8 ms·

A 7 figure annual income is setting the affluent definition very high. You can work at Google for a decade and end up a multi-millionaire, with enough money to

A 7 figure annual income is setting the affluent definition very high. You can work at Google for a decade and end up a multi-millionaire, with enough money to retire to most places in the US. From your other comment, it seems like you haven't done the analysis on this. Top companies are routinely paying $200k-300k these days. That's enough to save a million dollars over a decade even if you have a family.

dvt 10y ago
$200k-$300k in places like San Francisco and Menlo Park. Clearly, you don't understand how cost of living works. Also, to make that much, you need to be at around a level of SDE3/tech lead, which is by no means easy (a decade of making low six-figures & some political panache). See this top answer on Quora, for a pretty detailed analysis: https://www.quora.com/Will-I-be-able-to-become-a-millionaire-by-working-at-a-big-Software-company-like-Google-Facebook-Microsoft-etc-all-my-life https://www.quora.com/Will-I-be-able-to-become-a-millionaire... You might be able to become a millionaire in 25 years assuming a frugal lifestyle and no big life event costs, but that's optimistic.
- morgante 10y ago
  You can argue all you want, but I understand how cost of living works plenty well. SV is expensive but not so expensive that it wipes out $200k in income. If you're careful about expenses you can easily put away tens of thousands annually. This is backed up by own personal experience as a developer in NYC (hardly a low cost area). I expect to have a million dollars saved up within a decade and I certainly haven't relied on political panache to get there.
  - dvt 10y ago
    Sorry for seeming incredulous, but if you're saying that you're saving 100k a year in NYC, then you must be making like 400k or living in a cardboard box. Even with a 300k salary, you could only save 10k a month if you only had 5k worth of monthly expenses (3-4k is easily rent in NYC). And keep in mind that making 300k-400k is not typical.
    - morgante 10y ago
      I make substantially less than 400k and I assure you that I do not live in a cardboard box. $5k is high for monthly expenses. I rented a single bedroom in Manhattan for $1850 and you can save even more if you're willing to live with roommates. I'm not sure what I can do to convince you I'm not lying, but consider that median household income is less than $100k in both SV and NY. If the average person can get by on <$100k, why wouldn't you be able to save tons of money if you're making $200k? I have friends getting by on $40k in NYC. Can you imagine how easy it is to save if you match your lifestyle to theirs? Of course, it's not going to buy you a luxury lifestyle. But personally I'd rather maintain a high savings rate than live in a glitzy apartment and spend thousands on bottle service.
      - dvt 10y ago
        Ok, so maybe I'm just bad at math. I know that if you make 200k as an engineer in NYC (which is STILL high[1]), you make around 10k a month after taxes. 10k - 2k for rent - 1k for expenses = 7k saved if you don't go on vacation, and literally do nothing that costs money for ten years. Even saving 7k a month, you won't save 100k a year. [1] https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/new-york-city-software-engineer-salary-SRCH_IL.0,13_IM615_KO14,31.htm https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/new-york-city-software-en...
        morgante 10y ago
        7k is about right. My average savings rate over the past 3 years has been $6k and it's increased as my salary has. You're forgetting to include investment gains. With them, I can go on regular vacations and still reach $1m within 10 years. Also, since someone else mentioned it, my model conservatively assumes a 4% inflation rate. Over the 3 years I've been tracking, my model has consistently underestimated the growth in my savings.
        riboflava 10y ago
        $1k for other 'expenses' is huge. You can drive that down at least by half with wiser spending.
  - chronic81 10y ago
    > I expect to have a million dollars saved up within a decade and I certainly haven't relied on political panache to get there. In 10 years, your "million" will be worth 800K now. Not everyone wants to sit around for decades to become a millionaire.
- the8bit 10y ago
  A lot of people make TL within 5-7 years, its not that uncommon (although we are talking about top 1-5% of programmers). Saving $1MM on west coast salary in 10 years is really doable. I am on track to do it in effectively 7 years or so.
kevinskii 10y ago
In support of your argument, I would be surprised if the key engineers in large companies (ex: Jeff Dean, Peter Norvig, Yann LeCun, Andrew Ng, ...) aren't earning 7 figure annual incomes, especially after stock incentives are taken into consideration. They all work for someone else.
