a long time without work from a time perspective. Hope you enjoy your year off!
Just chiming in that I absolutely detest this way of thinking. This isn’t a dig at you personally, but against the idea of living or presenting your life as some series of neatly explainable resume bullet points. I have been susceptible to it myself to a greater or lesser degree throughout my career.
100%.
My "independent consulting" time was a mask for burnout. I certainly did consult independently, right down to paying too much for health insurance. My time off was extremely valuable and made me realize I needed to rest and reinvent myself. Plus, as I get older I realize I can use the b-word at certain stages of interviewing as a way to filter out toxic people and institutions.
But yeah, it's all a big game. Nobody is owed a tidy explanation of this.
My "independent consulting" time was a mask for burnout. I certainly did consult independently, right down to paying too much for health insurance. My time off was extremely valuable and made me realize I needed to rest and reinvent myself. Plus, as I get older I realize I can use the b-word at certain stages of interviewing as a way to filter out toxic people and institutions.
But yeah, it's all a big game. Nobody is owed a tidy explanation of this.
I did something similar between school and a job, but it wasn't so much intentional as acute burnout.
In tech, we luckily have the luxury to take time off and recover when we need to.
I worked on some closed source personal projects and worked on getting into shape. When I was ready to return, the employer didn't really care that I had taken time off.
In tech, we luckily have the luxury to take time off and recover when we need to.
I worked on some closed source personal projects and worked on getting into shape. When I was ready to return, the employer didn't really care that I had taken time off.
> I've never had a gap year, it was all school, then immigration, work, university, more work. Any holiday time you fly back home. I kept hearing its not unusual for people in the west to take gap years, so thats what Im doing.
As a Westerner, I have never taken a gap year but I never met anyone who took one and wish they didn't. If you can make it work, take it, especially after the Pandemic because it's going to be an awesome time to travel.
As a Westerner, I have never taken a gap year but I never met anyone who took one and wish they didn't. If you can make it work, take it, especially after the Pandemic because it's going to be an awesome time to travel.
IME 3-6 months is not uncommon but a full year is.
When hiring I totally Want gaps in people's resumes. I've even asked people who hadn't why and whether they really want to be looking for work right now at all.
I honestly try to maximize humanity, unhappy people can't do good work.
I honestly try to maximize humanity, unhappy people can't do good work.
I'm considering this too but I might just wait till the beginning of 2022 hoping thats when the entire world opens up. I can't break my lease before November, so that helps me stay at my job. So many ideas though for 2022,
1. Cycle Eurovelo 6
2. Drive through the Pan American Highway
3. Learn different things at different places, Muay Thai in Thailand, surfing in Bali, Kali in the Philipines
4. Just travel doing nothing for a few months and then try 12 month 12 startups or something.
1. Cycle Eurovelo 6
2. Drive through the Pan American Highway
3. Learn different things at different places, Muay Thai in Thailand, surfing in Bali, Kali in the Philipines
4. Just travel doing nothing for a few months and then try 12 month 12 startups or something.
As well as the pandemic causing employment uncertainty, as @Andrew_nenakhov says, there could be a temporary downturn in the number of resignations in the last year and a significatnt portion of this "great wave" is potentially the numbers catching up again.
I also think that because a lot of people lost their jobs as a result of the pandemic, some industries moreso than others, the market may also be temporarily saturated (at least more so than usual) with candidates at the moment, which will dampen the number of resignations.
Having said that, I personally am receiving just as much recruiter spam as I was before.
I also think that because a lot of people lost their jobs as a result of the pandemic, some industries moreso than others, the market may also be temporarily saturated (at least more so than usual) with candidates at the moment, which will dampen the number of resignations.
Having said that, I personally am receiving just as much recruiter spam as I was before.
This already happened at the company I left two months ago. We had been acquired a few months before the pandemic started, and the people who had not left by February 2020 mostly buckled down to ride things out. So there was remarkably little turnover for about 9 months. Once the vaccines got approved, it was like the dams burst, and people started leaving left and right, particularly senior engineers. (My guess is that, like me, they had dependents, so didn't want to jump ship until they felt like the worst was behind us.)
Basically a year's worth of departures in a very compressed timeframe. Not a good situation for the acquiring business, especially since they prided themselves on a longer hiring process than comparable companies.
Basically a year's worth of departures in a very compressed timeframe. Not a good situation for the acquiring business, especially since they prided themselves on a longer hiring process than comparable companies.
An anecdote: a handful engineers I've worked with (and they're all high quality) have resigned from traditional bigtech to work in open source finance within crypto.
It's as though pandemic solitude gave many the mind-time to ponder their authentic values hierarchy.
I'm glad more bright minds will be spending less time working directly or indirectly on ads. It's hard to watch.
It's as though pandemic solitude gave many the mind-time to ponder their authentic values hierarchy.
I'm glad more bright minds will be spending less time working directly or indirectly on ads. It's hard to watch.
I’m not passionately anti-crypto, but moving some of our best minds from ads to crypto[currencies/tokens] is not an obvious triumph to me.
> crypto[currencies/tokens]
From how I perceive the definition of the 'crypto' domain, it's a lot wider in range than currencies/tokens. These are just one integral primitive of a p2p economy.
From how I perceive the definition of the 'crypto' domain, it's a lot wider in range than currencies/tokens. These are just one integral primitive of a p2p economy.
Money gotta money. At least crypto is a slightly-less-obnoxious industry than ads and tracking...
And much less useful.
Is open finance less useful than ads?
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
Open finance sounds cool until you realize it means crypto, which is not very useful
hmmm, i can loan stablecoins via crypto & receive interest with zero intermediary. or i can sell digital assets (e.g. art or IP) directly as an artist anywhere in the world, uncensorably & without revealing my identity (e.g. if in China). pretty useful.
I have no idea what any of that means.
[deleted]
Open finance already exists. My neighbors and I trade tomatoes for lemons occasionally. Bartering is open finance. Shackling yourself to some meme token does not seem very open to me, compared to exchange of goods which has certainly stood the test of time and the rise and fall of countless societies. Can't really say the same for crypto.
Brave is a really good example of where the two can even meet. It would not have been possible without crypto, and I'd suggest it's much more useful than the entire traditional ad industry.
> At least crypto is a slightly-less-obnoxious industry than ads and tracking
And way more environmentally destructive than countless other things.
And way more environmentally destructive than countless other things.
Maybe we quantity the privacy and emotional manipulation/destruction of the ad industry?
If we want to talk energy, maybe we look at what mindless streaming services consume?
If we want to talk energy, maybe we look at what mindless streaming services consume?
Cherry-picking much?
> slightly-less-obnoxious industry than ads
I almost never see people obnoxiously talking about how ads are great. In fact, it's the opposite - constant ad bashing.
Whereas with crypto, while you have the skeptics and the haters, there are way more obnoxious fanatics.
I almost never see people obnoxiously talking about how ads are great. In fact, it's the opposite - constant ad bashing.
Whereas with crypto, while you have the skeptics and the haters, there are way more obnoxious fanatics.
I meant that ads are obnoxious to everybody.
Whereas with crypto, you can just ignore the subject entirely if you so wish. You won't be shouted at, when you open your digital newspaper to read stuff, that YOU SHOULD TOTALLY GET MORE DOGECOIN!!!
Whereas with crypto, you can just ignore the subject entirely if you so wish. You won't be shouted at, when you open your digital newspaper to read stuff, that YOU SHOULD TOTALLY GET MORE DOGECOIN!!!
Ironically, that’s mainly because all ad exchanges ban crypto ads. Google has actually reversed course on this [1] and soon you’ll start seeing crypto ads too. Sadly, I already see tons of crypto related ads on Instagram already. Also, I’m not sure which digital newspaper you refer to, but I see articles about crypto pretty much on a daily basis on most websites.
[1] https://news.bitcoin.com/google-new-policy-cryptocurrency-ad...
[1] https://news.bitcoin.com/google-new-policy-cryptocurrency-ad...
I'm happy with crypto investors being bled out of their money... Not so happy with adds and tracking me for useless things as this affects also those companies who buys adds...
Open source finance within crypto has the potential to help poor people. Ads are just a way to manipulate.
Could be worse. At least they're not working for hedge funds, defense contractors, or management consultancies.
What's the business model to work within open source crypto as a full time job?
Crypto organizations hire, give grants & ofc anyone can buy a token [if there's one present] & start writing code / content etc. to make that token more valuable.
For many, their wealth is derived more from crypto / token capital gain than traditional income. Its increased risk no doubt. More upside & downside.
For many, their wealth is derived more from crypto / token capital gain than traditional income. Its increased risk no doubt. More upside & downside.
Many DAOs have massive (>$1B) treasuries that are used to fund development and marketing. Developers propose OSS projects and these orgs give out grants based on community votes. See https://gitcoin.co or the Uniswap Grants program for examples.
You create a decentralised service that crypto companies need, and then add a native token for governance. Governance token ends up having value (more than it should in a lot of cases) and the developers profit.
For example, people initially just had crypto tokens. Then came uniswap liquidity pools for exchanges. People could suddenly earn interest on their crypto. Uniswap creators profit.
For example, people initially just had crypto tokens. Then came uniswap liquidity pools for exchanges. People could suddenly earn interest on their crypto. Uniswap creators profit.
The article sounds quite negative.
Sounds like people are discovering it's actually not that hard getting off the teat of a boring 9 to 5 job ... I'm not sure why that would be a bad thing.
Sounds like people are discovering it's actually not that hard getting off the teat of a boring 9 to 5 job ... I'm not sure why that would be a bad thing.
The increasing acceptance of working from home has allowed me to get offers from major cities nearby instead of being low-balled by my small town rate.
At FAANGs?
FAANGs take some of the employees at second tier companies and the vacancies trickle down and now I'm getting opportunities for remote work from the companies at major cities nearby (that previously were on-prem only) instead of just what is available in Wichita. And with coworkers quitting as well it gives me more leverage for a counter offer.
For what it's worth, this was my strategy living in a bigger city in the south. Local salaries are so egregiously out of line with the national US market that breaking into remote work a decade ago is easily, easily the best decision I've personally made.
At the time it was hard work and a bit of serendipity. At this point I already found a great remote job I have no desire to leave. It's wild that currently there is a deluge of recruiters from very large west coast companies trying to get me to join without any relocation. That's been a big shift in the past year. Good time to live somewhere cheap with decent internet.
At the time it was hard work and a bit of serendipity. At this point I already found a great remote job I have no desire to leave. It's wild that currently there is a deluge of recruiters from very large west coast companies trying to get me to join without any relocation. That's been a big shift in the past year. Good time to live somewhere cheap with decent internet.
I guess we all want more free time and less work.
Most people are open for new opportunities and are proactively or passively checking at all times anyway.
If a recruiter calls me and has an up to date cv, I will have a chat with them.
This might lead to something, if not, at least they have their crm updated for the next calls.
And when the need arises, you can get back at them, one of them placed me in a FAANG with full remote recently, totally unexpected.
I think many people will consider quitting one semi or on premises job for a remote, I certainly would not go back to office unless it is a head of or c level position, if I can avoid it.
I get so many recruiters contacting me that I could never do this. 95% of them are low quality jobs anyway.
Sorry for the tangent, but have you found any benefit in maintaining a traditional CV / resume?
I'm not actively looking for a job, so I just tell them to have a look at my LinkedIn profile. But I wonder if that's keeping me from some worthwhile opportunities.
I'm not actively looking for a job, so I just tell them to have a look at my LinkedIn profile. But I wonder if that's keeping me from some worthwhile opportunities.
I think this is important, not just tangential.
The traditional cv is still something most companies will check, one way or another. At the very least, they will use a tool to check for keywords, same thing on job platforms.
I personally never update my LinkedIn with the current role, I always think if my employer checks, they would think I am shopping around, so I leave that.
But on job platforms, I have the most current CV.
LinkedIn never gave me good results anyway, only currently held roles.
But Glassdoor is pretty ok and some other platforms(I can pm if you like) have proven good, they seem to have some kind of alert system whenever a keyword of a recruiter portfolio is triggered and on cv updates. I do think limiting oneself to LinkedIn will definitely make you miss on some opportunities. I spend no more than an hour a month to update etc. Most have auto apply button etc. It is easy to send 50-100 applications within an hour. Of course some of the contacts will be rubbish, just delegate to spam I it keeps happening, eventually unsubscribe. I got some interviews to places where I thought they would never, ever touch me. However, sometimes such companies are desperate to hire. I went pretty far with bitfinex, just for fun and because it's remote, despite knowing sweet little about what is needed to know . Many stories like that.
But Glassdoor is pretty ok and some other platforms(I can pm if you like) have proven good, they seem to have some kind of alert system whenever a keyword of a recruiter portfolio is triggered and on cv updates. I do think limiting oneself to LinkedIn will definitely make you miss on some opportunities. I spend no more than an hour a month to update etc. Most have auto apply button etc. It is easy to send 50-100 applications within an hour. Of course some of the contacts will be rubbish, just delegate to spam I it keeps happening, eventually unsubscribe. I got some interviews to places where I thought they would never, ever touch me. However, sometimes such companies are desperate to hire. I went pretty far with bitfinex, just for fun and because it's remote, despite knowing sweet little about what is needed to know . Many stories like that.
Even if it's true, you'll need an equal hiring wave on the other side of the equation. It's not like people are stopping work altogether.
If you're freelancing, contributing to OSS, working in crypto etc. perhaps there is less than equal ostensible 'hiring' on the other side?
> Surveys show anywhere from 25% to upwards of 40% of workers are thinking about quitting their jobs
I wonder what the baseline is for this. I reckon loads of people are thinking about it all the same.
I wonder what the baseline is for this. I reckon loads of people are thinking about it all the same.
Yeah if "I think about quitting my job" is the metric, I'd expect the result to be 70-80%.
Anecdotally I've had much more contact from recruiters this year and I suspect many greybeard embedded devs have decided this was the year to finally take their retirement.
I've worked remotely for over 8 years as a senior software engineer, and I'm not going back anytime soon.
This will get interesting for both salaries and global movement.
Being a digital nomad certainly won't be as "hip" when everyone else can do the same thing. And now people are going to be competing with a lot of low-cost employees with equal skills.
This has already been the issue with offshoring, but now you can hire someone in Fargo, SD instead of San Fran, CA and pay them going market rate. For the same skills.
In the long-term, this might get people out of packed cities and horrific commutes and help become a rebirth of small-town America (or small-town Chile and everywhere else).
This will get interesting for both salaries and global movement.
Being a digital nomad certainly won't be as "hip" when everyone else can do the same thing. And now people are going to be competing with a lot of low-cost employees with equal skills.
This has already been the issue with offshoring, but now you can hire someone in Fargo, SD instead of San Fran, CA and pay them going market rate. For the same skills.
In the long-term, this might get people out of packed cities and horrific commutes and help become a rebirth of small-town America (or small-town Chile and everywhere else).
>In the long-term, this might get people out of packed cities and horrific commutes and help become a rebirth of small-town America (or small-town Chile and everywhere else).
Perhaps. I think the shift will be to more healthy-livable cities, whether thats big or small.
Vast majority of humans seem love the benefits of high population density more than they dislike the costs, remote work or not.
Perhaps. I think the shift will be to more healthy-livable cities, whether thats big or small.
Vast majority of humans seem love the benefits of high population density more than they dislike the costs, remote work or not.
> Vast majority of humans seem love the benefits of high population density more than they dislike the costs, remote work or not.
Over these 8 years I've lived everywhere from NYC to small town America and other countries in AirBnbs.
They each have their benefits, they are just different.
If you have a family, small towns can be amazing. Good school districts, tight-nit communities, great charitable events to participate in. Of course you can find that in NYC but it's a completely different scenario and vibe.
It comes down to what works for the individual, which is perfect and exactly where we need to be moving to.
Over these 8 years I've lived everywhere from NYC to small town America and other countries in AirBnbs.
They each have their benefits, they are just different.
If you have a family, small towns can be amazing. Good school districts, tight-nit communities, great charitable events to participate in. Of course you can find that in NYC but it's a completely different scenario and vibe.
It comes down to what works for the individual, which is perfect and exactly where we need to be moving to.
Agree. More people should try out different living contexts to find which tradeoff matrix works best for them.
I'm now in Vancouver BC, quite a high population density, yet I find it's super easy to remain healthy & happy (air quality, access to nature, safety etc.).
I'm now in Vancouver BC, quite a high population density, yet I find it's super easy to remain healthy & happy (air quality, access to nature, safety etc.).
Vancouver BC is quite an outlier in those qualities, which is reflected in its land prices.
That's for sure. The urban planning here really turned out well.
> If you have a family, small towns can be amazing. Good school districts
Your definition of "small town" must be different than mine, or small towns in your area are a hell of a lot nicer than ours. Or maybe you mean suburban/exurban towns? Those are the only "small towns" with good public schools, around here. Cities (as in, actually in the city proper)? Bad schools. Rural small towns? Bad schools. Smallish cities? Bad schools. There's a belt of good schools in (some of!) the suburban and exurban towns around the major cities, and that's it. Few or none of those towns have the other characteristics you mention, because they're basically bedroom communities for the city they're attached to, with some lame chain retail and fast-food and you go to the city for anything that's actually worth doing.
Your definition of "small town" must be different than mine, or small towns in your area are a hell of a lot nicer than ours. Or maybe you mean suburban/exurban towns? Those are the only "small towns" with good public schools, around here. Cities (as in, actually in the city proper)? Bad schools. Rural small towns? Bad schools. Smallish cities? Bad schools. There's a belt of good schools in (some of!) the suburban and exurban towns around the major cities, and that's it. Few or none of those towns have the other characteristics you mention, because they're basically bedroom communities for the city they're attached to, with some lame chain retail and fast-food and you go to the city for anything that's actually worth doing.
I've always dreamed of packing up and moving to the mountains (the Whites, or the Rockies, or the Sierras) but I've always been held back by 3 major factors. First, most rural communities don't have very good educational infrastructure. Second, moving somewhere with no social scene as an adult means you'll be spending a long time with no or few friends. Third, the cost and time sink of traveling back home to visit family for holidays, baptisms, etc.
I think that time zone bands will temper this somewhat. It’s a lot easier to work with people on the same schedule than trying coordinate with people/teams that are +/- 3 time zones away.
I agree.
I'm currently managing a team of offshore developers +11 from me on top of being the lead developer.
It's chaotic but members of the team adjust their schedule to partially overlap so it works, for the most part.
But I agree. We are a US company and we originally looked at South American companies to try to keep people around the same timezone. I was not involved in the final decision, which apparently came down strictly to financials.
I'm currently managing a team of offshore developers +11 from me on top of being the lead developer.
It's chaotic but members of the team adjust their schedule to partially overlap so it works, for the most part.
But I agree. We are a US company and we originally looked at South American companies to try to keep people around the same timezone. I was not involved in the final decision, which apparently came down strictly to financials.
It's actually not that bad. Regular meetings between global teams can be scheduled as any others are. People working internationally with people in the U.S. are already used to taking evening conference calls around convenient U.S. based meeting times. For east and west coast teams, in my experience they usually just adopt east coast hours, which the west coast people prefer because this means they avoid traffic entirely.
3 time zones is a pain, and 4+ is a nightmare. I can definitely see a lot of people telecommuting from "nearby" (Vermont to NYC for example) but Hanoi to San Francisco is just too much.
Nit: I think you meant Fargo, ND rather than Fargo, SD.
For local market rate, [1] seems to match anecdata with new grads being 50-70k. MSFT is largely responsible for anything above that.
[1] https://www.salary.com/research/salary/benchmark/software-en...
For local market rate, [1] seems to match anecdata with new grads being 50-70k. MSFT is largely responsible for anything above that.
[1] https://www.salary.com/research/salary/benchmark/software-en...
You can’t really just compare average salaries in different metros, because there’s major selection bias. The average engineer in South Dakota is not the same as one in San Francisco. Less talented workers tend to heavily flow towards low COL markets, because they’re less to achieve a high enough productivity differential to justify the high cost.
This obviously isn’t true for every single case. But the typical engineer at a sleepy regional bank is nowhere near talented enough to make it at a fast-paced, hyper-growth venture backed startup.
This obviously isn’t true for every single case. But the typical engineer at a sleepy regional bank is nowhere near talented enough to make it at a fast-paced, hyper-growth venture backed startup.
Having worked in everything from backend systems for sleepy banks to hedge funds to the hottest pre-IPO valley darlings, anecdotally you are dead wrong.
If there is any correlation at all it’s that the venture backed startups have a lower than average skill level.
If there is any correlation at all it’s that the venture backed startups have a lower than average skill level.
It is amazing that these lower than average skill level people make companies that earn the highest profits, and have the highest wages.
What's amazing about it? Perhaps they are trying a lot harder.
Surely effort is a very big part of success, but I would attribute at least some of the magic that makes the tech companies hum to above average technical expertise.
Is that surprising? You can cook up an electron app after a few tutorials and two weeks time. All you have to do is sell a product, the product can be junk if you can convince your buyers otherwise. Charisma gets more funding than technical expertise, because consumers buy on charisma.
Consumers are not buying iPhones because of charisma. They are not using Gmail because of charisma.
Some VC pump and dump companies get by and make some headlines by being a fad electron app, but I am referring to those that stick around for years and develop products that require R&D. I have a hard time believing that people who work at companies that have transformed the way we live over the past few decades are "lower than average skill".
Some VC pump and dump companies get by and make some headlines by being a fad electron app, but I am referring to those that stick around for years and develop products that require R&D. I have a hard time believing that people who work at companies that have transformed the way we live over the past few decades are "lower than average skill".
Apple and google are not the vc backed startup companies the other commenter was talking about, though.
So, I wasn’t thinking Apple or Google when I wrote this because those are giant companies that hire globally. Most of Apples profit comes from products produced far from the valley. That said, I’ve worked with lots of veterans of Apple and Google and there quite literally is no correlation between having worked at those companies and being good. I believe that the current hiring environment in software is so broken that being hired by someone is effectively arbitrary.
Similarly Microsoft and Amazon are not valley creations but are giant profitable companies that hire tech workers from a wide variety of regions.
When you hire as much of the industry as those companies do its not at all surprising that the talent in them runs the gamut. They represent so much of the industry it would be near impossible not to have a big distribution of talent within them.
But when you get into the rest of the ecosystem is when it gets pretty ugly pretty fast. So far as I can see the biggest correlative factor with engineers in the valley is a capacity to move there. That filter does not trend towards being good at the job. And I’ll stand by my anecdotal opinion.
I think the more amazing thing that some firms are able to overcome this talent problem is that it took a global pandemic for the opinion it being an issue to change.
Similarly Microsoft and Amazon are not valley creations but are giant profitable companies that hire tech workers from a wide variety of regions.
When you hire as much of the industry as those companies do its not at all surprising that the talent in them runs the gamut. They represent so much of the industry it would be near impossible not to have a big distribution of talent within them.
But when you get into the rest of the ecosystem is when it gets pretty ugly pretty fast. So far as I can see the biggest correlative factor with engineers in the valley is a capacity to move there. That filter does not trend towards being good at the job. And I’ll stand by my anecdotal opinion.
I think the more amazing thing that some firms are able to overcome this talent problem is that it took a global pandemic for the opinion it being an issue to change.
I would say my claim is that offering more money or the chance to make more money does make it possible to end up with a workforce of people with a higher than average skill level.
And if certain geographical locations are known for being places where the chances of making a lot more money are significantly higher, then I would say the skill level of people there is probably higher on average. The proof would be the numerous leading companies and products coming out of these places.
Of course, those locations can change, and maybe widespread access to broadband will cause that to change that or reduce benefits of agglomeration. But it remains to be seen.
And if certain geographical locations are known for being places where the chances of making a lot more money are significantly higher, then I would say the skill level of people there is probably higher on average. The proof would be the numerous leading companies and products coming out of these places.
Of course, those locations can change, and maybe widespread access to broadband will cause that to change that or reduce benefits of agglomeration. But it remains to be seen.
That presumes a) that hiring good developers is a driver for that success b) the valley offers more money relatively c) there is actual proof that those firms are producing outsized returns.
I for one have made more money in finance than valley style tech. That may change one day but there _also_ was no correlation in the finance firms for quality.
I for one have made more money in finance than valley style tech. That may change one day but there _also_ was no correlation in the finance firms for quality.
c) is pretty clear based on 10-Ks and performance of tech companies relative to others in the market.
And while I personally do not know people’s financial histories, I can say that the part of my college class that went to tech seem to work far less than the part that went to finance. Even if gross income is similar, I doubt that $/hour worked, or the risk was better in finance than in tech over the past 15 to 20 years.
That isn’t to knock finance, it’s just my interpretation of the reality of how much access to broadband and advancements in certain technologies have underlined much of our economic growth.
And while I personally do not know people’s financial histories, I can say that the part of my college class that went to tech seem to work far less than the part that went to finance. Even if gross income is similar, I doubt that $/hour worked, or the risk was better in finance than in tech over the past 15 to 20 years.
That isn’t to knock finance, it’s just my interpretation of the reality of how much access to broadband and advancements in certain technologies have underlined much of our economic growth.
> The average engineer in South Dakota is not the same as one in San Francisco.
How do you know? I've worked with extremely talented engineers from all over the globe at this point, 20+ years in. Do you think all the engineers in San Francisco were born there?
You would never guess where I'm living, and it's not San Francisco. I'd love to, but I'm waiting for tech to recede a bit and a sense of normalcy to return.
How do you know? I've worked with extremely talented engineers from all over the globe at this point, 20+ years in. Do you think all the engineers in San Francisco were born there?
You would never guess where I'm living, and it's not San Francisco. I'd love to, but I'm waiting for tech to recede a bit and a sense of normalcy to return.
anecdotally, I can confirm this happening in a few companies I know... I left my job at the beginning of 2020 to work for myself. A lot of ex-colleagues took a similar path.
I guess the "focus on the mission" companies are trying to foster among their ranks is also useful to distract oneself from what your own mission actually is.
This hiatus on company focus might have been the best thing that happened to a lot of engineers I know.
Including, alas, myself.
I guess the "focus on the mission" companies are trying to foster among their ranks is also useful to distract oneself from what your own mission actually is.
This hiatus on company focus might have been the best thing that happened to a lot of engineers I know.
Including, alas, myself.
[citation needed]
Now, from memory I seem to recall that depending on which staffing survey, and how you phrase it, 10-35% of all employees say they intend to quit.
I'm not saying that we will won't see and increase turn over. However I suspect that given the level of disruption we've already had, I would be skeptical that its going to get worse.
The counter argument to that is of course that the people who were forced to change jobs from ones they liked (ones that were heavily hit by covid) to ones that existed, will migrate back to their old profession.
Now, from memory I seem to recall that depending on which staffing survey, and how you phrase it, 10-35% of all employees say they intend to quit.
I'm not saying that we will won't see and increase turn over. However I suspect that given the level of disruption we've already had, I would be skeptical that its going to get worse.
The counter argument to that is of course that the people who were forced to change jobs from ones they liked (ones that were heavily hit by covid) to ones that existed, will migrate back to their old profession.
Not sure if this was just pent up demand from the limited mobility due to lockdowns last year. Now that places are opening up, people can actually move.
I've been a consultant for years, and I'd be unable to work as an employee for any company, especially a larger one. Seeing all the bullshit employees have to put up with at companies would make me scream.
I'm not talking about the work, it's everything else. The culture.
I'm not talking about the work, it's everything else. The culture.
I was looking around recently, particularly at startups, but then chose to stop. Here is my reasoning:
* I am currently employed with great benefits. If I am going to throw that away there needs to be something of value in exchange: leadership position, architecture, or some other increase of responsibilities. I wasn’t seeing this.
* If your primary platform or language is JavaScript everybody wants a tool jockey. They claim to want somebody full stack. But when you really press for details the really want somebody to do react on the front end and play around with their cloud provider. The services piece in the middle is where things get strained in a full stack interview. If tools are the direction of work I have already lost interest. Why would I want to give up stable employment with great benefits to wire tools together? I would rather just stare out the window.
* The idea of a senior engineer is incredibly convoluted. It sounds like people want somebody who can mentor in a vacuum. You can only mentor so much about dicking around with tools. If you try to mentor past that and the culture is just go dick around with tools you are either mentoring too much or not enough. Either way you are a horrible senior incompatible to the new organization. Worse is when they ask you to guide and train junior developers without leadership support. Really if that should work beyond vague hints you need a title. Excellent juniors have a passion for learning but many juniors aren’t excellent, just want a paycheck, and feel insecure when challenged.
From going through the exact same conversation several times in a row I get the impression many employers kind of know what they want to build, kind of guess at what they need, and completely guess at what qualifies as execution planning but cannot put any of that together into a single vision.
* I am currently employed with great benefits. If I am going to throw that away there needs to be something of value in exchange: leadership position, architecture, or some other increase of responsibilities. I wasn’t seeing this.
* If your primary platform or language is JavaScript everybody wants a tool jockey. They claim to want somebody full stack. But when you really press for details the really want somebody to do react on the front end and play around with their cloud provider. The services piece in the middle is where things get strained in a full stack interview. If tools are the direction of work I have already lost interest. Why would I want to give up stable employment with great benefits to wire tools together? I would rather just stare out the window.
* The idea of a senior engineer is incredibly convoluted. It sounds like people want somebody who can mentor in a vacuum. You can only mentor so much about dicking around with tools. If you try to mentor past that and the culture is just go dick around with tools you are either mentoring too much or not enough. Either way you are a horrible senior incompatible to the new organization. Worse is when they ask you to guide and train junior developers without leadership support. Really if that should work beyond vague hints you need a title. Excellent juniors have a passion for learning but many juniors aren’t excellent, just want a paycheck, and feel insecure when challenged.
From going through the exact same conversation several times in a row I get the impression many employers kind of know what they want to build, kind of guess at what they need, and completely guess at what qualifies as execution planning but cannot put any of that together into a single vision.
What do you mean by “tools”? Generally I think of “tools” as anything that assists you in building, deploying, or operating a (production) service, but not the service itself. For my definition, the firebase CLI is a tool, but Google Cloud Firestore (a no-SQL data store) is not. At the places you talked to, was everything service-y left to a separate back-end/infra team?
By tools I don’t mean your OS or IDE. I mean those things so you don’t have to write code beyond a couple of figurations or text content.
Can you give examples. I'm not clear on what you mean
* State management in the browser. This is stupid easy. I even wrote about exactly how to do this: https://github.com/prettydiff/wisdom/blob/master/state_manag...
* Just about anything to do with the DOM. Its a standard tree model. You learn it and get comfortable with it and suddenly all that browser tooling you cannot live without becomes immediately unnecessary. Hiding from this, making a bunch of excuses, and complaining about how hard life isn't appealing.
* The file system is also a tree model. If you have an abstraction layer that normalizes file system access cross OS all you really need is a basic comfort of data structures.
* Tools that provide session management are there because planning for real time parallel distribution is challenging. This is yet another one of those that once you go through it a few times you just know how to do it.
* Just about anything to do with the DOM. Its a standard tree model. You learn it and get comfortable with it and suddenly all that browser tooling you cannot live without becomes immediately unnecessary. Hiding from this, making a bunch of excuses, and complaining about how hard life isn't appealing.
* The file system is also a tree model. If you have an abstraction layer that normalizes file system access cross OS all you really need is a basic comfort of data structures.
* Tools that provide session management are there because planning for real time parallel distribution is challenging. This is yet another one of those that once you go through it a few times you just know how to do it.
[deleted]
I guess he/she doesn’t want to write glue code, but solve actual problems in code.
Looking at the code examples they shared it seems like they are the lone-wolf sort of developer that wants to "solve problems" in code that no one else can read.
The inability to read code (literacy) is a training problem.
Regarding your second point, I think it's good to know what interests you, but there's a lot of quality ideas out there that don't have hard tech components, and if they invent hard tech problems to keep their engineers interested, they're probably not going to last very long.
IMHO, the "all JavaScript tech stack, connected together by a cloud provider via tooling" pattern is probably among the faster ways to get an idea from inside someone's head and in front of customers, all of the longer term problems aside.
To me personally, the "challenge" comes from being able to do all of that quickly and seamlessly, basically solid execution becomes the fun part.
Oh, also I would love to make a bunch of money relatively quickly. :)
IMHO, the "all JavaScript tech stack, connected together by a cloud provider via tooling" pattern is probably among the faster ways to get an idea from inside someone's head and in front of customers, all of the longer term problems aside.
To me personally, the "challenge" comes from being able to do all of that quickly and seamlessly, basically solid execution becomes the fun part.
Oh, also I would love to make a bunch of money relatively quickly. :)
IMO the only way to make that stuff engaging is to move "up" a level and be the one picking the tools to solve the problem, interacting with users/clients, that kind of thing. Basically, start your own business or become a product manager at a place where product manager is a fairly expansive role.
Otherwise, I agree, it's all of: fucking boring; frustrating; and unrewarding. But, it's also most of the market for developers. :-/
Otherwise, I agree, it's all of: fucking boring; frustrating; and unrewarding. But, it's also most of the market for developers. :-/
The business should be inventing the problems, because that is (hopefully) driving the revenue that keeps you employed. Usually the business has all kinds of wonderful ideas of which some are practical and vetted while others are a distraction. If you are thinking in terms of automation, internal training, and service fulfillment you probably aren't properly aligning solutions to expense reduction. The benefit of writing original software is innovation and IP (even if open source and liberally licensed) that can generate additional revenue for the business.
If you current approach is entirely dependent upon tools it will be boxed in to a set of configurations and flexibility is lost. From what I have seen on HN the greatest challenge for most early stage startups is finding product-market fit, which means you need to pivot at a moment's notice. That ability to pivot is far more significant than whether you can have a website up in 2 days versus 2 weeks.
If you current approach is entirely dependent upon tools it will be boxed in to a set of configurations and flexibility is lost. From what I have seen on HN the greatest challenge for most early stage startups is finding product-market fit, which means you need to pivot at a moment's notice. That ability to pivot is far more significant than whether you can have a website up in 2 days versus 2 weeks.
