Hacker News Reader

> With an American tech salary of $200k/yr

Well, that means you're part of the "1%". In that case, you obviously don't have (m)any real problems. So, if you're thinking for the "1%", then your logic holds up.

If on the other hand you believe to be part of the "1%" soon, then this quote may be of interest to you:

“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” - Ronald Wright, A Short History of Progress

$200k is closer to 4-5%, not 1%.

More importantly, I'm not making some grand proclamation on morality of French governance vs American governances. I'm just affirming that as a developer, you are much better off in the US (particularly NYC/SV) where such salaries are fairly achievable and common.

> I'm not making some grand proclamation on morality

Me neither. The point I was making is:

Due to content in our media/movies (and general culture), most of us tend to think that we will be millionaires in the future, which will lead us to sacrifice some important things and aspects. However, most of us do not end up being millionaires. More precisely: The $200k/yr only holds true for a certain lucky elite.

Sure, if by "most of us" you mean most Americans I agree.

If you mean most developers, I disagree. I think most developers can make $200k/yr if they want.

> $200k is closer to 4-5%, not 1%.

Not quite right. What you are thinking of is household income where $400k is about the 99th percentile - usually achieved by two high earning individuals.

For individual incomes, $288k makes you a 1%er, and $200k is in the top 2.5%. [1]

[1] https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/

Top 5% most paid developers in Europe are just fine, trust me.

Not really unless you are living in Switzerland which is no part of EU.

I got a friend and atm he works in a top bank at the highest position a dev can acquire. He makes £120k a year without his bonuses etc. Thing is he is living in London and houses are so expensive in London and generally the cost of life and the taxes are drilling him. Am not gonna say he is not comfortable, he definitely is alright, although he has been trying to get transferred to Singapore or USA because after his research he found out he would be 2 times better off working there.

So yes I think devs working outside of the EU are doing better for themselves.

I lived in London where I was on 115k GBP per year. To be honest I lived in an ex council flat in not a great area and never really felt like I had "made" it (despite being in the perceived 1%). Everything went to saving for a house deposit for a pretty miserable house in london!!! The only time we actually felt middle class was when we travelled to cheaper destinations overseas.

I was transferred to SF about 2 years ago. I got a nice pay increase to $250k, live in a lovely neighbourhood, bought 2 cars (1 new, 1 nearly new), 2 motorcycles (1 new, 1 nearly new), have already saved 100k USD and now planning on getting my sweet wife a great boob job.

Never looked back!

> “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” - Ronald Wright, A Short History of Progress

This quote is by John Steinbeck not by Ronald Wright. Ronald Wright merely quoted Steinbeck.

The way Steinbeck actually said it (and the way you're implying it) is different than how Americans perceive this. To Americans, being a 'millionaire' is a goal to aspire to, it's like to every school kid who dreams of being Harry Potter who fights evil, is a goal to aspire to. But to Steinbeck (a self-described socialist) and to you, these goals are delusions.

America IS proudly the nation of temporarily embarrassed millionaires. To Americans them becoming a millionaire is what might happen, whereas to you, that's not what did happen.

The reason why European countries are not the nation of temporarily embarrassed millionaires because anyone aspiring that goal would rather move to America (that's also the reason why Europe does not have a real right wing). So what you're left with is people with a different kind of aspiration.

> With an American tech salary of $200k/yr, I can pay for all of that (health insurance

Even if you can pay for it, doesn't mean you can get it. Pre-ACA, I knew people who had the levels of income you're talking about (and higher) who couldn't buy health insurance on their own at any price.

Some of them could get insurance through employer groups, assuming they didn't want to retire, assuming a given employer wanted to hire them, and assuming a given employer wanted them in a given risk pool. What they couldn't do was buy insurance on the individual market.

We're apparently about to return to those days.

See:

   http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/20/opinion/20Dubinsky.html

   http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/2012/03/pre_existing_conditions_the_real_reason_insurers_won_t_cover_people_who_are_already_sick_.html

I'm also not anxious to take giant salary cuts, but there are times as I get older that the logic of establishing a floor even if it means lowering the ceiling seems to make more sense.