jazzyk 10y ago
>Top companies are routinely paying $200k-300k these days Yup, all four of them - Apple, Facebook, Google, Netflix. </sarcasm>
- jazzyk 10y ago
  Instead of downvoting, please check the median salary for a PRINCIPAL software engineer on Glassdoor (it is self-reported, I believe) - it is 140K, nationally. https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/principal-software-engineer-salary-SRCH_KO0,27.htm https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/principal-software-engine...
  - morgante 10y ago
    Glassdoor skews heavily downwards. Even for companies I've worked at, where I knew what everyone made, its data was roughly 25-40% below reality. Also, why look at median salary? We're arguing over whether it's "possible" to become affluent as a mere employee—even if only the top 20% of engineers are capable of it, it's certainly possible.
    - jazzyk 10y ago
      Maybe I am a total loser, but I am not aware of any companies which "routinely" pay $300K for technical positions, not even at the Director level, in the Boston area.
      - dvt 10y ago
        Because these companies don't exist. Top companies pay SDE3s and tech leads like 300-400k. Medium-sized companies in high cost of living areas pay directors around that much. No one pays engineers that much. Literally no one. Unless you're Norvig or Dijkstra.
        jazzyk 10y ago
        Per Quora, the highest tech executive position (CTO) pays in the lower $200Ks (non-founder, up to $75M): https://www.quora.com/What-would-a-CTO-compensation-equity-be-for-a-small-startup https://www.quora.com/What-would-a-CTO-compensation-equity-b... Per CIO magazine (2015), CTOs make up to $220K, directors up to $174K: http://www.cio.com/article/2878056/salary/tech-salary-guide-for-2015.html#slide2 http://www.cio.com/article/2878056/salary/tech-salary-guide-... Pretty much all surveys show similar ranges. Do they all "skew heavily downwards"?
ryandrake 10y ago
You're very likely talking about the top 0.1% employees at the top 0.1% of companies. Every time salary is discussed on HN, inevitably someone brings up this "fact" that engineers are "routinely" making $200K or $300K or $400K or whatever other ridiculous figure. Given average Bay Area software engineer compensation being between $100K and $140K depending on your source, even at $200K we're probably talking at least 1 or 2 standard deviations from the mean. But there's no fighting HN anecdotes. There's always someone here who knows That Guy At Google Who Makes $300K or That Buddy's Roommate That Gets $400K Straight Out Of School At Facebook, and suddenly this turns into "everyone must be earning that much." Come on. Yes. It is surely possible to work at Google for a decade and end up a multi-millionaire. It's possible to bowl 300, too, and hit 3 hole-in-ones in a row. It's astronomically more likely most people who work at Google or any other software engineering role for a decade will not end up multi-millionaires. Pretending otherwise grossly overstates the (admittedly okay) lifestyles and salaries most tech folks enjoy.
- usaar333 10y ago
  This is all in the greater thread's context of whether you are more likely to get rich working for someone else or yourself. Sure, only the top engineers get paid $300k+/year, but an even smaller number of founders are able to pull that sort of effective salary. I'd wager that these days a smart engineer is financially better off at a big co than even starting a startup. For more specifics, large, prestigious companies such as Google have salary and equity bands based on levels. The majority of engineers at Google are going to be above $200k total comp (salary + bonus + equity). Here's a glassdoor link for context: https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Google-Senior-Software-Engineer-Salaries-E9079_D_KO7,31.htm https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Google-Senior-Software-Engi...
  - ryandrake 10y ago
    > This is is all in the greater thread's context of whether you are more likely to get rich working for someone else or yourself. The point I'm trying to make is that both likelihoods are very small. Maybe you have a 1 in 1000 shot at becoming a multi-millionaire by working at BigCo vs. a 1 in 2000 shot at a startup. Some people are claiming that Google, Facebook, etc. are simply pumping out millionaire after millionaire and this is obviously not true. And when you call them on this, they trot out the usual "Bbbbut I know That One Guy At Google Who..." anecdote to somehow prove that everyone in the valley is printing money. I generally don't trust equity figures when looking at Glassdoor, because there are no details. My guess is most of what's self-reported as yearly equity is really just signing bonus equity that vests after 4 years and then you're back to making base salary.