For me, there's this fire of urgency that makes it feel appropriate to make some long term bad tech choices if it helps me get customer feedback/iterate in the nearer term.
Honestly, as long as the tech doesn't fall over at 3am and generally lets me know when it's unhealthy, I'm just trying to grow enough to hire people who know more about making good long term tech choices than I do...
Honestly, as long as the tech doesn't fall over at 3am and generally lets me know when it's unhealthy, I'm just trying to grow enough to hire people who know more about making good long term tech choices than I do...
What I don't understand is that everyone still has roughly the same expenses as they did before. The basic economics of rent, groceries, child care, car payments, etc have not changed. I'd think people might move from one industry to another. But how can a wave of people afford to quit?
I guess people are living off of their savings, but that seems like a temporary solution. At the least I'd expect to see a similar wave of people re-entering the job market in 6-12 months. I'm still not sure what to make of this general trend, though
I guess people are living off of their savings, but that seems like a temporary solution. At the least I'd expect to see a similar wave of people re-entering the job market in 6-12 months. I'm still not sure what to make of this general trend, though
> The basic economics of rent, groceries, child care, car payments, etc have not changed.
For some people, they have though. Quite a few people moved out of the bay area/NYC, some have partners that lost jobs and have chosen to focus on child care instead, some have sold 1 of 2 cars because remote work no longer requires a commute.
For some people, they have though. Quite a few people moved out of the bay area/NYC, some have partners that lost jobs and have chosen to focus on child care instead, some have sold 1 of 2 cars because remote work no longer requires a commute.
Capital assets went up a surprising amount during the pandemic. My stock portfolio and my house are worth a lot more than they were 2 years ago.
I feel a temptation to use that money. I also have a nagging feeling that it’s somewhat artificial (the govt pumped a ton of money during the pandemic) so I should cash out before it falls.
I feel a temptation to use that money. I also have a nagging feeling that it’s somewhat artificial (the govt pumped a ton of money during the pandemic) so I should cash out before it falls.
Stocks, sure. But don't sell your house (if you only have one).
I was lucky enough to buy into a great neighborhood in a city years ago. If I sold now and quit my job, I could live farther out and get more property for less money, and pocket the difference.
In the U.S., capital gains on your primary residence can be kept tax free up to $250,000 ($500k if you’re married).
In the U.S., capital gains on your primary residence can be kept tax free up to $250,000 ($500k if you’re married).
You don’t have to sell your house to feel richer.
I think by "quit" they mostly mean look for a job elsewhere with a different employer. "1 in 4 workers (26%) plans to look for a job at a different company once the pandemic has subsided, ... " [1]
[1] https://www.axios.com/post-pandemic-job-turnover-04cdedcb-dd...
[1] https://www.axios.com/post-pandemic-job-turnover-04cdedcb-dd...
I'm curious about this as well. In my market we've seen rent and child care costs go up roughly 40% in the past year. But, it may well be the people leaving higher COL areas driving up the prices here.
Lots of people are spending less than a quarter of their income on those expenses. So it's pretty easy to quit and use their savings on it for multiple years.
20% of Americans don't have $400 to cover an emergency.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/four-in-ten-cant-cover-an-...
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/four-in-ten-cant-cover-an-...
I'm guessing most of the people we're talking about are well into the other 80%.
"human resources"
Well. As long as you treat people like that it is now wonder that the leave you as quick as possible.
Well. As long as you treat people like that it is now wonder that the leave you as quick as possible.
I've been unemployed for a long time, living on benefits, without guilt or remorse. For health and other reasons.
One problem being lack of social integration and interaction.
But honestly I don't think I can believe in the necessity of having a job, if I can't see purpose or meaning. There are few jobs that matter, and a lot of barriers and filtering.
/r/antiwork is really a viewpoint I can understand and defend.
One problem being lack of social integration and interaction.
But honestly I don't think I can believe in the necessity of having a job, if I can't see purpose or meaning. There are few jobs that matter, and a lot of barriers and filtering.
/r/antiwork is really a viewpoint I can understand and defend.
How is this a scalable approach to everyone in the society? Someone has to work to produce food. Someone has to work to produce electricity. Until we can automate everything, most people have to work and contribute to society (unless you choose to be self-sufficient - grow your own food, produce your own electricity etc.)
Not all jobs are equal in term of necessity. Food, shelter, electricity, water, you don't need a lot of people to work those jobs.
Punishing unproductive people and encourage them to work in fast food or other wage-slaving do not make sense.
The main argument is UBI.
Punishing unproductive people and encourage them to work in fast food or other wage-slaving do not make sense.
The main argument is UBI.
Here's the pro fast food take. There are productive people working jobs that have massive necessity, and they need to eat. The least somebody who isn't productive can do is help feed them.
There are not many such people, and everybody knows how to cook. Ready to eat meals are good enough, collective food preparation is good too.
Not to mention fast food is generally of poor quality.
Not to mention fast food is generally of poor quality.
There are plenty of people building houses, growing food, and maintaining infrastructure like water treatment that directly contribute to sustaining life. And there are plenty of people in the industries that are required to support those people.
I'm not saying they don't know how to cook- but I'm saying that the least the rest of society who aren't responsible for sustaining us can do is make life better for those who do
I'm not saying they don't know how to cook- but I'm saying that the least the rest of society who aren't responsible for sustaining us can do is make life better for those who do
Depend on those people are treated. Minimum wage and work conditions matter. If it's not sustainable, it's just not, and you cannot argue that "work is mandatory" on the premise that some people should prepare food for others.
I worked in fast food for several years and the job is terrible. The fundamental problem with this job and others like it are the fact that you can bust your ass day in and day out and see no benefit to your work. It's like groundhog day where every singe day you work there is exactly the same until you finally quit.
I think what would really improve a job like fast food is if workers were part owners of their franchise. Most fast food restaurants are franchises owned by one person or a local corporation that owns several franchises. Putting ownership into the workers hands would mean profit sharing, it would mean when you bust ass over the hot grill working a double shift or cleaning shit and blood from the walls in the bathroom, you are actually rewarded for the increased demand on the restaurant. It would be like a built in hazard pay for when things got busy and stressful and awful. At least benefits would be nice, I know several people who burned their forearms really bad on the fryer.
I think what would really improve a job like fast food is if workers were part owners of their franchise. Most fast food restaurants are franchises owned by one person or a local corporation that owns several franchises. Putting ownership into the workers hands would mean profit sharing, it would mean when you bust ass over the hot grill working a double shift or cleaning shit and blood from the walls in the bathroom, you are actually rewarded for the increased demand on the restaurant. It would be like a built in hazard pay for when things got busy and stressful and awful. At least benefits would be nice, I know several people who burned their forearms really bad on the fryer.
We don't need a lot of people to provide food, shelter, electricity and water for 7.6bn people? What about clothes, cars, furniture, electronics, schools, hospitals, medical equipment?
"The main argument is UBI." - is that it? UBI will solve everything? Let's just print more money and give it to everyone. Problem solved.
As I said in my other comment, I am not saying that the current status-quo is right. I think there is plenty of inequality and injustice in the world, but I just don't think "antiwork" is the way to solve that.
"The main argument is UBI." - is that it? UBI will solve everything? Let's just print more money and give it to everyone. Problem solved.
As I said in my other comment, I am not saying that the current status-quo is right. I think there is plenty of inequality and injustice in the world, but I just don't think "antiwork" is the way to solve that.
> What about clothes, cars, furniture, electronics, schools, hospitals, medical equipment?
Not all jobs are unnecessary, but there are jobs that are more important than others. There are a lot of jobs people wish they would not work or that they think nothing would change if they did not work those jobs. Just read about David Graeber and his book, Bullshit Jobs.
Just imagine all the workers in fast food. Look around and you will see a lot of people working jobs when they could spend time at university instead. You only listed the best jobs. People who work in insurance, sales, fast food, uber drivers, food delivery, clothing shops, etc.
> Let's just print more money and give it to everyone. Problem solved.
That's already what happens when there are bailouts. Giving money to people instead of giving it to the banks makes more sense.
I'm not saying that everybody should quit their jobs, I'm just saying that once you raise unemployment benefits, you will see a lot of wage slave quit their jobs and nothing will change.
Not all jobs are unnecessary, but there are jobs that are more important than others. There are a lot of jobs people wish they would not work or that they think nothing would change if they did not work those jobs. Just read about David Graeber and his book, Bullshit Jobs.
Just imagine all the workers in fast food. Look around and you will see a lot of people working jobs when they could spend time at university instead. You only listed the best jobs. People who work in insurance, sales, fast food, uber drivers, food delivery, clothing shops, etc.
> Let's just print more money and give it to everyone. Problem solved.
That's already what happens when there are bailouts. Giving money to people instead of giving it to the banks makes more sense.
I'm not saying that everybody should quit their jobs, I'm just saying that once you raise unemployment benefits, you will see a lot of wage slave quit their jobs and nothing will change.
> Someone has to work to produce food.
Only 1% of the workforce in the US produce food. That feeds America and some other countries.
> Someone has to work to produce electricity.
Again, you need really very few people to make electricity.
Only 1% of the workforce in the US produce food. That feeds America and some other countries.
> Someone has to work to produce electricity.
Again, you need really very few people to make electricity.
They are just two examples of things we need. Did you expect an extensive list of all the things someone needs to do? What is the point of your comment?
Sure, you can employ everyone and they’ll still be useful. Trash on the streets? That’s a job. Pothole in the road, that’s another job.
I just commented that the basic necessities of life (food, water, electricity, etc…) can be covered with very few people.
I just commented that the basic necessities of life (food, water, electricity, etc…) can be covered with very few people.
Who supplies the wires? The copper to the wire maker? The plastic for insulation? Transporting it? Building the road/tracks? Etc etc.
Of course there are bullshit jobs out there, but I think we are under estimating
Of course there are bullshit jobs out there, but I think we are under estimating
I don't think we are underestimating.
When you hit scale like that with specialization, it's conceivable a relatively small amount of jobs can provide a society with the base necessities.
When you hit scale like that with specialization, it's conceivable a relatively small amount of jobs can provide a society with the base necessities.
These are few examples and I am expecting the reader would use their imagination a bit.
Food production - planting seeds, collecting crops, watering the farms, creating anti-pesticides, creating all the farming equipment, packaging food, distributing food, storing food (for storing food just think about all the work that goes into creating a fridge - from mining metals from the ground, to designing the fridge and building a factory that create thousands of fridges quickly)
Food production - planting seeds, collecting crops, watering the farms, creating anti-pesticides, creating all the farming equipment, packaging food, distributing food, storing food (for storing food just think about all the work that goes into creating a fridge - from mining metals from the ground, to designing the fridge and building a factory that create thousands of fridges quickly)
We need work for plenty of reasons, but most jobs don't really contribute to our civilization's continued success. Many are even opposed to it.
I don't agree with Graeber's conclusions, but his observations are solid:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs
I don't agree with Graeber's conclusions, but his observations are solid:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs
> How is this a scalable approach to everyone in the society?
It is not, but let's not pretend most of us work to increase societal good. It just happens to be that our rent-seeking behavior is aligned with society's interests.
It is not, but let's not pretend most of us work to increase societal good. It just happens to be that our rent-seeking behavior is aligned with society's interests.
I was only giving an argument against the "antiwork mentality". This doesn't mean that I want to preserve the status-quo or I that I think the existing system is perfect. I agree that there are many issues in our society and the existing system, but I don't think "antiwork" is really the right way to go about it.
> How is this a scalable approach to everyone in the society?
Does everything have to be scalable to society at large?
Does everything have to be scalable to society at large?
[deleted]
Thanks for your service. I aspire to attain your lifestyle one day.
Generally, good for you, and mostly agreed, but that /r/antiwork is awfully toxic.
And people can still rely on unemployment insurance
Pretty sure most states won't accept you if you voluntarily leave.
Pretty sure most states won't accept you if you voluntarily leave.
I got laid off a few years ago and took off to Spain to do the Camino de Santiago (French route) and it was pretty life changing. Met some cool people on the route and completely changed my outlook on life.
I think a lot of people are just biding their time, if they have job security now then why take the risk? It's a global pandemic, it's possible it'll turn around again (example: despite a national vaccination rate of nearly 50%, the number of 'rona cases is on the rise there because of the even more infectious Delta variant).
> if they have job security now then why take the risk?
Because, at least in the US, and at least in IT, it is a buyer's market.
Because, at least in the US, and at least in IT, it is a buyer's market.
> "I don't envy the challenge that human resources faces right now," says Anthony Klotz, an associate professor of management at Texas A&M University.
Maybe part of the problem is sitting right there in plain sight. Looking back, virtually every work frustration that led me to start looking elsewhere was nothing that HR could (or should) fix. In my experience, the degree of HR's influence over company culture, hiring, and firing directly correlates to the degree that the work environment is impersonal, homogenized, and rote.
Maybe part of the problem is sitting right there in plain sight. Looking back, virtually every work frustration that led me to start looking elsewhere was nothing that HR could (or should) fix. In my experience, the degree of HR's influence over company culture, hiring, and firing directly correlates to the degree that the work environment is impersonal, homogenized, and rote.
HR is mostly there to cross t and dot i in case company runs into legal issues.
Its all there in the name. We're resources, to be marshalled and managed by HR for the benefit and protection of the company. HR doesn't care a whit about us employees beyond the extent of any liability we might leverage into suing the company for.
In my experience it really depends on the company.
In one company for which I've worked, the HR department had a surprising amount of power regarding software developers' salaries and (for hiring) qualifications. It was almost impossible for hiring managers to override those policies.
Perhaps HR was merely implementing the policies chosen by executive leadership; i.e. perhaps they were just the messenger. But either way, HR was an additional level of bureaucracy that collectively hamstrung the company's ability to hire and retain top talent. IIUC this is really coming back to hurt them now.
In one company for which I've worked, the HR department had a surprising amount of power regarding software developers' salaries and (for hiring) qualifications. It was almost impossible for hiring managers to override those policies.
Perhaps HR was merely implementing the policies chosen by executive leadership; i.e. perhaps they were just the messenger. But either way, HR was an additional level of bureaucracy that collectively hamstrung the company's ability to hire and retain top talent. IIUC this is really coming back to hurt them now.
They want us back in the office July 16... I'm going to pass so found a new remote role with higher salary and equity. I will be part of this wave. I didn't realy even try with how insane the market is especially if you are specialzed in the current hotness.
Moreso, the rise of fully remote role has opened up our ideas about our current living situation. The real estate market in our city is shattered and broken. So we will also move 60 miles south to a different city... before the pandemic I was remote and missed the office. Post pandemic... fuck the office and 1+ hour commutes purely because the city, state, and country have mismanaged infrastructure for 20 years.
Moreso, the rise of fully remote role has opened up our ideas about our current living situation. The real estate market in our city is shattered and broken. So we will also move 60 miles south to a different city... before the pandemic I was remote and missed the office. Post pandemic... fuck the office and 1+ hour commutes purely because the city, state, and country have mismanaged infrastructure for 20 years.
Any software company that’s ending remote work right now is basically risking its entire existence. There’s no possible way, in this market, a company will be able to replace 10% of its workforce in a reasonable time. I can understand why management wants to go back to the office, but why would you ever take the risk of being one of the first, before gauging how the market will react.
It's a big company and they are an ERP vendor thus rooted in old fashioned manufacturing ideas. They think their size will protect them.
These companies are probably right that their size will protect them. People who are currently employed know better than to take the abuse. That's why these major companies recruit so heavily at colleges and rope in people who have zero perspective on work who don't know any better.
I had a poor college GPA. I missed a lot of good job opportunities because of this. However, it made me un-hireable at a lot of large companies that I might have considered at the time.
Especially more senior developers.
I mean things will probably settle down in 6-12 months. But that's a problem for companies trying to hire today, who need to get shit done in the next 6-12 months
Mostly for more junior people, be very careful with this. Even if companies make sure promotions happen equally for on-site and remote, you'll learn everything slower. This could be new technology, a new language, or things about the company's infrastrucutre, but it will all be slower, and don't be surprised when people who are on-site seem better at their jobs.
Depends on how you learn. Personally I've alway been ultra self taught. Even in university would only show up for lectures if I didnt understand the material in the text book. Else I basically just followed the syllabus and got reasonably good grades.
Some are more hands on though and prefer social learning ("show me how to do it..."). To each their own, but I personally learn faster when left alone than when someone tries to put me through their "course".
Some are more hands on though and prefer social learning ("show me how to do it..."). To each their own, but I personally learn faster when left alone than when someone tries to put me through their "course".
It also depends on what you are learning. I'm sure a junior engineer would get by just fine if all they had to do was learn a language, but if you have to look at a 10-year-old system where only senior co-workers know the context for, I wouldn't blame them for needing some hand-holding.
yeah, in that case the Senior co-worker literally is the text book.
That being said, just reading the source code is under untilized these days. Engineers sometimes ask me how the system works, I send them to the repo. It's all right there, just have to learn to read the story it tells.
One risk is that often times the co-worker knows the business logic in "how it ought to be" not the reality of the underlying code. I've had engineers say "It works like X" and I have to say "well, only sometimes. The code says this..."
That being said, just reading the source code is under untilized these days. Engineers sometimes ask me how the system works, I send them to the repo. It's all right there, just have to learn to read the story it tells.
One risk is that often times the co-worker knows the business logic in "how it ought to be" not the reality of the underlying code. I've had engineers say "It works like X" and I have to say "well, only sometimes. The code says this..."
Please don't spread FUD. I was onsite and still learned slower. It all depends on your team and documentation. I mentor people remotely and they have been successful
Mine is returning part time on July 19th. When asked if we're more productive in the office vs at home we were told flat out "we don't have that data".
My commute is 5 miles. 30 minutes by bike (on a few sketchy roads) or 15 minutes by car. I need to time out which is actually faster end-to-end. I setup an office in my house pre-pandemic (It's gaming room with dual monitors on a desktop PC I built in college) 3x the space, a couch and much closer walk to the bathroom. I'm sad to give it up now.
My commute is 5 miles. 30 minutes by bike (on a few sketchy roads) or 15 minutes by car. I need to time out which is actually faster end-to-end. I setup an office in my house pre-pandemic (It's gaming room with dual monitors on a desktop PC I built in college) 3x the space, a couch and much closer walk to the bathroom. I'm sad to give it up now.
This is fantastic
For one life is too short to work like a dog, and for anyone who stays they'll be able to demand higher salaries.
Right now I have enough money saved up where I don't really need to work for the rest of the year. If it wasn't for the pandemic restricting international travel, I would simply up and move to a low cost of living country and try and take a full year off.
For one life is too short to work like a dog, and for anyone who stays they'll be able to demand higher salaries.
Right now I have enough money saved up where I don't really need to work for the rest of the year. If it wasn't for the pandemic restricting international travel, I would simply up and move to a low cost of living country and try and take a full year off.
> There's not much firms can do to hold onto employees
Well, they could always offer more money.
Sometimes I crack myself up.
Well, they could always offer more money.
Sometimes I crack myself up.
of course they can, and facing a labor shortage they eventually will, but those changes take time. businesses compete for workers and customers in a market, and the market has to change. it has a lot of inertia.
At this point, still not making six figures but it's Germany, I'd prefer a nicer office/work environment over more money.
More space, more open-minded culture, fresh food for lunch (not even free but let's split cost)...
Things like these would probably benefit me (and my colleagues) more than paying us another X hundred Euro.
More space, more open-minded culture, fresh food for lunch (not even free but let's split cost)...
Things like these would probably benefit me (and my colleagues) more than paying us another X hundred Euro.
> more open-minded culture
Could you expand on this a bit?
I've only worked in the U.S., so most of what I "know" about working in Germany is based on stereotypes. I'd love to hear your first-hand perspective.
Could you expand on this a bit?
I've only worked in the U.S., so most of what I "know" about working in Germany is based on stereotypes. I'd love to hear your first-hand perspective.
Hm, maybe that's not specific to Germany, but in this company there are lots of people who think something like this:
- Totally not my problem, see how you figure it out for yourself
- We've never done it that way
- We've always done it this way
- Don't look left and right while doing your work
- I don't want to improve but I don't like where you are
- If you're not physically at work you can't be working at all
I think Germans sometimes have a specific sense of order and structure for work. Also succesful people, like in hard-working and making something out of themselves, are often belittled and in general nothing to look up to.
These cultural "problems" creep into workplaces, too. To paraphrase a bit more:
Work is a place you go to and leave after 8 hours. 8.5 hours precisely, because of 0.5 hours of lunch break. Don't stay longer, but NEVER leave 15 minutes earlier. You also don't hang out with colleagues for a beer or food, except for the colleagues from your pack. But you only meet those in your free time to talk about the other colleagures.
Also the other packs/departments are probably all idiots. "Online people" don't work at all, because I never see them on the phone, they just chill and surf the web probably. And they even work less now that they stayed at home because of Covid.
I've experienced all of this not only in my current but in other companies and I start to think it's a workplace-culture thing, where Germans don't realise that we're all in the same team but some people work just differently than others. This leads to a lot of envy, bad mood and stress, because I've always got the feeling that I need to fight. Fight for how I work, what I work on, how I communicate that to clients and so on.
So, I'd like my leaders up in the C-level to work on "relaxing the people", connecting the departments, thinking more about purpose and mission and vision and less about whether we can make 5% more profit this year.
I'd love if we would get something like a Skillshare/Udemy/LinkedIn learning membership for all of us and you get two hours a week to learn whatever you want, so everybody can become better.
I'd love if the company would support renting a bike, but "it's too complicated/too much work". I'd also love if I could get rid of most of the wall units here in our space and instead get a couch and some plants. Best we will get (learned that today) is that we can paint one wall in a color we'd like. We might even be allowed to paint that in our working time, but we'll see.
I don't expect middle to larger companies to be like a startup and everything is possible all the time and so on, but I think in Germany we need to see work more as a place where you are also allowed to have fun and enjoy the environment and learn and develop yourself and look next to the road and so on...
- Totally not my problem, see how you figure it out for yourself
- We've never done it that way
- We've always done it this way
- Don't look left and right while doing your work
- I don't want to improve but I don't like where you are
- If you're not physically at work you can't be working at all
I think Germans sometimes have a specific sense of order and structure for work. Also succesful people, like in hard-working and making something out of themselves, are often belittled and in general nothing to look up to.
These cultural "problems" creep into workplaces, too. To paraphrase a bit more:
Work is a place you go to and leave after 8 hours. 8.5 hours precisely, because of 0.5 hours of lunch break. Don't stay longer, but NEVER leave 15 minutes earlier. You also don't hang out with colleagues for a beer or food, except for the colleagues from your pack. But you only meet those in your free time to talk about the other colleagures.
Also the other packs/departments are probably all idiots. "Online people" don't work at all, because I never see them on the phone, they just chill and surf the web probably. And they even work less now that they stayed at home because of Covid.
I've experienced all of this not only in my current but in other companies and I start to think it's a workplace-culture thing, where Germans don't realise that we're all in the same team but some people work just differently than others. This leads to a lot of envy, bad mood and stress, because I've always got the feeling that I need to fight. Fight for how I work, what I work on, how I communicate that to clients and so on.
So, I'd like my leaders up in the C-level to work on "relaxing the people", connecting the departments, thinking more about purpose and mission and vision and less about whether we can make 5% more profit this year.
I'd love if we would get something like a Skillshare/Udemy/LinkedIn learning membership for all of us and you get two hours a week to learn whatever you want, so everybody can become better.
I'd love if the company would support renting a bike, but "it's too complicated/too much work". I'd also love if I could get rid of most of the wall units here in our space and instead get a couch and some plants. Best we will get (learned that today) is that we can paint one wall in a color we'd like. We might even be allowed to paint that in our working time, but we'll see.
I don't expect middle to larger companies to be like a startup and everything is possible all the time and so on, but I think in Germany we need to see work more as a place where you are also allowed to have fun and enjoy the environment and learn and develop yourself and look next to the road and so on...
> If you're not physically at work you can't be working at all
Isn't that a deliberate choice as a way to put an end to the scourge of unpaid overtime?
Isn't that a deliberate choice as a way to put an end to the scourge of unpaid overtime?
Hm, I found this more in the context of the work from home situation we are in.
More than once I had a call later in the afternoon and people (explicitly one of the C-levels) were really surprised that I answered the Teams call right away, was well dressed and sitting at my desk.
Don't know what they were expecting. Motivated, happy people will work a lot from home, too, the lazy ones are lazy whether they are sitting in the office or at home...
But there's lots of "old school" leadership people in Germany, and they are really looking forward on ending WFH. For us it will happen in July, team leads can define "exceptions" where their members can stay at home but only "once a week" and not regularly.
Old habits die slow, I guess, but I think Germany needs a new leadership culture to keep up with the US et al.
More than once I had a call later in the afternoon and people (explicitly one of the C-levels) were really surprised that I answered the Teams call right away, was well dressed and sitting at my desk.
Don't know what they were expecting. Motivated, happy people will work a lot from home, too, the lazy ones are lazy whether they are sitting in the office or at home...
But there's lots of "old school" leadership people in Germany, and they are really looking forward on ending WFH. For us it will happen in July, team leads can define "exceptions" where their members can stay at home but only "once a week" and not regularly.
Old habits die slow, I guess, but I think Germany needs a new leadership culture to keep up with the US et al.
I think it's a pretty constant insight that more money isn't what generally motivates people to quit, it's work environment.
I would personally take more free time over more money any day. The only reason I work a full time job is because it is the only way to get health coverage that you can actually afford.
I think this is a true cause of a lot of people leaving jobs. The company I work for has grown revenue 50% during the pandemic, but has only hired maybe 10% more people. So now I have 1.5 full time jobs and hate it, but I can't complain because I see that my coworkers are working 2-3 full time jobs.
It's easier to quit. The raise is nice, but the normal workload is much nicer.
It's easier to quit. The raise is nice, but the normal workload is much nicer.
Just lost out on a candidate who was in the 'talking with HR phase'. Their existing company offered a 100% salary bonus to stay for 12 months.
I'll hit them up again in a year :)
I'll hit them up again in a year :)
Hit them up again in two months. That level of raise signals "stick around while we find your replacement."
To prevent this the tech company I work for has just introduced world-wide a flexible work policy which allows you to chose (with only your manager's approval) if and how you want to return to the office.
100% were in full remote worldwide since August and offices are just starting to reopen.
100% were in full remote worldwide since August and offices are just starting to reopen.
> flexible work policy
To me at least, the vagueness of this phrase has made it untrustworthy. It can mean way too many different things.
> with only your manager's approval
I'd hope we're beyond tying your (and your family's) physical location to your boss's whim.
To me at least, the vagueness of this phrase has made it untrustworthy. It can mean way too many different things.
> with only your manager's approval
I'd hope we're beyond tying your (and your family's) physical location to your boss's whim.
> To me at least, the vagueness of this phrase has made it untrustworthy.
Perhaps that was the GP's choice of wording, to keep the comment brief?
Perhaps that was the GP's choice of wording, to keep the comment brief?
That could be—I've heard businesses talk about their "flexible work policies" too.
in 2017, I left my job of 27 years.
Back then, the market was flooded with young folks out of bootcamps. So much so, in fact, that several companies had absolutely no problem treating me in quite shabby fashion, as I have committed the crime of Eld, along with a rather disturbing level of Provable Competence. These seem to be characteristics that immediately mark people for ridicule, humiliation, and indignity.
Fortunately, I had been quite frugal, and have enough to retire anytime I wanted. I won't be zipping around in any learjets, but I'll be OK.
I have never worked harder in my life; but I'm not making a dime. I'm working on the kind of software I find interesting, and that will actually have some real social impact, with people that treat me with basic human dignity and simple respect. It's cool. I'm also trying out and refining all kinds of ideas for high-quality, flexible software development, that no one was ever interested in exploring. They are working out fairly well. My GH Activity Graph has been solid green, for a couple of years. I like writing software (and delivering it).
I'm in no hurry to put myself in a position again, where my work can be destroyed by others; even if I do make decent money at it. I have found that the pain of having my work ruined is far greater than I had thought. It took several years of being able to do things the way that I want, to realize that[0].
This is actually what I have wanted all my life. I just didn't know it, as I had never taken the risk to give it a go.
This would not have happened, if the door had not been slammed in my face, forcing me to adapt.
I'm really quite happy to see that people younger than I am, are getting a chance to make this realization, and I wish them all the luck in the world, in following their muse. The tech industry should be engaging, fun, and a source of wonder. We have amazing tools, technology, and a maturity of community that was unavailable, when I started.
It would be great to see the tech field return to a greenfield, and a garden of pride in craftsmanship, real creativity, and joy in exploration, as opposed to the rather sordid, low-quality, mercenary mess, that it is now.
[0] https://dilbert.com/strip/1996-06-02
Back then, the market was flooded with young folks out of bootcamps. So much so, in fact, that several companies had absolutely no problem treating me in quite shabby fashion, as I have committed the crime of Eld, along with a rather disturbing level of Provable Competence. These seem to be characteristics that immediately mark people for ridicule, humiliation, and indignity.
Fortunately, I had been quite frugal, and have enough to retire anytime I wanted. I won't be zipping around in any learjets, but I'll be OK.
I have never worked harder in my life; but I'm not making a dime. I'm working on the kind of software I find interesting, and that will actually have some real social impact, with people that treat me with basic human dignity and simple respect. It's cool. I'm also trying out and refining all kinds of ideas for high-quality, flexible software development, that no one was ever interested in exploring. They are working out fairly well. My GH Activity Graph has been solid green, for a couple of years. I like writing software (and delivering it).
I'm in no hurry to put myself in a position again, where my work can be destroyed by others; even if I do make decent money at it. I have found that the pain of having my work ruined is far greater than I had thought. It took several years of being able to do things the way that I want, to realize that[0].
This is actually what I have wanted all my life. I just didn't know it, as I had never taken the risk to give it a go.
This would not have happened, if the door had not been slammed in my face, forcing me to adapt.
I'm really quite happy to see that people younger than I am, are getting a chance to make this realization, and I wish them all the luck in the world, in following their muse. The tech industry should be engaging, fun, and a source of wonder. We have amazing tools, technology, and a maturity of community that was unavailable, when I started.
It would be great to see the tech field return to a greenfield, and a garden of pride in craftsmanship, real creativity, and joy in exploration, as opposed to the rather sordid, low-quality, mercenary mess, that it is now.
[0] https://dilbert.com/strip/1996-06-02
[deleted]
I love this comment. Thank you for sharing this experience.
I also underestimated the impact of having my work burned in front of me after 2 years of overtime and sacrifice. The money afforded me some level of financial Independence which at least gives me the optionality to choose whether I want to suffer this again.
I'm thinking of following in your footsteps. Wish me luck!
I also underestimated the impact of having my work burned in front of me after 2 years of overtime and sacrifice. The money afforded me some level of financial Independence which at least gives me the optionality to choose whether I want to suffer this again.
I'm thinking of following in your footsteps. Wish me luck!
Definitely. Godspeed.
Listen, I am completely on board with giving employees the right to choose the remote situation - but don't be surprised when you're competing against people from all over the globe, who will probably take a lower salary than you, who probably aren't entitled as you, and will bite at the opportunity.
Furthermore, what are employers meant to do with their workplaces when employees are half-in, half-out with the office thing. Many folks (myself included) want to have 1-2 days at the office a week, but have the flexibility to decide that. That's not going to help my employer decide how much space is needed or whether to renew their lease.
Furthermore, what are employers meant to do with their workplaces when employees are half-in, half-out with the office thing. Many folks (myself included) want to have 1-2 days at the office a week, but have the flexibility to decide that. That's not going to help my employer decide how much space is needed or whether to renew their lease.
Our company is forcing almost everyone to become remote and has closed down probably half of its office space. Now when you come in you don't have an assigned desk and they will just expect everyone to find a desk.
I am also of the opinion that the writing is on the wall. I live in a HCOL area and have no doubt that remote workers in other places will eventually replace me.
I am also of the opinion that the writing is on the wall. I live in a HCOL area and have no doubt that remote workers in other places will eventually replace me.
> don't be surprised when you're competing against people from all over the globe, who will probably take a lower salary than you, who probably aren't entitled as you, and will bite at the opportunity.
This competition mostly doesn't exist.
The language barrier is too great, and working across time zones is something that most companies are horrible at, to say nothing of the legal/regulatory/jurisdictional challenges.
This competition mostly doesn't exist.
The language barrier is too great, and working across time zones is something that most companies are horrible at, to say nothing of the legal/regulatory/jurisdictional challenges.
I don't agree. And you're looking at this from a very anglo-centric point of view. This will open doors for french-speaking Africans to work for French companies. For Brazilians working for Portugal etc.
I've worked with skilled developers from all over the world, who speak more than good enough English.
I've worked with skilled developers from all over the world, who speak more than good enough English.
The anglo-centric view is really a USA-centric view. UK firms, for whatever reason, don't seem to feel obligated to pay more than 50-60k GBP per year, and they still manage to fill their cube farms.
And the foreigners who speak more than good enough English aren't going to be sufficiently cheaper than I am, if they're also great software engineers.
And the foreigners who speak more than good enough English aren't going to be sufficiently cheaper than I am, if they're also great software engineers.
I'd be quite happy with a "remote work abroad" situation. I live in Australia and prefer being a night owl. I'd love to do Sysadmin work for a US or even EU company because it matches my natural schedule preference
It's probably impractical though with regard to payroll, taxes etc but the dream is nice
It's probably impractical though with regard to payroll, taxes etc but the dream is nice
It's not as hard as you think. Most companies doing this use a co-employment scheme where a local company (PEO) handles all of your payroll (in exchange for about 20% of salary).
JustWorks is one of the big PEOs for US employees. I'm not sure who is most popular in your region though.