Sure, it was a lot worse pre-ACA. Thankfully, it's quite easy to purchase individual insurance these days (I pay $160/m for mine). We'll see what happens with the Republicans.

More importantly, health insurances do not at all sufficiently explain the differences in salaries. Google will hire you here and give you great health insurance, even though they're also paying very well.

Also, the notion that it requires really high taxes to implement single payer is simply not true. Singapore, for example, has a robust public health system while also having some of the lowest taxes in the world. After all, companies are already paying for insurance here. If we socialized it, I wouldn't expect tech salaries to drop.

Other things the taxes in France pay for:

- A functioning public transportation system (I was living in a city of 100k people and could get around by bus decently. The worst bus lines still came once every 20 minutes).

- almost free access to culture

- Being able to get your passport done in a week, not six. Maybe not the nicest people, but things happen a bit faster

But I think the core reason you don't see super-high salaries is because the system makes offering absurdly high salaries very costly, instead preferring for more people to make reasonable salaries. You have things like the fortune tax so that even if you don't have a salary, if you have too much money you'll get an extra tax.

It's a feature of the system, not a bug. The glib explanation is France hates rich people. Not everyone likes it but at least everyone gets 6 weeks vacation. And if you don't have a job you can still have a place to live and not live under constant fear of eviction.

If the local charity fete has music playing they need to pay €1k to get the right license (it's enforced), and musicians can't work for free or they could be fined.

France hates lots of things but it sure loves red tape.

Where do you get your passport done in a week? Last time (in 2014) I did mine, it was closer to one month.

And for culture, apart from some museums when you're under 26, public libraries and cultural festival, you have to pay for the rest (theatre, concert, expositions...), even if they are subsidized.

What kind of US insurance is 160/m? I thought the lowest was around 300 unless you qualify for some kind of subsidy due to low income.

Oscar. I'm a young non-smoking male though, so I have the cheapest possible plan (with a high deductible).

The cheapest catastrophic insurance plans in 2017 in NJ start at over $250+. I'm about the absolute cheapest plan you can find on healthcare.gov. What state are you in?

NYC, this is my insurance: https://www.hioscar.com/

I have the Market Secure plan. I'm not pretending it's terrific insurance, but it'll cover me if disaster strikes and avoids the penalty.

1. 200k are a exception not the norm

2. Quality of live is definitly higher in some parts of europe. There are public statistics for that

[1] https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/rankings_by_country.j...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report

[3] http://www.businessinsider.com/happiest-countries-best-quali...

There is really no reason to argue that, more money does not mean more quality of life. Especially its very different if you look below to the IT bubble.

This.

I went to the US last summer and found most people in awe when I told them I was there for the whole month, and it was not even my first vacation that year.

The misunderstanding here, is that some believe 100k$ equals better life no matter what. In France the fact that most people have a decent life makes mine better as well.

Also, I'd like to point out that universal, guaranteed, un-gameable health insurance is VERY different from any insurance you could ever buy from a company.

I never even thought about the fact that something could go wrong to me and I would not have access to the best possible care for any reason whatsoever until I found out about Americans and I remember thinking that was really savage. Then I realized my luck.

To me, the problem is not in the concept, it's about tax evasion.

> I never even thought about the fact that something could go wrong to me and I would not have access to the best possible care for any reason whatsoever until I found out about Americans and I remember thinking that was really savage. Then I realized my luck.

I am based in Switzerland so my health care money also goes to private companies. But these are heavily regulated.

However i can only agree with that statement. I always went to a private clinic because it was near my home and had less people there. It was not special or anything, it was just convenient.

Whatever happens i knew i get help and if i get a bill it some bullshit small costs i can easily pay anyway. The highest bill i ever got was $500 but only because i wanted a lot of random blood tests that no reasonable health care would cover.

No one in America seems to understand how close they are to financial ruin from surprisingly common stuff. My wife has lingering complications from the birth of our last child. My statement of benefits from the insurance company for 2016 shows that they paid $97,000 for her this year, and this was at least the third year in a row at that level. Fortunately, I already had pretty good insurance when this whole mess started for us, and we aren't really at risk of losing it. But I can tell you that it is a significant factor any time I consider changing jobs.