dvt 10y ago

$200k-$300k in places like San Francisco and Menlo Park. Clearly, you don't understand how cost of living works. Also, to make that much, you need to be at around a level of SDE3/tech lead, which is by no means easy (a decade of making low six-figures & some political panache). See this top answer on Quora, for a pretty detailed analysis: https://www.quora.com/Will-I-be-able-to-become-a-millionaire-by-working-at-a-big-Software-company-like-Google-Facebook-Microsoft-etc-all-my-life https://www.quora.com/Will-I-be-able-to-become-a-millionaire... You might be able to become a millionaire in 25 years assuming a frugal lifestyle and no big life event costs, but that's optimistic.

morgante 10y ago
You can argue all you want, but I understand how cost of living works plenty well. SV is expensive but not so expensive that it wipes out $200k in income. If you're careful about expenses you can easily put away tens of thousands annually. This is backed up by own personal experience as a developer in NYC (hardly a low cost area). I expect to have a million dollars saved up within a decade and I certainly haven't relied on political panache to get there.
- dvt 10y ago
  Sorry for seeming incredulous, but if you're saying that you're saving 100k a year in NYC, then you must be making like 400k or living in a cardboard box. Even with a 300k salary, you could only save 10k a month if you only had 5k worth of monthly expenses (3-4k is easily rent in NYC). And keep in mind that making 300k-400k is not typical.
  - morgante 10y ago
    I make substantially less than 400k and I assure you that I do not live in a cardboard box. $5k is high for monthly expenses. I rented a single bedroom in Manhattan for $1850 and you can save even more if you're willing to live with roommates. I'm not sure what I can do to convince you I'm not lying, but consider that median household income is less than $100k in both SV and NY. If the average person can get by on <$100k, why wouldn't you be able to save tons of money if you're making $200k? I have friends getting by on $40k in NYC. Can you imagine how easy it is to save if you match your lifestyle to theirs? Of course, it's not going to buy you a luxury lifestyle. But personally I'd rather maintain a high savings rate than live in a glitzy apartment and spend thousands on bottle service.
    - dvt 10y ago
      Ok, so maybe I'm just bad at math. I know that if you make 200k as an engineer in NYC (which is STILL high[1]), you make around 10k a month after taxes. 10k - 2k for rent - 1k for expenses = 7k saved if you don't go on vacation, and literally do nothing that costs money for ten years. Even saving 7k a month, you won't save 100k a year. [1] https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/new-york-city-software-engineer-salary-SRCH_IL.0,13_IM615_KO14,31.htm https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/new-york-city-software-en...
      - morgante 10y ago
        7k is about right. My average savings rate over the past 3 years has been $6k and it's increased as my salary has. You're forgetting to include investment gains. With them, I can go on regular vacations and still reach $1m within 10 years. Also, since someone else mentioned it, my model conservatively assumes a 4% inflation rate. Over the 3 years I've been tracking, my model has consistently underestimated the growth in my savings.
      - riboflava 10y ago
        $1k for other 'expenses' is huge. You can drive that down at least by half with wiser spending.
- chronic81 10y ago
  > I expect to have a million dollars saved up within a decade and I certainly haven't relied on political panache to get there. In 10 years, your "million" will be worth 800K now. Not everyone wants to sit around for decades to become a millionaire.
the8bit 10y ago
A lot of people make TL within 5-7 years, its not that uncommon (although we are talking about top 1-5% of programmers). Saving $1MM on west coast salary in 10 years is really doable. I am on track to do it in effectively 7 years or so.

kevinskii 10y ago

In support of your argument, I would be surprised if the key engineers in large companies (ex: Jeff Dean, Peter Norvig, Yann LeCun, Andrew Ng, ...) aren't earning 7 figure annual incomes, especially after stock incentives are taken into consideration. They all work for someone else.