JustWorks is one of the big PEOs for US employees. I'm not sure who is most popular in your region though.
People keep saying this, and companies keep trying it, and it keeps not working very well. You try to cheap out with remote developers, and you get what you pay for. Sometimes it works, because the guy who sowed has already done the up and out to another company by the time it's time to reap.
That's because most managers don't do due diligence and proper checks on the remote teams. I've worked with teams from Poland & Romania that have been far more productive & professional than some of my colleagues here in Finland.
I've worked with Romanians, and have been quite impressed.
I've heard good things about Polish teams.
I've seen some truly God-awful, unmaintainable code, though, and have heard many outsourcing horror stories.
In my experience, good engineers can command good salaries; wherever they are. I think that we will actually see engineers in India and Vietnam getting a lot more money for their work, because they are just plain good engineers, and they will be able to stand out a great deal more. This remote economy will give them some real opportunities.
It's pretty hard to keep a good [wo]man down; no matter where they are.
I've heard good things about Polish teams.
I've seen some truly God-awful, unmaintainable code, though, and have heard many outsourcing horror stories.
In my experience, good engineers can command good salaries; wherever they are. I think that we will actually see engineers in India and Vietnam getting a lot more money for their work, because they are just plain good engineers, and they will be able to stand out a great deal more. This remote economy will give them some real opportunities.
It's pretty hard to keep a good [wo]man down; no matter where they are.
> Furthermore, what are employers meant to do with their workplaces when employees are half-in, half-out with the office thing. Many folks (myself included) want to have 1-2 days at the office a week, but have the flexibility to decide that. That's not going to help my employer decide how much space is needed or whether to renew their lease.
The baseline (pre-pandemic) is that the employer needs to provide enough space for most/all of the workforce to be concurrently in the office.
If the employer allows location flexibility, I don't see how that's a problem for the employer. The employer might feel frustrated about a missed, uncertain opportunity for downsizing the office space. But I wouldn't expect having fewer people occupy those workspaces add significant cost compared to having everyone onsite.
The only real downside I can think of is in a competitive market, where whichever companies could safely shrink their office space might be able to lower the the price of their product / service.
The baseline (pre-pandemic) is that the employer needs to provide enough space for most/all of the workforce to be concurrently in the office.
If the employer allows location flexibility, I don't see how that's a problem for the employer. The employer might feel frustrated about a missed, uncertain opportunity for downsizing the office space. But I wouldn't expect having fewer people occupy those workspaces add significant cost compared to having everyone onsite.
The only real downside I can think of is in a competitive market, where whichever companies could safely shrink their office space might be able to lower the the price of their product / service.
This is about far more than WFH vs Return To Office.
Many of us, after a year of lockdowns, losing family members, suffering mental and physical health issues, spending more time with our families, etc. are re-evaluating our priorities in life and deciding that our jobs are no longer the most important things in life and probably never should have been.
Higher education is my main job - we're not seeing an influx like we expected of people returning to college, but we are seeing an increase in non-traditional (24y.o.+) students.
They are, to paint with a very broad brush, folks who all worked in food service, retail, or other front-line sales industries. The forced time off last year made them realize they were killing themselves for not very much money, and they're refusing to go back to those employers.
But it's the $300 in weekly payments that is stopping people from returning to work, if you ask business owners in the area.
There is currently a wild and IMMENSE disconnect from worker attitudes to beliefs about worker attitudes, and I don't know why.
They are, to paint with a very broad brush, folks who all worked in food service, retail, or other front-line sales industries. The forced time off last year made them realize they were killing themselves for not very much money, and they're refusing to go back to those employers.
But it's the $300 in weekly payments that is stopping people from returning to work, if you ask business owners in the area.
There is currently a wild and IMMENSE disconnect from worker attitudes to beliefs about worker attitudes, and I don't know why.
I've considered going back and getting a new degree but the cost is so insane that it's just not worth it.
[deleted]
A lot of people were told their jobs are nonessential and the public debate was about whether or not they deserve assistance with basic survival needs. If it were me, I’d be doing everything in my power to never be in that position again. I suspect that’s part of what’s happening.
There is currently a wild and IMMENSE disconnect from worker attitudes to beliefs about worker attitudes, and I don't know why.
Largely because business owners are pushing the "$300/month is making everybody lazy" narrative. There doesn't appear to be much evidence it's true, at least not to the extend business owners would have us believe.
Largely because business owners are pushing the "$300/month is making everybody lazy" narrative. There doesn't appear to be much evidence it's true, at least not to the extend business owners would have us believe.
Because they've never been on unemployment and small business owners largely have a poor opinion of UI in general.
My MIL was laid off from a university job at the beginning of the pandemic and her UI ran out a looong time ago. The only reason she even collected it for as long as she did was because nobody is hiring elderly women.
My MIL was laid off from a university job at the beginning of the pandemic and her UI ran out a looong time ago. The only reason she even collected it for as long as she did was because nobody is hiring elderly women.
It also doesn't help that it takes forever to get it, at least in CA. There is no one you can call at the EDD, it is so ironic that the unemployment office needs to hire more in the richest state in the richest nation on earth. It took someone I knew two months to get their EDD debit card. Bills don't stop just because you lose your job.
Call your representative.
If they are worth their salt they should be fighting for you.
Everytime my family or friends have trouble with federal or state government we contact our representative and let his office go fight on our behalf. It's part of what they're elected for. Hopefully your experience with your representative is a good one.
If they are worth their salt they should be fighting for you.
Everytime my family or friends have trouble with federal or state government we contact our representative and let his office go fight on our behalf. It's part of what they're elected for. Hopefully your experience with your representative is a good one.
I wonder if there will be a sharp downward trend in per-worker productivity in those “$300/mo makes you lazy” jobs once everyone goes back to work. Boss makes a dollar, you make a dime and all that.
Its $300 a week not a month. $300 a week is $7.50 an hour at 40 hours a week. People are getting this on top of normal unemployment. So it very well may be more than what some people were getting paid to work.
Free money is a disincentive to work. But the effect is strongest on jobs that pay <$15/hr or don't include health insurance.
[deleted]
Exactly. Everyone having their own Office Space moments right now.
I joined this wave, started a new position last week for nearly another $100k/year, similar work, fully remote, great benefits. Tried asking for a raise at my previous job twice this year and my old boss wouldn’t discuss. Good luck to him retaining the rest of that team!
But human resources may be able to retain some workers by offering as much flexibility as possible, says Cathy Moy, chief people officer at BDO USA, a financial services company.
It's not just flexibility or WFH. For many people it's about pay, policies, management, and a host of other issues, many of them well known but never addressed. Good luck to those firms who think the old HR playbook - making sympathetic noises while doing nothing about these other issues - will suffice.
It's not just flexibility or WFH. For many people it's about pay, policies, management, and a host of other issues, many of them well known but never addressed. Good luck to those firms who think the old HR playbook - making sympathetic noises while doing nothing about these other issues - will suffice.
For my part, I am guessing none of this is really in HR's hands.
The conversations I'm having in my social sphere tend to be something to the effect of how the past year has really made it clear how dysfunctional their company's team social dynamics are. And it's often not something you can expect anyone to ever fix, because that sort of thing is largely driven by senior management.
The conversations I'm having in my social sphere tend to be something to the effect of how the past year has really made it clear how dysfunctional their company's team social dynamics are. And it's often not something you can expect anyone to ever fix, because that sort of thing is largely driven by senior management.
If you can stomach it, consider the sales side. You'll be allowed to WFH at pretty much any company and can't be replaced by someone in another city.
> Surveys show anywhere from 25% to upwards of 40% of workers are thinking about quitting their jobs.
This number is meaningless without previous year trends. In my circles, everyone from 25-35 is simultaneously preparing to FIRE and no-one that's 35+ has actually changed jobs despite being 'financially independent'. Expressing intent to resign, and actually resigning are completely different things. (edit: to clarify, I mean changing jobs specifically in the context of making inroads toward the retire early portion of their goal. Changing jobs to increase compensation is as strong as ever)
Real Translation: Covid has made people miserable in their jobs. The only way people can keep going is idle fantasies about a nondescript future date where this suffering ends.
> Workers have had more than a year to reconsider work-life balance or career paths
IMO, over the last year, people have only dived deeper into their delusions and relative sense of privilege. Suddenly, having good health insurance, WFH 'flexibility' and a stable jobs are now being viewed as things to be grateful about rather than the norm for well educated and employable adults.
> "Hopefully we’ll see a lot more people in 2022 employed and stable because they're in jobs they actually like," she says.
Press 'X' to Doubt
This number is meaningless without previous year trends. In my circles, everyone from 25-35 is simultaneously preparing to FIRE and no-one that's 35+ has actually changed jobs despite being 'financially independent'. Expressing intent to resign, and actually resigning are completely different things. (edit: to clarify, I mean changing jobs specifically in the context of making inroads toward the retire early portion of their goal. Changing jobs to increase compensation is as strong as ever)
Real Translation: Covid has made people miserable in their jobs. The only way people can keep going is idle fantasies about a nondescript future date where this suffering ends.
> Workers have had more than a year to reconsider work-life balance or career paths
IMO, over the last year, people have only dived deeper into their delusions and relative sense of privilege. Suddenly, having good health insurance, WFH 'flexibility' and a stable jobs are now being viewed as things to be grateful about rather than the norm for well educated and employable adults.
> "Hopefully we’ll see a lot more people in 2022 employed and stable because they're in jobs they actually like," she says.
Press 'X' to Doubt
I appreciate the alternative perspective and productive-pessimism, but anecdotally in my immediate social circle of engineers, 5 have changed jobs - all for substantial upgrades, and not 1 of them was for a job that required office presence or downgrade in quality of environment.
The last year has been so strong for online tech that there is a heavy vacuum effect on the available talent. FAANG are struggling to fill demand in hiring and are offering increasingly high salaries. This cascades to other industries. Top engineering talent at logistics companies are leaving to go work for big tech, same with banks. Recruiters are charging 22-25% for placements, and having difficulties filling them.
Not just tech, other industries as well. There was this initial moment of employment "musical chairs" when the pandemic set in and everybody who had a job was clinging to it, but we're now in a solid counter-reaction where even traditional industries are having their workforce disrupted by new opportunities. We're not even seeing the full brunt of it, with many industries running at reduced capacity (travel, hospitality, entertainment).
Generally speaking, if people are leaving jobs for new ones (or none...) it's because they calculated that it was for the better, thus, I think people will generally be happier about their state of employment in 2022 as the article states. I'll add that many people working minimum wage jobs took this opportunity to become entrepreneurs which is a really healthy step up from that situation.
The last year has been so strong for online tech that there is a heavy vacuum effect on the available talent. FAANG are struggling to fill demand in hiring and are offering increasingly high salaries. This cascades to other industries. Top engineering talent at logistics companies are leaving to go work for big tech, same with banks. Recruiters are charging 22-25% for placements, and having difficulties filling them.
Not just tech, other industries as well. There was this initial moment of employment "musical chairs" when the pandemic set in and everybody who had a job was clinging to it, but we're now in a solid counter-reaction where even traditional industries are having their workforce disrupted by new opportunities. We're not even seeing the full brunt of it, with many industries running at reduced capacity (travel, hospitality, entertainment).
Generally speaking, if people are leaving jobs for new ones (or none...) it's because they calculated that it was for the better, thus, I think people will generally be happier about their state of employment in 2022 as the article states. I'll add that many people working minimum wage jobs took this opportunity to become entrepreneurs which is a really healthy step up from that situation.
Agreed. My point was more about taking a break or negotiating better QOL. My anecdotal experience is similar to yours in terms of compensation. However, I haven't seen anyone be able to negotiate lower hours, more vacation or periodic employment that would allow them to pursue the 'RE' once they have reached the 'FI' of FIRE.
Lifestyle creep only moves in one direction and is usually permanent.
Lifestyle creep only moves in one direction and is usually permanent.
Yeah I will agree on this - higher pay higher stakes usually. I know a few that moved out of 996 companies and are much MUCH happier, and better compensated. One used the offer to solicit a counter-offer and extra vacation time at her current role so I guess it's not all terrible.
> FAANG are struggling to fill demand in hiring and are offering increasingly high salaries
This has been the case, according to my colleagues who are older, since at least 2003 ;-)
This has been the case, according to my colleagues who are older, since at least 2003 ;-)
> Recruiters are charging 22-25% for placements, and having difficulties filling them.
This has been the same as well, to my knowledge, since 2010
This has been the same as well, to my knowledge, since 2010
And yet, they still persist on presenting leetcode riddles that have very little relevance to the job being interviewed for.
If they were hurting that much for devs, you'd think they might lower the bar a little by not requiring a years study of leetcode.
If they were hurting that much for devs, you'd think they might lower the bar a little by not requiring a years study of leetcode.
It's more expensive to make a bad hire than to not hire someone and move a bit slower.
while this is true, maybe they should work on how they assess candidates instead of continually complaining about how there are none.
So... they double-down on a poor proxy of effectiveness on the job?
Leet code is neither sufficient or necessary to writing brilliant software. Your statement is true but Google, being mostly people cut from the same cloth, has group think about these issues. On the other hand, that monolithic culture is probably what has limited their success and kept them from being a more harmful monopoly.
google admitted years ago, it didn't help..
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/06/google-...
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/06/google-...
Google found that riddles didn’t help, so they stopped asking them. They didn’t find the same for coding questions.
Yet :-P
I wouldn't be surprised to see a similar article about leet code...
I wouldn't be surprised to see a similar article about leet code...
There are two problems with this phrase, one is that it shouldn't. Really, if somebody a bit worse goes way into the negative value for you and you are a large company, you have some procedural problem that should be fixed. Long-time employees also have bad moments, and you should be able to survive those.
The second problem is that the onus is on you on making sure those bad interviews decrease the odds if hiring bad people, instead of increasing them or being irrelevant. Without that evidence, this is a non-argument.
The second problem is that the onus is on you on making sure those bad interviews decrease the odds if hiring bad people, instead of increasing them or being irrelevant. Without that evidence, this is a non-argument.
Why not train a bad hire ?
Training a 'bad' hire requires taking 'good' employee out of circulation for a while and, depending on what way they are bad, might not lead to anything anyway.
I want to add to this that in many cases getting many "bad hires" can also be symptom of bad management or bad workplace environment.
If I am running the company, I would MUCH rather operate short-handed than "fix" my recruiting problems by lowering the bar.
You don't have to agree with the bar the companies are using, but that is the bar they have converged on, and one that plenty of people are capable of passing.
Would much rather compete for those people.
You don't have to agree with the bar the companies are using, but that is the bar they have converged on, and one that plenty of people are capable of passing.
Would much rather compete for those people.
This is all contingent on said leetcode riddles actually helping with candidate selection. If they aren't, you've just limited your pool of potential candidates for no reason whatsoever.
> If I am running the company, I would MUCH rather operate short-handed than "fix" my recruiting problems by lowering the bar.
Nobody is talking about lowering the bar, but of putting the bar in the right zipcode.
An extremely high bar of leetcode testing is irrelevant to the actual job, so that's an irrelevant bar.
Nobody is talking about lowering the bar, but of putting the bar in the right zipcode.
An extremely high bar of leetcode testing is irrelevant to the actual job, so that's an irrelevant bar.
And yet, those companies seem to be more successful than others with "more relevant" bars.
Leet code interviews only showed up late in these companies trajectories. Internally it’s no longer about what the company wants so much as what people inside the company want which presents huge conflicts of interest. Google for example has done significant research and found such practices wasteful, but internal culture is what it is.
In practical terms the FAANG companies internal processes are horrible and they can’t seem to innovate at all, but as long as they continue to print money there is zero reason to risk change.
In practical terms the FAANG companies internal processes are horrible and they can’t seem to innovate at all, but as long as they continue to print money there is zero reason to risk change.
Google actually admitted their 'elite' leet code interview process didn't actually help the outcomes... This is the first link I dug up about it:
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/06/google-...
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/06/google-...
That isn't about the leetcode interviewing.
That's about the microsoft-era actual riddles, like "if you were reduced to the size of an ant and put in a blender, how would you get out?"
That's about the microsoft-era actual riddles, like "if you were reduced to the size of an ant and put in a blender, how would you get out?"
eh - I wouldn't be surprised to see the same article about the leetcode stuff.
Maybe using methods that have nothing to do with the job, just don't lead to good results ?
Maybe using methods that have nothing to do with the job, just don't lead to good results ?
So let me get this straight, you cited a random "first link you dug up", unrelated to your point, and claim it as evidence because you "wouldn't be surprised" if some other article (that doesn't exist) supported your view?
I didn't cite it, and I didn't say some other article existed..
What I said was basically "google admitted their old method didn't work, here's a link if your interested. I wouldn't be surprised if the new method doesn't work either, and we see articles about that in a few years"
The I "wouldn't be surprised" part comes from both methods actually having very little to do with the job at hand, and therefore I think they would BOTH be bad predictors of performance at that job..
What I said was basically "google admitted their old method didn't work, here's a link if your interested. I wouldn't be surprised if the new method doesn't work either, and we see articles about that in a few years"
The I "wouldn't be surprised" part comes from both methods actually having very little to do with the job at hand, and therefore I think they would BOTH be bad predictors of performance at that job..
Google's opinions on anything are overrated
Or you could look at it as those companies have so much money and fame that they have tens of thousands of candidates pounding at their door so they can afford to arbitrarily reject approximately everyone.
But if you're running a startup (target audience of ycombinator), you'd do well to play a smarter game since you can't outspend or out-fame the FAANGs. A big part of that is to have better interviewing practices than they do.
But if you're running a startup (target audience of ycombinator), you'd do well to play a smarter game since you can't outspend or out-fame the FAANGs. A big part of that is to have better interviewing practices than they do.
This may seem coldly logical but in the absence of my own researched opinions, I am evaluating the merit of the opinion about these interviews based on their origin:
You have - companies that settled on this process, who have been able to attract top tallent that has cleared this bar.
You have - employees of these companies that were able to clear the interview bar.
And then you have - people who don't work for these companies, proclaim to have no interest/ability to clear the bar, but claim to have a valid view into where the bar should be.
In the absence of other data it doesn't seem like the last group is likely to be objectively right
You have - companies that settled on this process, who have been able to attract top tallent that has cleared this bar.
You have - employees of these companies that were able to clear the interview bar.
And then you have - people who don't work for these companies, proclaim to have no interest/ability to clear the bar, but claim to have a valid view into where the bar should be.
In the absence of other data it doesn't seem like the last group is likely to be objectively right
Personally I suck at leetcode questions, but nevertheless have snuck in to some of these so-called "top-tier" companies. And let me tell you!
These questions have fuck-all to do with the actual work the happens there. Sure, you can usually find someone to tell you how much rainwater accumulates into a random bar chart, but I see as much brain-dead code at the top as anywhere else. As much great code, too, FWIW. Everywhere, the key skills that make for a successful IC are the same, and they definitely don't require implementing splay trees or skip lists from scratch and without references. 99% of the time it's shuffling bits around and using hash maps.
Honestly the people I work with who advocate the hardest for leetcode are the ones who had to grind hard and, evidently, want others to suffer too. As if a sane process would mean their own suffering was in vain.
These questions have fuck-all to do with the actual work the happens there. Sure, you can usually find someone to tell you how much rainwater accumulates into a random bar chart, but I see as much brain-dead code at the top as anywhere else. As much great code, too, FWIW. Everywhere, the key skills that make for a successful IC are the same, and they definitely don't require implementing splay trees or skip lists from scratch and without references. 99% of the time it's shuffling bits around and using hash maps.
Honestly the people I work with who advocate the hardest for leetcode are the ones who had to grind hard and, evidently, want others to suffer too. As if a sane process would mean their own suffering was in vain.
I am not sure that's the whole picture. I don't care about leetcode type problems but if I was applying for a job where they were a barrier to entry, I'd go figure out what it takes to master them.
The bar may simply be "sober enough to understand what it takes to succeed at this task", "committed enough to prepare" and "smart enough to solve them"
These attributes correlate strongly with success, I'd imagine.
The bar may simply be "sober enough to understand what it takes to succeed at this task", "committed enough to prepare" and "smart enough to solve them"
These attributes correlate strongly with success, I'd imagine.
I disagree with this point because most interviewers and interviewees are novices, and giving them a task that gives straight pass/fail feedback optimizes for the wrong solution for people that can solve puzzles but not think about systems well. I've had many candidates be able to zip through puzzles but when asked relevant questions about building an understanding systems they wash out immediately. Most systems are more than one code file and I don't need to waste my hiring expenses teaching them how to think about systems from near scratch and having to heavy hand review them to write good code. I have generally found the only leetcode grind types to be less self sufficient and not really a signifier to success. In my experience the leetcode grind type can't even expand on their own answers to answer any useful questions like 'where and why would you use what you just made' and 'what technologies have you used that might utilize this technique' ends up with crickets. Right now my interview has a wash out coding exercise that is beginner oriented to get the resume liars but other than that it's all systems.
> I disagree with this point because most interviewers ... are novices
Having sat on hiring committees, that's a fair summary. Most people are not very good at interviewing, because it's a weird skill, and nobody actually teaches you how to do it well. There's interview training, but it's incredibly short, and seems like half of it is about legal policy. There's ostensibly shadow interviews, but that tends to be luck of the draw on who your shadower is; most won't put in the requisite time to help coach you in conducting better interviews.
I think big companies like to pretend that leetcode interviewing scales well, without actually doing the time necessary to make it scale well.
> Right now my interview has a wash out coding exercise that is beginner oriented to get the resume liars but other than that it's all systems.
This is 100% what I've gravitated to. The longer I've interviewed people, the easier and easier the actual coding parts of my questions have become.
Having sat on hiring committees, that's a fair summary. Most people are not very good at interviewing, because it's a weird skill, and nobody actually teaches you how to do it well. There's interview training, but it's incredibly short, and seems like half of it is about legal policy. There's ostensibly shadow interviews, but that tends to be luck of the draw on who your shadower is; most won't put in the requisite time to help coach you in conducting better interviews.
I think big companies like to pretend that leetcode interviewing scales well, without actually doing the time necessary to make it scale well.
> Right now my interview has a wash out coding exercise that is beginner oriented to get the resume liars but other than that it's all systems.
This is 100% what I've gravitated to. The longer I've interviewed people, the easier and easier the actual coding parts of my questions have become.
That may be so, but part of my gripe with leetcode is that people tend to grind for many months to "get in shape" for job interviews. That's just not reasonable to expect of anyone, let alone those with families or other responsibilities.
It's not like there aren't benefits to this process. Once you've buffed up, you're prepared for most major tech interviews. Common formats have their advantages.
That said, this format is just too expensive, and has poor predictive power.
It's not like there aren't benefits to this process. Once you've buffed up, you're prepared for most major tech interviews. Common formats have their advantages.
That said, this format is just too expensive, and has poor predictive power.
// "get in shape" for job interviews. That's just not reasonable to expect of anyone, let alone those with families or other responsibilities.
and
// Once you've buffed up, you're prepared for most major tech interviews.
and
// has poor predictive power.
If "acquiring skill X" is broadly valuable (as you're saying in this case) then your ability to work on acquiring it is predictive of your success.
and
// Once you've buffed up, you're prepared for most major tech interviews.
and
// has poor predictive power.
If "acquiring skill X" is broadly valuable (as you're saying in this case) then your ability to work on acquiring it is predictive of your success.
Sure, it shows that you can apply yourself to a task and finish it. That's also what a college degree shows, but at least there you learn something useful. Come to think of it, that's what any stint over a year or two at a company can show, too.
It's not predictive of the traits that mark a successful IC in my experience. I'm talking about areas like project planning, professionalism, large-scale system design, personal ownership, meticulousness, etc. Curiosity. Some of those might tangentially be covered by leetcode but I guarantee you important stuff isn't.
Everyone I've seen to fail, either via PIP or otherwise, has cracked these interviews. I've seen many fail over the years. Even worse, I've seen many whom I know would be strong performers, wash out because they got the wrong DP problem that day. Where's the benefit in a regime like this? The company loses and good candidates lose, too.
It's not predictive of the traits that mark a successful IC in my experience. I'm talking about areas like project planning, professionalism, large-scale system design, personal ownership, meticulousness, etc. Curiosity. Some of those might tangentially be covered by leetcode but I guarantee you important stuff isn't.
Everyone I've seen to fail, either via PIP or otherwise, has cracked these interviews. I've seen many fail over the years. Even worse, I've seen many whom I know would be strong performers, wash out because they got the wrong DP problem that day. Where's the benefit in a regime like this? The company loses and good candidates lose, too.
Your argument is a tautology, it doesnt examine any merits of the system, and is no different from:
"You have - companies that settled on using skin colour, who have been able to attract top tallent that has cleared this bar."
Or: "World's best banks and world's best traders have invested in subprime mortgages, they couldn't all be wrong?"
Or: "World's best banks and world's best traders have invested in subprime mortgages, they couldn't all be wrong?"
// is no different from
Using skin color for hiring is illegal and immoral and the government does not allow it.
Issuing sub primes is bad for business and blew up pretty quickly.
If asking programmers programming questions is "no different" from the above, which is it: illegal or bad for business?
Using skin color for hiring is illegal and immoral and the government does not allow it.
Issuing sub primes is bad for business and blew up pretty quickly.
If asking programmers programming questions is "no different" from the above, which is it: illegal or bad for business?
Subprime mortgages were a thing for longer than leetcode was.
If they were bad for business, why was it a common practice for so long? Does a business have no clue what's bad for business? Or is it just self destructive?
If "it's an established practice" argument also enconoasses things that are bad for business, and things that are immoral and illegal, maybe it's not a strong argument?
If they were bad for business, why was it a common practice for so long? Does a business have no clue what's bad for business? Or is it just self destructive?
If "it's an established practice" argument also enconoasses things that are bad for business, and things that are immoral and illegal, maybe it's not a strong argument?
This always strikes me as the answer that a computer science reclusive would take. You would rather throw cryptic riddles and math puzzles at your lesser man, than pick up the phone and call their previous employer and ask how they performed, what projects they worked on, etc.
I would bet money that the latter is far more predictive of quality candidates than any leetcode problem you randomly pluck from the ether and expect them to solve under pressure.
But again, I expect nothing less from an industry that isn't exactly known for being good at human interaction.
I would bet money that the latter is far more predictive of quality candidates than any leetcode problem you randomly pluck from the ether and expect them to solve under pressure.
But again, I expect nothing less from an industry that isn't exactly known for being good at human interaction.
The company that the candidate previously worked for is typically not permitted to say anything about the candidate without prior authorization. Your proposed solution is not workable.
I've previously hired contractors with minimal interviewing because they came from a trusted partner to my organization, so I asked the partner about their productivity and skills and they were given good reviews relative to what we were trying to accomplish.
Each of them were a net negative with respect to the project. The time it took me to review their pull requests and help them write code which was passable was longer than it would have taken me to write the code myself. Additionally, the code that was passable has been a constant source of bugs.
A more thorough technical interview may have avoided hiring them. In retrospect, the correct course of action would have been to not hire anyone until someone qualified was available. This anecdote does support the grand-parent posters theory that operating with fewer incompetent people is better.
Additionally, their proposal is generally workable (which again, yours is not).
Competence is a spectrum and so at some level of competence there will be people who are competent but unable to pass overly complex interview questions. The fact that this overlap exists seems to be what you are complaining about. Even still, not hiring people in this overlap is probably safer than hiring people which make the system worse in my experience.
I've previously hired contractors with minimal interviewing because they came from a trusted partner to my organization, so I asked the partner about their productivity and skills and they were given good reviews relative to what we were trying to accomplish.
Each of them were a net negative with respect to the project. The time it took me to review their pull requests and help them write code which was passable was longer than it would have taken me to write the code myself. Additionally, the code that was passable has been a constant source of bugs.
A more thorough technical interview may have avoided hiring them. In retrospect, the correct course of action would have been to not hire anyone until someone qualified was available. This anecdote does support the grand-parent posters theory that operating with fewer incompetent people is better.
Additionally, their proposal is generally workable (which again, yours is not).
Competence is a spectrum and so at some level of competence there will be people who are competent but unable to pass overly complex interview questions. The fact that this overlap exists seems to be what you are complaining about. Even still, not hiring people in this overlap is probably safer than hiring people which make the system worse in my experience.
> The company that the candidate previously worked for is typically not permitted to say anything about the candidate without prior authorization. Your proposed solution is not workable.
You're right in that HR of their previous (likely current) employes won't say or allow saying anything.
But of course they're likely not giving as references their current boss, for obvious reasons.
Their previous bosses though, who have also left that company, will speak to you freely.
You're right in that HR of their previous (likely current) employes won't say or allow saying anything.
But of course they're likely not giving as references their current boss, for obvious reasons.
Their previous bosses though, who have also left that company, will speak to you freely.
The case where you are able to speak to the candidate's boss because they have also left is incredibly niche.
> The case where you are able to speak to the candidate's boss because they have also left is incredibly niche.
What could be niche about this? It's the most overwhelmingly common case.
Most people change jobs every couple years and your interviewees ex-bosses are also in the industry doing the same job hopping. It is a near certainty that nearly all (if not all) their ex-bosses have moved to different companies already.
What could be niche about this? It's the most overwhelmingly common case.
Most people change jobs every couple years and your interviewees ex-bosses are also in the industry doing the same job hopping. It is a near certainty that nearly all (if not all) their ex-bosses have moved to different companies already.
What you see in the CV is the name of the company they worked for, not the name of their direct manager.
If I'm interviewing a candidate, they likely still work with their soon-to-be-former boss, who likely still works at the same company the candidate is leaving.
This is the most common case, by far.
Are you suggesting going further back, to the candidate's previous previous employer, and hoping that their direct manager from years ago is able to provide reliable and accurate testimony on the current state of the candidate ?
This is the most common case, by far.
Are you suggesting going further back, to the candidate's previous previous employer, and hoping that their direct manager from years ago is able to provide reliable and accurate testimony on the current state of the candidate ?
I said ex-boss, not current boss.
I'm surprised this is not a universal experience based on these responses. Every candidate I've interviewed has given at least one ex-boss as a reference. Every reference I've ever given has been ex-bosses.
I'm surprised this is not a universal experience based on these responses. Every candidate I've interviewed has given at least one ex-boss as a reference. Every reference I've ever given has been ex-bosses.
> Competence is a spectrum and so at some level of competence there will be people who are competent but unable to pass overly complex interview questions
Competence is most absolutely not one spectrum. Competence is measured in dozens (hundreds, really) different axis. Everyone will have different scores (if we could realiably narrow it to a score, which we can't) on different axis of skills. Which of the skill axis are most relevant for any given role will vary, obviously. A generalist will have decent scores in many, a specialist may have mediocre scores in many but 99+percentile in their chosen areas.
Leetcode interviewing measures along one single uninteresting axis, the one corresponding to memorization of algorithm puzzles. That axis happens to be entirely irrelevant to any job I've ever hired for. So I don't test for that because I care as much for your skill doing leetcode as I care for your skill juggling frogs. Neither is relevant to the job.
Competence is most absolutely not one spectrum. Competence is measured in dozens (hundreds, really) different axis. Everyone will have different scores (if we could realiably narrow it to a score, which we can't) on different axis of skills. Which of the skill axis are most relevant for any given role will vary, obviously. A generalist will have decent scores in many, a specialist may have mediocre scores in many but 99+percentile in their chosen areas.
Leetcode interviewing measures along one single uninteresting axis, the one corresponding to memorization of algorithm puzzles. That axis happens to be entirely irrelevant to any job I've ever hired for. So I don't test for that because I care as much for your skill doing leetcode as I care for your skill juggling frogs. Neither is relevant to the job.
> memorization of algorithm puzzles
Have you considered that with a strong understanding of elementary algorithms and data structures it is possible "solve" rather than "memorize" these algorithm puzzles?
Have you considered that with a strong understanding of elementary algorithms and data structures it is possible "solve" rather than "memorize" these algorithm puzzles?
In the interview format it is most certainly not possible. It is a dance where both sides pretend that the interviewee is going to invent, in ~30 minutes, under intense interview stress, on a whiteboard, some algorithm that took usually years of research to originally develop.
If that were even remotely possible, why isn't that person cranking out multiple novel algorithm research papers per day? They should be outpublishing Knuth, for sure.
So, no. The only road is to memorize extensively and practice acting skills on the delivery.
If that were even remotely possible, why isn't that person cranking out multiple novel algorithm research papers per day? They should be outpublishing Knuth, for sure.
So, no. The only road is to memorize extensively and practice acting skills on the delivery.
Most leetcode problems I have seen are not research problem statements and usually require applying one or two algorithms taught in any CS program. So I have to disagree.
EDIT: Obviously even some of the most elementary Algo 101 problems were research questions at some point, and led to published papers, but that's the reason people write textbooks and use them in college, so newcomers don't have to redo the foundational work.
EDIT: Obviously even some of the most elementary Algo 101 problems were research questions at some point, and led to published papers, but that's the reason people write textbooks and use them in college, so newcomers don't have to redo the foundational work.
I think back-in-the-day, the cryptic riddles were a (terrible) way of trying to filter "smart" candidates. The people who could come up with a solution to a problem never before seen. But almost no problems are truly original or new. They are just old problems with new packaging or with new/different requirements. So, usually what you end up testing for is nothing more than "has this person come across something like this before?"
Sometimes you'd get interviewers who were at least smart enough to realize that maybe the most you'd get out of it is "can this person break down a seemingly impossible problem into manageable pieces?" That's fine, but then state that or at least give them something real they'll actually run into if hired instead of trying to estimate how many gas stations there are in LA county in their head.
And while those suck[ed], companies having been doing similarly ridiculous things for a very long time to try and save themselves from hiring the wrong people. IBM's infamous "lunch interview" (false on Snopes, but the concept is true and I've seen played out) or asking candidates to take a personality type test to determine if they'd be a good fit before hiring (yes, I did this once early in my career and would just walk out if asked to do one today).
