25 ms·

Not Saying Winter Is Coming, but Where’s Your Coat?

454 points by KentBeck 10y ago

thesehands 10y ago
Certainly interesting. This felt out of place to me in the concrete actions you can take now: "Keep having children because a) the world needs more smart children and b) by the time they get really expensive, who knows what things will be like." Sure these are fair points but dependents do limit ones ability to make decisions 'suddenly'
- mavdi 10y ago
  Indeed. As a dad I can say having kids is by far the most financial unsound decision one can make.
  - dicroce 10y ago
    Life isn't all about money.
    - rco8786 10y ago
      No, but the article was.
    - facetube 10y ago
      Until you're out of money. Then life becomes very much about money.
    - hx87 10y ago
      The poorer you are, the more your life is about money.
    - allemagne 10y ago
      "Having money's not everything. Not having it is"
      - mjrbrennan 10y ago
        Nice Kanye quote
  - homegarlic 10y ago
    Depends on where you live. I can live on about $900 usd per month feeding 5 people earning more than twice that amount (excluding the income of my significant other). The quality of life is great and I earn more than I will ever spend - my paycheck is about 3 times above the national average. Since health care and education is "free" in Croatia, I don't have any debt and feel very secure when it comes to needs of my children.
    - matt_wulfeck 10y ago
      It's not food that breaks the bank though, it's medical costs. How is your insurance?
      - allannienhuis 10y ago
        > Since health care and education is "free" in Croatia most places with free health care at least cap the cost of prescriptions and other related health costs to some pretty reasonable amount in most cases. Most people living in western countries outside of the USA really don't lose any sleep thinking about health care costs. There are always some exceptions (some chronic or unusual conditions not covered), but it really isn't on the list of things most people worry about much. I've always found it astounding that people in the USA seem to think living with the looming spectre of financial collapse from medical debt as an acceptable (or only realistic) option for their society.
      - homegarlic 10y ago
        Yep, insurance (which is universal and funded through taxes mostly) covers a vast array of stuff, from severe surgeries to small checkups. Even cancer chemotherapy wouldn't cost me a penny. I do pay around 30 usd monthly to cover me, my significant other, and my children - when it comes to those small medical costs (medical checkups, vaccines etc.). Everything more complicated is covered by the tax system :D I do not think there could be a situation where they would decline to operate, or that they would bankrupt me with the bill.
- tjpaudio 10y ago
  I think the author is touching on the fact that there is so much uncertainty around this due to children being so long term that putting off making your family for short-term financial reasons doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The short-term gain from putting off kids is small.
  - hx87 10y ago
    What about the long term gain?
    - rglullis 10y ago
      I am all for delayed gratification, being mindful of your lifestyle and consumption, but this should not translate to having all of our life decisions based on the final chapters of our lives. In the long term, we are all dead. With regards with kids and family planning, the cruel calculus (especially for women) is that the more we get close to the best income-generating years, the closer we get to risky pregnancies and lower fertility. I am losing count of how many mid-30s women I've met who kept postponing to start their families and now are desperately trying to revert their biological clocks.
      - ryandrake 10y ago
        Times have changed. When my parents were in their twenties, they were buying their first house, having kids, and starting up the (relatively certain) career ladder. If you're in your twenties today, there's no way you're thinking about either of these because you're saddled with six figures of student loan debt, and do not have the employment certainty it takes to take root in an area to buy a home.
        phamilton 10y ago
        > they were buying their first house, having kids, and starting up the (relatively certain) career ladder There's still plenty of people still doing exactly that. Get out of the HCOL areas and there are tons of people going to an inexpensive state school and buying a house in a new suburb outside of Boise Idaho or wherever. I bring up Boise because I did an internship with Micron 5 years ago and other interns were meeting with realtors so they could buy a house as soon as they graduated.
- Decade 10y ago
  If you have 6 months in the bank, then you don’t need to make decisions “suddenly.” I think it is sound advice. Life does not wait for anything. Would you rather be a poor person who raised a family, or do you want to be a rich person who waited too long? Assuming you want kids at all, of course. If you have the financial discipline and spousal support to have 6 months saved up, then you can apply that discipline to raising the kids. No private school that you can’t afford. No designer clothing or unnecessary shoes. No TV with ads that awaken consumer envy.
- dhd415 10y ago
  That statement makes sense given that there's really never a convenient time to have kids or a point in time at which they will become less expensive. If having kids is a priority for you, it's better to start earlier rather than later because you'll be able to make decisions with the next 18+ years of raising children in mind rather than an uncertain horizon of childlessness followed by the possibility of children.
  - 100k 10y ago
    To add to this: I won't say anyone should have kids now or ever, but take it from me, if you wait to have kids it can become significantly more expensive (not to mention the emotional cost).
    - harmegido 10y ago
      im curious as to why kids get more expensive the longer you wait to have them?
      - dhd415 10y ago
        Lots of my peers in their late 30s and early or mid 40s who have decided they now want kids are spending 5-figure sums on fertility procedures such as IVF, etc. Also, there's a substantial increase in the probability of birth defects when the mother reaches that age, so other medical costs can increase dramatically. It's not a financial cost, but there's also the fact that it's nice to be relatively young and healthy when you're chasing toddlers around the house.