Eh, it's just a matter of having and maintaining insurance. Obviously that's important to get right, but it's not like most engineers are walking around without insurance.

That being said, if Republicans actually follow through on repealing the ACA it could get a whole lot more precarious.

You could use the ACA and/or COBRA to ensure coverage while you're in between jobs -- so what's the problem?

Until a few years ago the ACA was not an option, and the incoming government has been pretty clear that they intend to eliminate the ACA as soon as possible.

> With an American tech salary of $200k/yr, I can pay for all of that (health insurance, student loans, etc.) and still sock away $100k/yr in savings.

Are you sure you're counting it as 200k and not a higher number? With taxes in the bay area, at least 70k of that is gone and surviving on 30k/year is kind of tough if you want to save a full 100k.

> Are you sure you're counting it as 200k and not a higher number?

Yes, I'm quite sure. This is based on my personal life. The trick is to do your saving it tax-advantage accounts and to take any deductions you can.

Still, the taxes are the primary reason I'm not based in SV.

If its a tax advantaged account, its only a 401k at that income level; a traditional IRA is off limits, and while you might be able to do a backdoor Roth conversion, rumor is that loophole is going away.

So what tax advantaged account are you using to stash away the other $77500/year?

I'm not doing all my savings in tax-advantaged accounts, but I get a fair bit through backdoor Roth, solo 401k, and HSA savings.

Plus, as a small business owner I can deduct a lot of my expenses.

That's fair, but you should point out that you're using those advantages that aren't available to a typical employee (solo 401k where you can customize the plan, deducting your business expenses, etc).

That's true, but on the other hand I don't get any free vacation and have to pay for my own insurance.

Whether employed or self-employed, you're still financially much better off in the US.

Is your life plan for everyone to start small tech firms outside Silicon Valley and pay themselves $200k/year? Most developers don't make that much - I don't even think they do in SV.

That sounds like a plan for other people's lives, not a plan for my own. I don't care what you want to do, even if that's working as an underpaid developer in France.

My life plan is to continue building my startup mostly remotely while enjoying the high rate I can charge as an American consultant.

> Most developers don't make that much - I don't even think they do in SV.

$200k is quite standard for a mid-level engineer in SV. If you're not reaching that in total comp, you're probably being underpaid (or being paid in funny money ie. equity).

Well you do have several advantages since I'm guessing your probably in texas, nevada, flordia or washington:

1. Your not an immigrant, so you can structure things as a business.

2. You live in a place with a far lower cost of living than NYC or the bay area that would normally give you that kind of income.

You don't understand; this is not about what YOU (or should I say WE, highly sought-after engineers) can have. The point is that it is an ENTIRE COUNTRY (for the most part) that has access to those benefits and standards of living.

Uh, I do understand how socialism works.

The point is that, from an individual financial perspective, you're much worse off in the EU. I'm not making a normative judgement, just a financial one.

Arguing why "people trot out" socialism from a purely individual financials POV is in large part a normative judgement. In any case, I certainly don't expect a tech visa in France to hope to attract people whose life goal is to retire in 10 years, so on that we probably agree.

> Arguing why "people trot out" socialism from a purely individual financials POV is in large part a normative judgement.

You don't seem to understand what a normative judgement is. I'm not saying whether socialism is good or bad, just that it objectively does not balance out with the less compensation. The OP literally framed it as you getting "these benefits" in compensation for the lower salary and they are simply wrong.

> I certainly don't expect a tech visa in France to hope to attract people whose life goal is to retire in 10 years, so on that we probably agree.

If France isn't hoping to attract people who are hoping to make enough money to retire in 10 years, I question how they'll get any good founders. Successful founders are almost always in a position to retire within 10 years.

It sounds like you're arguing that a socialist state will have trouble attracting capitalists. On that I agree. I don't really see how you imagine startups being built without capitalists though.