The most difficult I've found is getting fellow programmers to realize that they _don't_ want to hire another "you." Yes, you're an expert in networking and security. Don't interview for that so you can show off your own skills or "teach" in an interview. Interview _for the position_.
You want a diverse set of knowledge, skills, experiences, communication styles, etc. at your company. And - while it can be scary - you always want to hire people who are better than you (esp. if you're a manager!). But that is so hard to get people to do.
Sometimes you'd get interviewers who were at least smart enough to realize that maybe the most you'd get out of it is "can this person break down a seemingly impossible problem into manageable pieces?" That's fine, but then state that or at least give them something real they'll actually run into if hired instead of trying to estimate how many gas stations there are in LA county in their head.
And while those suck[ed], companies having been doing similarly ridiculous things for a very long time to try and save themselves from hiring the wrong people. IBM's infamous "lunch interview" (false on Snopes, but the concept is true and I've seen played out) or asking candidates to take a personality type test to determine if they'd be a good fit before hiring (yes, I did this once early in my career and would just walk out if asked to do one today).
The most difficult I've found is getting fellow programmers to realize that they _don't_ want to hire another "you." Yes, you're an expert in networking and security. Don't interview for that so you can show off your own skills or "teach" in an interview. Interview _for the position_.
You want a diverse set of knowledge, skills, experiences, communication styles, etc. at your company. And - while it can be scary - you always want to hire people who are better than you (esp. if you're a manager!). But that is so hard to get people to do.
// This always strikes me as the answer that a computer science reclusive would take
Just to be clear, you made an assumption in your first sentence and then ran with it for 3 paragraphs.
// I would bet money
If I had to bet who can better assess what proper recruiting for a company looks like, I'd bet MY money on the company, not on random complaints on the internet that basically amount to "it must be the interview structure that prevents me from working at a FAANG"
Just to be clear, you made an assumption in your first sentence and then ran with it for 3 paragraphs.
// I would bet money
If I had to bet who can better assess what proper recruiting for a company looks like, I'd bet MY money on the company, not on random complaints on the internet that basically amount to "it must be the interview structure that prevents me from working at a FAANG"
The riddle-like questions are trash, I agree. Any question that requires you to already know a slightly more arcane data structure or algorithm, or involves just regurgitating some algorithmic trick, or similar, really just gives you signal of "did this person already know the question beforehand?", and nothing else.
Not asking those types of questions, and instead asking a more straightforward programming question with relatively simple data structures, and some tradeoffs to be made, plus maybe some follow up optimization questions (but like in general systems terms, not code), tend to work better. But it's still whiteboard coding for the most part.
While I do detest leetcode interviews, I've yet to see another interview system that works for extremely large companies, that covers all the bases:
* won't result in you hiring someone who can't write a for-loop in their language of choice (I know fizz-buzz is a meme at this point, but I have interviewed people who failed a question easier than fizz-buzz before - not even on a whiteboard. People who genuinely cannot program at all will apply for programming jobs, and some of them will get past the recruiters.)
* is reasonably based on skills
* is not hyper selecting for "people extremely similar to people who already work here" (not "what school did you go to?" or "who do you know who already works here?" type stuff)
* can be made mostly uniform across the company (though, even leetcode-like interviews are hard to make uniform, it's easier than a lot of other methods)
* isn't trivially cheated (100% remote tests, where someone else just does it for you)
* won't be outright rejected by people who already have jobs (internships, though this does work well for new grads)
* won't be outright rejected by people who have less free time outside of the job (e.g. people with families, small kids won't go for "work for a week" type take-home assignments which say "couple hours" but you're competing against people who will dump 40+ hours into it in a single week)
A lot of other systems work really well if you're willing to slash your candidate pool to a smaller percentage, but break down once you start trying to fairly get at more candidates. Something that works well for a 1000 person company won't work if you have >50,000 developers. Something that works well for a company explicitly willing to exclude parents won't work well for a super large company.
Also, a lot of companies do change up the application process for people who are just out of school, in that they allow internships/etc, with a different route through than just interviews. (Though you usually have to go through an interview to get the internship, they tend to be way easier - having sat on such an intern hiring committee before, you get very few interviewers asking riddle/trick questions)
Time-wise, I can generally coach someone to pass a big tech interview loop in 1-3 months, not a year.
Not asking those types of questions, and instead asking a more straightforward programming question with relatively simple data structures, and some tradeoffs to be made, plus maybe some follow up optimization questions (but like in general systems terms, not code), tend to work better. But it's still whiteboard coding for the most part.
While I do detest leetcode interviews, I've yet to see another interview system that works for extremely large companies, that covers all the bases:
* won't result in you hiring someone who can't write a for-loop in their language of choice (I know fizz-buzz is a meme at this point, but I have interviewed people who failed a question easier than fizz-buzz before - not even on a whiteboard. People who genuinely cannot program at all will apply for programming jobs, and some of them will get past the recruiters.)
* is reasonably based on skills
* is not hyper selecting for "people extremely similar to people who already work here" (not "what school did you go to?" or "who do you know who already works here?" type stuff)
* can be made mostly uniform across the company (though, even leetcode-like interviews are hard to make uniform, it's easier than a lot of other methods)
* isn't trivially cheated (100% remote tests, where someone else just does it for you)
* won't be outright rejected by people who already have jobs (internships, though this does work well for new grads)
* won't be outright rejected by people who have less free time outside of the job (e.g. people with families, small kids won't go for "work for a week" type take-home assignments which say "couple hours" but you're competing against people who will dump 40+ hours into it in a single week)
A lot of other systems work really well if you're willing to slash your candidate pool to a smaller percentage, but break down once you start trying to fairly get at more candidates. Something that works well for a 1000 person company won't work if you have >50,000 developers. Something that works well for a company explicitly willing to exclude parents won't work well for a super large company.
Also, a lot of companies do change up the application process for people who are just out of school, in that they allow internships/etc, with a different route through than just interviews. (Though you usually have to go through an interview to get the internship, they tend to be way easier - having sat on such an intern hiring committee before, you get very few interviewers asking riddle/trick questions)
Time-wise, I can generally coach someone to pass a big tech interview loop in 1-3 months, not a year.
All those items are so spot on.
There's definitely a difference between hiring Sr. vs. Jr. programmers. When it comes to Sr, the best place I ever worked had a pretty great process:
1. Phone interview that was 100% identical for all candidates. It was basically a "take me through your work history, answering these 5 questions for each job." It worked wonderfully and gave a really good indication of what the person learned at each position and how they were able to apply that knowledge at the next job. And, if there was some obvious red flag at each step (e.g. "all my bosses have been jerks"). It also had the benefit of being more fair. I don't know how many places I've worked where if person A conducted the phone interview it was a shoe-in, and if person B did it was impossible to get through.
2. While doing #1, make a mental note of a couple things along they way they worked on (esp. if they seemed proud of them) and then - in a follow-up interview with a couple programmers on the call - really dig in deep on the technical details. Ask questions. You'll learn rapidly if they actually did the work and understand the problem or simply worked on it w/o understanding. What were the major challenges? What would they change now if they could go back? And here it's awesome if you get someone who can give answers that aren't always technical things (e.g. "I wish I knew early on how best to deal with X").
3. At this point, you're ready for an on-site and have already proven to yourself and the team "this person can code and solve problems." What's left is any final details you want to be sure of. Any odd personality quirks that won't work for the culture the company is going for? Let non-technical people they'd have to interface with interview them.
The best we ever came up w/ for Jr people was a test with some basic college class stuff like big-O and for problems 1-3 would you prefer linked list, hash table, or tree and why? And then try and do #1 and #2 above, but using their college classes/team projects as work experience. But that didn't always work out all that well.
There's definitely a difference between hiring Sr. vs. Jr. programmers. When it comes to Sr, the best place I ever worked had a pretty great process:
1. Phone interview that was 100% identical for all candidates. It was basically a "take me through your work history, answering these 5 questions for each job." It worked wonderfully and gave a really good indication of what the person learned at each position and how they were able to apply that knowledge at the next job. And, if there was some obvious red flag at each step (e.g. "all my bosses have been jerks"). It also had the benefit of being more fair. I don't know how many places I've worked where if person A conducted the phone interview it was a shoe-in, and if person B did it was impossible to get through.
2. While doing #1, make a mental note of a couple things along they way they worked on (esp. if they seemed proud of them) and then - in a follow-up interview with a couple programmers on the call - really dig in deep on the technical details. Ask questions. You'll learn rapidly if they actually did the work and understand the problem or simply worked on it w/o understanding. What were the major challenges? What would they change now if they could go back? And here it's awesome if you get someone who can give answers that aren't always technical things (e.g. "I wish I knew early on how best to deal with X").
3. At this point, you're ready for an on-site and have already proven to yourself and the team "this person can code and solve problems." What's left is any final details you want to be sure of. Any odd personality quirks that won't work for the culture the company is going for? Let non-technical people they'd have to interface with interview them.
The best we ever came up w/ for Jr people was a test with some basic college class stuff like big-O and for problems 1-3 would you prefer linked list, hash table, or tree and why? And then try and do #1 and #2 above, but using their college classes/team projects as work experience. But that didn't always work out all that well.
If your "couple hours" take-home test has a significant difference in results between 4 and 40 hours of work, you probably made a bad test.
Google has gone on record that the best way to hire would be IQ tests but they don't because of the blowback it would generate. Leetcode is just a shitty proxy for IQ testing.
Link to record?
"Shitty proxy" as in "little to no demonstrable correlation whatsoever." Willingness to grind/memorize is about as poor a measure of intellectual ability as one can get. It does show some level of interest/diligence--but perhaps not the best kind.
That seems to imply that they are willing to train you in whatever you need give you prove you have an aptitude. That too isn't the industry standard as near as I can tell, instead it's becoming just enough of an expert to barely get whatever it is you need done without an understanding of best practice before moving onto the next item.
Do do do do…
What are the issues with IQ tests?
What are the issues with IQ tests?
> What are the issues with IQ tests?
They can have cultural or social biases unless very carefully calibrated. Ideally you should be able to take anyone who speaks a reasonable level of English, give them test and have them get a score that matches their intelligence percentile.
In practice, the tests are built for a particular socioeconomic class and type of person. As a trivial example, imagine the test uses the word "yacht" and you give the test to someone who has never culturally been exposed to that word - that person will, on average, score a bit lower than someone who recognizes the word immediately.
Or imagine you give a test using Imperial units to a European who exclusively grew up using Metric (or vice versa). Knowing that three feet are in a yard isn't an intelligence test, it's a test of cultural familiarity.
They can have cultural or social biases unless very carefully calibrated. Ideally you should be able to take anyone who speaks a reasonable level of English, give them test and have them get a score that matches their intelligence percentile.
In practice, the tests are built for a particular socioeconomic class and type of person. As a trivial example, imagine the test uses the word "yacht" and you give the test to someone who has never culturally been exposed to that word - that person will, on average, score a bit lower than someone who recognizes the word immediately.
Or imagine you give a test using Imperial units to a European who exclusively grew up using Metric (or vice versa). Knowing that three feet are in a yard isn't an intelligence test, it's a test of cultural familiarity.
But these problems are also present in most other selection criteria? E.g., GRE is much easier if all your education and reading was in English. So I wonder if the real issue with IQ tests is actually that the elites can NOT game it as easily.
They're not hurting for devs, they're hurting for engineers.
Is it a talent problem, a gatekeeping issue, or are good people just not interested unless the money is insane.
These comments about how the market is on fire for developers always make me sad. Not your fault, but outside the US (and maybe western/northern Europe) you get lowballed hard, even with years of experience. And the supposedly lower CoL doesn't make up for it, at all, not even remotely. I'm not even talking about getting crazy bay area compensations, I'm talking about hoping something better than a $25k-$45k range for experienced engineers.
Out of curiosity, where are you located?
Not the original commenter, but this is the situation in Argentina. I would love to do a remote gig and get 100k a year. I am a programmer with over 20 years of experience and I can program professionally in over 10 different programming languages.
It is worth noting that software salaries are artificially inflated HEAVILY due to a general unwillingness or lack of interest in hiring overseas developers.
The second this changes, the bottom drops out of software.
I don't know if it will ever happen that big companies begin openly accepting overseas applicants but if/when it does, you can expect that it wont be for 100k. Suddenly when you consider the entire planet, there's no longer a shortage of developers, and the employer has all the power.
The second this changes, the bottom drops out of software.
I don't know if it will ever happen that big companies begin openly accepting overseas applicants but if/when it does, you can expect that it wont be for 100k. Suddenly when you consider the entire planet, there's no longer a shortage of developers, and the employer has all the power.
Employers had 20+ years to switch to overseas workers. The percentage of jobs that went east has stabilized, and it's not going to change dramatically.
I'm located in Colombia, and all my developers friends/acquaintances that speak English are already working for US companies. Some of them earning 100k+, but most of them earning about 50-70k.
I'd say there is not a general unwillingness to hire overseas developers, on the contrary, if more people could speak english in south america US companies would be more than happy to hire even more here.
There is a shortage in english speaking developers globally, but not a shortage on companies' interest in hiring anywhere
I'd say there is not a general unwillingness to hire overseas developers, on the contrary, if more people could speak english in south america US companies would be more than happy to hire even more here.
There is a shortage in english speaking developers globally, but not a shortage on companies' interest in hiring anywhere
I could get a 60k USD a year remote thing but I would be out of the system (I mean, now I am an Argentinian employee with all the rights it entails). For 60k, it is not worth it. For 100k it would be worth to solve all the issues associated with getting money from abroad (maybe make a corporation somewhere?). Anyway, I am listening to 100k+ offers.
South America is an interesting one for a lot of US companies because the timezones line up much better with US-local folks than in any other continents.
There are still other substantial collaboration challenges, but if more places move to be truly remote-first, those places will necessarily have solutions for that anyway.
There are still other substantial collaboration challenges, but if more places move to be truly remote-first, those places will necessarily have solutions for that anyway.
Agreed the time zones are killer.
If I start another company I’d really like to hire a competent offshore team in south or Central America but I have a lot of trouble getting there from here. If I wanted to hire a team in Israel, Pakistan or India, I could do it immediately, because I have trusted friends who can hook me up with people that they themselves trust plus or minus some skeeviness that I know how to manage. For south-of-us I have no connections and basically no way to start.
If I start another company I’d really like to hire a competent offshore team in south or Central America but I have a lot of trouble getting there from here. If I wanted to hire a team in Israel, Pakistan or India, I could do it immediately, because I have trusted friends who can hook me up with people that they themselves trust plus or minus some skeeviness that I know how to manage. For south-of-us I have no connections and basically no way to start.
Agreed. I am a product manager for a startup software acquired from Brazil. Nearly all engineering sit in Brazil (or some squads in India). I am the EU based PM that has to deal with the timezone issues and requirements- do I like it? Not really, but it is existing and the company might hire a an architect or tech lead on europe, the rest will remain outsourced. Generally speaking some of the developpers speak good English and so with Jira and Figma it works.
Just curious: what kind of lifestyle does 100k USD get you in Colombia?
You can live in a flat in the best parts of major cities comfortably, you could hire one or maybe even two FT employees to help you to cook, clean the house, take care of kids, etc. If you don't like the city life, you could also rent a small "mansion" in the suburbs (but then you'd suffer a bit with the internet connection, fiber only goes to major cities)
You could dine out at nice restaurants every weekend and travel around by plane every time there is a holiday and stay at 5 star hotels
Taking into account the minimum salary here is 300 USD / month and with 50k per year you are already top 1%, 100k gives you an unimaginable level of wealth. You'd earn about the same salary as the president of the country and more than most CEOs from local companies
But that would be if you spend all your salary every month which is not so smart, what most of us (bilingual developers) do is continue living a standard middle class life and just invest heavily, I invest more than 50% of my salary, mostly in real state and US stocks
You could dine out at nice restaurants every weekend and travel around by plane every time there is a holiday and stay at 5 star hotels
Taking into account the minimum salary here is 300 USD / month and with 50k per year you are already top 1%, 100k gives you an unimaginable level of wealth. You'd earn about the same salary as the president of the country and more than most CEOs from local companies
But that would be if you spend all your salary every month which is not so smart, what most of us (bilingual developers) do is continue living a standard middle class life and just invest heavily, I invest more than 50% of my salary, mostly in real state and US stocks
I would say I live even further than the suburbs (45 minutes from Medellín, one house every acre / 5000 m2) and we just got a second fiber option maxed out at 300mb so that may be changing.
As an American who moved to Colombia, I can highly recommend it. That said, there’s a lot of downsides not mentioned here. First off, your foreign earned income and your US credit score mean nothing here. You will not be able to get a loan and if you want to buy property, you’ll be paying cash. I had to pay 8 months of rent into a bank deposited escrow just to rent a fairly cheap house for one year. That also involved (literally) about 6 trips each to a physical notary office and banks). Things that would be unheard of in the US are common place, like constant physical signatures and finger prints to authenticate documents and asking for your national id number in order to do anything and everything.
A small empty lot in the nicer parts outside Medellín will be at least $225,000. Not bad and beautiful land but again you’ll have to pay cash for everything. Taxes are very high and you can expect to pay 30% - 80% more for many foreign products (“nicer” cars in particular seem to be ridiculously high priced). Tech product selection is terrible, everything lags way behind or simply isn’t available. Amazon does ship a selection of lighter weight items here but you’ll pay a VAT tax of 20% plus an import tax of 10% on the total including shipping. It usually works out to be a 40% premium. Electric vehicles essentially do not exist unless you want a Twizy. I just had my radiator fan go out on my car and was quoted $900 for the part alone which is available in the States for $200. With shipping and taxes I can order from the US for about $550 but it will take about 2 weeks to get here.
There’s a lot of unnecessary friction in daily life, just trying to do “simple” things like an online purchase.
Still an amazing place, lots of great things but as someone trying to actually make a long term life here it can definitely be frustrating.
As an American who moved to Colombia, I can highly recommend it. That said, there’s a lot of downsides not mentioned here. First off, your foreign earned income and your US credit score mean nothing here. You will not be able to get a loan and if you want to buy property, you’ll be paying cash. I had to pay 8 months of rent into a bank deposited escrow just to rent a fairly cheap house for one year. That also involved (literally) about 6 trips each to a physical notary office and banks). Things that would be unheard of in the US are common place, like constant physical signatures and finger prints to authenticate documents and asking for your national id number in order to do anything and everything.
A small empty lot in the nicer parts outside Medellín will be at least $225,000. Not bad and beautiful land but again you’ll have to pay cash for everything. Taxes are very high and you can expect to pay 30% - 80% more for many foreign products (“nicer” cars in particular seem to be ridiculously high priced). Tech product selection is terrible, everything lags way behind or simply isn’t available. Amazon does ship a selection of lighter weight items here but you’ll pay a VAT tax of 20% plus an import tax of 10% on the total including shipping. It usually works out to be a 40% premium. Electric vehicles essentially do not exist unless you want a Twizy. I just had my radiator fan go out on my car and was quoted $900 for the part alone which is available in the States for $200. With shipping and taxes I can order from the US for about $550 but it will take about 2 weeks to get here.
There’s a lot of unnecessary friction in daily life, just trying to do “simple” things like an online purchase.
Still an amazing place, lots of great things but as someone trying to actually make a long term life here it can definitely be frustrating.
I agree 100%. Aside from time differences, the biggest problem we have with remote teams in faraway places is communication. We have really sharp folks in our Hyderabad office, but some of them really struggle to communicate clearly, and a poor Zoom connection doesn't help at all. That would be my one piece of advice to someone outside the US who wants some of that sweet, sweet income we have grown accustomed to. Being a good coder is fine, but not really distinctive. Work hard on speaking English as clearly as possible. It absolutely will give you a competitive advantage.
Buying a decent microphone is also something I'd strongly recommend, especially for people (like me) that have a non-local accent.
In addition, high quality audio makes you sound smarter :) https://tips.ariyh.com/p/good-sound-quality-smarter
In addition, high quality audio makes you sound smarter :) https://tips.ariyh.com/p/good-sound-quality-smarter
Yes, this helps a lot. I bought a Audio-Technica AT2020USB+ for my home office a while back. Now my team says I sound like an NPR host :)
This is absolutely untrue. In The Netherlands the government has a 30% tax rebate for devs who come from elsewhere and it’s leveraged intensely, more than half of the devs I work with at bigger companies here are usually not Dutch.
So the Dutch government is incentivizing hiring non-Dutch people??!
This is not dumb. This is how you kickstart a network and trust.
It is incentivizing highly skilled and highly compensated people moving to The Nederlands from beyond 150km from the border by not charging the 30% tax for up to 5 years. This is similar on intent to the O1 visas in the US.
https://www.iamsterdam.com/en/living/take-care-of-official-m...
https://www.iamsterdam.com/en/living/take-care-of-official-m...
Oh I see, I thought the GP meant hire elsewhere, like outsourcing. That makes much more sense.
> It is worth noting that software salaries are artificially inflated HEAVILY due to a general unwillingness or lack of interest in hiring overseas developers.
Because it's been tried before and for the most part it was an abysmal failure. I was just starting out doing some basic web freelancing as a teenager in the 2000s and even I got roped in to clean up an outsourced project after being outbid a year earlier by an overseas firm during the first outsourcing wave. Lots of people on HN have horror stories of cleaning up from that era.
We've been here several times before - like literally just this past year of everyone saying "oh but now you have to compete with remote workers everywhere!" Salaries keep rising because software is an arms race. The companies making the most profit will continue to invest in getting the best people and outside of the odd global crisis, the industry will continue to grow as everyone else tries to keep up both in technology and in hiring. All those firms I cleaned up after as a kid are still around today and bigger than ever, yet on this side of the ocean we keep making more and more money.
I think we've got at least a century before software hits the diminishing returns that the industrial revolution did. My local lumberyard is still using DOS machines probably made before I was born.
Because it's been tried before and for the most part it was an abysmal failure. I was just starting out doing some basic web freelancing as a teenager in the 2000s and even I got roped in to clean up an outsourced project after being outbid a year earlier by an overseas firm during the first outsourcing wave. Lots of people on HN have horror stories of cleaning up from that era.
We've been here several times before - like literally just this past year of everyone saying "oh but now you have to compete with remote workers everywhere!" Salaries keep rising because software is an arms race. The companies making the most profit will continue to invest in getting the best people and outside of the odd global crisis, the industry will continue to grow as everyone else tries to keep up both in technology and in hiring. All those firms I cleaned up after as a kid are still around today and bigger than ever, yet on this side of the ocean we keep making more and more money.
I think we've got at least a century before software hits the diminishing returns that the industrial revolution did. My local lumberyard is still using DOS machines probably made before I was born.
I've been thru off-shorting with India, China, Russia...
I'm sorta wondering what country would be next. It has to have a large enough labor pool to fill the positions, and still be cheap enough to at least look good on paper..
I'm sorta wondering what country would be next. It has to have a large enough labor pool to fill the positions, and still be cheap enough to at least look good on paper..
My guess is most likely Africa, though I think somewhere in Central or South America would have a very strong advantage due to the narrower time offset.
at least here in Germany the biggest companies like to expand into Eastern Europe (think Slovakia, Hungary, also Russia), where these IT experts help in the German projects. They even get many of those people to learn German! The price pressure doesn't really stop there because while at first Slovakia was the way to go, now Hungary is xx% cheaper.. and so on and so on...
For the Hungarian HN readers: these are the salary ranges you should aim at when working for a German company (remotely or in Germany):
- junior: 45K - 55K - medior: 60K - 75K - senior: 75K - 90K
Although getting more than 85K as an individual contributor is not easy.
- junior: 45K - 55K - medior: 60K - 75K - senior: 75K - 90K
Although getting more than 85K as an individual contributor is not easy.
Whether in EUR or USD, those numbers will feel pretty good in Hungary.
[deleted]
Overall I agree with you, and my experience has been similar, but I think the comparison with outsourcing is not correct.
I would argue that outsourcing failed primarily due to companies trying to farm out the coding to uninterested entities whose incentives did not align well. Not necessarily because the foreign workers doing the coding were bad.
Back to the guy in Argentina -- I imagine that he/she is actually in a reasonably good position as the amount of remote work increases. Indians not so much, because they are 12.5 hours ahead (of Pacific time). Argentina is only 4 hours ahead, which makes for a lot more overlap.
So I think the field has leveled a little bit in that sense, because if you have a remote developer in another state, they are not very different than one in another country who happens to be in a similar time zone. The other big barrier IMO is communication, so someone in Argentina who is not merely fluent in English but speaks it very clearly could be in a really strong position.
I would argue that outsourcing failed primarily due to companies trying to farm out the coding to uninterested entities whose incentives did not align well. Not necessarily because the foreign workers doing the coding were bad.
Back to the guy in Argentina -- I imagine that he/she is actually in a reasonably good position as the amount of remote work increases. Indians not so much, because they are 12.5 hours ahead (of Pacific time). Argentina is only 4 hours ahead, which makes for a lot more overlap.
So I think the field has leveled a little bit in that sense, because if you have a remote developer in another state, they are not very different than one in another country who happens to be in a similar time zone. The other big barrier IMO is communication, so someone in Argentina who is not merely fluent in English but speaks it very clearly could be in a really strong position.
I'm in regular calls from the East coast US to central Europe so, usually, a six hour difference. That feels about the limit to me before things get more difficult, people need to work outside of normal business hours, etc.
You can do bigger differences and many of us do on occasion. But on a multiple times a week basis, both 5am calls and 11pm calls get old.
You can do bigger differences and many of us do on occasion. But on a multiple times a week basis, both 5am calls and 11pm calls get old.
Yup, and it's worse if you're on the US west coast, where it becomes 9 hours (10 to eastern Europe), and then any synchronous meeting means one party gets up early or the other stays late.
My intuition is that a max of 3 or 4 time zones is the sweet spot, but it's cool to hear that you've had success up to 6.
My intuition is that a max of 3 or 4 time zones is the sweet spot, but it's cool to hear that you've had success up to 6.
The team I'm on have our calls with the Czech Republic at 9am or 10am. And we have calls with the UK in earlyish business hours to noon as well. They may end up working a bit later with action items from meetings but generally seems to work pretty well.
> I would argue that outsourcing failed primarily due to companies trying to farm out the coding to uninterested entities whose incentives did not align well. Not necessarily because the foreign workers doing the coding were bad.
It failed because the intent was to cut costs and they got what they paid for. The successful ones were genuinely trying to expand their engineering talent pool and quickly figured out that the cost savings were a marginal benefit that made up for some of the extra overhead of international accounting and management. Quality engineers are one visa lottery away from Western salaries so the local median salary is often completely disconnected from what a FAANG might pay for a decent engineer, which is a rude awakening for anyone trying to cut costs without destroying the quality of their output. On top of that, the people most likely to make it a smooth transition are also the people most in demand (arms race!) and competition for them helps evaporate any savings for the business.
The guy in Argentina is in a great position to get hired to work remotely for an American company, but I don't seem him as competition regardless of how good he is. It's an arms race so my employer's competitor can't replace their team with Argentinians because that down time will give my employer time to crush them (which we learned in the 2000s). They can hire an extra team of Argentinians on top of their existing head count but if they do that my employer will be pressured to hire a team of Brazilians. Before you know it, both companies are hiring even more local teams to help manage the flow of work between their existing local teams and the outsourced ones.
There's more work and money to pay for it than there are people to do it. Until that changes, we're not the ones competing, the employers are.
It failed because the intent was to cut costs and they got what they paid for. The successful ones were genuinely trying to expand their engineering talent pool and quickly figured out that the cost savings were a marginal benefit that made up for some of the extra overhead of international accounting and management. Quality engineers are one visa lottery away from Western salaries so the local median salary is often completely disconnected from what a FAANG might pay for a decent engineer, which is a rude awakening for anyone trying to cut costs without destroying the quality of their output. On top of that, the people most likely to make it a smooth transition are also the people most in demand (arms race!) and competition for them helps evaporate any savings for the business.
The guy in Argentina is in a great position to get hired to work remotely for an American company, but I don't seem him as competition regardless of how good he is. It's an arms race so my employer's competitor can't replace their team with Argentinians because that down time will give my employer time to crush them (which we learned in the 2000s). They can hire an extra team of Argentinians on top of their existing head count but if they do that my employer will be pressured to hire a team of Brazilians. Before you know it, both companies are hiring even more local teams to help manage the flow of work between their existing local teams and the outsourced ones.
There's more work and money to pay for it than there are people to do it. Until that changes, we're not the ones competing, the employers are.
There were several chapters in the history of US IT outsourcing. After Perot Systems in the 1980s and Tata/Infosys/etc around 2000, a third era has been underway for the past 5 years or so: extending IT operations to parts of the US and Eastern Europe with much lower labor costs than large US cities, esp. as compared to the US left coast.
This has worked far better than the 'Tata' chapter which exported to very cheap Asia where staff tech skills and the support model were too often haphazard and frequently underperformed. Hiring remote staff in new-growth US cities with lower CoL (e.g. Charlotte NC or Austin TX) has delivered capable staff and nearly synchronous operating hours to the main office. However in the past 2-3 years, IT labor costs have risen greatly in 'secondary' US cities, reducing those savings substantially.
In my experience, remote staff in eastern Europe have skills equal to US folks, but the 5 hour mismatch in daytime hours and their inability to visit US sites where non-IT R&D work is done and data is acquired does hamstring this model.
I wouldn't be surprised if a 4th era of outsourcing arises soon: remote work in small towns across the US and in western Europe. European IT wages often seem to be 50% or more below US large cities. That differential is likely to diminish as remote work increasingly is established as a new norm.
This has worked far better than the 'Tata' chapter which exported to very cheap Asia where staff tech skills and the support model were too often haphazard and frequently underperformed. Hiring remote staff in new-growth US cities with lower CoL (e.g. Charlotte NC or Austin TX) has delivered capable staff and nearly synchronous operating hours to the main office. However in the past 2-3 years, IT labor costs have risen greatly in 'secondary' US cities, reducing those savings substantially.
In my experience, remote staff in eastern Europe have skills equal to US folks, but the 5 hour mismatch in daytime hours and their inability to visit US sites where non-IT R&D work is done and data is acquired does hamstring this model.
I wouldn't be surprised if a 4th era of outsourcing arises soon: remote work in small towns across the US and in western Europe. European IT wages often seem to be 50% or more below US large cities. That differential is likely to diminish as remote work increasingly is established as a new norm.
While I was working in my previous job for some clients in USA, I regularly had meetings starting from 6PM up to 10PM local time. I'm from Bulgaria. We have 7 hours difference with east coast. I had so much compensation hours/overtime that I was earning 20-25% more on top of my salary(outside of office hours are payed with multipliers) and had extra vacation days. Nowadays I'm not so inclined to make this much overtime, however I'm OK working with shifted office hours.
I think a presence in the same legal system is also a barrier. If you open a branch office and hire and manage them seriously, you can find a sharp team, but this isn’t all that cheap. If you try to write a small check to some contracting company with no reputation, they will deliver “tested” tarballs that are littered with syntax errors because they know suing them isn’t really feasible.
I recall this period as well (early to mid 2000s) and the fears of overseas workers led me to change my college major at the time. There was also still a big hangover effect from the 2000 dot com bubble. I remember seeing low developer salaries and, although I at least somewhat enjoyed coding and tinkering around with technical things, there were other pursuits I enjoyed more. I kind of regret not sticking with computer science but my career has turned out fairly well (although I think I would have optimized my income faster if I had stayed a computer science major).
I have seen succesful outsourced projects. They were more expensive than hiring local, because they required a massive amount of up-front analysis, requirements definition, design documentation, and involvement from an expensive middle-management tier of analysts. It took understanding that the process was going to be hard and have a lot of iterative rework. It took understanding that communication is hard.
Markets clear. If outsourcing were so great, it would have completely taken over by now. It has been tested for decades now and it hasn't.
Outsourcing fits really well for organizations that have a lot of explicit, documented, well-understood domain knowledge, for which the org is the key inventor. But that's not most organizations. Most organizations are operating by the seat of their pants, competing in markets where a large number of other orgs know their business. That they turn a profit at all is more a testament to the perseverance of a few, key employees than it is the exceptionalism of the organization itself.
Every axis of communication is a potential friction point, be it collocation, industry, experience levels, language, time zone, culture, personality types, etc. The more you can remove those friction points, the more successful your project can be. But outsourcing throws several of those out the window, never to be touched again. So you're left optimizing on the few that are left, where most companies only ever optimized on those axes that have already been removed.
Markets clear. If outsourcing were so great, it would have completely taken over by now. It has been tested for decades now and it hasn't.
Outsourcing fits really well for organizations that have a lot of explicit, documented, well-understood domain knowledge, for which the org is the key inventor. But that's not most organizations. Most organizations are operating by the seat of their pants, competing in markets where a large number of other orgs know their business. That they turn a profit at all is more a testament to the perseverance of a few, key employees than it is the exceptionalism of the organization itself.
Every axis of communication is a potential friction point, be it collocation, industry, experience levels, language, time zone, culture, personality types, etc. The more you can remove those friction points, the more successful your project can be. But outsourcing throws several of those out the window, never to be touched again. So you're left optimizing on the few that are left, where most companies only ever optimized on those axes that have already been removed.
Will it happen though? Hiring someone from a foreign country is easy for a temporary contract, but in industry we need to "own the code" and continue to maintain it.
Ultimately outsourcing has issues with accountability.
Ultimately outsourcing has issues with accountability.
What makes you think that these companies will pay above-market (local) rates sufficient to overcome other frictions? I think it's more likely they'll look at the local market rates and maybe pay a modest premium--not enough to create a huge draw of local talent looking for remote work, and not enough to make a dent in the labor market dynamics in general.
Overseas can range from:
you are a team of people located all over the world. To Your being off-shored to India as soon as can figure out how.
Worked both, and the culture difference and happiness difference is drastic.