        hx87 10y ago
        Would they have forgone more income than the cost of fertility procedures had they had kids earlier though? Besides, if you use a surrogate mother and use donated or frozen eggs and sperm, you sidestep the higher probability of birth defects. > it's nice to be relatively young and healthy when you're chasing toddlers Why the assumption that you'll be not so healthy in your 40s and 50s? My parents had me in their late 30s and they didn't seem to lack for energy compared to what they and their friends remember of their 20s. Hell, I'll bet even if they had more kids right now they'll still have the same health and energy.
dharma1 10y ago
Words of wisdom here
Globz 10y ago
6 months in the bank is always nice to have and probably a must by now.
- chrisdbaldwin 10y ago
  As someone who has recently needed said 6 months in the bank, I agree completely, yes - you need it. I burned out, but I couldn't have done something about it (quit) without that cushion.
- fs111 10y ago
  You could also live in a country where there is unemployment pay...
  - throwanem 10y ago
    In what possible way does unemployment coverage make having a few months in the bank not a good idea? In my country, we have such coverage, and I've used it. It doesn't suffice to meet any but the most nominal financial obligations, and the bureaucracy involved in obtaining it is impressive - if you don't plan to cover your own bills for the month or two before the checks start coming, you're likely to be screwed.
  - ThatGeoGuy 10y ago
    For these to be equivalent, your unemployment pay would have to equal the value of 6months in the bank. Ignoring the fact you could have both, I can only think of two scenarios where unemployment / welfare is equal to six months pay: 1. You live in a very socially generous country and the unemployed are paid what they made before unemployment. 2. You did not make very much money to begin with. Having six month's salary in the bank is a good strategy, regardless of where you live (ignoring countries where banks are untrustworthy enough that people don't bank their money).
- raddar4 10y ago
  Is there any particular reason, beyond it being a saying, that it should be 6 months in the bank? (Is there any data to support that number?) Just wondering, if anyone knows.
haney 10y ago
I appreciate this author's "hope for sunshine but prepare for rain" philosophy as opposed so many others view that either "the sky is falling" or "the good times will last forever" narratives. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
- athenot 10y ago
  This is akin to the mantra my wife had while working in the ICU: "Hope for the best, plan for the worst."
carlmcqueen 10y ago
Not a huge fan of the 'have kids, the world needs smart people' this seems to pretend that his intended audience holds the key to wisdom and the only way to keep that going is for his audience to have kids.
- bloaf 10y ago
  In his defense, he is probably closer to correct than other organizations that push such messages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    Quiverfull are actually pretty smart with their strategy - why try and convert everyone if you can outbreed them in two or three generations and become democratic majority? About the only thing protecting everyone else here is poor belief retention rate among their children.
- GrumpyYoungMan 10y ago
  It's been well established that children of parents with high education levels, formal or informal (which describes the HN audience well), are themselves more likely to be successful and well educated. Nothing really controversial about that.
  - hx87 10y ago
    That's true, but in that case "keep adopting kids" would also work.
    - aianus 10y ago
      No, IQ is extremely hereditary.
      - CoryG89 10y ago
        The heritability of IQ is often estimated at 0.4 according to Wikipedia. Not very high, but not insignificant. Height has 0.8 heritability. Even if you're a genius, it doesn't mean your child will be. I think 0.4 suggests environmental factors are more important.
mgkimsal 10y ago
> I’ve been telling my students, “Take a chance, you can get another job on Monday.” For students, maybe, especially if they're entry level jobs. However, for anyone even mid-level, I don't think this has been good advice for several years. Perhaps in SF it's been fine, but even for many mid-level (and certainly sr folks) I know, finding another job "on monday" has not been the case. (getting an interview, especially via a recruiter, has still been relatively quick, from what I hear). Employers have been far more picky than I think many people expect. Compounding this is that they sometimes have suboptimal folks in particular roles, and those people tend to exacerbate the problem when interviewing/finding new folks. In any event, glad to see somewhat balanced view, vs the extremes we normally see.
- arenaninja 10y ago
  I agree. On my latest job, it took more than three weeks from me accepting their offer to a starting date, normally this is fine, but I was unemployed at the time. By contrast, my previous job was ready to start weeks before I was.
  - mgkimsal 10y ago
    How long did it take to get that offer, from when you started looking?
    - arenaninja 10y ago
      Between 2-3 weeks, though I think my first interview was 1.5 weeks from when I started looking.
- forgetsusername 10y ago
  >However, for anyone even mid-level, I don't think this has been good advice for several years. The implication is that this advice has been good historically, but is "going away". In the article he argues to value jobs over job prospects.
  - 10y ago
startupdiscuss 10y ago
I just have a point about the last piece of advice: "Make small convex investments. Learn a little bit of a lot of things–machine learning, internet of things, virtual and augmented reality, 3D printing." I find a lot of advice to be diametrically opposed to this. Many other people advise you to "go deep" in a single topic and be the expert on that topic. (It also seems to contradict the point above it, but only if they are both read a certain way.) So which is better advice? Is there a study out there?
- duaneb 10y ago
  I think it's like any other type of investing: iterate on what you invest in every x days/months/years and make adjustments based on how their value changes. Also, diversify.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- mgkimsal 10y ago