jazzyk 10y ago

>Top companies are routinely paying $200k-300k these days Yup, all four of them - Apple, Facebook, Google, Netflix. </sarcasm>

jazzyk 10y ago
Instead of downvoting, please check the median salary for a PRINCIPAL software engineer on Glassdoor (it is self-reported, I believe) - it is 140K, nationally. https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/principal-software-engineer-salary-SRCH_KO0,27.htm https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/principal-software-engine...
- morgante 10y ago
  Glassdoor skews heavily downwards. Even for companies I've worked at, where I knew what everyone made, its data was roughly 25-40% below reality. Also, why look at median salary? We're arguing over whether it's "possible" to become affluent as a mere employee—even if only the top 20% of engineers are capable of it, it's certainly possible.
  - jazzyk 10y ago
    Maybe I am a total loser, but I am not aware of any companies which "routinely" pay $300K for technical positions, not even at the Director level, in the Boston area.
    - dvt 10y ago
      Because these companies don't exist. Top companies pay SDE3s and tech leads like 300-400k. Medium-sized companies in high cost of living areas pay directors around that much. No one pays engineers that much. Literally no one. Unless you're Norvig or Dijkstra.
      - jazzyk 10y ago
        Per Quora, the highest tech executive position (CTO) pays in the lower $200Ks (non-founder, up to $75M): https://www.quora.com/What-would-a-CTO-compensation-equity-be-for-a-small-startup https://www.quora.com/What-would-a-CTO-compensation-equity-b... Per CIO magazine (2015), CTOs make up to $220K, directors up to $174K: http://www.cio.com/article/2878056/salary/tech-salary-guide-for-2015.html#slide2 http://www.cio.com/article/2878056/salary/tech-salary-guide-... Pretty much all surveys show similar ranges. Do they all "skew heavily downwards"?

ryandrake 10y ago

You're very likely talking about the top 0.1% employees at the top 0.1% of companies. Every time salary is discussed on HN, inevitably someone brings up this "fact" that engineers are "routinely" making $200K or $300K or $400K or whatever other ridiculous figure. Given average Bay Area software engineer compensation being between $100K and $140K depending on your source, even at $200K we're probably talking at least 1 or 2 standard deviations from the mean. But there's no fighting HN anecdotes. There's always someone here who knows That Guy At Google Who Makes $300K or That Buddy's Roommate That Gets $400K Straight Out Of School At Facebook, and suddenly this turns into "everyone must be earning that much." Come on. Yes. It is surely possible to work at Google for a decade and end up a multi-millionaire. It's possible to bowl 300, too, and hit 3 hole-in-ones in a row. It's astronomically more likely most people who work at Google or any other software engineering role for a decade will not end up multi-millionaires. Pretending otherwise grossly overstates the (admittedly okay) lifestyles and salaries most tech folks enjoy.

usaar333 10y ago
This is all in the greater thread's context of whether you are more likely to get rich working for someone else or yourself. Sure, only the top engineers get paid $300k+/year, but an even smaller number of founders are able to pull that sort of effective salary. I'd wager that these days a smart engineer is financially better off at a big co than even starting a startup. For more specifics, large, prestigious companies such as Google have salary and equity bands based on levels. The majority of engineers at Google are going to be above $200k total comp (salary + bonus + equity). Here's a glassdoor link for context: https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Google-Senior-Software-Engineer-Salaries-E9079_D_KO7,31.htm https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Google-Senior-Software-Engi...
- ryandrake 10y ago
  > This is is all in the greater thread's context of whether you are more likely to get rich working for someone else or yourself. The point I'm trying to make is that both likelihoods are very small. Maybe you have a 1 in 1000 shot at becoming a multi-millionaire by working at BigCo vs. a 1 in 2000 shot at a startup. Some people are claiming that Google, Facebook, etc. are simply pumping out millionaire after millionaire and this is obviously not true. And when you call them on this, they trot out the usual "Bbbbut I know That One Guy At Google Who..." anecdote to somehow prove that everyone in the valley is printing money. I generally don't trust equity figures when looking at Glassdoor, because there are no details. My guess is most of what's self-reported as yearly equity is really just signing bonus equity that vests after 4 years and then you're back to making base salary.