Even a hint of offshoring will induced panic for many employees/ candidates. Definitely makes hiring and retention hard.
you are a team of people located all over the world. To Your being off-shored to India as soon as can figure out how.
Worked both, and the culture difference and happiness difference is drastic.
Even a hint of offshoring will induced panic for many employees/ candidates. Definitely makes hiring and retention hard.
> It is worth noting that software salaries are artificially inflated HEAVILY due to a general unwillingness or lack of interest in hiring overseas developers.
Yes that's right; business hates saving money and loves hiring super expensive US talent.
Yes that's right; business hates saving money and loves hiring super expensive US talent.
East Asia.
If you are looking to fill a position coming with a decent pay, I'm all ears :)
If you are looking to fill a position coming with a decent pay, I'm all ears :)
Just to be clear, there’s a big difference between China and the rest of east Asia in terms of hiring. So it might be good to edit that and differentiate.
Filter bubbles are incredibly dangerous.
Every time I hang out my with most ambitious friends, I am reminded of how MSFT is 'low balling' company. That I could be making 2x if only I kept up with interviewing. On one hand, I can't avoid the objective truth of the statement. But, on the other hand, the hedonic treadmill is infinite.
I'm glad I am not in the bay area. I would've been paralyzed by the persistent reminders around me of my monetarily sub-optimal life choices. Get out out of my head: 'over-achieving friendo', I am already well into the 99th percentile of wage earners of my age in the world's richest country.
Over the last 5 years, I've seen a (COL non-adjusted) 100x (20x if I use a more practically true number) increase in salary. So far, My happiest moments have rarely required much money, let alone 100x as much as I had then.
Every time I hang out my with most ambitious friends, I am reminded of how MSFT is 'low balling' company. That I could be making 2x if only I kept up with interviewing. On one hand, I can't avoid the objective truth of the statement. But, on the other hand, the hedonic treadmill is infinite.
I'm glad I am not in the bay area. I would've been paralyzed by the persistent reminders around me of my monetarily sub-optimal life choices. Get out out of my head: 'over-achieving friendo', I am already well into the 99th percentile of wage earners of my age in the world's richest country.
Over the last 5 years, I've seen a (COL non-adjusted) 100x (20x if I use a more practically true number) increase in salary. So far, My happiest moments have rarely required much money, let alone 100x as much as I had then.
This is beautifully captured. I work in a city I love (consider Charleston, SC - y'all) at a rate that puts me in a very similar position to myself. I'm so grateful to be able to have the space to not obsess over optimizing comp. I also like the knowledge/"feeling" that I can choose to focus on this in the future - and realize the benefits.
If it makes you feel better: there was, and remains, a tech subculture more focused on the tech than the money, but it’s been drowned out over the past 25 years because a gold rush makes for better press. Unfortunately that press attracts people who like that sort of thing.
So if you like what you are doing and can live comfortably you are at the top of your game. The rest is merely froth.
So if you like what you are doing and can live comfortably you are at the top of your game. The rest is merely froth.
Says the Cygnus Solutions cofounder. Wow. Where are people like you working today?
Since the Cygnus days I have worked on on small solar thermal power plants (fit in a pair of containers), pharmaceutical chemistry, distributed databases, Symbolic AI, and Rand CastAR for a while.
Some programming, some hardware, some chemistry, always lots of fun.
Right now I’m working on data control and privacy.
Some programming, some hardware, some chemistry, always lots of fun.
Right now I’m working on data control and privacy.
Data control and privacy are two of the most important things. I wrote a popular open source project where I've sought to improve that. Would you be interested in taking a quick look and offering candid feedback? See https://justine.lol/redbean/ and discussion thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26271117 and interview https://youtu.be/1ZTRb-2DZGs and polyglot executable format https://justine.lol/ape.html Someone like you could help me know if I'm doing it in the best possible way, since studying the influence of groups like cygnus was what helped me learn the hacking stunts that allowed me to pull it off in the first place.
> I am reminded of how MSFT is 'low balling' company. That I could be making 2x if only I kept up with interviewing.
It doesn't take much to interview and double your comp. You don't have to interview at Google or Facebook to double your comp - many pre-IPO startups are paying up and their interview processes are often less rigorous.
If you're happy with your situation then more power to you. But something tells me deep down inside, you're not OK with it. I'm here to tell you that a couple weeks of prep and looking around can go a long way.
It doesn't take much to interview and double your comp. You don't have to interview at Google or Facebook to double your comp - many pre-IPO startups are paying up and their interview processes are often less rigorous.
If you're happy with your situation then more power to you. But something tells me deep down inside, you're not OK with it. I'm here to tell you that a couple weeks of prep and looking around can go a long way.
Interesting thread. I thought everyone was clinging. How would you prepare if you had the rest of the summer?
Maybe if you're already in a famous company, but I've been itnerviewing/applying for a while and it's absolutely draining, especially with a lot of companies just trying to mimick the hiring practices of FAANG. Many are going to require a 1-2 hr coding test just to apply (not that I've been bothering with those). After that, a series of 3-6 interviews, and it just scales like shit. So I really have you read your comment as "If you've already got a famous company on your resume, are extremely lucky, or very well-known for some other reason or have great contacts in hiring positions at other companies, then you can double your comp easy!"
> the hedonic treadmill is infinite
It actually diminishes very quickly for most people, which I suspect is why they aren’t that motivated.
Still true that being content with what you have can be a wise choice.
It actually diminishes very quickly for most people, which I suspect is why they aren’t that motivated.
Still true that being content with what you have can be a wise choice.
After 2020, there's much more fully remote openings in us that hire from across the globe and pay over $100k.
All the shops in Ukraine and India I know of are solidly heading up in price for developers. Engineers make 20-30x the average salary and junior devs are making 24k USD per year out of uni there. Compare that to 35k USD in Canada.
I think if anything, the decreased concerns about hiring remote AND the increase in overall demand has lead to very favorable conditions for engineers even abroad.
I think if anything, the decreased concerns about hiring remote AND the increase in overall demand has lead to very favorable conditions for engineers even abroad.
It depends on your field. I know people whose industries have been on a hiring freeze since last march, and have been applying for almost a year and a half now to the few openings that do appear during this span. Must be a nice time to be a software engineer, though.
> Expressing intent to resign, and actually resigning are completely different things.
You have to ask yourself, why this is the case. And the simple answer is status quo bias. Many dream of a different life, but few will actually pull the trigger on a major change.
However if a company suddenly changes an established working relationship, then all bets are off the table. If people have gotten used to WFH, and now you make them come into the office, then you’re invalidating the status quo bias. Switching jobs is probably less disruptive to their status quo then going back to the office.
Corporate managers are forgetting a very maxim. Never piss off your employees by taking away something they feel entitled to. It’s the same reason that it’s virtually unheard of to cut salary, even when revenue is collapsing in a deflationary recession.
You have to ask yourself, why this is the case. And the simple answer is status quo bias. Many dream of a different life, but few will actually pull the trigger on a major change.
However if a company suddenly changes an established working relationship, then all bets are off the table. If people have gotten used to WFH, and now you make them come into the office, then you’re invalidating the status quo bias. Switching jobs is probably less disruptive to their status quo then going back to the office.
Corporate managers are forgetting a very maxim. Never piss off your employees by taking away something they feel entitled to. It’s the same reason that it’s virtually unheard of to cut salary, even when revenue is collapsing in a deflationary recession.
>Never piss off your employees by taking away something they feel entitled to.
I've read one of the easiest ways to break moral in an office is to simply take away the snacks. Forget nap pods, or walking desks- don't touch my clif bars!!
I've read one of the easiest ways to break moral in an office is to simply take away the snacks. Forget nap pods, or walking desks- don't touch my clif bars!!
Steve Blank wrote about this: https://steveblank.com/2009/12/21/the-elves-leave-middle-ear...
I like the one who suggested the answer to the question of how much the free drinks cost should be "less than the cost of hiring a single engineer".
Used to work at an office where they got rid of free drinks. The morning it happened, Top Engineer 1 sent a mail to all Boston staff announcing he was thirsty and asked if anyone else was similarly thirsty and wanted to join him on a grocery trip to buy soda. Three cars full of engineers went to the grocery store, taking a little over an hour. Free drinks returned later that same week.
I love that guy.
This exact event happened at both Cisco and Juniper when they got rid of free drinks. Multiple times.
Right, the whole point of free food/drinks was the keep the engineer from wanting to leave the office. It was not really a perk but a way to entice the employee to working more.
Exactly. A lot of people think, if the company is so tight or so stingy (whichever the case may be) they can't afford bagels anymore, it might behoove me to search for work elsewhere.
To be honest one of awesome things for work at home is it prompted to me to finally setup a half decent bagel at home routine. And nice coffee, weak and fifty percent milk, just like I like it. I am looking forward to 4 pm tea time informal chats with friends, two days a week, shortly.
> I've read one of the easiest ways to break moral in an office is to simply take away the snacks
For me this is indication of cost cutting going into effect. This means it's time to stop riding a dead horse and to start looking for a live one.
For me this is indication of cost cutting going into effect. This means it's time to stop riding a dead horse and to start looking for a live one.
This, it's either the first sign of larger problems or a sign of a significant culture shift, either way it signals that change that is likely for the worse is coming so it might be time to leave before it gets worse.
You can watch the snacks, but I check the TP quality. Easy to verify before you start as well.
[deleted]
> It’s the same reason that it’s virtually unheard of to cut salary, even when revenue is collapsing in a deflationary recession
Yes, that’s why companies prefer lay offs rather than broad base salary cuts. Lay offs are a temporary hit to morale, while pay cuts are more permanent. Moreover, in lay offs, you can fire least productive workers, while after pay cut, it’s the most productive that will leave first.
Yes, that’s why companies prefer lay offs rather than broad base salary cuts. Lay offs are a temporary hit to morale, while pay cuts are more permanent. Moreover, in lay offs, you can fire least productive workers, while after pay cut, it’s the most productive that will leave first.
I've seen more jobs offer like 10% yearly bonuses for the reason that I assume is the ability to cut back on costs in a pinch without touching the salary itself per se.
> I assume is the ability to cut back on costs in a pinch without touching the salary itself per se.
A pay increase is a > 10 year commitment, in the eyes of the accounting department. Where I am, it's usually around 60% base cash bonus, %30 base RSU bonus, for "above average" performance (which isn't difficult). I, unlike most of my colleagues, budget my life around my base pay. I experienced the 2007 recession, so in my mind, this is all unsustainable and will crash someday.
A pay increase is a > 10 year commitment, in the eyes of the accounting department. Where I am, it's usually around 60% base cash bonus, %30 base RSU bonus, for "above average" performance (which isn't difficult). I, unlike most of my colleagues, budget my life around my base pay. I experienced the 2007 recession, so in my mind, this is all unsustainable and will crash someday.
After a few demoralizing layoffs you have a tendency for talented folks to leave once the picture is clear. Does management think software is an investment or a cost? If you can work where it is an investment, do so.
> After a few demoralizing layoffs you have a tendency for talented folks to leave once the picture is clear
From what I've experienced, there's a double whammy here. Only the talented folks remain, but they all know better than to stick around, so the company dies shortly after.
From what I've experienced, there's a double whammy here. Only the talented folks remain, but they all know better than to stick around, so the company dies shortly after.
Yes, that's why companies don't like to fire people in general. Alas, sometimes the choice is between firing people, taking morale hit and likely dying later, or not firing anyone, and dying much sooner and with certainty.
> Switching jobs is probably less disruptive to their status quo then going back to the office.
Maybe for a little while when there are lots of jobs offering WFH and competing for a small number of people switching jobs. However if you invert that by having lots of jobs simultaneously require people to come back into the office and lots of people simultaneously seeking new employment, then that job hop is likely to be quite difficult. At the very least, most people probably won't be able to line up a new WFH job before they either need to start going into the office or quit and risk extended unemployment. In the long run there will be more WFH opportunities than before the pandemic, but a lot of people are going to have to go into an office whether they want to or not.
Maybe for a little while when there are lots of jobs offering WFH and competing for a small number of people switching jobs. However if you invert that by having lots of jobs simultaneously require people to come back into the office and lots of people simultaneously seeking new employment, then that job hop is likely to be quite difficult. At the very least, most people probably won't be able to line up a new WFH job before they either need to start going into the office or quit and risk extended unemployment. In the long run there will be more WFH opportunities than before the pandemic, but a lot of people are going to have to go into an office whether they want to or not.
Not for software in US or India I don’t think. I am not manager but do lots of interviewing and OMG people who can code and think and talk are so so precious. We would hire all remote in a jiffy, unless asking salary is higher than budget. When it is coming down to it, my company is picking lower salary over in office.
I can talk precisely and concisely. My code is slowly written but solid. Why dont my interviewers make me feel precious?
Because they see you as "another one person they have to interview" while they should approach you as someone completely new. I did the same mistake as an interviewer in the past.
I personally frame any cancelled perq as an effective pay cut. Usually portrayed by management as somehow expected, & as if unearned in the first place, which I find galling. I also had an experienced coworker who pointed out that when the water cooler went away, the company was circling the drain, which my limited experience has borne out.
A vast amount of my colleagues left in spring last year, well before any redundancies were even on the table. All in their 30s, most 35+.
> In my circles, everyone from 25-35 is simultaneously preparing to FIRE
It's still shocking to me how "chill" this is. "Oh yeah, I'm about to FIRE, no big problem".
Achieving FIRE is such a mind blowing concept to me, Let alone at 25-35!!! Where I live we don't have fat six figure salaries flying around allowing us to accumulate a chunky ETF portfolio to live off of.
Be grateful for what you have achieved!
> Suddenly, having good health insurance, WFH 'flexibility' and a stable jobs are now being viewed as things to be grateful about rather than the norm for well educated and employable adults.
Do you realise how the bottom ~50% of the US workforce lives [1]?! Getting paid six figures or more easily puts you in the top 10% of income earners in the US. Why are you talking as if these should be the norm? They clearly aren't by all metrics. You have such incredible benefits for the work you do, why do you believe you shouldn't feel any privilege or gratitude?
[1] https://www.legalreader.com/low-wage-jobs-are-the-new-americ...
It's still shocking to me how "chill" this is. "Oh yeah, I'm about to FIRE, no big problem".
Achieving FIRE is such a mind blowing concept to me, Let alone at 25-35!!! Where I live we don't have fat six figure salaries flying around allowing us to accumulate a chunky ETF portfolio to live off of.
Be grateful for what you have achieved!
> Suddenly, having good health insurance, WFH 'flexibility' and a stable jobs are now being viewed as things to be grateful about rather than the norm for well educated and employable adults.
Do you realise how the bottom ~50% of the US workforce lives [1]?! Getting paid six figures or more easily puts you in the top 10% of income earners in the US. Why are you talking as if these should be the norm? They clearly aren't by all metrics. You have such incredible benefits for the work you do, why do you believe you shouldn't feel any privilege or gratitude?
[1] https://www.legalreader.com/low-wage-jobs-are-the-new-americ...
> Achieving FIRE is such a mind blowing concept to me
What's FIRE in this context?
What's FIRE in this context?
I presume it means Financial Independence Retire Early, most famously known on the relevant subreddit [1]
[1]: https://reddit.com/r/financialindependence/
[1]: https://reddit.com/r/financialindependence/
[deleted]
Financial Independence Retiring Early.
The basic assumption generally being, anyone who can save two-thirds of each paycheque and invest in a portfolio yielding 4% per year after inflation can retire in 10 years. Saving two-thirds of each paycheque is of course difficult unless one is in a high pay grade to begin with, but there are enough people with the necessary discipline to keep the dream alive for many of us.
The basic assumption generally being, anyone who can save two-thirds of each paycheque and invest in a portfolio yielding 4% per year after inflation can retire in 10 years. Saving two-thirds of each paycheque is of course difficult unless one is in a high pay grade to begin with, but there are enough people with the necessary discipline to keep the dream alive for many of us.
FI = Financially independent = Have enough assets to sustain an acceptable lifestyle off interest from investments + some moderate draw on principal (usually totals to 4%) = Finances are not dependent on money from job
RE = Retire early = retire from the necessary but emotionally unfulfilling jobs. For most people RE means pursuing interests that are not financially viable if you aren't already FI. It can mean a youtube channel, studying whatever you want or working on a side project without strict deadlines or the stress that comes with an all-or-nothing endeavor.
The key fallacy in FIRE, is that it ignores creeping costs and the stubbornness of your dependants. Avoiding lifestyle creep in fundamental to the movement. This also means being unable to fund fancy private schools for your kids and your spouse being fine with the sudden loss of a huge income source. FIRE is an empty pursuit without a definite end goal. If you don't know what you want to do during RE, you might just be condemning yourself to a loss of purpose and possibly significantly higher risk of death/mental deterioration.
Ofc, you can always pursue a more relaxed form of FIRE. Make enough to move to part time / contracts, or move to another country with lower wages or fully dedicate yourself to a moonshot.
RE = Retire early = retire from the necessary but emotionally unfulfilling jobs. For most people RE means pursuing interests that are not financially viable if you aren't already FI. It can mean a youtube channel, studying whatever you want or working on a side project without strict deadlines or the stress that comes with an all-or-nothing endeavor.
The key fallacy in FIRE, is that it ignores creeping costs and the stubbornness of your dependants. Avoiding lifestyle creep in fundamental to the movement. This also means being unable to fund fancy private schools for your kids and your spouse being fine with the sudden loss of a huge income source. FIRE is an empty pursuit without a definite end goal. If you don't know what you want to do during RE, you might just be condemning yourself to a loss of purpose and possibly significantly higher risk of death/mental deterioration.
Ofc, you can always pursue a more relaxed form of FIRE. Make enough to move to part time / contracts, or move to another country with lower wages or fully dedicate yourself to a moonshot.
Just a warning to those planning to do this: you are taking an incredible risk with your future that I think is undervalued. Circumstances beyond your control can make your plans financially unviable and by retiring so early you have absolutely no room for error. All it takes is one change in health or a regulation for your whole plan to be instantly invalidated.
For those that have the ability and the desire to retire: congratulations! Please be careful!
For those that have the ability and the desire to retire: congratulations! Please be careful!
I don’t know enough about the capital-FIRE group, but any techies around me who want to “retire” early in reality want to go back to just treating tech as a hobby. I think there’s a subtly different “financial independence so I can quit working for the big guy” mentality that gets lumped into the FIRE acronym, even though in this version people are likely to retain skills and connections that should in theory give them some edge if they ever need/want to go back.
But yes: risk is always a part of the game.
But yes: risk is always a part of the game.
[deleted]
Critics of FIRE really like to hone in on the "RE" part, but most people I know who are aspiring toward the goal are much more focused on the "FI" part.
It's not so much that you can retire to sitting on your ass at 35, but it's that you've made your millions and can quit the grinding corporate job and do something less stressful and/or more meaningful, and quite likely less lucrative, without taking a big lifestyle hit. It's about having the ability to build the lifestyle you want. Having that big bank account gives you options and freedom.
Few people I know working toward FIRE are aspiring toward doing nothing in "retirement".
It's not so much that you can retire to sitting on your ass at 35, but it's that you've made your millions and can quit the grinding corporate job and do something less stressful and/or more meaningful, and quite likely less lucrative, without taking a big lifestyle hit. It's about having the ability to build the lifestyle you want. Having that big bank account gives you options and freedom.
Few people I know working toward FIRE are aspiring toward doing nothing in "retirement".
Also, whatever you do after the "RE" part could very well end up being much more lucrative than being a well-paid wage earner could have ever been.
When you take a smart person, make their life boring, and throw them enough capital that they can afford to do anything they want, the end result is often innovation.
When you take a smart person, make their life boring, and throw them enough capital that they can afford to do anything they want, the end result is often innovation.
Typically the "RE" part does not mean "sit on a beach and do nothing"
For most people FIRE simply means being in a "position of Fuck You", which is very empowering and provides you with more options to seek out income opportunities that make you truly happy with out having to worry about paying the mortgage or putting food on the table
For most people FIRE simply means being in a "position of Fuck You", which is very empowering and provides you with more options to seek out income opportunities that make you truly happy with out having to worry about paying the mortgage or putting food on the table
It doesn't even need to be about an antagonistic situation. It's like any other negotiation situation. If you're in a position to and not really too unhappy with just walking away if you don't like your work, your team, your salary/benefits, an organizational change, etc. it makes discussions much more relaxing.
You do have the option of going back to work if shit hits the fan. Maybe it'll be harder to find a job, or to find one that pays as well as before, but that's pretty heavily tempered by the fat nest egg you have. It's a pretty big misconception that by "retiring" you're permanently cutting off all abilities to produce income ever again.
It's easy to see "oh if a wealth tax is introduced, you'll run out of money by 50" as if it's a huge hole in the plan, but if you're 30 that gives you 20 years of draw down time. A change in the market or legislation won't sneak up on you and suddenly drain you of all your cash - if it does, it's probably something affecting the entire population. You'll likely have a year or two of drawing down more cash than you should before you pivot your plans.
The most vulnerable time during FIRE is the first few years of early retirement (where a market crash could wreck you), but is simultaneously the point where you're still at your most employable (plenty of relevant contacts, skills that aren't out of date, and a relatively small gap on your resume).
It's easy to see "oh if a wealth tax is introduced, you'll run out of money by 50" as if it's a huge hole in the plan, but if you're 30 that gives you 20 years of draw down time. A change in the market or legislation won't sneak up on you and suddenly drain you of all your cash - if it does, it's probably something affecting the entire population. You'll likely have a year or two of drawing down more cash than you should before you pivot your plans.
The most vulnerable time during FIRE is the first few years of early retirement (where a market crash could wreck you), but is simultaneously the point where you're still at your most employable (plenty of relevant contacts, skills that aren't out of date, and a relatively small gap on your resume).
As browsing any discussion on recruiting and interviewing with illustrate, hiring is already fucked up, and adding age plus a multi year gap would make getting a new job quite hard, let alone one that matches the compensation one has today.
If you stayed active in relevant circles, perhaps doable given personal contacts.
But I agree in general. If someone retires at 40 and realizes 5-10 years later this isn't working out, that's a pretty big uphill climb for conventional professional employment.
But I agree in general. If someone retires at 40 and realizes 5-10 years later this isn't working out, that's a pretty big uphill climb for conventional professional employment.
This is a risk I think that people don't give enough consideration.
I know a guy who FIREd a while ago, long before we called it FIRE, and he's had a heck of a time landing another corporate job. He had a very successful business development firm and took a buyout from partners so he could move away from NYC and spend time with his kids. His kids are all grown up now and he's been looking for jobs and...crickets.
I know a guy who FIREd a while ago, long before we called it FIRE, and he's had a heck of a time landing another corporate job. He had a very successful business development firm and took a buyout from partners so he could move away from NYC and spend time with his kids. His kids are all grown up now and he's been looking for jobs and...crickets.
Sure, landing the same tech job may not be feasible. As I mentioned, the big nest egg should ease that blow. You can instead get a lower paying tech job you're plenty qualified for. You can also get a job doing something unrelated to tech, like Uber/gig work, secretary, waiter, creating on Etsy, or really anything. A disruption to early retirement isn't going to be so dramatic that you need to get your same 6 figure income as before in order to stay afloat. It's something where an extra $15k a year coupled with some cost cutting will get you through a recession with minimal damages (cost of living dependent of course, but I'm assuming a conservative ~$60k/yr expenses). Landing something more lucrative creates a noticeable surplus.
Why limit it to the US; there is always going to be someone who is worse off than you on the planet. I think its possible to be grateful that you're not that person, but also complain about things that affect you from time to time. :)
[deleted]
> In my circles, everyone from 25-35 is simultaneously preparing to FIRE and no-one that's 35+ has actually changed jobs despite being 'financially independent'.
I think your circles are rather unusual, if this is true. A $900k net worth is in the 99th percentile for 30-34 year olds and 95th percentile for 35-40 year olds in the US (https://dqydj.com/net-worth-by-age-calculator-united-states/)
Even among my anecdotal very-highly-compensated NYC tech-salary coworkers and friends, having money issues and easily sub $100k net worths is way more common than not.
I think your circles are rather unusual, if this is true. A $900k net worth is in the 99th percentile for 30-34 year olds and 95th percentile for 35-40 year olds in the US (https://dqydj.com/net-worth-by-age-calculator-united-states/)
Even among my anecdotal very-highly-compensated NYC tech-salary coworkers and friends, having money issues and easily sub $100k net worths is way more common than not.
I didn't have any substantial savings until I was well into my 30s. I didn't graduate from grad school until I was 28. (Worked for a few years prior in engineering but nothing like the salary levels in SWE today.)
Despite being in software I had no savings until my late 30s. I am forever grateful that our field is one that allows for huge earnings, as it has enabled me to flip that all the way around.
I'm now in my mid/late-40s and show up as low/mid 80s on that calculator depending on if I include my home equity. When I punch in my net worth at 40 I was around 20%. If my current glide path holds I'd be low-90s when I turn 50. While unlikely to be feasible, it's in the realm of possibility that I could retire by mid-50s.
That's a privileged position simply not available to most human beings. Really remarkable when one thinks about it.
I'm now in my mid/late-40s and show up as low/mid 80s on that calculator depending on if I include my home equity. When I punch in my net worth at 40 I was around 20%. If my current glide path holds I'd be low-90s when I turn 50. While unlikely to be feasible, it's in the realm of possibility that I could retire by mid-50s.
That's a privileged position simply not available to most human beings. Really remarkable when one thinks about it.
Yeah, I did OK through the 90s but it was certainly not a high-paying job by current coastal software standards. (I actually looked at a few west coast jobs in that period and, frankly, they'd have been a downgrade because of CoL. Stocks were hit pretty hard, including my shares in my employer, and for various reasons my job during the next decade I generally liked (and it set me up for my current job well) but it didn't pay that well.
It was only really my current job and associated stock which took savings from just OK to pretty decent. I could retire now if I wanted to but not really in a big hurry assuming business travel comes back post-COVID.
It was only really my current job and associated stock which took savings from just OK to pretty decent. I could retire now if I wanted to but not really in a big hurry assuming business travel comes back post-COVID.
A $900K net worth is not enough to FIRE in my estimation. $36K/yr with the need to still buy housing is spartan and/or risky with a 60-year outlook.
May not be enough to pull the trigger, but definitely enough to transition down to a part time or remote web dev gig in a low cost of living area. Once you have such a net worth secured, you just have to keep from pulling from it for a few years while it compounds.
The big thing is that around 900k is when you get diminishing returns on savings vs market fluctuations. Bumping that amount by 10% would require saving $90k, which is a tall order. Or you could wait for a 10% market increase (it's up 14% this year). Not that the market is guaranteed to go up, or even by that much (we're in an unusually good market at the moment with inflated optimism). But at a certain point you hit a tradeoff where the market on average increases your wealth faster than savings off your salary will. At that point it makes sense to transition to a job that just covers your cost of living - one that you like more and offers more freedom.
The big thing is that around 900k is when you get diminishing returns on savings vs market fluctuations. Bumping that amount by 10% would require saving $90k, which is a tall order. Or you could wait for a 10% market increase (it's up 14% this year). Not that the market is guaranteed to go up, or even by that much (we're in an unusually good market at the moment with inflated optimism). But at a certain point you hit a tradeoff where the market on average increases your wealth faster than savings off your salary will. At that point it makes sense to transition to a job that just covers your cost of living - one that you like more and offers more freedom.
I’ve never understood this logic. If you’re going to be working, why take a significant pay cut? It’s not like other lower tier jobs are actually that much less work; you’re working with less skilled people in general and often poor management. This is the coastfire philosophy and it makes no sense. You could work a a few more years at high-paying miserable job or an extra decade at low-paying probably miserable job.
There exist many jobs/fields where the pay is below top market but could scratch the person's personal itches. Non-profits, research, etc.
At a former job we could not pay anywhere near top of the market and yet we attracted decent talent as the mission was something that resonated with many people. One category of people we'd attract were those who had already made enough money that they didn't have to focus on that, and now just wanted to do good in the world.
At a former job we could not pay anywhere near top of the market and yet we attracted decent talent as the mission was something that resonated with many people. One category of people we'd attract were those who had already made enough money that they didn't have to focus on that, and now just wanted to do good in the world.
I think of it more as I could work a few more years at my current high paying miserable job, or the same few years + 1 at a flexible (arguably less miserable) job.
For me at least, the goal has been to bank big cash early, then let the compounding do the heavy lifting towards the end. As I mentioned above, getting a 10% increase takes a lot more savings late in the game whereas the snowballing effect of compounding interest is stronger, so I'm coming out ahead just by staying afloat without dipping into my savings. I look at the work that appeals to digital nomads (pre-covid, this was work FAANG and other high paying jobs didn't widely offer), and it seems more valuable to spend some mobile years financing a nice adventure with the stability of a job that lets me work from home. It means a gradual transition to RE and that very little in my lifestyle should change once I pull the trigger. Personally I'm looking to reach FI /then/ transition to a remote/part time job as a way to reduce risk while offering some extra flexibility - everything I earn in that time should be gravy and it should allow me the freedom to travel and enjoy the experiences.
For me at least, the goal has been to bank big cash early, then let the compounding do the heavy lifting towards the end. As I mentioned above, getting a 10% increase takes a lot more savings late in the game whereas the snowballing effect of compounding interest is stronger, so I'm coming out ahead just by staying afloat without dipping into my savings. I look at the work that appeals to digital nomads (pre-covid, this was work FAANG and other high paying jobs didn't widely offer), and it seems more valuable to spend some mobile years financing a nice adventure with the stability of a job that lets me work from home. It means a gradual transition to RE and that very little in my lifestyle should change once I pull the trigger. Personally I'm looking to reach FI /then/ transition to a remote/part time job as a way to reduce risk while offering some extra flexibility - everything I earn in that time should be gravy and it should allow me the freedom to travel and enjoy the experiences.
the 4% rule is viewed by many to be very very conservative, many are looking at 6-8% as a better base line.
Of course if you are retiring in your 40% you may want to be pretty conservative...
Of course if you are retiring in your 40% you may want to be pretty conservative...
Of course, it's easy to look at the last ten years and nudge the number up.
Retiring in 40s is a pretty big decision. It's not impossible to re-enter the professional workforce in your late-40s or 50s, if things don't work out, but it will almost certainly not be easy.
Retiring in 40s is a pretty big decision. It's not impossible to re-enter the professional workforce in your late-40s or 50s, if things don't work out, but it will almost certainly not be easy.
Is it even possible to access US pension savings in your 30s or 40s?
In the UK tax advantaged pension accounts cannot be accessed until you're 55 (and 58 for my generation)
In the UK tax advantaged pension accounts cannot be accessed until you're 55 (and 58 for my generation)
Yes, it's possible.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sepp.asp
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sepp.asp
These people are not conditioning their withdrawals on valuations. If you retired in 1978, yeah, 6% was probably fine. In 2000 you’d likely already be beyond recovery even today.
That's not really even close to true anymore... There have been a few studies that have attempted to update the Trinity study, like this one that gives an 89% chance of success even at a 3% SWR:
https://www.financialplanningassociation.org/article/journal...
People in the FIRE communities are routinely discussing 3.5% and 3% SWR's, and see 4% as risky.
https://www.financialplanningassociation.org/article/journal...
People in the FIRE communities are routinely discussing 3.5% and 3% SWR's, and see 4% as risky.
Of course it's unusual. If you're in SF and work in first tier startups/FAANG, your social circle is going to be mostly people in similar situations. It's a very unusually high earning and unusually rapidly high earning career path.
I would be shocked if in that specific cohort the median net worth at 30 was less than 500 k$. And if less than 1/10 were millionaires at 30.
I would be shocked if in that specific cohort the median net worth at 30 was less than 500 k$. And if less than 1/10 were millionaires at 30.
SF is a bit of a one-trick pony these days, sure, but to me this is a broad over-generalization that is easily proven false.
The individuals who occupy the upper-echelons of this world in SF tend to be the unusual kinds of unusual people. They often have unique upbringings, come from distinctly not-obvious academic/work backgrounds, and keep much more dynamic forms of company than the typical "Backend Engineer 3" at Amazon or Google.
The individuals who occupy the upper-echelons of this world in SF tend to be the unusual kinds of unusual people. They often have unique upbringings, come from distinctly not-obvious academic/work backgrounds, and keep much more dynamic forms of company than the typical "Backend Engineer 3" at Amazon or Google.
This doesn't match my experience at all. I know a few extremely wealthy folks in SF, a bunch more wealthy folks but who still work 9-5, and there is nothing unusual about any of them. I've met CEOs and billionaires and there's nothing unusual about them, either.
Sure, maybe SF has more unusual kinds of unusual people than the average city, but I wouldn't say that's the norm. VC folks are especially boring.
Sure, maybe SF has more unusual kinds of unusual people than the average city, but I wouldn't say that's the norm. VC folks are especially boring.
Being subject to constraints on your living standards can force you to be more disciplined. I’d bet that there are some in your circle that earn less yet are more financially stable than you would expect. They just don’t talk about it as much, partly out of politeness and partly because they think it’s pretty boring.
Oh, absolutely. My point was more that it's not particularly common. Having a relatively low-ish FIRE-worthy NW (e.g., the $900k in my example) is very uncommon for 30-40 year olds.
> Real Translation: Covid has made people miserable in their jobs.
contradicts
> This number is meaningless without previous year trends.
contradicts
> This number is meaningless without previous year trends.
Agree with the "miserable" comment.
Dissatisfaction will cause people to move around in the market. I don't know how much I buy the argument that people are looking for WFH, more than that they are looking to not work in a service industry which has low benefits low pay, and no chance of upward mobility.
The pandemic is giving people a chance to realize their career has stalled. I think everyone already knew that the US healthcare system was broken, but maybe people are realizing changing careers is the only way out of that bind.
Tech workers would be fine under any situation, so I don't think it's right to compare your FIRE friends with a cruise ship waiter.