  I think for many folks, at some level, you are enough of an expert in tech ABC that spending a lot more time on it gives diminishing returns. At some point, investing your time in something that's enough of a departure that might only be a 'jr-level' in that tech might be a good thing, while not completely ignoring your previous skills. Just my own view on this as someone with the 'luxury' of already being 'expert level' enough in certain tech to be able to look at new things.
- corysama 10y ago
  The advice I see everywhere is to do both. Be a "T shaped" individual who has a shallow knowledge over a broad range and a deep knowledge over a narrow range.
- caseyohara 10y ago
  They're not mutually exclusive. You can learn a little bit of a lot of things on the path to "going deep" in a single topic. I believe this is how you end up with T-shaped skills: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-shaped_skills https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-shaped_skills
rampage101 10y ago
He does not seem to state any reasons he thinks "Winter is Coming". The earnings of Facebook, Apple, Amazon, and Google tell a different story than his.
- coderholic 10y ago
  He does: > Vulnerability is here. Falling valuations. Layoffs. Shifting geography. He also isn't saying the winter is coming, but that things might be changing and we should be prepared if they do > To reiterate, I’m suggesting preparing to make good decisions if the rules change drastically.
  - Decade 10y ago
    > Shifting geography. First thing I thought of with that was: Earthquakes. All these famous tech companies are built in an earthquake zone. Amazon has the further misfortune of being in an area without a history of preparing for the earthquake. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-one http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-... Discussed https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3da1mh/we_are_earthquake_experts_ask_us_anything_about/ https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3da1mh/we_are_earthqu... and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9878160 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9878160 But I think geography could be referring to the next disruptive technology, or how the existing tech centers are strangling their young and forcing new tech companies to move where it’s more affordable. Different types of geography.
- jmcgough 10y ago
  He never does state that, he says "not saying winter is coming". I.e., regardless of what the future has in store, put yourself in a favorable position.
- uptown 10y ago
  Facebook, Apple, Amazon, and Google also have established business models in-place. Many younger companies are burning investment dollars in the hopes of turning profitable or being acquired.
- 10y ago
abglassman 10y ago
I think this is good advice- risk management is important in managing your own career. It's easy to get complacent with recruiter outreach hitting your InMail at a steady clip but macro, micro, exogenous, endogenous factors can shift your short-to-medium term career prospects significantly.
trevyn 10y ago
And my favorite piece of advice: Don't take advice from people less successful than you.
- fisherjeff 10y ago
  I tend to agree with the article in general, which has implications that run counter to that piece of advice. Namely, that current success is not necessarily a predictor of future success.
  - trevyn 10y ago
    Can you think of a stronger predictor of future success? ;)
    - andrewprock 10y ago
      Of course. In a world where success is due in large part to random events, it's easy to come up with better predictors about whether someone will be successful in the future.
      - trevyn 10y ago
        Such as?
        rhizome 10y ago
        Luck.
    - oldmanjay 10y ago
      Sure, family money.
    - dredmorbius 10y ago
      A causal mechanism that seems likely to propogate to the future. Winning the lottery can lead to present success. Having one once, in a fair game (and that's a valid condition to check) is exceptionally unlikely to lead to future success. OTOH, pursing a line of work in which you haven't yet succeeded, but others have, may be an area in which lack of present success doesn't preclude future success. I tend to look to process with more emphasis than outcome.
Kinnard 10y ago
Perhaps it may not be winter everywhere all at once?
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  It depends on the number of nuclear weapons that detonated.
CoachRufus87 10y ago
6 months of gross salary, net salary, or expenses?
- sp332 10y ago
  The ability to live for 6 months on your savings. So, expenses I guess.
- nstj 10y ago
  It's a completely reasonable question - not sure why you'd downvote
- kasey_junk 10y ago
  Typically it means 6 months of expenses you can't get rid of if you have to. So if you current budget says that you need $500 a month in groceries, but you know you could get that down to $200 with realistic sacrifice, you count the $200 not the $500.
  - et-al 10y ago
    The key part is the realistic sacrifice you mentioned. When budgeting, people often understate their expenses and tolerance for cheap food. Leave the grocery budget as is, but cut down steaks and eating out.
- samatman 10y ago
  How about: get 6 months of expenses, then get up to 6 months of net, then 6 months of gross, then keep saving at that rate while investing anything you don't need to keep liquid? There is no ceiling past which it doesn't make sense to have money.
  - mrec 10y ago
    That assumes decent real returns on investment, which I'm not convinced really exist any more without taking on more risk than many are comfortable with. If your savings get to a level where they're evaporating to inflation faster than you can top them up, that arguably doesn't make sense any more. Good piece on Bill Gross today which I largely agree with; key pull quote for me is "capitalism cannot function efficiently at zero-bound rates". http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-funds-janus-gross-idUKKCN10E1EY?il=0 http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-funds-janus-gross-idUKKCN10...
deadmik3 10y ago
> Keep having children Really? This is fiscal advice?
- atemerev 10y ago
  It might be, with nearly inevitable retirement schemes crash.
- sp332 10y ago
  I think he means: don't put off having kids because the near-to-mid-term outlook is iffy. Your kids (he says!) won't be super expensive until the long-term, and since there's no way to know what that looks like, there's no reason to put it off.
