Hacker News Reader

Comment by nly | Hacker News Reader

I have recently jumped ship from an employer of 3 years after adopting a similar attitude.

New Job will pay me double and as such will help me achieve my goals.

Old Company said if I stayed I could achieve a 25% increase in TC if I continued to work on "impactful projects" for 2 years or so. But those projects are the ones I hated there (otherwise a great company)

I've seen first hand when developers leave how all their prideful work becomes a burden to be distributed and shared, and while on notice myself I've seen how all my best and most impactful ideas and projects has been deprioritised. I expect some of it to be lost forever when I go. Instead of milking me for info on my most useful works (libraries, scripts, etc), they have me reassigning meaningless JIRA tickets.

View on HN

>Old Company said if I stayed I could achieve a 25% increase [within 2 years]

For existing employees, this is rather high, but as you did, you should discount this. To get that boost with your current employer, you need to (i) be irreplaceable for a critical service; or (ii) show proof of external offers.

HR/Finance will sets wages at low-mid market so that the 10 other high performing/underpaid employees in your situation will stay and only you will leave. HR's fine with that bet, and people with initiative like you are the victors.

My TC increased 7-10%/yr each year I was there, so the promise is inline with expectations. Me and my partner just can't wait 2 years for 25% when I can have 2x now. Even with 2x, raising kids will be financially challenging.

Were you making a very small amount then? You said you were in college 20 years ago. Did you start your career very late or do you want an very large salary before you have kids? I made $60K right out of college (far less than 20 years ago) as a software developer at a small consultancy in one of the cheapest cities in the country.

People on here are always talking about changing jobs and getting a huge salary increase, but these numbers don't make sense unless you were tremendously underpaid for many years.

I’m not OP but my numbers are similar.

I spent most of my twenties in college and grad school. Then worked in the Midwest in my early thirties making $100k-$130k.

I moved to Silicon Valley and took a job for $150k. That was a downgrade considering the much higher cost of living, but it seemed like a good stepping stone at the time. I stayed at that company for way too long working towards a promotion that was dangled in front of me but never came, and finally switched to FANG for a 2X increase in total comp.

And many people at my age in the company make about 2X+ of what I make now. The housing prices here are so crazy that I’m ready to throw in the towel on SV, even if it means a pay cut. My QOL was highest outside of the Bay Area working for less.

In the end, those who own the apartments and the buildings will always be able to capture a significant part of the economical output of a city or country.

All that clever software that increased the company's revenue by 10%? A large part of those additional earnings ended up in some landlord's pocket.

We're all just working around the clock so that landlords can increase their rents and sip cocktails.

That’s my main issue with the way our society is structured. There’s a class difference between those who own a property and those who don’t even if they do the exactly same job. I don’t even talk about the people who have not done single contribution to the society and live of on the rent of inherited properties.

It’s like the peasants who work all day and have nothing when people from blue blood are having generations living of their backs in castles.

Having an elite is fine, it’s even better when class movement is feasible but when you have a large class of people doing nothing or rewarded drastically differently for the same input, things are not fine.

Ye. You need to own "the means of production", which in eg. New York or SV is the house you live in, since the house is the reason you can work close to the easy money.

A friend is thinking about to open a restaurant in a very attractive location, but I said, if you don't own the property the restaurant is in, the land lord will just increase rent until the any profit is barely OK anyways. There is no money in that.

> if you don't own the property the restaurant is in, the land lord will just increase rent until the any profit is barely OK anyways.

Then, contract around it with a capped escalation factor? And doesn't this apply to any <insert business> renting space?

No, I don't think it applies to all businesses. Like, restaurants are tied to a location and reputation. An office not so much. Bigger corporations like McDonalds or Starbucks probably have more bargain power and a better picture of how much a location will pay out, etc.

Are you sure most restaurants aren't renting their premises in any case? Owning a property sounds like a massive investment before you're even able to do any business.

Of course the restaurant business is probably hit-and-miss and risky, and owning the premises might give you more stability, at least if you don't have a large amount of debt. It sounds to me like your stance might be quite cynical in the sense that almost nobody would try starting a restaurant if they considered owning their premises a necessity.

You're making $300k and not financially comfortable starting a family?

Welcome to SV

If you think you can't live on 300k with a family in the bay area, then you need a serious reality check.

On a $300k income, even with one earner, you can comfortably afford a $1m+ home (of which there are plenty of single family homes available in many parts of the bay area), and while yes the COL for things like groceries/eating out is higher than in Austin TX, it's not high enough to seriously claim that it's not liveable

Show me a 3-4 bedroom house for $1M, and I’ll tell you how many hours the commute would take.

I work on the Peninsula. 90% of 3+ bedroom houses currently on the market here cost over $1.75M. Those below that, in the bottom 10%, are what you’d expect to find in the bottom 10%. There are many great places to live where I wouldn’t be forced to choose between that or spending a couple hours a day in traffic. Less money and higher quality of life.

300k is probably total comp. Meaning that base could be around 170k to 180k. Cut half of that in taxes. That's what you keep.

A little bit of everything you said. I didn't start working in software right away. I didn't complete my (non-CS) degree, and so thought a career in software was out of reach. Right at the beginning I was shot down without interview by a bunch of companies because I had no industry experience. Once I had my lucky break (massively underpaid but fun work with good people) everything changed.

Every time I've changed jobs to date I've had multiple job offers. 3 years ago I had 3 offers from 3 different companies. This time around I had the same - 3 offers, 3 companies. Just in the last 5 years my salary has increased 6 fold.

My basic philosophy with respect to compensation is to take home enough to maintain the lifestyle you want + 20% extra to save and invest.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com