It's important to note that tech workers make up no where close to 40% of all workers, and that most of the people discussed here are lower class seeking upward mobility. Being miserable is just the catalyst for seeking a way out of their situation.
Dissatisfaction will cause people to move around in the market. I don't know how much I buy the argument that people are looking for WFH, more than that they are looking to not work in a service industry which has low benefits low pay, and no chance of upward mobility.
The pandemic is giving people a chance to realize their career has stalled. I think everyone already knew that the US healthcare system was broken, but maybe people are realizing changing careers is the only way out of that bind.
Tech workers would be fine under any situation, so I don't think it's right to compare your FIRE friends with a cruise ship waiter.
It's important to note that tech workers make up no where close to 40% of all workers, and that most of the people discussed here are lower class seeking upward mobility. Being miserable is just the catalyst for seeking a way out of their situation.
> Expressing intent to resign, and actually resigning are completely different things.
I bet if HC were not employment centered, this would be much different. In the US, it's a badge of honor to have a "job with benefits". Switching jobs and not having HC benefits that are as good or cost more weighs heavy on the minds of most people.
I bet if HC were not employment centered, this would be much different. In the US, it's a badge of honor to have a "job with benefits". Switching jobs and not having HC benefits that are as good or cost more weighs heavy on the minds of most people.
I wonder if they really think the powers that be will allow them to retire early. Most will be working until 75+, unless the socialism/automation conspiracy theory comes to fruition.
People hit financial independence and retire early all the time. It's quite routine.
It is definitely hard for food service workers, and what not, but the powers that be really don't have much say.
It is definitely hard for food service workers, and what not, but the powers that be really don't have much say.
Many do it by 38-42. Less and less likely to happen, given what's transpired in the last decade or 2.
The powers that be need to start making offers that are harder to refuse for people who don't actually /need/ a job, then. For example, allowing part-time work...
Well, this is an ultra-cynical take on the article. It's also a little myopic in the sense that it assumes increased work flexibility must somehow have a high associated cost, such as loss of insurance, or lack of job stability. That just isn't the case.
Although I don't believe that we're about to enter some form of work/life balance utopia, just from my own circle of friends, big changes are inbound.
Firstly, many of us, including me, have for years been told that working from home more than a day a week was an impossibility, and that we should be grateful for that 1 day at all. Although frequently WFH days came with caveats, such as no Mon/Fri WFH, and there was the ever present threat of it being taken away.
Then, along comes the pandemic, and 'lo and behold, I've been working home for over a year without any issue. So have the bulk of the people I know, especially those in the technology sector. All of a sudden the dozens of arguments I have had with clients and employers over the years have all landed firmly on what I have been saying all along; we don't need to be in work every day, hell, we don't even need to be in work every week.
The cat is out of the bag now, and there isn't going to be putting it back in. A lot of the last year has been positive for many, including me. I've seen more of my own daughter in the past year than I've seen in the previous 7 years combined, and I've come to appreciate how important that has been to both of us. I'm not about to let that go without a fight.
Although I don't believe that we're about to enter some form of work/life balance utopia, just from my own circle of friends, big changes are inbound.
Firstly, many of us, including me, have for years been told that working from home more than a day a week was an impossibility, and that we should be grateful for that 1 day at all. Although frequently WFH days came with caveats, such as no Mon/Fri WFH, and there was the ever present threat of it being taken away.
Then, along comes the pandemic, and 'lo and behold, I've been working home for over a year without any issue. So have the bulk of the people I know, especially those in the technology sector. All of a sudden the dozens of arguments I have had with clients and employers over the years have all landed firmly on what I have been saying all along; we don't need to be in work every day, hell, we don't even need to be in work every week.
The cat is out of the bag now, and there isn't going to be putting it back in. A lot of the last year has been positive for many, including me. I've seen more of my own daughter in the past year than I've seen in the previous 7 years combined, and I've come to appreciate how important that has been to both of us. I'm not about to let that go without a fight.
Absolutely this. And it showed that the work output itself is better when the knowledge worked is better off. At least for the teams I am interacting with. Less BS time and more good code.
Actually just requested a 4 day work week for the same amount of money. Wish me luck! Seems reasonable to me tho, I can probably provide the same amount of value as if I worked 5 days a week - but who knows maybe they will just give me more work to do instead!
Good luck! Now is the time to do it, and get it put into your contract. You have additional leverage as employers are panicked by stories of workers resigning en masse if not granted additional working from home time.
Don't fall for the "you can do more work because you're not commuting" line - if commuting is considered work time, then you deserve to be remunerated for that time, and they owe you back pay for each day you commuted in the past.
Don't fall for the "you can do more work because you're not commuting" line - if commuting is considered work time, then you deserve to be remunerated for that time, and they owe you back pay for each day you commuted in the past.
ah, base rate neglect, the stock in trade of a newspaper. thanks for the reminder!
> Suddenly, having good health insurance
Just think, we could all pursue our hopes, dreams and soul satisfying pursuits, if having good health insurance wasn't directly tied to having a "good job".
Just think, we could all pursue our hopes, dreams and soul satisfying pursuits, if having good health insurance wasn't directly tied to having a "good job".
But then you might have to wait a couple weeks to have a non-critical procedure. gasp
In such countries you can usually pay a reasonable price (fully known upfront!) to skip the line.
So people with more money can keep paying to skip me? I'm sure that would work well in the US
It's not exactly to skip you. It's to get into another place, that you can not access if you don't pay.
It's basically "You have those basic needs filled here under those conditions. If you don't want that, there's a free market up there where you can bargain something better." Of course, how "basic" are the needs filled and what conditions vary a lot from country to country.
It's basically "You have those basic needs filled here under those conditions. If you don't want that, there's a free market up there where you can bargain something better." Of course, how "basic" are the needs filled and what conditions vary a lot from country to country.
I’ll press y to quit.
I’ve been trying for years.
I’ve been trying for years.
>Real Translation: Covid has made people miserable in their jobs.
I am far happier in my job and my career. And if my employer decides that they require people to come to the office, then I shall find a different employer who doesn't.
I am far happier in my job and my career. And if my employer decides that they require people to come to the office, then I shall find a different employer who doesn't.
I guess I fall into the idle fantasy category. I dream of quiting my job. I do look at job postings, but I don't see any better jobs in my area (that I'm even remotely qualified for).
I think this is true.
What I’ve noticed about the fire people is that they have very unrealistic budgets (static based on what they spend at age 30 often forgetting to include things like healthcare and other forms of insurance, as well as changes in lifestyle). Once you’re in your 40s, and you’re at the peak of your earnings, it’s actually really hard to walk away even if you’ve hit your target. I do know quite a few people first hand who have quit but only in there very late 40s or who made north of $10 million at one point or another.
What I’ve noticed about the fire people is that they have very unrealistic budgets (static based on what they spend at age 30 often forgetting to include things like healthcare and other forms of insurance, as well as changes in lifestyle). Once you’re in your 40s, and you’re at the peak of your earnings, it’s actually really hard to walk away even if you’ve hit your target. I do know quite a few people first hand who have quit but only in there very late 40s or who made north of $10 million at one point or another.
If you can do it, I recommend it to everyone.
You don't really know yourself until you've spent a month or two with ZERO outside obligations. Quite hard to do. I did a couple of multi-month gaps in my 30s.
You don't really know yourself until you've spent a month or two with ZERO outside obligations. Quite hard to do. I did a couple of multi-month gaps in my 30s.
COVID hasn't made people miserable in their jobs.
COVID has exposed how pathetic the commute-to-work experience is in comparison to working from home. A lot of people are just fine not keeping up a work wardrobe, or getting up every day to get dressed and groomed for work, or driving to the office every day. It personally takes me 45 minutes to get to work on a good day. If my employer tried to force me into the office while I could get a job elsewhere that would allow me to make around the same money to work from home, I'm gone. I'd save about $2500 in gas alone.
And for the record, I love my co-workers. Every single one is a software development veteran, professional in their day to day activities, and is motivated to producing quality work. But I'd still rather work with a knucklehead from time to time than give up the 2+ hours of daily time that going back to the office would require.
COVID has exposed how pathetic the commute-to-work experience is in comparison to working from home. A lot of people are just fine not keeping up a work wardrobe, or getting up every day to get dressed and groomed for work, or driving to the office every day. It personally takes me 45 minutes to get to work on a good day. If my employer tried to force me into the office while I could get a job elsewhere that would allow me to make around the same money to work from home, I'm gone. I'd save about $2500 in gas alone.
And for the record, I love my co-workers. Every single one is a software development veteran, professional in their day to day activities, and is motivated to producing quality work. But I'd still rather work with a knucklehead from time to time than give up the 2+ hours of daily time that going back to the office would require.
> Real Translation: Covid has made people miserable in their jobs.
No, people were miserable in their jobs prior to the Covid era. The Covid era just gave them the repose they needed to reframe their job experience and their relationship to their employers. That's a positive development for Americans and their employers.
No, people were miserable in their jobs prior to the Covid era. The Covid era just gave them the repose they needed to reframe their job experience and their relationship to their employers. That's a positive development for Americans and their employers.
> Real Translation: Covid has made people miserable in their jobs.
Small quibble: Covid has shown people how miserable their jobs have always been.
All it's taken is a slight shift, a small perk, here and there, and people see it clear as day, and they want out. White collar workers got work from home: actually, it turns out I can give legal advice while planting basil in my backyard and no one on the conference call either notices or gives a shit. Blue collar workers got unemployment benefits that pay a living wage without needing to work 3 jobs and die of an early heart attack worrying about how they'll feed their kids.
I think lots of myth and propaganda about work got blown up in the last year, and it's cause for celebration.
Small quibble: Covid has shown people how miserable their jobs have always been.
All it's taken is a slight shift, a small perk, here and there, and people see it clear as day, and they want out. White collar workers got work from home: actually, it turns out I can give legal advice while planting basil in my backyard and no one on the conference call either notices or gives a shit. Blue collar workers got unemployment benefits that pay a living wage without needing to work 3 jobs and die of an early heart attack worrying about how they'll feed their kids.
I think lots of myth and propaganda about work got blown up in the last year, and it's cause for celebration.
You mean the Fed printed a ton of money and sent it to everyone making less than a certain amount, and the government guaranteed wages for those who no longer wish to work, and caused a labor shortage and inflation.
Soon those benefits will be insufficient, due to inflation, if the government continues to print money, and the real wages of the existing wage earners who actually produce value for the good of society by working are eroded and redistributed to those who don't wish to work.
If it keeps up, soon we'll all be poor, nobody will earn a living wage, but at least it will be equitable!
Don't forget that printing money for stimulus checks is borrowing at greatest expense to the lowest wage earners in order to pay those who choose not to work at all
It's not some revealed flaw in capitalism that given short term wages that are the same for working and for doing nothing, that people choose the latter.
Soon those benefits will be insufficient, due to inflation, if the government continues to print money, and the real wages of the existing wage earners who actually produce value for the good of society by working are eroded and redistributed to those who don't wish to work.
If it keeps up, soon we'll all be poor, nobody will earn a living wage, but at least it will be equitable!
Don't forget that printing money for stimulus checks is borrowing at greatest expense to the lowest wage earners in order to pay those who choose not to work at all
It's not some revealed flaw in capitalism that given short term wages that are the same for working and for doing nothing, that people choose the latter.
Actually on gdp alone there is enough money in the US for everyone to have a living wage… checkout northern euros or Australia for example of what that looks like.
The problem with the fed stimulus was the benefits too large corps.
The problem with the fed stimulus was the benefits too large corps.
US GDP has been lower than China GDP since 2019 and if anything the pandemic accelerated the process of Chinese economic outpacing the US economy. In China there is enough money for everyone to have living wage too. And you pay for you healthcare in China too even though their GDP is enough to cover it for all Chinese citizens. Apparently they are focusing on the big picture, i.e. becoming No.1 and surpassing US by a long shot. Making our currency inflate at 5% a year means we need to deduct that 5% from our GDP growth for that year -- its economics 101.
You want to use China as an example? Sure!
China has the fastest growing and largest middle class (or middle income earners) in the world. They prove exactly the point I’m making. There will come a point in time where there are less people (%) living in poverty in China than in the US if you follow the current trend lines.
Also you are only kind of right with “you pay for healthcare”. It’s heavily subsidised… compared with the US.
China has the fastest growing and largest middle class (or middle income earners) in the world. They prove exactly the point I’m making. There will come a point in time where there are less people (%) living in poverty in China than in the US if you follow the current trend lines.
Also you are only kind of right with “you pay for healthcare”. It’s heavily subsidised… compared with the US.
Your assumptions are totally incorrect. US has the most subsidized healthcare in the world by GDP. That's for starters. Second, I gave you hard data. What do you give me? Your wishful thinking that China will adhere to your wishes? And start paying for nothing? The Party doesn't pay for nothing. In China you work. And you pay for your doctor.
Why is us health care so expensive then? In Australia drs and hospitals are free… there is no cost. How do you subsidise more than that?
In the US I’ve used the hospital system once (minor treatment, no over night stay) my insurance paid $4000+ usd. In China I’ve used the hospital system for a fairly serious physical injury and was treated very quickly, couple hours and I paid ~$600 rmb.
In the US I’ve used the hospital system once (minor treatment, no over night stay) my insurance paid $4000+ usd. In China I’ve used the hospital system for a fairly serious physical injury and was treated very quickly, couple hours and I paid ~$600 rmb.
> In China I’ve used the hospital system for a fairly serious physical injury and was treated very quickly, couple hours and I paid ~$600 rmb.
What does "~$600 rmb" mean? That '$' character is usually called a dollar sign. Do you mean "about US$ 600, but in Renminbi"; or are you just using the dollar sign as a general currency sign, to say "about 600 Renminbi"?
What does "~$600 rmb" mean? That '$' character is usually called a dollar sign. Do you mean "about US$ 600, but in Renminbi"; or are you just using the dollar sign as a general currency sign, to say "about 600 Renminbi"?
600 rmb.
Emphasising my point what does $150USD get you on an American hospital - maybe a Tylenol?
Emphasising my point what does $150USD get you on an American hospital - maybe a Tylenol?
> US has the most subsidized healthcare in the world by GDP.
No. Just... No, absolutely not. That's among the most factually incorrect statements I've seen anywhere online, let alone on HN. Why would you even write something like that; are you really so utterly ill-informed, or just plain lying?
No. Just... No, absolutely not. That's among the most factually incorrect statements I've seen anywhere online, let alone on HN. Why would you even write something like that; are you really so utterly ill-informed, or just plain lying?
I think in a really stupid way, it’s correct.
As in: The US spend more on healthcare as a percentage of gdp.
But it pretends that capital efficiency between government spending is equal. As Australia shows: free hospitals for less per/capita(or gdp) spending than the US…
As in: The US spend more on healthcare as a percentage of gdp.
But it pretends that capital efficiency between government spending is equal. As Australia shows: free hospitals for less per/capita(or gdp) spending than the US…
China achieving an equivalent standard of living would probably not work out so well for the authoritarian government there - but it would work out surprisingly well for Marxism. Actually equalizing US and Chinese wages would lead to an extreme acceleration of other areas with depressed wages and, potentially, lead to the world becoming more equal in wages without the current assumed approach - that US wages will deflate quite significantly.
A world where China elevates itself to the US's level is one we should celebrate in the west as it means we need to suffer less ourselves.
Also, the world is well beyond being a zero sum game economically, most of the biggest economic drivers these days are "silly and irrelevant" things like Facebook, Banking and the service industry. All the world can be well off.
A world where China elevates itself to the US's level is one we should celebrate in the west as it means we need to suffer less ourselves.
Also, the world is well beyond being a zero sum game economically, most of the biggest economic drivers these days are "silly and irrelevant" things like Facebook, Banking and the service industry. All the world can be well off.
>China achieving an equivalent standard of living would probably not work out so well for the authoritarian government there
That myth has been disproven long ago. Achieving a high standard of living and level of education does not magically cause people to pour into the streets and protest against their authoritarian governments.
>A world where China elevates itself to the US's level is one we should celebrate in the west as it means we need to suffer less ourselves.
A world where Xi Jinping is in charge of the global economy is a world where fundamental dignity is stripped from anyone who isn't Han, white-collar, hyper-nationalistic and living on the East Coast of Mainland China.
Many nations in Asia are gearing up economically and militarily to make sure this cannot happen.
That myth has been disproven long ago. Achieving a high standard of living and level of education does not magically cause people to pour into the streets and protest against their authoritarian governments.
>A world where China elevates itself to the US's level is one we should celebrate in the west as it means we need to suffer less ourselves.
A world where Xi Jinping is in charge of the global economy is a world where fundamental dignity is stripped from anyone who isn't Han, white-collar, hyper-nationalistic and living on the East Coast of Mainland China.
Many nations in Asia are gearing up economically and militarily to make sure this cannot happen.
This is mild fear mongering - I’m skeptical of Xi myself. But You are projecting the colonial powers’ treatment of the world onto a nation that has never done anything close to what you describe.
People are the same. China is very well known for its extreme nationalistic tendencies. The Party to stay in power must be really, really to the right in terms on nationalism. Without nationalism the Party has no chance staying in power. Read up on the topic. And yes, they treat their minorities extremely bad. Including concentration camps for Ughurs. US compared to them is a pure equality heaven.
The US comparison is just not true, you are ignoring the vast majority of US history when you say something like that.
Nationalism is not the same as subjecting your surrounding neighbours, which is the implication that the OP was making.
Nationalism is not the same as subjecting your surrounding neighbours, which is the implication that the OP was making.
>But You are projecting the colonial powers’ treatment of the world onto a nation that has never done anything close to what you describe.
Please read some Chinese history. You'll see the exact same level of brutality, imperialism and aggression shown by the European empires, from Rome to Britain.
Much of central and Western China was only conquered during the last 500 years (basically the same period as European colonialism). They too, experienced forced cultural assimilation and ill treatment. They didn't conquer the globe in the way the Europeans did, but equally they didn't have the naval technology to do so.
Please read some Chinese history. You'll see the exact same level of brutality, imperialism and aggression shown by the European empires, from Rome to Britain.
Much of central and Western China was only conquered during the last 500 years (basically the same period as European colonialism). They too, experienced forced cultural assimilation and ill treatment. They didn't conquer the globe in the way the Europeans did, but equally they didn't have the naval technology to do so.
Ok… heard of Kublai Khan? Part of the mongol empire circa 1200s preceding the colonial powers existence by a good 500-600 years… That was the Yuan Dynasty (in china) and they conquered a whole lot more than modern day china.
Now since Yuan, you’ve had Ming and Qing… neither of which were particularly aggressive outside of their borders… and Qing was of course the start of the Opium wars, where the colonial powers essentially raped china for all its resources.
With regard to your strange Naval quip. You should look up the Chinese treasure ship. (Ming dynasty)… predates the colonials naval power.
So which Chinese in particular would you like me to read about? Everything you said is factually incorrect. To a laughable degree. I recommend you watch Marco Polo on Netflix, it’d teach you something.
Now since Yuan, you’ve had Ming and Qing… neither of which were particularly aggressive outside of their borders… and Qing was of course the start of the Opium wars, where the colonial powers essentially raped china for all its resources.
With regard to your strange Naval quip. You should look up the Chinese treasure ship. (Ming dynasty)… predates the colonials naval power.
So which Chinese in particular would you like me to read about? Everything you said is factually incorrect. To a laughable degree. I recommend you watch Marco Polo on Netflix, it’d teach you something.
If you're getting your historical education from Netflix, maybe you're not the right person to berate others for theirs.
I don’t. Just suggesting that EVEN Netflix would prove OP points wrong.
I’ve got a major in Chinese History. Maybe get one of those too and come back and we can chat?
I’ve got a major in Chinese History. Maybe get one of those too and come back and we can chat?
> That myth has been disproven long ago. Achieving a high standard of living and level of education does not magically cause people to pour into the streets and protest against their authoritarian governments.
While a flip doesn't instantly switch it does cause an erosion of the stability of the government. An enlightened populace is less accepting of authoritarianism than an unenlightened one and the excess luxury time that wealth creates leads more of the populace to enlighten themselves.
While a flip doesn't instantly switch it does cause an erosion of the stability of the government. An enlightened populace is less accepting of authoritarianism than an unenlightened one and the excess luxury time that wealth creates leads more of the populace to enlighten themselves.
That is too simplistic view of the economy. You can't allocate all revenue to payroll. That's not how business or the economy works.
But it is fair to say that economies that look remarkably like our own are able to support higher wages with no catastrophic downsides. The same argument goes for universal healthcare, family and sick leave, etc.
No I don't think that is fair at all and I feel that you need a source that dives deep into the details because it is far more complicated than X country's wages > U.S. wages.
Which part do you want to dive deep? High minimum wages? Or universal health care?
Australia has both, and a smaller gdp/capita than the US. Happy to dive as deep as you like.
On both front, Australia still has effective unions with political representation, and thus corporate interests don’t always win. That’s the main difference with the US.
Australia has both, and a smaller gdp/capita than the US. Happy to dive as deep as you like.
On both front, Australia still has effective unions with political representation, and thus corporate interests don’t always win. That’s the main difference with the US.
Stealing from Jeremy Howard on twitter -
"The 5 largest companies in the US are all computer software/hardware.
Australia's largest company is in mining, and 4 of the next 5 are banks.
Australia really needs to join the modern world..." [1]
--
On top of this you haven't compared -
1. The quality of life difference between minimum wage workers in those countries 2. The quality of health care between these countries 3. Median house hold income (not everyone is on minimum wage) 4. Differences in taxes and "net" pay 5. The differences in the makeup of the economies and conditions of jobs
Honestly the factors are endless and I am not going to spend more time enumerating them all.
[1] https://twitter.com/jeremyphoward/status/1403627678528200704
"The 5 largest companies in the US are all computer software/hardware.
Australia's largest company is in mining, and 4 of the next 5 are banks.
Australia really needs to join the modern world..." [1]
--
On top of this you haven't compared -
1. The quality of life difference between minimum wage workers in those countries 2. The quality of health care between these countries 3. Median house hold income (not everyone is on minimum wage) 4. Differences in taxes and "net" pay 5. The differences in the makeup of the economies and conditions of jobs
Honestly the factors are endless and I am not going to spend more time enumerating them all.
[1] https://twitter.com/jeremyphoward/status/1403627678528200704
So you want to dive deep or use Twitter quotes?
You want to talk about quality of life difference between $7/hour and $23/hour ??? Sure where do you want to start?
Want to talk about quality of healthcare… the US will lose badly here (except in certain types of cancer). And skewed statistics because the US just refuses treatment to a bunch of folks which hides treatment/mortality rates.
You want to talk about median income 33k (us) vs 43k (au)?
Or back to the more pressing point: when you only have corporate lobbyists and no lobbyists for workers (unions) workers get skrewed across the board.
You want to talk about quality of life difference between $7/hour and $23/hour ??? Sure where do you want to start?
Want to talk about quality of healthcare… the US will lose badly here (except in certain types of cancer). And skewed statistics because the US just refuses treatment to a bunch of folks which hides treatment/mortality rates.
You want to talk about median income 33k (us) vs 43k (au)?
Or back to the more pressing point: when you only have corporate lobbyists and no lobbyists for workers (unions) workers get skrewed across the board.
Look, all I was arguing is that the economies are vastly different. So what if Australia wins on all of those? I don't believe that is true, but it doesn't matter.
All I was saying is you can't use GDP as a gauge for how much money is available for payroll (as suggested by the grandparent). That is very dependent on the economy producing it.
All I was saying is you can't use GDP as a gauge for how much money is available for payroll (as suggested by the grandparent). That is very dependent on the economy producing it.
… I don’t understand your point. If you are generating a net surplus, then your economy is growing. If your per capita size is large, then inequality is something government can solve with taxation/redistribution it has nothing to do with whether it is iron ore or software generating the taxable $.
And yes, Australia beats out the US on pretty much any metric you like (unless you are looking for corporate benefit, then the US will win out, it’s much better to be a capitalist in the US)
And yes, Australia beats out the US on pretty much any metric you like (unless you are looking for corporate benefit, then the US will win out, it’s much better to be a capitalist in the US)
I am not saying "X country's wages > U.S. wages".
I am saying there are a dozen countries, including several that are extremely similar to the US, that not only have higher wages, and higher minimum wages, but also extensive paid family and vacation leave, universal healthcare and a wide range of quality of life metrics around or above what we see in the US.
I am saying there are a dozen countries, including several that are extremely similar to the US, that not only have higher wages, and higher minimum wages, but also extensive paid family and vacation leave, universal healthcare and a wide range of quality of life metrics around or above what we see in the US.
I wasn't arguing against those things? I was just referring to the parent's comment that based on our GDP we could afford to pay everyone a living wage. Maybe we can, but using the GDP to gauge that is not a valid way to demonstrate that.
> That is too simplistic view of the economy. You can't allocate all revenue to payroll.
You may be right about this. In fact I'd wager that you are. But the problem isn't that part of what you said; it's this:
> That's not how business or the economy works.
You're probably right about this too! The problem is that, in these conversations, we usually just stop here. Whereas more and more, I'm finding myself asking "can we citizens find ways for business or the economy to work in some other way, even just a little bit? Are we willing to just creatively try and answer some of this stuff?"
I think, if you just stop at "that's not how ___ works" without pushing things further, well, it feels like rolling over. The way "business and the economy worked" in the American South as recently as the 60's was that, if you had a certain skin color, you were relegated to a shitty part of, say, the restaurant, or you were prohibited from participating in the economy in any meaningful sense at all. But then some people asked "is there a way for things to work differently?" It's far from sunshine and gumdrops 55 years later but you can't be chucked out of a lunch counter for being black anymore.
You may be right about this. In fact I'd wager that you are. But the problem isn't that part of what you said; it's this:
> That's not how business or the economy works.
You're probably right about this too! The problem is that, in these conversations, we usually just stop here. Whereas more and more, I'm finding myself asking "can we citizens find ways for business or the economy to work in some other way, even just a little bit? Are we willing to just creatively try and answer some of this stuff?"
I think, if you just stop at "that's not how ___ works" without pushing things further, well, it feels like rolling over. The way "business and the economy worked" in the American South as recently as the 60's was that, if you had a certain skin color, you were relegated to a shitty part of, say, the restaurant, or you were prohibited from participating in the economy in any meaningful sense at all. But then some people asked "is there a way for things to work differently?" It's far from sunshine and gumdrops 55 years later but you can't be chucked out of a lunch counter for being black anymore.
[deleted]
I think he may actually be wrong, maybe... All costs are payroll costs in an abstraction interpretive sort of way. The non-pay roll-costs such as materials goes to pay other people to make and supply the materials. The cost of steel really is the cost to pay another group to mine, refine, and distribute the steel. Every accountant item I believe can be conceived this way.
Capital investment. No one is going to provide capital if there is 0 return. Basically Y Combinator (incl this site) would not exist.
Capital, in turn, is also just accumulated payroll (or, as I think someone called it, labour).
Congratulations, guys, you're well on your way to reinventing Marxian economics.
Congratulations, guys, you're well on your way to reinventing Marxian economics.
Another example of reinterpreted payroll costs. Different payment scheme but still paying some other people to be money supply for a business(equity).
OK but you are getting off track here. The parent's argument was that if you take GDP / working Americans = working livable wage. My only point was that doesn't work because of costs and investment.
Sure you could look at capital investment as a form of payroll, but it's going to heavily skew the numbers and now GDP is not a great way to estimate if we can afford to pay a livable wage simply by looking at GDP.
Sure you could look at capital investment as a form of payroll, but it's going to heavily skew the numbers and now GDP is not a great way to estimate if we can afford to pay a livable wage simply by looking at GDP.
Yeah your right. Whoops!! Sorry my brain misfired when I read your other response. Deepest apologies, im working with low grade human intelligence machinery here. Need to upgrade to super intelligence next time on reincarnation.
Your right, numbers don't show everything and yah just can't redistribute gdp in a communist sort of manner. But I do think one of the parents thinking exercises does indicate that wealth distribution is more of a problem in America than certain European nations.
Capitalism for all it's flaws is a great system to motivate work, wealth creation, and capital investment(as u mentioned).
In an alternative reality fairer system that can muster up a similar work ethic the average person would be better off and you'd have similar innovation potential but with different work ethic driving motivational mechanisms. But that's a improvable hypothetical to be fair. That's your point of contention right?
Your right, numbers don't show everything and yah just can't redistribute gdp in a communist sort of manner. But I do think one of the parents thinking exercises does indicate that wealth distribution is more of a problem in America than certain European nations.
Capitalism for all it's flaws is a great system to motivate work, wealth creation, and capital investment(as u mentioned).
In an alternative reality fairer system that can muster up a similar work ethic the average person would be better off and you'd have similar innovation potential but with different work ethic driving motivational mechanisms. But that's a improvable hypothetical to be fair. That's your point of contention right?
It's a good approximation, inequality is what is skewing it in the US.
>if the government continues to print money, and the real wages of the existing wage earners who actually produce value for the good of society by working are eroded and redistributed to those who don't wish to work.
I bet I can guess which group you think you belong to.
I bet I can guess which group you think you belong to.
> for those who no longer wish to work
> to those who don't wish to work
> those who choose not to work at all
> the same for working and for doing nothing, that people choose the latter
You're making my point for me with the arbeit macht frei dog-whistles here. So let me be clear: if "work" is defined as "millions of white and blue collar professional lives before Covid, lives replete with Kafka-esque meaninglessness in the former group and actual, medieval misery in the latter", then what I am saying is:
1. Yes guy, exactly: people no longer wish to "work", by that definition.
2. This is a good and deeply hopeful thing.
A society that's serious about human flourishing will grapple with these questions on a deeper level than "what's the unemployment rate?" or "should Amazon be lauded for 'creating jobs?'" Covid has forced us to grapple with them.
The usual Cato Institute talking points all involve pointing at the poor and moralizing about how they don't want to work, but comments like yours hold less and less water as time passes, largely because of shit like Covid. The notion - your notion - that there's an enormous class of people out there who are nothing but shiftless layabouts who fundamentally want to leech off of the rest of us is a strawman. While I'm sure there's a parasite or two out there, human beings of every class find deep meaning in labor. But the labor has to be meaningful!! Or, at least, not soul-crushing or immiserating. (And let's not even get into the really fun side-claim I'd make that there are proportionally way more parasites at the top of the socioeconomic pile than the bottom.)
So: to the extent that anyone doesn't want to work, they don't want to work because the labor available to them is innovatively life-ruining and in most cases vastly underpaid. To want to work in such conditions when there are suddenly alternative choices, as you imply they should, is to be deeply ill. Actually insane. And more of a reflection of where your heart is than anything else.
> to those who don't wish to work
> those who choose not to work at all
> the same for working and for doing nothing, that people choose the latter
You're making my point for me with the arbeit macht frei dog-whistles here. So let me be clear: if "work" is defined as "millions of white and blue collar professional lives before Covid, lives replete with Kafka-esque meaninglessness in the former group and actual, medieval misery in the latter", then what I am saying is:
1. Yes guy, exactly: people no longer wish to "work", by that definition.
2. This is a good and deeply hopeful thing.
A society that's serious about human flourishing will grapple with these questions on a deeper level than "what's the unemployment rate?" or "should Amazon be lauded for 'creating jobs?'" Covid has forced us to grapple with them.
The usual Cato Institute talking points all involve pointing at the poor and moralizing about how they don't want to work, but comments like yours hold less and less water as time passes, largely because of shit like Covid. The notion - your notion - that there's an enormous class of people out there who are nothing but shiftless layabouts who fundamentally want to leech off of the rest of us is a strawman. While I'm sure there's a parasite or two out there, human beings of every class find deep meaning in labor. But the labor has to be meaningful!! Or, at least, not soul-crushing or immiserating. (And let's not even get into the really fun side-claim I'd make that there are proportionally way more parasites at the top of the socioeconomic pile than the bottom.)
So: to the extent that anyone doesn't want to work, they don't want to work because the labor available to them is innovatively life-ruining and in most cases vastly underpaid. To want to work in such conditions when there are suddenly alternative choices, as you imply they should, is to be deeply ill. Actually insane. And more of a reflection of where your heart is than anything else.
I regret that I have but one upvote to give to this comment. Thank you for absolutely crystalizing so many of the thoughts and feelings that have been floating around in my head over the past 15 months.
Cheers but no need -- I'm just repeating what other smarter people have told me. Take whatever you got from my comment and put it to good use: pass it along to someone else, or just go out into your community and lend a hand to those in need. Good luck
> those who no longer wish to work
This reminded me of an old political cartoon I saw at the Abraham Lincoln museum: https://www.loc.gov/resource/pga.04994/
It shows Lincoln with his (supposed) supporters and their requests, one of whom is depicted as saying, "I want a hotel established by government, where people that ain't inclined to work can board free of expense, and be found in rum and tobacco."
This reminded me of an old political cartoon I saw at the Abraham Lincoln museum: https://www.loc.gov/resource/pga.04994/
It shows Lincoln with his (supposed) supporters and their requests, one of whom is depicted as saying, "I want a hotel established by government, where people that ain't inclined to work can board free of expense, and be found in rum and tobacco."
You might enjoy my digital catalog of the Library of Congress: www.locserendipity.com
Very very well said. This needs to be shouted from the rooftops. Along with a line from a reply below: 'There’s no “labour” shortage. There’s a “wage” shortage.'
I usually read "People don't want to work!" statements as a sentence fragment. It's the first half of a whole statement. The second half of the statement is a variation on: "for the shitty wages or conditions I'm offering and will rescind at a moment's notice for any made up reason I can imagine".
The idea I get from the Cato echoing types is if you have a job you should beg and scrape and genuflect for your betters to thank them for their grace in employing you.
I think this meme accelerated after the 2008 financial crisis. Companies contracted but demanded more work from their remaining employees. Feeling fortunate to be employed they increased individual output to cover for the reduced head count. Companies screwed over employees then shrugged their shoulders with the "it's the economy" refrain.