  - Qworg 10y ago
    In some ways, I disagree. I've found the expenses of children to be bathtub shaped - very expensive up front, dropping until they start public school, then ramping up slowly until they make the big jump to college.
    - bryanlarsen 10y ago
      Which sounds like a good reason to have them ASAP, to get as much of that initial expense as possible out of the way before winter comes.
      - ben010783 10y ago
        I think putting them off makes sense because you can start investing early and people tend to earn more as they get older, so it could be less of a financial burden if you have children at an older age.
    - cesarbs 10y ago
      How do they ramp up until college? We saw a considerable reduction in expenses when our kid started public school, since we went from $$$ day care to $ after-school care. We expect expenses to stay somewhat the same until she hits her teenage years when she'll likely become more demanding in terms of clothes, going out with friends, etc. (at which point we plan on encouraging her to find a part-time job).
daveguy 10y ago
FTA: talking about a tech dip with a big external shock. He quotes: "another US genital waving adventure" as one of the shocks along with banking crises, trade route blocking, war, etc. I had quite the wtf? moment with this one. Can someone explain to me what "another US genital waving adventure" means?
- anarchy8 10y ago
  I think he means the US Invasion of Iraq
- lvs 10y ago
  A needless and costly war.
- KentBeck 10y ago
  The invasion of Iraq is what I had in mind. I wanted to point out the senselessness of that operation.
pg_is_a_butt 10y ago
lady whining about baltic invasion as it relates to website developers??! no wonder this ninny cries lady tears all day and calls it depression. you're all idiots.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
knavely 10y ago
I have noticed that people who have lived through dramatic downturns tend to look for a pattern or signs of it happening again. It's probably basic human behavior, once you get burned by something you tend to flinch when you see something similar. I am also not saying he is wrong of course... But I have noticed similar pessimism since 2012. People justifying being unadventurous with "the bubble is gonna burst soon. I have lived through it before." I wonder where else there can be growth though?
morgante 10y ago
I agree with the mentality, but the advice doesn't seem great. In particular, I already follow all of it (even in good times you should have 6 months savings). Since I wasn't around during the dot-com crash, could some of the veterans on HN give more practical advice on how to position yourself to ride out a crash? Right now, my theory is to try to get yourself a job at a stabler tech company with proven profitability (ex. Google). Does that make sense?
- mgkimsal 10y ago
  > my theory is to try to get yourself a job at a stabler tech company with proven profitability How about just a stable company, then make yourself valuable there? Sure if you like tech, you can try for google, but there's so many companies which are dying for competent IT folks (even if their hiring practices seem to fight it) that you can provide a load of value to people in almost any situation. The question then comes up about are they positioned to pay you for that value - is it valuable enough to them? Gotta spend a bit more time finding those, but... they're definitely out there. Basic advice - have a lot of savings, and if your main income stops, be extra frugal (and... hey, even be frugal now if you can). "Cash is king", and having buffer of months or years in the bank can give you time to be more selective and avoid making panic-decisions (which generally aren't when you're in the best frame of mind to make decisions).
  - morgante 10y ago
    My argument against other large companies is: 1. They seem much more likely to undergo major layoffs than Google et al.. If you're not growing, layoffs seem to be a constant. 2. During layoffs, the first people to go are cost centers. IT is a cost center unless your industry is technology. 3. The difference in pay is astronomical. Like, easily 2-3x from the times I've tried interviewing. Even small startups pay developers better (in cash) than most non-tech companies seem to. I'm not too worried about the savings thing. I think I'm covered for a decade if necessary.
    - mgkimsal 10y ago
pmiller2 10y ago
6 months in the bank is pretty standard personal finance advice. The rest is just good, solid career advice that applies to a greater or lesser extent any time.
erdevs 10y ago
If you think winter might be coming and want to prepare financially, the #1 most important piece of advice is this: Lower your expenses. Nothing gets you into trouble more than having a high expense load. Get as close as you can to spending nothing. The next most important piece of advice is to build up cash. 6 months of your monthly burn is cutting it way too close. You should save until you have at least two years. What's more, you should save until you can actually invest some money. These two bits of advice go hand in hand. The lower your expenses, the easier is to save 24+ months of runway up. And the reverse is true too. Beyond that, you can do a couple other things to prepare yourself. You could join a larger, profitable company with no history of major layoffs. (Eg Google, Facebook, many others.) Or, you could take the opportunity now to start your own company, and maybe think about what sorts of businesses could benefit from an economic downturn when you do so. Focus on getting it profitable, rather than focusing on rapacious growth. Obviously, these moves (getting a job at a stable company or stating a company and getting it profitable) are more out of your control and harder to pull off. Which is why cutting expenses and saving as much as possible are the most critical endeavors.
- elchief 10y ago
  I dropped mine pretty dramatically in the last year. Quit smoking. $12/pack * pack/day = $4380/year Eating at home every meal (save one/week). Went from $10/meal out to $3/meal in (I don't eat breakfast usually). $5000/year No drinking on school nights ~ $4000/year That's a lot of after tax cash.
  - crgt 10y ago
    $12/pack ?!? It's less than half that? Or where are you that the taxes are that high?
    - brianpgordon 10y ago