Well, you can't make an individual perspective and use the plural "you are much worse off in the EU" at the same time.

Some individuals will fare better in the US, but on average, you'll fare better in France.

Now I agree with you, financially as a tech engineer, you'll come out with more money working in the US.

I disagree that the extra money will lead to a better quality of life, but QOL is very personal. Some people find pleasure in life from very different things.

This entire discussion is scoped to engineering salaries, I'm not trying to make arguments about everyone regardless of career.

For any given engineer, they are definitely financially worse off in the EU.

I'm sympathetic to QOL arguments. Personally, I really don't like SV. NYC is fairly nice though. Plus, the real secret is that after working here for a few years you can switch to remote work in an even higher QOL city.

Ah, sorry if I generalised your argument, ya in the case of tech engineers I'd have to agree with your statement. If you're a decent engineer, you wont find the kind of financial prospect you do in the big tech cities in the US anywhere else, not even close.

You don't understand, you can't entice people who have it better with something worse.

You can't entice EVERYONE, but you can definitely attract or tip the scale for some or many. Your ideas of "better" and "worse" seem rather limited.

> You mention having more vacation. I know plenty of people who switched to contracting in the US so they could have more time to focus on startups and hobbies. They only work maybe half the year, yet still make more than developers do in Europe.

Doubt that. Contracting in London is very profitable. That's possibly the easiest money on the continent.

Sure, contracting in London is "very" profitable but it's still not as profitable as contracting in SV/NYC. It only looks good in comparison because full-time rates are shit.

Also, if you're talking about contracting then all the supposed benefits of a better work-life balance or vacation time are out the window.

Hum. I've seen your name before. I have the feeling we had a similar conversation some time ago over a similar article.

You are dramatically overpaid. Full stop.

Most people, even most developers, are not comparing such a high salary against Europe because most of us don't have a salary like yours.

Where do you that salary number from, American tech salary of 200k/yr?

In Silicon Valley, 200K is a pretty normal salary, I'd say it's actually on the lower end for mid career people.

$200K would be a high salary, meaning a fixed cash payment someone receives on a periodic basis (with $200K being the yearly sum). However, as the value of total compensation, meaning cash salary plus stock plans, retirement plans, the value of healthcare insurance, expected bonuses, etc., then yes I agree it's pretty normal. Indeed, the starting total compensation of college graduates at top tech companies like AmaGooBookSoft is apparently around $175K (see web search results for "What is the salary for graduates starting at <company X>?").

One Quora article claims that the average compensation of tech employees at these companies is above $200K. This is partly why areas that employ many tech workers are facing housing price crises: after covering their costs of living, the surplus compensation often goes into housing. Since housing is seen as "safe" and as a form of investment, it can soak up considerable amounts of surplus income, and since there's only so much of it in a given area, the competition for housing is intense.

I'd say $200k is very typical (if not on the low end) of salary + stock for big companies. Not including other things like insurance or retirement plans which are hard to attach a quantifiable dollar amount to.

In terms of straight dollars, you can easily earn $200k+/yr doing contracting.

Do you have a source for this? Or can people chime in? I could see this for Google or FB which are known to pay pretty well, but is this really "typical"? And even for Google or FB, I imagine $200k would require that you include annual bonuses too.

> In terms of straight dollars, you can easily earn $200k+/yr doing contracting.

But.. is contracting really ever easy? I mean it's hard work getting clients and how many people are qualified enough?

I can vouch for the 200k number, I was earning slightly lower than that 4 years into the industry (before I left to work at a place where the RSUs are worthless before IPO). It wasn't anywhere near Google/FB level.

But I disagree that there are many options to save on tax, etc though. I wasn't too bad, but there was no way I could've saved 50% of that (esp if not locked away like 401k). Just my rent for 1 bed in a average apartment was >50k a year.

> Your entire working career could be only 10 years. [...] European developers are underpaid. Full stop.

If your chosen standard is that software developers must be financially independent demi-gods after ten years, then yes, by that standard, European developers are underpaid. It's not clear that that's really the correct standard, though.

I love how every thread eventually devolves into this.