The idea I get from the Cato echoing types is if you have a job you should beg and scrape and genuflect for your betters to thank them for their grace in employing you.
I think this meme accelerated after the 2008 financial crisis. Companies contracted but demanded more work from their remaining employees. Feeling fortunate to be employed they increased individual output to cover for the reduced head count. Companies screwed over employees then shrugged their shoulders with the "it's the economy" refrain.
Yes this is exactly right. There's a logical endpoint to their worldview: feudalism. It's got everything they want: the jobs (100% employment!), the genuflecting, the huge profits.
Yes, some are calling it "techno-feudalism".
I think I first heard it from Yanis Varoufakis (https://youtu.be/YpOLHSzZ8jc). Watched as many interviews of him as I could find during those long days at the beginning and middle of the pandemic. He's an exceedingly sane person.
I think I first heard it from Yanis Varoufakis (https://youtu.be/YpOLHSzZ8jc). Watched as many interviews of him as I could find during those long days at the beginning and middle of the pandemic. He's an exceedingly sane person.
Yeah I wasn't gonna make a whole big thing about it, but I didn't pull that out of a hat. I know Varoufakis, but I hadn't heard him talk about techno-feudalism. In fact I'd heard the phrase "neo-feudalism" from people like Jodi Dean and Joel Kotkin, who have good stuff on this (though who's to say - I'm neither an economist nor a historian). I'll try to find YV's stuff and read it, I love him and I'm sure it's well thought out.
Thank you for articulating what I often have a lot of trouble figuring out how to say.
Work, in general, is stupid. The entire concept of it is inane. My fantasy version of utopia is a peaceful, post-scarcity society where no one ever needs to work, and automatically gets a life of luxury simply because it's available and costs nothing. Many people will choose to fill their time with things that look a bit like what we now call work (if you tilt your head and squint just the right way). Many will devote their lives to the pursuit of furthering humankind's knowledge. Many will choose creative endeavors that in today's economy would be judged worthless. Many will focus on their families and enjoy their time with them. And yes, some will choose to sit around and do nothing all day but eat junk food and watch the utopian equivalent of TV all day.
And all that is not only ok, it's awesome! Obviously this is a fantasy world, and we can't live in it. But we should think more about that as a goal, and shape things as best we can. Let's stop creating bullshit jobs just for the sake of full employment, and figure out what really needs to be done, and what doesn't. There's so much wealth in the world that we could certainly find an alternative that could keep people housed, clothed, fed, and then some, if there isn't a job available for them.
Our current system is just based on personal greed and cynicism. If we don't evolve beyond it, I fear we won't last as a civilization (or possibly even as a species) for many more centuries.
Work, in general, is stupid. The entire concept of it is inane. My fantasy version of utopia is a peaceful, post-scarcity society where no one ever needs to work, and automatically gets a life of luxury simply because it's available and costs nothing. Many people will choose to fill their time with things that look a bit like what we now call work (if you tilt your head and squint just the right way). Many will devote their lives to the pursuit of furthering humankind's knowledge. Many will choose creative endeavors that in today's economy would be judged worthless. Many will focus on their families and enjoy their time with them. And yes, some will choose to sit around and do nothing all day but eat junk food and watch the utopian equivalent of TV all day.
And all that is not only ok, it's awesome! Obviously this is a fantasy world, and we can't live in it. But we should think more about that as a goal, and shape things as best we can. Let's stop creating bullshit jobs just for the sake of full employment, and figure out what really needs to be done, and what doesn't. There's so much wealth in the world that we could certainly find an alternative that could keep people housed, clothed, fed, and then some, if there isn't a job available for them.
Our current system is just based on personal greed and cynicism. If we don't evolve beyond it, I fear we won't last as a civilization (or possibly even as a species) for many more centuries.
The liberation from material bondage is a goal for most of the world religions. Where does it begin? When people quit being vain. Therein lies the rub.
> My fantasy version of utopia is a peaceful, post-scarcity society where no one ever needs to work, and automatically gets a life of luxury simply because it's available and costs nothing.
Contrast with... "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." -- George Orwell.
Sadly, I think we're still closer to Mr Orwell's vision at this point in time, in spite of have more material comforts and resources available than at any point in history.
To get to your utopian vision, we'll need to permanently break free of our primate instincts. That's not going to be easy.
Contrast with... "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." -- George Orwell.
Sadly, I think we're still closer to Mr Orwell's vision at this point in time, in spite of have more material comforts and resources available than at any point in history.
To get to your utopian vision, we'll need to permanently break free of our primate instincts. That's not going to be easy.
I think you're focusing on the wrong things (for instance, no one called anyone a leech). The fact is, we don't live in a post-scarcity society yet. Until we do work can't be about meaning, it has to be about need. Look around your house and life. Count the number of things you own and services you use that are not fun to make or maintain. Until that number hits 0, the majority of society will need to be forced to do jobs they don't want to in order to survive.
Things can definitely be more equitable than they are now, and should be if we truly want a meritocracy, but let's not get caught up in the delusion that society can exist without people doing shit jobs they don't like.
Things can definitely be more equitable than they are now, and should be if we truly want a meritocracy, but let's not get caught up in the delusion that society can exist without people doing shit jobs they don't like.
Meaning, in my view, is not a switch; it's a dial. We can have some more than we have now.
Overall I agree with you: I'm not naive, nor am I a utopianist. I'm fine with more equitable. But we're so entrenched in the status quo that it feels like you have to talk like a revolutionary to get even a shred of "a little more equitable".
Edit: wait though what's a "post-scarcity" economy, anyway, concretely? I've heard since I can remember that we grow enough food as a species to feed everyone (and yet we throw tons of food out) - is that not a decent marker of being post-scarcity? We seem to have enough wealth in the US to be in neverending proxy or non-proxy aggressive wars against various groups of poor and largely non-white people - that wealth, used slightly differently, has got to be some kind of dent in all sorts of scarcity, no? I'm not writing this to attack you whatsoever; I'm genuinely curious. Post-scarcity is a phrase I've heard smarter people than me utter every now and then, and it only just occurred to me that I've never actually figured out what it meant. (I'll Google it now of course but I'd love to hear your perspective all the same. Cheers.)
Overall I agree with you: I'm not naive, nor am I a utopianist. I'm fine with more equitable. But we're so entrenched in the status quo that it feels like you have to talk like a revolutionary to get even a shred of "a little more equitable".
Edit: wait though what's a "post-scarcity" economy, anyway, concretely? I've heard since I can remember that we grow enough food as a species to feed everyone (and yet we throw tons of food out) - is that not a decent marker of being post-scarcity? We seem to have enough wealth in the US to be in neverending proxy or non-proxy aggressive wars against various groups of poor and largely non-white people - that wealth, used slightly differently, has got to be some kind of dent in all sorts of scarcity, no? I'm not writing this to attack you whatsoever; I'm genuinely curious. Post-scarcity is a phrase I've heard smarter people than me utter every now and then, and it only just occurred to me that I've never actually figured out what it meant. (I'll Google it now of course but I'd love to hear your perspective all the same. Cheers.)
Post-scarcity just refers to a time after scarcity, which is defined as limited resources. In a world that is post-scarcity, everyone can have everything they want (materially) without infringing on anyone else's ability to have the same.
The reason it gets brought up is because the moment one person's needs or wants infringe on another's, there needs to be a way to decide who gets what. Generally, this is what people are talking about when they talk about various economic systems. You come up with different mechanics that use the distribution of goods to incentivize the production of more goods.
The only way we escape the economic games that need to be played, to keep people working and producing things society needs, is if we no longer need them to produce anything. Then you no longer need the incentives and feedback loops that tie consumption to production, and people are generally free to do whatever the hell they want.
The reason it gets brought up is because the moment one person's needs or wants infringe on another's, there needs to be a way to decide who gets what. Generally, this is what people are talking about when they talk about various economic systems. You come up with different mechanics that use the distribution of goods to incentivize the production of more goods.
The only way we escape the economic games that need to be played, to keep people working and producing things society needs, is if we no longer need them to produce anything. Then you no longer need the incentives and feedback loops that tie consumption to production, and people are generally free to do whatever the hell they want.
By definition, this is impossible to achieve. Assume that some person says I want what everyone else has. There is no post scarcity. It is better to think of it as meeting a set of pre-defined needs. These needs can change over time. for e.g., internet access. But framing it as wanting everything I could possibly imagine is a straw-man.
How is it a straw-man? Impossible or not, it means what it means.
Yeah, I've always maintained that there are too many people with unbounded greed for a "complete" post-scarcity to be achievable. There's a "greed is good" crowd, and then beyond that, there are those who aren't even concerned with whether it's good to be greedy, they just want to win at others' expense, spitefully. A world where they can't take from other people is not desirable. The first time I got to know someone with this attitude, I started out thinking it was a front, or a joke, but it wasn't.
The idea of post-scarcity brushes over that dark part of human nature, and assumes we can figure out how to cooperate, even absent antisocial misanthropes. In Star Trek, they have "figured it out", but the transition to post-scarcity is understandably only vaguely described.
The idea of post-scarcity brushes over that dark part of human nature, and assumes we can figure out how to cooperate, even absent antisocial misanthropes. In Star Trek, they have "figured it out", but the transition to post-scarcity is understandably only vaguely described.
I couldn't agree more. The idea itself is grand, but it's not adaptable to chaos. So long as human personalities are scattered around a bell curve, the more competitive and materialistic of us (which includes those of us who want humanity to pursue scientific development since it is extremely capital intensive) will force the competition to continue.
Post-scarcity is often talked about in binary terms. We've either reached post-scarcity or we haven't.
I believe the transition to post-scarcity will be gradual, that it will happen faster in some sectors of society than others, and that this process may take multiple generations to complete. This has been the case with every other major economic shift, why would it not be the case with post-scarcity?
If this is how the transition to post-scarcity occurs, societies will eventually hit a point at which many people still need to work to produce our economic output, but far fewer than currently do. How will our economic system handle that situation? The selling of labor is the primary mechanism by which we distribute resources, but if we get to a point where only 20% of the adult population are needed in the labor force then how do we distribute resources to the remaining 80%?
Now, where things get really interesting is that "needed in the labor force" is not a binary thing, either. What if there's a big slice of the population from whom we only need five hours of labor a week? And they coexist alongside another slice of the population from whom we need forty hours of labor a week?
Maybe we're already a few steps down this road.
I believe the transition to post-scarcity will be gradual, that it will happen faster in some sectors of society than others, and that this process may take multiple generations to complete. This has been the case with every other major economic shift, why would it not be the case with post-scarcity?
If this is how the transition to post-scarcity occurs, societies will eventually hit a point at which many people still need to work to produce our economic output, but far fewer than currently do. How will our economic system handle that situation? The selling of labor is the primary mechanism by which we distribute resources, but if we get to a point where only 20% of the adult population are needed in the labor force then how do we distribute resources to the remaining 80%?
Now, where things get really interesting is that "needed in the labor force" is not a binary thing, either. What if there's a big slice of the population from whom we only need five hours of labor a week? And they coexist alongside another slice of the population from whom we need forty hours of labor a week?
Maybe we're already a few steps down this road.
We are indeed already a little ways down that road, and the answer we've come to is: Everyone still has to work.
Most jobs that people have now aren't strictly necessary. If everyone gave up their leisure time to do all of their own cooking and cleaning, a massive set of jobs would disappear overnight. If we all at local, another. And the list goes on. Effectively, what happens is, we invent new jobs that are based on want as opposed to need. It's easy to look at that picture and say 'there is so much unnecessary work that happens!' but really, that X% of the economy based on want is required for price discovery of the rest. That is what your last paragraph is touching on, how do we decide who does what and how much? In capitalism, the answer is price discovery, and for that to work, everyone has to participate in the market.
Most jobs that people have now aren't strictly necessary. If everyone gave up their leisure time to do all of their own cooking and cleaning, a massive set of jobs would disappear overnight. If we all at local, another. And the list goes on. Effectively, what happens is, we invent new jobs that are based on want as opposed to need. It's easy to look at that picture and say 'there is so much unnecessary work that happens!' but really, that X% of the economy based on want is required for price discovery of the rest. That is what your last paragraph is touching on, how do we decide who does what and how much? In capitalism, the answer is price discovery, and for that to work, everyone has to participate in the market.
> In capitalism, the answer is price discovery, and for that to work, everyone has to participate in the market.
This is precisely what I'm getting at. We've built a system on the assumption of a forty-hour full-time work week, with a goal of minimizing unemployment and (recently) maximizing labor market participation. We did this because we need participation in the market for effective resource distribution.
What happens when our economy simply does not need that much labor to produce all the economic output we want? Do we force people to continue participating in the labor market in makework jobs just so that they can have access to resources? To what extent are we already doing this?
This is precisely what I'm getting at. We've built a system on the assumption of a forty-hour full-time work week, with a goal of minimizing unemployment and (recently) maximizing labor market participation. We did this because we need participation in the market for effective resource distribution.
What happens when our economy simply does not need that much labor to produce all the economic output we want? Do we force people to continue participating in the labor market in makework jobs just so that they can have access to resources? To what extent are we already doing this?
If we're to have a true market then we need to eliminate a bunch of market distortions, in particular the 30-hour threshold where a job is considered full-time and the 5-hour binary cutoff for unemployment, so that people who want to work somewhere between 5 and 30 hours a week (which I suspect is actually most people) can actually express that preference by offering a price for that much labour.
> We are indeed already a little ways down that road, and the answer we've come to is: Everyone still has to work.
But logically it would seem that should be: Everyone still has to work, but a little less than hitherto.
Now the question becomes, how much less?
But logically it would seem that should be: Everyone still has to work, but a little less than hitherto.
Now the question becomes, how much less?
>caused a labor shortage and inflation.
The US Government printing money is why used cars, washing machines, and hotels are getting more expensive, while other categories stay generally below historical levels?
The US Government printing money is why used cars, washing machines, and hotels are getting more expensive, while other categories stay generally below historical levels?
The only reason people think "inflation" is bad is that it was bad one time in the 70s, except that was actually stagflation, and the cause was running out of a resource (oil) and not because the wage/price increases didn't match up. I guess some people might think Weimar hyperinflation lead to the Nazis, but it didn't really.
There’s no “labour” shortage. There’s a “wage” shortage.
Companies aren’t really complaining about a labour shortage. They’re complaining that no one wants to work for their ridiculously low pay while the board and CEOs sail around in their yachts.
Companies aren’t really complaining about a labour shortage. They’re complaining that no one wants to work for their ridiculously low pay while the board and CEOs sail around in their yachts.
Yeah it really is hilarious in a way, because you can take many business owners' constant blathering about the so-called free market and throw it right back in their faces:
"No one wants to work for poverty wages in my shitty restaurant!" Sucks bro, that's the market. Raise your wages.
"If I raise my wages I can't stay in business!" Sucks bro, that's the market. Make your restaurant less shitty and get more business. Innovate. This is just competition - we like a little competition in America. You're not against America, are you?
They're just as reactive / emotional as the liberals they decry for being emotional. I know that schadenfreude isn't a workable foundation for a political outlook, but watching these people become ever so slightly uncomfortable about their position in the world before we inevitably return to pre-Covid status quo ante is worth a good chuckle.
"No one wants to work for poverty wages in my shitty restaurant!" Sucks bro, that's the market. Raise your wages.
"If I raise my wages I can't stay in business!" Sucks bro, that's the market. Make your restaurant less shitty and get more business. Innovate. This is just competition - we like a little competition in America. You're not against America, are you?
They're just as reactive / emotional as the liberals they decry for being emotional. I know that schadenfreude isn't a workable foundation for a political outlook, but watching these people become ever so slightly uncomfortable about their position in the world before we inevitably return to pre-Covid status quo ante is worth a good chuckle.
You're in for a rudest of all awakenings.
You cannot demand salary to be raised without understanding business will be looking elsewhere to fulfill business needs , and will be outsourcing actual labor.
Business that can't be outsourced in such conditions (restaurants, hospitality) will be forced to shut down when outsourceable business lays out local workers and replaces them with someone half a world away.
Nah. People tried that already with bad results. Not to mention, what happens when the foreigners you are exploiting start demanding the same things the locals are?
Not only that, but the social and political ramifications of having not only blue collar workers out of a job, but also the PMC class as well. You want a revolution? Cause that is how you get one.
Not only that, but the social and political ramifications of having not only blue collar workers out of a job, but also the PMC class as well. You want a revolution? Cause that is how you get one.
In a truly free market this would happen naturally and slowly equalize the wages in America and elsewhere. Given that the US government exists though it can artificially limit this process and require visas and work permits or else tax businesses that flee offshore.
Outsourcing has costs on it's own but it makes sense for America to artificially inflate those costs to maintain its consumer market. America eats the world and through doing so provides a lot of liquidity to the international market. Whether that is just or whether it should specifically be America is up for debate - but it does have the power for force others to play by its rules within certain limits.
Bare naked capitalism isn't so far off from an anarchic free-for-all with spiked clubs.
Outsourcing has costs on it's own but it makes sense for America to artificially inflate those costs to maintain its consumer market. America eats the world and through doing so provides a lot of liquidity to the international market. Whether that is just or whether it should specifically be America is up for debate - but it does have the power for force others to play by its rules within certain limits.
Bare naked capitalism isn't so far off from an anarchic free-for-all with spiked clubs.
The businesses who won't figure out how to raise wages will go out of business and be replaced by new companies who figured out how to have their employees work more efficiently.
It sounds like maybelsyrup has it right, and it's these business owners who are in for the rude awakening. There's a rootbeer stand near me that has a message on their menu saying, "if minimum wage is raised to $15, our prices will go up 10%." They charge $3.60 for a pretty good cheese burger. When I read that message, I sit there thinking that the owner is an idiot. At $4.00, the burger is still a better deal than McDonalds and $15/hr is a solid wage in this area.
It sounds like maybelsyrup has it right, and it's these business owners who are in for the rude awakening. There's a rootbeer stand near me that has a message on their menu saying, "if minimum wage is raised to $15, our prices will go up 10%." They charge $3.60 for a pretty good cheese burger. When I read that message, I sit there thinking that the owner is an idiot. At $4.00, the burger is still a better deal than McDonalds and $15/hr is a solid wage in this area.
> There's a rootbeer stand near me
Yes! I keep seeing stuff like this, and I think "wait a minute, you're telling me that you want to slightly raise the price of this great product or service, and in exchange, your employees will be paid a living wage, or get decent health insurance, or another half day off, or a vacation? Please take my fucking money."
Yes! I keep seeing stuff like this, and I think "wait a minute, you're telling me that you want to slightly raise the price of this great product or service, and in exchange, your employees will be paid a living wage, or get decent health insurance, or another half day off, or a vacation? Please take my fucking money."
Ahhh, something tells me, you're not their core customer.
A long time ago I worked for a small family business. They built their business from the ground up, the old man started it in his garage based off of his industry connections from the 70s before being crushed by more effective outfits in the area. When he got too old he retired and handed the new outfit it to his two sons.
I recall being in an all hands bi-weekly meeting on one Saturday, one of the sons stood up and addressed the entire small company:
"I called around and you know what, we pay about average for the industry. Maybe a little bit on the upper side of average. You know, I could raise my prices and maybe pay you all more, but then I would have less customers. and If I have less customers then I can't afford to pay as many of you."
He looked around with an expression that I felt like was almost contempt, but really wasn't The industry is pretty low margin and they got theirs to be very good with volume sales and very good efficiency in processes. He felt the pressure to execute their plans to expand into another, second facility while remaining profitable enough at the original to fund their plans for world domination.
Every day they had customers waiting in line for literally hours for their turn in a crappy, kind of gross facility that had been cobbled together by these DIYers over a number of years. Every day they turned away customers in droves.
I thought to myself: Old man, if you don't raise your prices, you are a priceless fool. If you can't hire enough people to handle your amazing, envy inducing volume, _and_ you have the gall to exclaim proudly that you pay a little bit better than average, then you are surely and rightfully doomed to this mediocrity until you hopefully die.
What he said next only confirmed my young ideations: "We only want the people who _want_ to work here, to work here. If you don't like working here, well you should go somewhere else."
Nowadays they are still in business. They had indeed increased their pay by over 40% in the next couple of years. They opened their second facility years later after more years of project extensions and overruns, just in time for a global pandemic to shutter their entire operation for months. I'm happy they saw the light and realized what you have to do to attract and keep quality skilled employees, but I am for more pleased to be their competitor.
I recall being in an all hands bi-weekly meeting on one Saturday, one of the sons stood up and addressed the entire small company:
"I called around and you know what, we pay about average for the industry. Maybe a little bit on the upper side of average. You know, I could raise my prices and maybe pay you all more, but then I would have less customers. and If I have less customers then I can't afford to pay as many of you."
He looked around with an expression that I felt like was almost contempt, but really wasn't The industry is pretty low margin and they got theirs to be very good with volume sales and very good efficiency in processes. He felt the pressure to execute their plans to expand into another, second facility while remaining profitable enough at the original to fund their plans for world domination.
Every day they had customers waiting in line for literally hours for their turn in a crappy, kind of gross facility that had been cobbled together by these DIYers over a number of years. Every day they turned away customers in droves.
I thought to myself: Old man, if you don't raise your prices, you are a priceless fool. If you can't hire enough people to handle your amazing, envy inducing volume, _and_ you have the gall to exclaim proudly that you pay a little bit better than average, then you are surely and rightfully doomed to this mediocrity until you hopefully die.
What he said next only confirmed my young ideations: "We only want the people who _want_ to work here, to work here. If you don't like working here, well you should go somewhere else."
Nowadays they are still in business. They had indeed increased their pay by over 40% in the next couple of years. They opened their second facility years later after more years of project extensions and overruns, just in time for a global pandemic to shutter their entire operation for months. I'm happy they saw the light and realized what you have to do to attract and keep quality skilled employees, but I am for more pleased to be their competitor.
That's not a rude awakening. As long as one's invested in change, that's a speed bump. Businesses can't outsource if outsourcing is severely curtailed by policy or law. Leaders, legislators, policymakers -- they have knobs and dials to turn on this thing. Indeed, leaders fiddling with knobs is what got us here in the first place. In South Korea in the 2nd half of the 20th century, not long ago, capital flight was severely restricted -- punishable by death in some cases! I'm not close to saying we do that here; I'm just saying we have tools.
Like some other commenters, and many thousands more in the broader discourse, you're speaking from a position of "this is the way things are and they can't be changed, so there".
My main point isn't to argue for this or that particular policy. My main point is that the world can be different. People motivated to change it will find a way to do so. In matters like these, arguments for economic determinism are borderline defeatist.
Like some other commenters, and many thousands more in the broader discourse, you're speaking from a position of "this is the way things are and they can't be changed, so there".
My main point isn't to argue for this or that particular policy. My main point is that the world can be different. People motivated to change it will find a way to do so. In matters like these, arguments for economic determinism are borderline defeatist.
So much for the better.
We shouldn't subsidize unlivable business models with human misery.
If that (the closures) also result in misery (of the unemployment kind) that will also be a good thing. It will signal stongly that we depend on broken business models and need to update them.
What you want is a compromise that perpetuates substinence-level wages and working class people needing 2 jobs, for the benefit of keeping alive zombie businesses.
We shouldn't subsidize unlivable business models with human misery.
If that (the closures) also result in misery (of the unemployment kind) that will also be a good thing. It will signal stongly that we depend on broken business models and need to update them.
What you want is a compromise that perpetuates substinence-level wages and working class people needing 2 jobs, for the benefit of keeping alive zombie businesses.
> You cannot demand salary to be raised without understanding business will be looking elsewhere to fulfill business needs , and will be outsourcing actual labor.
Sure, but this has been happening for all of history, and the end result has been higher wages and lifting people out of poverty. We still have a long way to go, though, both locally and globally.
I just started watching Warrior, which is a TV series set in San Francisco in the 1870s. The Irish-Americans are pissed off that the fat-cat business owners have been importing much cheaper labor from China. Of course they forget that during the early periods of Irish immigration to the US, they were the ones undercutting the wages of the Anglo-Saxon incumbents. This has been the case for pretty much every wave of immigration that included a large component of low-skill workers.
This is in play all the way to modern times, without the need for immigration's effects, with the outsourcing and offshoring movements starting in the end of the last century, moving manufacturing to parts of the world with cheaper labor, and now just this year companies realizing they can employ remote knowledge workers (in the same country, even) for less than their current workforce.
This is just normal (for better or worse), and yet you act like it's an aberration that will cause the sky to fall.
Sure, but this has been happening for all of history, and the end result has been higher wages and lifting people out of poverty. We still have a long way to go, though, both locally and globally.
I just started watching Warrior, which is a TV series set in San Francisco in the 1870s. The Irish-Americans are pissed off that the fat-cat business owners have been importing much cheaper labor from China. Of course they forget that during the early periods of Irish immigration to the US, they were the ones undercutting the wages of the Anglo-Saxon incumbents. This has been the case for pretty much every wave of immigration that included a large component of low-skill workers.
This is in play all the way to modern times, without the need for immigration's effects, with the outsourcing and offshoring movements starting in the end of the last century, moving manufacturing to parts of the world with cheaper labor, and now just this year companies realizing they can employ remote knowledge workers (in the same country, even) for less than their current workforce.
This is just normal (for better or worse), and yet you act like it's an aberration that will cause the sky to fall.
> Sucks bro, that's the market.
Sure it is, but who pays the price at the end?
an example is the inner city food deserts
Sure it is, but who pays the price at the end?
an example is the inner city food deserts
>I think lots of myth and propaganda about work got blown up in the last year.
Many years of corporations "boiling the frog" and slowly lowering flexibility and not improving pay have been reset. People hadn't noticed, and now they have.
It'll probably happen all over again, but at least there's hope for now.
Many years of corporations "boiling the frog" and slowly lowering flexibility and not improving pay have been reset. People hadn't noticed, and now they have.
It'll probably happen all over again, but at least there's hope for now.
Don’t get caught up in the fantasy that it’s stopped in any appreciable way. The hammer is just starting to fall as vaccination rates go up. This is the start of the first battle, not the second act.
Whether we look back at this moment as fantasy or the beginning of something truly changing won't be the result of some deterministic historical process. It's up to us. Call your congressman, your senator. Meet with coworkers and discuss this stuff. Post shit on the internet and challenge yourself and others to think differently. Go out into the world, even if individual actions are tiny or barely perceptible.
The key thing about the world is that someone made it this way. I have to believe that it can be made differently.
The key thing about the world is that someone made it this way. I have to believe that it can be made differently.
I doubt you can say some 'one' made the world this way. The present day is the result of historical, economical, scientific, etc. processes that are only partly known by few people.
Țhere is a short term greed pushing wages down so in that sense I agree.
Țhere is a short term greed pushing wages down so in that sense I agree.
Yes you're right, no one person made it this way - that was a rhetorical efficiecy on my part. I meant some broader human "we" made it this way. People, us.
It's not just a rhetorical efficiency though. Phrasing it that way makes it feel like it's a lot easier to change, cause we can imagine personally overcoming a single person.
That broader human "we" is the deterministic historical process that is insurmountable for any one person. It can only be contested with a countervailing historical process when people organize and cooperate, and that's a lot harder to get rolling than just calling your congressperson.
That broader human "we" is the deterministic historical process that is insurmountable for any one person. It can only be contested with a countervailing historical process when people organize and cooperate, and that's a lot harder to get rolling than just calling your congressperson.
I would venture to guess, though, that a very small, single-digit percentage (possibly even sub-one-percent) of all-people-ever made things this way. A vanishingly small number of people have the influence to shape "what work means" to this degree. Yes, people going along with things, or even supporting things (because someone in power told them to) plays a big part; the puppetmasters do need some amount of consent and compliance from the masses. But the drivers of change are few.
It’s a rewording of a Steve Jobs quote (not sure where, if anywhere, he got it from). Essentially it means rather than find reasons to disengage, get out and do something to help promote positive change. If everyone does this, then there’s you’re aggregate.
> It's up to us. [...]
And start interviewing for remote jobs, if you have the luxury to do so. Especially if you are in an industry where talent has the most bargaining power (i.e. tech). Don't tolerate this nonsense: https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/amazons-covid-...
And start interviewing for remote jobs, if you have the luxury to do so. Especially if you are in an industry where talent has the most bargaining power (i.e. tech). Don't tolerate this nonsense: https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/amazons-covid-...
>> Many years of corporations "boiling the frog" and slowly lowering flexibility and not improving pay have been reset.
I think it depends on where you work and how the executives care or don't care about their employees.
I was working at a large corporation during the 08' recession. They took away all of our perks (free coffee, free milk, bottled water, bonuses, christmas parties with bonuses, etc) all in one year and then never brought them back which resulted in a steady flow of people quitting.
Likewise, I was at a much smaller family run company shortly after the aforementioned big corporation (less than 300 employees) and we had amazing Cadillac health care, yearly bonuses and generous salary increases and four weeks of vacation (double the norm at any other company) to start. Most of the company employees were 'lifers' for obvious reasons.
Right now? I work at a huge health care company. Its somewhere in the middle. We get a lot of technology perks, three weeks vacation, decent salary increases and yearly bonuses that are competitive. The health care plans ironically are some of the worst I've had, but its offset by the other things I get.
Everything is relative and I think people just need to find what works best for them. Its also a great time for all the people complaining they can't seem to find work anywhere. LOTS of mid tier gigs right now for those who want to get out there and find a solid gig, instead of staying home and collecting unemployment to the tune of $1,200/month.
I think it depends on where you work and how the executives care or don't care about their employees.
I was working at a large corporation during the 08' recession. They took away all of our perks (free coffee, free milk, bottled water, bonuses, christmas parties with bonuses, etc) all in one year and then never brought them back which resulted in a steady flow of people quitting.
Likewise, I was at a much smaller family run company shortly after the aforementioned big corporation (less than 300 employees) and we had amazing Cadillac health care, yearly bonuses and generous salary increases and four weeks of vacation (double the norm at any other company) to start. Most of the company employees were 'lifers' for obvious reasons.
Right now? I work at a huge health care company. Its somewhere in the middle. We get a lot of technology perks, three weeks vacation, decent salary increases and yearly bonuses that are competitive. The health care plans ironically are some of the worst I've had, but its offset by the other things I get.
Everything is relative and I think people just need to find what works best for them. Its also a great time for all the people complaining they can't seem to find work anywhere. LOTS of mid tier gigs right now for those who want to get out there and find a solid gig, instead of staying home and collecting unemployment to the tune of $1,200/month.
One quick note is that the boiling frog metaphor actually doesn't happen in nature. When the water is too hot, the frogs jump out
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2006/09/the-b...
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2006/09/the-b...
Well yeah, when the job is too crappy people quit, too. But they stay a lot longer when the job gets crappy slowly than when it suddenly gets crappy overnight.
To add a bit more here, when the job is suddenly crappy it’s easier to let go of anything holding you to it. When it progressively gets crappy you hold out hope that it getting better is just one seemingly simple decision away.
Anecdotal but one of my friends quit an amazing job(good pay, wfh, flexibility, etc...) in search of something better and can’t go 5 minutes without thinking about quitting the new job. I can’t really imagine moving companies right now in the midst of a lot of uncertainly on future office state(maybe that’s just me tho)
back in 2015 or so, I was complaining about how having to study for leetcode is not sustainable for someone to live, thus this makes tech a horrendous life choice as a career. Because having to keep doing this throughout our life when we get families and other life events going on is not a sustainable path. I was downvoted, told if you want to make money what's the big deal, etc etc.
During the pandemic, the companies that were still hiring stepped up the bar. Maybe that was the push needed to tell people what the ramifications of this is. Now I am finally hearing from a lot of engineers: "Am I going to have to do this my whole life? I don't want to do this now let alone for the rest of my life". I have dozens of friends from Microsoft to Google plotting their exists.
If all goes well, I am out in 8 years (but things rarely go well). I have a number and once I get to it, I am out. I dont want to deal with this shit anymore
During the pandemic, the companies that were still hiring stepped up the bar. Maybe that was the push needed to tell people what the ramifications of this is. Now I am finally hearing from a lot of engineers: "Am I going to have to do this my whole life? I don't want to do this now let alone for the rest of my life". I have dozens of friends from Microsoft to Google plotting their exists.
If all goes well, I am out in 8 years (but things rarely go well). I have a number and once I get to it, I am out. I dont want to deal with this shit anymore
Studying Leetcode is no fun to be sure. But, you'll never find a greater return on investment than preparing well and interviewing well. It often results in a major pay raise, a new and often better company, a new and often better project, sometimes a promotion.
Even better, the people that are the most averse to Leetcode cramming are often the ones that will see the greatest benefit, since they usually entered their current position with a single offer some years ago, and would be getting multiple offers in a very hot market today.
Even better, the people that are the most averse to Leetcode cramming are often the ones that will see the greatest benefit, since they usually entered their current position with a single offer some years ago, and would be getting multiple offers in a very hot market today.
There are a lot of people in tech making a lot of money. Particularly at FANG/startups that have exited, they can "FIRE" after less than 10 years of working. I know many people in this category.
During the pandemic many people also made some changes to their lives (bought a house, moved out the city, moonlight second job, started consulting remotely, etc.).
Then you throw in the crazy rise in the markets (stocks, crypto, real estate) that many people have benefited from.
Coupled with the popularity of FIRE mentality, rise of remote work, etc, it doesn't surprise me there are big changes coming.
During the pandemic many people also made some changes to their lives (bought a house, moved out the city, moonlight second job, started consulting remotely, etc.).
Then you throw in the crazy rise in the markets (stocks, crypto, real estate) that many people have benefited from.
Coupled with the popularity of FIRE mentality, rise of remote work, etc, it doesn't surprise me there are big changes coming.
> Particularly at FANG/startups that have exited, they can "FIRE" after less than 10 years of working. I know many people in this category.