      Looks like it's even more than that in New York. http://fairreporters.net/health/prices-of-cigarettes-by-state/ http://fairreporters.net/health/prices-of-cigarettes-by-stat...
ChuckMcM 10y ago
To be honest the dot com crash caught me unprepared, and the feeling of having 10+ million dollars in future equity go to less than $100K is not something I'd wish on anyone. But not all of my investment value was "future", I had a bit more than $500k in Sun stock that I could sell at "any time." When I sold it when Oracle bought them it was worth about $12K. I did not make the mistake of buying a big house on the promise that in the future I'd be able to afford it. A friend of mine bought his house and his neighbor's house to combine into a larger lot, but since the stock was going up he got jumbo loans and was selling stock periodically to make the payments. When things went south he ended up selling the neighbors house at a loss refinancing his own house at a lower rate to stay in it affordably. But I did make the mistake of not paying off my house when I could have using "bubble" stock (like that Sun stock). 2001 to probably 2006 were very wintry years. I analyzed my behavior during the last dot com bubble and my biggest driver was tax avoidance. How stupid is that? I would say "sure this stock is 'worth' $500K but if I sell it I'm going to have to pay a huge amount of tax on it and that will net out to a smaller number." I was looking at "losing" 25% of the value of the investment by turning it into cash. Ridiculous right? Well now I think it is ridiculous. Every 3 months I take a long look at my assets and debts and future plans and re-balance as necessary to avoid a single thing from killing me financially.
- flush 10y ago
  > I would say "sure this stock is 'worth' $500K but if I sell it I'm going to have to pay a huge amount of tax on it and that will net out to a smaller number." I was looking at "losing" 25% of the value of the investment by turning it into cash. Ridiculous right? Well now I think it is ridiculous. Not that ridiculous! Give yourself some credit. One of the reasons taxes work this way is to incentivize people to keep their money invested.
  - boucher 10y ago
    If you're holding all of your assets in a single stock solely because you don't want to take a tax hit, then yeah that's a really bad strategy.
- harryh 10y ago
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
rubiquity 10y ago
I don't live in Silicon Valley so this is a genuine question: Are things starting to fall apart over there or is Kent Beck just offering up some sage advice? (Either way: Thanks, Kent!)
- potatolicious 10y ago
  The sky isn't falling, but there is a perceptible slowdown. Which is probably the best time to start thinking about this, as opposed to in the middle of a round of layoffs... Tech as a whole is still growing briskly - FB/GOOG/AAPL/etc are evidence enough of that. But there have been some high-profile (and expensive) startup busts, and certain niches are looking less healthy now than they were before (see: edu-tech or med-tech). The net effect is that demand for engineering talent is lower than before, but not by a catastrophic amount. If you were extremely employable before, you are likely to still be extremely employable now. If your interview skills were marginal before, you may not be employable now.
  - rubiquity 10y ago
    Thank you for the context!
  - abrichr 10y ago
    Other than the Theranos story, what makes you say med-tech is looking less healthy (or edu-tech for that matter)?
    - potatolicious 10y ago
      Perception matters - my admittedly unscientific feel is that there's more due diligence being done (which is a good thing, good lord), which also means less dumb money flowing around to companies that have no merit. Ed-tech I think is in a similar space, though not because of any particular scandal. More careful investors are good for the economy overall, but still represents reduced hiring demand from the previously irrationally frothy peak.
mathattack 10y ago
Defer gratification until you have six months in the bank, if that’s an option. Phenomenal advice. Having some cushion when between jobs is great. It's also peace of mind.
pond_lilly 10y ago
This is just amazing. One percenter gives us some imbecile advice like defer gratification and don't buy a house. What is worse, he actually has the audacity to suggest to keep having children. Newsflash for you, Mr. Beck, the world is overpopulated and the planet is crumbling under our weight and impact. But then again, as a corporation, FB needs a constant stream of customers to assure growth, so keep breeding, sheeple, 1% needs its money. Mr. Beck should get hell for the advice like that, if, of course, the breeding masses are aware of our predicament.
joeevans1000 10y ago
His financial advice includes "Keep having children". OMG, lol... uh... speechless...
- Kurtz79 10y ago
  I guess his point was: do not let your fear for an uncertain future keep you from having children.
jorblumesea 10y ago
I would slightly disagree with the housing. At least in some areas, owning is cheaper than renting, especially if you plan to stay in the area long term. Seattle is definitely that way. Mostly you have to be smart and buy something you can't afford. A decent fixer upper will put you in great financial shape.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
bogomipz 10y ago
People have been beating the drums pretty loudly lately for a global downturn. It almost feels like mainstream media is trying to cheer it into existence. Yes there are "concerning" signals if you look - a decline in China's GDP, the plunging price of a barrel of crude oil, Britain leaving the EU. There are always areas of concern in even "good" times. However Op Ed columnists and Cable TV pundits seem to be falling all over themselves warning of the impending doom. And honestly it feels like sport. Yes its always wise to have some saving, the more the better to a point any way. However it also wise to realize that a lot of this is fear mongering by the news media. And for an industry that has less credibility and relevance in people's daily lives than it once did, a lot of this just feels very contrived. Bad news sells, bad news is always good for the news media. There's an old newsroom adage "If it bleeds it leads." I realize this was a FB post and not a mainstream news media post but the fear mongering is starting to have this effect. My coat is in the closet right where I left it, its August now, the sun is out and I'm wearing shorts.

454 points by KentBeck 10y ago

Certainly interesting. This felt out of place to me in the concrete actions you can take now: "Keep having children because a) the world needs more smart children and b) by the time they get really expensive, who knows what things will be like." Sure these are fair points but dependents do limit ones ability to make decisions 'suddenly'

mavdi 10y ago
Indeed. As a dad I can say having kids is by far the most financial unsound decision one can make.
- dicroce 10y ago
  Life isn't all about money.
  - rco8786 10y ago
    No, but the article was.
  - facetube 10y ago
    Until you're out of money. Then life becomes very much about money.
  - hx87 10y ago
    The poorer you are, the more your life is about money.
  - allemagne 10y ago
    "Having money's not everything. Not having it is"
    - mjrbrennan 10y ago
      Nice Kanye quote
- homegarlic 10y ago
  Depends on where you live. I can live on about $900 usd per month feeding 5 people earning more than twice that amount (excluding the income of my significant other). The quality of life is great and I earn more than I will ever spend - my paycheck is about 3 times above the national average. Since health care and education is "free" in Croatia, I don't have any debt and feel very secure when it comes to needs of my children.
  - matt_wulfeck 10y ago
    It's not food that breaks the bank though, it's medical costs. How is your insurance?
    - allannienhuis 10y ago
      > Since health care and education is "free" in Croatia most places with free health care at least cap the cost of prescriptions and other related health costs to some pretty reasonable amount in most cases. Most people living in western countries outside of the USA really don't lose any sleep thinking about health care costs. There are always some exceptions (some chronic or unusual conditions not covered), but it really isn't on the list of things most people worry about much. I've always found it astounding that people in the USA seem to think living with the looming spectre of financial collapse from medical debt as an acceptable (or only realistic) option for their society.
    - homegarlic 10y ago
      Yep, insurance (which is universal and funded through taxes mostly) covers a vast array of stuff, from severe surgeries to small checkups. Even cancer chemotherapy wouldn't cost me a penny. I do pay around 30 usd monthly to cover me, my significant other, and my children - when it comes to those small medical costs (medical checkups, vaccines etc.). Everything more complicated is covered by the tax system :D I do not think there could be a situation where they would decline to operate, or that they would bankrupt me with the bill.
tjpaudio 10y ago
I think the author is touching on the fact that there is so much uncertainty around this due to children being so long term that putting off making your family for short-term financial reasons doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The short-term gain from putting off kids is small.
- hx87 10y ago
  What about the long term gain?
  - rglullis 10y ago
    I am all for delayed gratification, being mindful of your lifestyle and consumption, but this should not translate to having all of our life decisions based on the final chapters of our lives. In the long term, we are all dead. With regards with kids and family planning, the cruel calculus (especially for women) is that the more we get close to the best income-generating years, the closer we get to risky pregnancies and lower fertility. I am losing count of how many mid-30s women I've met who kept postponing to start their families and now are desperately trying to revert their biological clocks.
    - ryandrake 10y ago
      Times have changed. When my parents were in their twenties, they were buying their first house, having kids, and starting up the (relatively certain) career ladder. If you're in your twenties today, there's no way you're thinking about either of these because you're saddled with six figures of student loan debt, and do not have the employment certainty it takes to take root in an area to buy a home.
      - phamilton 10y ago
        > they were buying their first house, having kids, and starting up the (relatively certain) career ladder There's still plenty of people still doing exactly that. Get out of the HCOL areas and there are tons of people going to an inexpensive state school and buying a house in a new suburb outside of Boise Idaho or wherever. I bring up Boise because I did an internship with Micron 5 years ago and other interns were meeting with realtors so they could buy a house as soon as they graduated.
Decade 10y ago
If you have 6 months in the bank, then you don’t need to make decisions “suddenly.” I think it is sound advice. Life does not wait for anything. Would you rather be a poor person who raised a family, or do you want to be a rich person who waited too long? Assuming you want kids at all, of course. If you have the financial discipline and spousal support to have 6 months saved up, then you can apply that discipline to raising the kids. No private school that you can’t afford. No designer clothing or unnecessary shoes. No TV with ads that awaken consumer envy.
dhd415 10y ago
That statement makes sense given that there's really never a convenient time to have kids or a point in time at which they will become less expensive. If having kids is a priority for you, it's better to start earlier rather than later because you'll be able to make decisions with the next 18+ years of raising children in mind rather than an uncertain horizon of childlessness followed by the possibility of children.
- 100k 10y ago
  To add to this: I won't say anyone should have kids now or ever, but take it from me, if you wait to have kids it can become significantly more expensive (not to mention the emotional cost).
  - harmegido 10y ago
    im curious as to why kids get more expensive the longer you wait to have them?
    - dhd415 10y ago
      Lots of my peers in their late 30s and early or mid 40s who have decided they now want kids are spending 5-figure sums on fertility procedures such as IVF, etc. Also, there's a substantial increase in the probability of birth defects when the mother reaches that age, so other medical costs can increase dramatically. It's not a financial cost, but there's also the fact that it's nice to be relatively young and healthy when you're chasing toddlers around the house.
      - hx87 10y ago
        Would they have forgone more income than the cost of fertility procedures had they had kids earlier though? Besides, if you use a surrogate mother and use donated or frozen eggs and sperm, you sidestep the higher probability of birth defects. > it's nice to be relatively young and healthy when you're chasing toddlers Why the assumption that you'll be not so healthy in your 40s and 50s? My parents had me in their late 30s and they didn't seem to lack for energy compared to what they and their friends remember of their 20s. Hell, I'll bet even if they had more kids right now they'll still have the same health and energy.