Less than 10? I would need to know more details on this before believing it at face value. Say a FANG person makes 300k/year on average over 8 years.
That's 2.4 million pre-tax, something like 1.4M post-tax, and not enough for FIRE for most people.
Maybe if someone was early in a startup that had a massive exit, sure. But that definitely doesn't describe the typical FIRE person/FAANG worker/etc.
Less than 10? I would need to know more details on this before believing it at face value. Say a FANG person makes 300k/year on average over 8 years.
That's 2.4 million pre-tax, something like 1.4M post-tax, and not enough for FIRE for most people.
Maybe if someone was early in a startup that had a massive exit, sure. But that definitely doesn't describe the typical FIRE person/FAANG worker/etc.
300K is on the lower end of salaries, esp. over 8 years. This is also just run-of-the-mill individual contributors that got in very late. Early employees, senior/leads/managers/directors/vp will make substantially more.
You're also assuming they did nothing with their earnings over those 8 years - when in reality most are invested in the markets which have killed it over the last decade.
I think people in tech are making a shitload more money then most realize.
You're also assuming they did nothing with their earnings over those 8 years - when in reality most are invested in the markets which have killed it over the last decade.
I think people in tech are making a shitload more money then most realize.
Google's median salary is $240k. $300k isn't on the lower end it's above average (above median not mean).
This is me. FIRE was one of the dreams / goals from many years ago. I'm technically able to retire now but I'm still working. A few reasons I think:
1) Sense of (in)security. There is the thought of, what if my investments lose a lot of value. What if costs suddenly go up. So the number keeps shifting up. Just another x dollars and I'll retire.
2) As I get older, the thought of retiring is also starting to lose appeal. Life's priorities change and preferences change. I wanted to be able to not work and travel the world. Now that sounds some what exhausting and unanchored. Personal situation also comes into play. Single vs those in relationships. Will the partner welcome the FIRE lifestyle etc.
3) There is a bit of how society will view a 30 something with no job and no plans to get a job.
1) Sense of (in)security. There is the thought of, what if my investments lose a lot of value. What if costs suddenly go up. So the number keeps shifting up. Just another x dollars and I'll retire.
2) As I get older, the thought of retiring is also starting to lose appeal. Life's priorities change and preferences change. I wanted to be able to not work and travel the world. Now that sounds some what exhausting and unanchored. Personal situation also comes into play. Single vs those in relationships. Will the partner welcome the FIRE lifestyle etc.
3) There is a bit of how society will view a 30 something with no job and no plans to get a job.
Another thing: Work is generally how people best have the opportunity to interact with people operating at a higher degree of sophistication, and it's often where you have a chance to work with people who are smart or motivated.
If you stop working, you risk losing both those networks.
If you stop working, you risk losing both those networks.
> Work is generally how people best have the opportunity to interact with people operating at a higher degree of sophistication, and it's often where you have a chance to work with people who are smart or motivated.
That's true of “work” viewed broadly, but not necessarily particularly of wage labor more than other things within the broad sense of “work”; certainly, I’ve found it to be no less true in political and charitable volunteer work than it is in wage labor.
That's true of “work” viewed broadly, but not necessarily particularly of wage labor more than other things within the broad sense of “work”; certainly, I’ve found it to be no less true in political and charitable volunteer work than it is in wage labor.
Anecdotally I've observed older people around me who retire early for various reason have much earlier decline in both mental and physical health. Where as the ones that work until much older age tends to be healthier. And it does seem causal too, since the decline doesn't happen until years after retirement.
For example, many of my aunts and uncles that retired around 55 - 60 are / were having many health issues some have experienced decline in mental sharpness. Where as my grand parents who worked on the farm until into the 70s were fairly healthy until towards the end of their lives.
For example, many of my aunts and uncles that retired around 55 - 60 are / were having many health issues some have experienced decline in mental sharpness. Where as my grand parents who worked on the farm until into the 70s were fairly healthy until towards the end of their lives.
I'm interested by #3, as it is imminently to be my own situation (by choice). The few people who know thus far are all close friends, and even then aren't completely aware that "living off my savings" comes with the additional "and I'm >95% confident that I can do so in perpetuity." My parents think I'll be bored in short order, which may be true. But I've no idea how the rest of society would see it. Envious? Pleased for me? Suspicious of how it was achieved? Something else?
>In my circles, everyone from 25-35 is simultaneously preparing to FIRE and no-one that's 35+ has actually changed jobs despite being 'financially independent'.
I think less than 1 in 10 people who talk about FIRE have some kind of realistic expectation about FIRE (i.e. you can't stay in the USA and also live like a king)
I think less than 1 in 10 people who talk about FIRE have some kind of realistic expectation about FIRE (i.e. you can't stay in the USA and also live like a king)
I always love the phrase "live like a king" like it's some unachievable amount of luxury, when historically it's:
- Mental illness.
- Uncomfortable amounts of stone. Feeling trapped by the system.
- The constant paranoid fear of other people who kind of want you dead.
- Shitting in pots.
It's pretty easy to live like a king in the US, just be homeless.
- Mental illness.
- Uncomfortable amounts of stone. Feeling trapped by the system.
- The constant paranoid fear of other people who kind of want you dead.
- Shitting in pots.
It's pretty easy to live like a king in the US, just be homeless.
Never being able to do anything spontaneous, including eating food.
Also in many eras quack doctors.
Not just people wanting you dead, but close family members coming after you and your kids.
Also in many eras quack doctors.
Not just people wanting you dead, but close family members coming after you and your kids.
When I realized how poorly a million dollars spread out over a lifetime I realized that odds were good I was going to keep working.
And just how true that bit is about lottery tickets being “a tax on people who are bad at math.”
Having a bunch of money means not having to have a mortgage. That’s pretty powerful by itself.
And just how true that bit is about lottery tickets being “a tax on people who are bad at math.”
Having a bunch of money means not having to have a mortgage. That’s pretty powerful by itself.
I can’t get over how much the financial media drumbeats the idea that companies compete with better working conditions. They do not on any appreciable timescale - the best you get is a bigger signing bonus or one time benefit. At the top 1% they compete on perks, but the rest simply do not do anything about the fact they can’t hire, despite their complaints. It’s a particular dissonance that I think must come from MBA and business school cargo culting. The world would be such a nicer place if companies actually competed for labor instead of collectively kept all wages and benefits at their absolute minimum. This of course doesn’t happen, but to hear that it is somehow is extra infuriating.
One thing looks good on a balance sheet and the other requires thinking beyond the balance sheet. The vast majority of companies and middle/upper management are really only looking to the short term and their own individual resume. If the cows don't come home to roost (oops mixed the metaphor) for a few years and Jim has already moved from Company A to Company C by then, and failed upward three places on the corporate ladder, why should they care?
Feels like most huge corporations do an executive shakeup every 5-8 years or so, and they shake some people out, but those people just get picked back up by someone else fresh off their own executive shuffle.
Feels like most huge corporations do an executive shakeup every 5-8 years or so, and they shake some people out, but those people just get picked back up by someone else fresh off their own executive shuffle.
To your point, stated desire (filling out a survey) isn’t as strong as revealed preference (people switching).
Stated preference is much noisier.
My observation is there are a lot of people who have learned to hate their boss while remote. My SF friends may be surprised that wages are resetting to Chicago and Texas levels for new workers. That may slow down some of the movement.
Stated preference is much noisier.
My observation is there are a lot of people who have learned to hate their boss while remote. My SF friends may be surprised that wages are resetting to Chicago and Texas levels for new workers. That may slow down some of the movement.
I've realized recently that what I really want isn't FIRE, but a kind of soft FIRE. Basically, if I had the money for FIRE, I would find (or stay at) a job that is comfortable, has great benefits and is low-medium stress. I could forget entirely about job hopping for higher pay (never have to leetcode study again), getting promoted (don't care about more responsibilities, managing, or going up a ladder), and mostly ignore office politics. I could just focus on doing good high quality work and not care about the rest. Basically, I want FIRE money to become immune to any kind of pressure or stress a company could put on an employee since I wouldn't care anymore about being laid off.
Everyone from 25-35 is preparing to FIRE?! I wonder, is that economically sustainable?
I think shorter work weeks would be more realistic/desirable than full FIRE. However, I suspect most successful FIRE people must develop a or two hobby that inevitably generates money and keeps them busy. Otherwise most will just get bored out of their mind after 1-2 years.
Just as one counter data point to your observation of your social circles: 2020 made me reconsider things. I also did the maths and concluded I was already the FI part of FIRE. I thought some more about what I wanted to do with my life, stayed several more months to give myself time to reflect on things, and then ultimately resigned with no intention to find another job. I will wrap up in two weeks time.
Completely agree. Surveyors seems oblivious to the fact that people daydream on order to support reality.
before pandemic started:
- I asked more money (so that I can afford live alone in high COL) they said no.
- I asked to work remotely - they sad no
- I asked for more money (but less now) they still said no.
I left. found a remote job with 25% raise. in 3 months pandemic hit and everybody started working remotely.
I left. found a remote job with 25% raise. in 3 months pandemic hit and everybody started working remotely.
The record 9.3 million job openings may be evidence that commonly used hiring practices have broken down and are not serving labor markets efficiently.
So where is everyone searching for these remote only positions -- any special sites to recommend?
I quit last June after 13 mostly consecutive years in tech. I haven't saved enough to be financially independent but I can coast for a while. Even at a company that seemed to have good work life balance, I couldn't take it so I have no idea how you FAANG folks do it. I don't know if I'm just not suited for the career or what, but working as a software engineer caused several stress related health problems that have either gone away or drastically improved over the past year. I can't imagine going back, it's not worth sacrificing my health and happiness.
Work-life balance isn't bad at FAANG (not generally speaking at least).
Broad generalization: I've seen friends burn out due to overwork at Amazon and Netflix, but it seems less common at Facebook, Apple, and Google.
Would be interesting to see actual data.
Would be interesting to see actual data.
https://www.teamblind.com/company and if you use the app there's a separate data based on survey questions called Pulse, which mostly aligns with these Reviews.
WLB goes: Google >> Netflix > Apple > Facebook >> Amazon
WLB goes: Google >> Netflix > Apple > Facebook >> Amazon
i think theres a discrepancy between junior engineers who get abused/overworked and don't know any better, and the seniors who know that they can say no to things without any repercussions
Funny, I think the same thing happened to teachers despite the fact that they cannot realistically have a remote option. Teachers unions have been holding out for better pay and benefits while holding in-school services hostage.
I've interviewed a lot of devs in the midwest (Columbus, OH) the past few months and everybody, even new college grads, expect $120k+ salaries. Mind blowing to me as I know devs who've been around ~10 years in the midwest who are only approaching those numbers.
3rd-tier (considered nationally, not regionally) city in the Midwest checking in, here. For one thing, starting salaries around here were already pushing that for mid-level and better devs before the pandemic. There are definitely small, crappy shops in tech stacks that tend to pay worse (ahem, PHP) shooting well under that, but starting salaries for new grads at places that actually both have and make money (mostly bigger companies or hotshot startups) were creeping to around 6-figures even before the pandemic. Anyone offering much lower than that was already bidding on the bottom-of-the-barrel, especially if their benefits suck (bad benefits and low pay tend to go hand-in-hand, so...). Local firms have been bidding up local talent fast since, oh, 2012 I'd say, as there were more seats to be filled than there were good local developers.
Remote work has definitely been a factor. A half-decent experienced developer can easily land jobs that outbid the local market, and I'm not even talking major West Coast places with interview processes resembling torture. A lot of local devs have been slow to realize just how much money they're leaving on the table without even needing to move or practice leetcode for six months and submit to multiple day-long grueling interviews, but I have to assume that's changing fast with the pandemic pushing remote work into the zeitgeist. I'd imagine local firms are seeing some serious remote competition for their best developers, and losing a lot of them. That's going to mean rising salaries, or that their dev teams get somewhat worse.
Basically I think the only thing keeping salaries as low as they were was that a high percentage of local developers weren't looking for new opportunities often enough, local or remote. Now that everyone's been prompted to pop their heads up and take a look around, it'd be very surprising to me if salaries didn't shoot way up. There's been a plain market mis-match locally, to begin with, suppressed only by not enough developers realizing how much more they could make by switching jobs, and add remote work competition to that, and there's going to be a lot of upward pressure on salaries.
Remote work has definitely been a factor. A half-decent experienced developer can easily land jobs that outbid the local market, and I'm not even talking major West Coast places with interview processes resembling torture. A lot of local devs have been slow to realize just how much money they're leaving on the table without even needing to move or practice leetcode for six months and submit to multiple day-long grueling interviews, but I have to assume that's changing fast with the pandemic pushing remote work into the zeitgeist. I'd imagine local firms are seeing some serious remote competition for their best developers, and losing a lot of them. That's going to mean rising salaries, or that their dev teams get somewhat worse.
Basically I think the only thing keeping salaries as low as they were was that a high percentage of local developers weren't looking for new opportunities often enough, local or remote. Now that everyone's been prompted to pop their heads up and take a look around, it'd be very surprising to me if salaries didn't shoot way up. There's been a plain market mis-match locally, to begin with, suppressed only by not enough developers realizing how much more they could make by switching jobs, and add remote work competition to that, and there's going to be a lot of upward pressure on salaries.
And they can get it easily. I think if a lot of seniors started looking at their pay compared to new hires they would realize that they are severely underpaid right now.
Unfortunately the trend right now seems to be companies bulking up on expensive, lower quality talent hoping it has more upside potential.
I think if you can't offer at least $90k with a significantly great benefits package you are really going to struggle.
You're talking about a group of people that can just sit at home for two months grinding Cracking The Code Interview as an alternative to your job offer and land FAANG employment at a 3x-4x multiple of what you're balking at paying.
Unfortunately the trend right now seems to be companies bulking up on expensive, lower quality talent hoping it has more upside potential.
I think if you can't offer at least $90k with a significantly great benefits package you are really going to struggle.
You're talking about a group of people that can just sit at home for two months grinding Cracking The Code Interview as an alternative to your job offer and land FAANG employment at a 3x-4x multiple of what you're balking at paying.
> And they can get it easily. I think if a lot of seniors started looking at their pay compared to new hires they would realize that they are severely underpaid right now.
Oh yes, a lot of the folks doing the interviewing at my org are seeing this (myself included).
Oh yes, a lot of the folks doing the interviewing at my org are seeing this (myself included).
Software engineers with 10+ years experience can ask for 300-500k year in NYC, Seattle or Bay Area.
I have about a decade of experience, I live in Dallas, and I've spent my entire career working for local Texas companies.
I never saw a six-figure salary—not even close—until I got the offer for the job I'll be starting next week. It's a remote position working for an east coast company. Even if my soon-to-be-ex-employer allowed me to continue working from home forever, I'd be an idiot to leave this salary on the table. I should've done this sooner.
I never saw a six-figure salary—not even close—until I got the offer for the job I'll be starting next week. It's a remote position working for an east coast company. Even if my soon-to-be-ex-employer allowed me to continue working from home forever, I'd be an idiot to leave this salary on the table. I should've done this sooner.
I was on my severance package from mid January until end of may 2021 and I was just working on my apps and doing my hobbies and it was one of the best times I had. Now that I got another job that pays pretty well compared to what I had before or even similar jobs to where I live I feel like meh and I am trying to figure out how to go to the work on my own stuff/hobbies asap.
I'm just worried that my company will fire some people, including me :/ I don't have the luxury to enjoy a gap year.
Nobody is mentioning people leaving jobs because they DONT want remote. I do know of people frustrated that their company is closing its swanky office they enjoyed working at to be 100% remote.
I'm curious how those numbers compare. There seems to be a significant majority in favor of remote work in online forums, but that's not a perfect sample.
Anti-office people are very vocal on here. I don't think it's representative; most of the people I know in real life want their office back. I didn't know how much I wanted to be around people all day until it was taken away.
Agreed. Ideally I’d want flexibility to decide when to WFH and then still have a nice office to come into when I feel social, or need to collaborate.
> still have a nice office to come into when I feel social
Who else would be at the office then to socialize with you? Paid actors?
Who else would be at the office then to socialize with you? Paid actors?
If your office is basically a clubhouse, I can see how you could be miffed about getting the same salary at home but none of the benefits you used to have, and now have to make more space in your home for working environment, buying more food out of your pay for lunch or snacks or coffee, faster internet, printer ink, etc.
In the US if the health insurance issue could be taken off the table the rate would be even much higher.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Remember how everyone predicted a baby boom in 2021 and instead we saw a 8-10% decline in birth rate [1]? It turns out that while people had more time to focus on their families, the financial uncertainty had a greater impact on their family planning decisions. The same thing happened in 2009 - there's a close link between the birth rate and recessions [2]. While I don't doubt that many people will change their jobs to better fit their life styles, I doubt that we'll end up with as big of a dip in total employment due to resignations (jobs will just shift from some companies to others).
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/expected-covid-ba...
[2] https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2010/04/06/us-birt...
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/expected-covid-ba...
[2] https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2010/04/06/us-birt...
Instead, we saw a dog adoption boom.
So true!
It's sad that so many people get dogs and don't train with them. Watching young women get dragged along by their big working dogs is a common sight in Uptown Dallas.
I adopted a dog in early March 2020, unrelated to pandemic, because my wife really wanted one. I was on the fence but really unsure about it -- we lived in a 3rd floor walkup, for one, and used to travel a lot so it didn't see like the best idea.
I wish I could say it was a success story but I really haven't enjoyed it. I love the dog but as he got older he got really anti-social with people (the pandemic definitely made it harder to help solve that, sadly). A lot of "dog fun" like having your dog meet your friends, take your dog to a picnic, have your dog running around at your BBQ, just isn't in the cards for us. Taking him on walks is a challenge because he lunges and barks at people walking by. With consistent training we've gotten it under control and generally he's a happy pup but man, it was a huge commitment and a gigantic stressor.
I wish I could say it was a success story but I really haven't enjoyed it. I love the dog but as he got older he got really anti-social with people (the pandemic definitely made it harder to help solve that, sadly). A lot of "dog fun" like having your dog meet your friends, take your dog to a picnic, have your dog running around at your BBQ, just isn't in the cards for us. Taking him on walks is a challenge because he lunges and barks at people walking by. With consistent training we've gotten it under control and generally he's a happy pup but man, it was a huge commitment and a gigantic stressor.
I'm just commenting here because I want to see what happens in the future and keep you honest.
I'll believe it when I see it. There's a massive difference between thinking about quitting and actually quitting.
People don't like change and there's tons of it happening right now as we transition out of our COVID lifestyles. People are upset, but, I think it's much more likely that people will just moan about it for a while before eventually accepting it rather than actually taking action.
People don't like change and there's tons of it happening right now as we transition out of our COVID lifestyles. People are upset, but, I think it's much more likely that people will just moan about it for a while before eventually accepting it rather than actually taking action.
There have been so many similar articles over the last three months. And every time I see one, I'm reminded of how resistant to change the company (and industry) I'm in is.
The company I work for is starting to bring people back to the office department by department. People are resisting, and the company is telling them not to let the door hit them in their asses on the way out. Officially, it's because there is no "policy" for long-term work-from-home. But it's just stubbornness that comes from its habit of moving at the speed of a glacier.
I've heard that some departments have lost 20% of their people so far. I know for a fact that one department I work closely with has lost 40%. My observation is that the better the employee, the more likely he is to refuse to come back to the office.
The company I work for is starting to bring people back to the office department by department. People are resisting, and the company is telling them not to let the door hit them in their asses on the way out. Officially, it's because there is no "policy" for long-term work-from-home. But it's just stubbornness that comes from its habit of moving at the speed of a glacier.
I've heard that some departments have lost 20% of their people so far. I know for a fact that one department I work closely with has lost 40%. My observation is that the better the employee, the more likely he is to refuse to come back to the office.
During crisis decade post 1999, many shifted to better pastures, not content with being played like pawns and having bleak outlooks. Now, many developers having regretted biting the bullet for two f. decades are thinking the same, after quite a bit of introspection during COVID. Not saying everyone will jump on the same: Some went to work in kindergartens, just sick of everything java. However, this situation is exactly the spark that'll make people seek more of what they truly are meant to do in this life.
The best advice I can give is, treat other people as you yourself would want to be treated, or how you think they wish to be treated. Be kind and seek the best in others.
The best advice I can give is, treat other people as you yourself would want to be treated, or how you think they wish to be treated. Be kind and seek the best in others.
I feel like I keep seeing articles on this topic, but nobody is addressing the (obvious) elephant in the room: If there is a great resignation, and people are quitting jobs they are not happy with - how are they going to pay their bills and way through life? Am I missing something?
It seems these articles all talk about workers realizing they are underpaid, overworked, and after a year don't want to go back to the same exploitive job. While I completely agree with all this, it doesn't address the question of how these newly unemployed workers will pay their bills and way through life
Are people just counting on their savings? If so, how many people can realistically live out of their savings (esp with rising costs of goods)? Do people think the extended unemployment benefits are going to continue for longer (this seems wildly unrealistic)?
I'm genuinely curious if there are answers to these questions? From my point of view, it seems these articles never mention the fact that people have jobs they don't like, because they have to in order to earn money (in normal non-pandemic times)
It seems these articles all talk about workers realizing they are underpaid, overworked, and after a year don't want to go back to the same exploitive job. While I completely agree with all this, it doesn't address the question of how these newly unemployed workers will pay their bills and way through life
Are people just counting on their savings? If so, how many people can realistically live out of their savings (esp with rising costs of goods)? Do people think the extended unemployment benefits are going to continue for longer (this seems wildly unrealistic)?
I'm genuinely curious if there are answers to these questions? From my point of view, it seems these articles never mention the fact that people have jobs they don't like, because they have to in order to earn money (in normal non-pandemic times)
> Am I missing something?
If you're making tech salaries and not spending all of it, you can easily save enough to not work for a decade in just a few years of work. Anecdotally I worked for three years at a big company and then didn't work for three years until those savings ran out, and that wasn't really even trying.
Of course the calculus changes if you're married or have kids. But living in America in a cheap town is not expensive compared to income in this field. You can live comfortably on 40k a year (lots of Americans do!). And a 200k+ income like you see in major tech hubs can easily translate to 100k+ of savings a year.
If you're making tech salaries and not spending all of it, you can easily save enough to not work for a decade in just a few years of work. Anecdotally I worked for three years at a big company and then didn't work for three years until those savings ran out, and that wasn't really even trying.
Of course the calculus changes if you're married or have kids. But living in America in a cheap town is not expensive compared to income in this field. You can live comfortably on 40k a year (lots of Americans do!). And a 200k+ income like you see in major tech hubs can easily translate to 100k+ of savings a year.
That I can totally understand. However, if we're looking at the labor market as a whole, people making comfortable tech salaries are definitely outliers. Coupled with the fact that (anecdotally) it seems many of the people who don't want to return to their old jobs (or want to resign) are either in the service industry, or have/had lower paid entry level job salaries, I'm still stuck trying to understand how these folks will survive financially.
I guess I'm trying to figure out if all these "great resignation" articles are referring to high paid skilled jobs (eg tech workers), which in my opinion wouldn't effect the economy as a whole very much since they are a relatively small portion of it, or if these articles are referring to the broad economy including lower paid jobs.
I guess I'm trying to figure out if all these "great resignation" articles are referring to high paid skilled jobs (eg tech workers), which in my opinion wouldn't effect the economy as a whole very much since they are a relatively small portion of it, or if these articles are referring to the broad economy including lower paid jobs.
Isn't it a norm that before you resign you already signed the job offee on yor next job? So there's no down time for you?
They're not going to be unemployed, they're going to find a better job. In my mostly-uninformed opinion I think that remote work has allowed a lot of people to search for work in other locations and this has radically changed the way the employer-employee economy works. In smaller job markets talented workers didn't have much choice about where to work and there were factors to changing jobs (like commute distance) that made them rule out a lot of places.
Now, there's an abundance of positions available remotely all over the country and you can shop around for a good fit.
Now, there's an abundance of positions available remotely all over the country and you can shop around for a good fit.
So in this case, instead of a "great resignation" it would be more accurate imply a "great company switching". However, doesn't this scenario assume that there are an abundant supply of "better" jobs just waiting for applicants (that are now able to apply due to remote policies)?
There obviously isn't that yet, so is the assumption that this will follow after many employees resign and force companies to redo their hiring policies?
There obviously isn't that yet, so is the assumption that this will follow after many employees resign and force companies to redo their hiring policies?
I resigned today. Back to solo work.
I am going to resign today. I was hired as UI developer during the pandemic, and my employer was kind enough to not let me go when the project ended during the pandemic. Now I'm moving to chicago from nyc to do UI work.
The pandemic has been hard because I never enjoyed the work I was doing, but I grinded through it considering it was hard to find a job.
The pandemic has been hard because I never enjoyed the work I was doing, but I grinded through it considering it was hard to find a job.
I resigned from my company of 7 years back in April. I gave up life-changing amounts of money in order to leave.
I got super burnt out over the last year and there was not really another option imo. I had been working on my own company on the side and I feel immensely more recharged working on it. For people that have been sitting at home and not spending their salaries for the past year, that might be an appealing option.
I got super burnt out over the last year and there was not really another option imo. I had been working on my own company on the side and I feel immensely more recharged working on it. For people that have been sitting at home and not spending their salaries for the past year, that might be an appealing option.
I'm sure somewhere in the big pile of comments someone else is saying this, but as another voice saying it:
1. The pandemic was weird, and likely a time when people didn't want to change jobs due to a need for stability. It seems like it would be normal to see a wave of job changes that have been basically on hold until people felt safe.
2. I'm assuming some people have had more of a chance than normal to think more about what they want out of their life and jobs over the last 18 months. For some people, this means they might make a job change that they didn't anticipate making in January 2020.
3. It's one thing to threaten to leave, and a whole other thing to actually do it. I've had co-workers who were "ready to quit" for my whole career, some of whom are still at the jobs they were ready to quit a decade+ later.
1. The pandemic was weird, and likely a time when people didn't want to change jobs due to a need for stability. It seems like it would be normal to see a wave of job changes that have been basically on hold until people felt safe.
2. I'm assuming some people have had more of a chance than normal to think more about what they want out of their life and jobs over the last 18 months. For some people, this means they might make a job change that they didn't anticipate making in January 2020.
3. It's one thing to threaten to leave, and a whole other thing to actually do it. I've had co-workers who were "ready to quit" for my whole career, some of whom are still at the jobs they were ready to quit a decade+ later.
Throwaway since this is private, but I’ve tendered my resignation for pretty much exactly what this article says. To be clear, I’m in a very privileged position where both my spouse and I are in software and she can more than cover the bills on her own. I have the ability to take time off, pursue other projects, do something else, etc.
I think remote work, generally works, but there is an incredible long term drain on energy from not connecting with co-workers in person. It may work for some and there will certainly be a long term shift more towards remote work, but I predict it won’t be as pronounced as maybe some suspect because it’s much harder to sustain. The flexibility is indeed great and a net win especially for parents or those with long commutes, but I think it’s harder to actually work.
I think remote work, generally works, but there is an incredible long term drain on energy from not connecting with co-workers in person. It may work for some and there will certainly be a long term shift more towards remote work, but I predict it won’t be as pronounced as maybe some suspect because it’s much harder to sustain. The flexibility is indeed great and a net win especially for parents or those with long commutes, but I think it’s harder to actually work.
Related thread from yesterday:
Forget going back to the office – people are just quitting instead - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27493945 - June 2021 (386 comments)
Forget going back to the office – people are just quitting instead - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27493945 - June 2021 (386 comments)
HAPPILY just left a company. I'm done working at companies that don't offer unlimited PTO. Second to that, I'm not letting a job chain me to an overpriced city.
I guess I'm part of this wave. Just these days I struggle with the decision if I should rather (a) quit my job without having found a new position yet or (b) keep working while applying for new jobs. (I'm located in Germany)
Pros of early quitting: (1) I'm not learning anything anymore in my current job. The earlier the better... (2) My current job is subject to 3 months' notice, so I'm definitely free from October onwards (3) I hope this gives me some extra motivation to work on data science projects in my spare time
Cons of early quitting: (1) Obviously no income anymore from October onwards unless I have found a new job. (2) From October onwards, it might be hard to find a new flat as the landlords request to get evidence of a regular income
Pros of early quitting: (1) I'm not learning anything anymore in my current job. The earlier the better... (2) My current job is subject to 3 months' notice, so I'm definitely free from October onwards (3) I hope this gives me some extra motivation to work on data science projects in my spare time
Cons of early quitting: (1) Obviously no income anymore from October onwards unless I have found a new job. (2) From October onwards, it might be hard to find a new flat as the landlords request to get evidence of a regular income
I fear that this trend will end up hurting a large percentage of the people that buy fully into this trend. The ideal, from my perspective, would be a shift in how business as usual is conducted, not a wholesale rejection of it. We are just coming out of an extreme period and I feel like some of this reaction is just rebound that could end up hurting many people.
At my company we are trying to use this sentiment to shift to a mix of the old work from the office full time (with flexible policies about WFH as needed) to a more hybrid approach where we will still provide for a solid collaborative in-person environment while baking in even more flexibility for managing your WFH needs (maybe in office 3 days a week with WFH available 2 days a week... still trying to figure out the right balance).
I'm sure we will still have at least a little attrition but suspect this will leave us with a stronger than ever core (while allowing those that leave to try to find something more suitable to their needs... but again, I worry about this ending up the case for them).
At my company we are trying to use this sentiment to shift to a mix of the old work from the office full time (with flexible policies about WFH as needed) to a more hybrid approach where we will still provide for a solid collaborative in-person environment while baking in even more flexibility for managing your WFH needs (maybe in office 3 days a week with WFH available 2 days a week... still trying to figure out the right balance).
I'm sure we will still have at least a little attrition but suspect this will leave us with a stronger than ever core (while allowing those that leave to try to find something more suitable to their needs... but again, I worry about this ending up the case for them).
Well, I can finally say it: I'm part of the Great Resignation.
I found a new position that's 100% remote, I put in my notice at my current job the week before last, and my last day is coming up this week.
It's kind of bittersweet: I'm leaving just before my fifth anniversary here, and this is the only company where I've even made it to three years, much less five, but it is what it is. I like what I do, and I like my coworkers, but I just can't go back to working in an office after spending the last year working from home, so it's time for me to move on.
I found a new position that's 100% remote, I put in my notice at my current job the week before last, and my last day is coming up this week.
It's kind of bittersweet: I'm leaving just before my fifth anniversary here, and this is the only company where I've even made it to three years, much less five, but it is what it is. I like what I do, and I like my coworkers, but I just can't go back to working in an office after spending the last year working from home, so it's time for me to move on.
Yeah not seeing it in my world. Moving jobs has never been easier - just change Zoom meetings.
I don't particularly want to be remote. I haven't enjoyed it at all. But it is potentially opening up possibilities for me outside of the area I live in.
I'd be open to the idea if I could find a company that did a better job of it than my employer has. I suspect many others are in the same mindset, and that greatly weakens the negotiating position of employers in our industry -- even for recruiting people who don't necessarily want to be remote.
I'd be open to the idea if I could find a company that did a better job of it than my employer has. I suspect many others are in the same mindset, and that greatly weakens the negotiating position of employers in our industry -- even for recruiting people who don't necessarily want to be remote.
I'm currently living in Europe. I wonder how this affects people who are based in Europe and other continents. Can one work remotely for a Bay area company in a different continent, and receive a salary that is at the level of Bay area salary?
> Some are quitting because their bosses won't let them work from home post-pandemic. Others are leaving because they miss their offices, but their companies are now hybrid or all-remote.
Seems like these people will just switch companies.
Seems like these people will just switch companies.
Finally, the perfect example of how 'Surveys show' is almost always bullshit.
I see a lot of people talking about a hot market, and heres hoping it's true, because fuck I've been out of work a long time. With companies trying to adopt the same hiring practices of FAANG, applying is a crapshoot. It's either a 2 hr coding test (before a phone call) followed by 6 interviews or the company just has no clue at all and gets their sales person to determine how much you're down for their startup's 'mission'.
I'll believe it when I see it.
Quit my sales job cold turkey. I'm in the enviable position of a having a large bank account and and setting my sights on reading more and creating a business. There are challenges ahead that is to be sure but the significant weight on my shoulders has been lifted.
I got so tired of the micromanagement and constant pressure from Management to meet production standards, that I couldn't take it anymore.
I got so tired of the micromanagement and constant pressure from Management to meet production standards, that I couldn't take it anymore.
Talking to my brother-in-law who's a CEO of a tech company, he said that his recruiter put 2 jobs out. Both identical, except one was work in the office while the other was work from home but with a $20k in pay reduction...
The work from home job got over 60 applications while the work in the office got a single application.
... the "Great Resignations" wave is definitely coming.
The work from home job got over 60 applications while the work in the office got a single application.
... the "Great Resignations" wave is definitely coming.
There are plenty of folks willing to work. The figures will be used to justify more Visas for lower paid, indentured immigration status tethered slave labor.
On-call is the lifelong misery for me. I found a job recently without a lot of it, but I sense it's coming.
Those in the DevOps space would love to resign and find something-that-isn't-that, but there doesn't seem to be much relief outside of very large environments with follow the suns.
Those in the DevOps space would love to resign and find something-that-isn't-that, but there doesn't seem to be much relief outside of very large environments with follow the suns.
If the work-from-home thing has given you thoughts about what you like, now is the time to go. I see very few firms insisting on onsite work though, having interviewed with quite a few over the last few weeks. Even guys that I know would rather have people in the office and would pay them very well are feeling forced to let people work from home at least a couple of days.
Salary wise it seems like it's breaking upwards too, though of course all I have is my own offers and the word of some recruiters. There's also just a lot of firms out there who are happy to create roles for people they like, or discuss new ventures with new people.
Also, don't forget if you're going to look, absolutely everyone is interviewing remotely. You can sit at home at interviews all day until you find the job for you, something you might not be able to once more firms go back in the office.