dharma1 10y ago

Words of wisdom here

Globz 10y ago

6 months in the bank is always nice to have and probably a must by now.

chrisdbaldwin 10y ago
As someone who has recently needed said 6 months in the bank, I agree completely, yes - you need it. I burned out, but I couldn't have done something about it (quit) without that cushion.
fs111 10y ago
You could also live in a country where there is unemployment pay...
- throwanem 10y ago
  In what possible way does unemployment coverage make having a few months in the bank not a good idea? In my country, we have such coverage, and I've used it. It doesn't suffice to meet any but the most nominal financial obligations, and the bureaucracy involved in obtaining it is impressive - if you don't plan to cover your own bills for the month or two before the checks start coming, you're likely to be screwed.
- ThatGeoGuy 10y ago
  For these to be equivalent, your unemployment pay would have to equal the value of 6months in the bank. Ignoring the fact you could have both, I can only think of two scenarios where unemployment / welfare is equal to six months pay: 1. You live in a very socially generous country and the unemployed are paid what they made before unemployment. 2. You did not make very much money to begin with. Having six month's salary in the bank is a good strategy, regardless of where you live (ignoring countries where banks are untrustworthy enough that people don't bank their money).
raddar4 10y ago
Is there any particular reason, beyond it being a saying, that it should be 6 months in the bank? (Is there any data to support that number?) Just wondering, if anyone knows.

haney 10y ago

I appreciate this author's "hope for sunshine but prepare for rain" philosophy as opposed so many others view that either "the sky is falling" or "the good times will last forever" narratives. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

athenot 10y ago
This is akin to the mantra my wife had while working in the ICU: "Hope for the best, plan for the worst."

carlmcqueen 10y ago

Not a huge fan of the 'have kids, the world needs smart people' this seems to pretend that his intended audience holds the key to wisdom and the only way to keep that going is for his audience to have kids.

bloaf 10y ago
In his defense, he is probably closer to correct than other organizations that push such messages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  Quiverfull are actually pretty smart with their strategy - why try and convert everyone if you can outbreed them in two or three generations and become democratic majority? About the only thing protecting everyone else here is poor belief retention rate among their children.
GrumpyYoungMan 10y ago
It's been well established that children of parents with high education levels, formal or informal (which describes the HN audience well), are themselves more likely to be successful and well educated. Nothing really controversial about that.
- hx87 10y ago
  That's true, but in that case "keep adopting kids" would also work.
  - aianus 10y ago
    No, IQ is extremely hereditary.
    - CoryG89 10y ago
      The heritability of IQ is often estimated at 0.4 according to Wikipedia. Not very high, but not insignificant. Height has 0.8 heritability. Even if you're a genius, it doesn't mean your child will be. I think 0.4 suggests environmental factors are more important.

mgkimsal 10y ago

> I’ve been telling my students, “Take a chance, you can get another job on Monday.” For students, maybe, especially if they're entry level jobs. However, for anyone even mid-level, I don't think this has been good advice for several years. Perhaps in SF it's been fine, but even for many mid-level (and certainly sr folks) I know, finding another job "on monday" has not been the case. (getting an interview, especially via a recruiter, has still been relatively quick, from what I hear). Employers have been far more picky than I think many people expect. Compounding this is that they sometimes have suboptimal folks in particular roles, and those people tend to exacerbate the problem when interviewing/finding new folks. In any event, glad to see somewhat balanced view, vs the extremes we normally see.

arenaninja 10y ago
I agree. On my latest job, it took more than three weeks from me accepting their offer to a starting date, normally this is fine, but I was unemployed at the time. By contrast, my previous job was ready to start weeks before I was.
- mgkimsal 10y ago
  How long did it take to get that offer, from when you started looking?
  - arenaninja 10y ago
    Between 2-3 weeks, though I think my first interview was 1.5 weeks from when I started looking.
forgetsusername 10y ago
>However, for anyone even mid-level, I don't think this has been good advice for several years. The implication is that this advice has been good historically, but is "going away". In the article he argues to value jobs over job prospects.
- 10y ago

startupdiscuss 10y ago

I just have a point about the last piece of advice: "Make small convex investments. Learn a little bit of a lot of things–machine learning, internet of things, virtual and augmented reality, 3D printing." I find a lot of advice to be diametrically opposed to this. Many other people advise you to "go deep" in a single topic and be the expert on that topic. (It also seems to contradict the point above it, but only if they are both read a certain way.) So which is better advice? Is there a study out there?

duaneb 10y ago
I think it's like any other type of investing: iterate on what you invest in every x days/months/years and make adjustments based on how their value changes. Also, diversify.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
mgkimsal 10y ago
I think for many folks, at some level, you are enough of an expert in tech ABC that spending a lot more time on it gives diminishing returns. At some point, investing your time in something that's enough of a departure that might only be a 'jr-level' in that tech might be a good thing, while not completely ignoring your previous skills. Just my own view on this as someone with the 'luxury' of already being 'expert level' enough in certain tech to be able to look at new things.
corysama 10y ago
The advice I see everywhere is to do both. Be a "T shaped" individual who has a shallow knowledge over a broad range and a deep knowledge over a narrow range.
caseyohara 10y ago
They're not mutually exclusive. You can learn a little bit of a lot of things on the path to "going deep" in a single topic. I believe this is how you end up with T-shaped skills: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-shaped_skills https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-shaped_skills

rampage101 10y ago

He does not seem to state any reasons he thinks "Winter is Coming". The earnings of Facebook, Apple, Amazon, and Google tell a different story than his.

coderholic 10y ago
He does: > Vulnerability is here. Falling valuations. Layoffs. Shifting geography. He also isn't saying the winter is coming, but that things might be changing and we should be prepared if they do > To reiterate, I’m suggesting preparing to make good decisions if the rules change drastically.
- Decade 10y ago
  > Shifting geography. First thing I thought of with that was: Earthquakes. All these famous tech companies are built in an earthquake zone. Amazon has the further misfortune of being in an area without a history of preparing for the earthquake. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-one http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-... Discussed https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3da1mh/we_are_earthquake_experts_ask_us_anything_about/ https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3da1mh/we_are_earthqu... and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9878160 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9878160 But I think geography could be referring to the next disruptive technology, or how the existing tech centers are strangling their young and forcing new tech companies to move where it’s more affordable. Different types of geography.
jmcgough 10y ago
He never does state that, he says "not saying winter is coming". I.e., regardless of what the future has in store, put yourself in a favorable position.
uptown 10y ago
Facebook, Apple, Amazon, and Google also have established business models in-place. Many younger companies are burning investment dollars in the hopes of turning profitable or being acquired.
10y ago

abglassman 10y ago

I think this is good advice- risk management is important in managing your own career. It's easy to get complacent with recruiter outreach hitting your InMail at a steady clip but macro, micro, exogenous, endogenous factors can shift your short-to-medium term career prospects significantly.

trevyn 10y ago

And my favorite piece of advice: Don't take advice from people less successful than you.

fisherjeff 10y ago
I tend to agree with the article in general, which has implications that run counter to that piece of advice. Namely, that current success is not necessarily a predictor of future success.
- trevyn 10y ago
  Can you think of a stronger predictor of future success? ;)
  - andrewprock 10y ago
    Of course. In a world where success is due in large part to random events, it's easy to come up with better predictors about whether someone will be successful in the future.
    - trevyn 10y ago
      Such as?
      - rhizome 10y ago
        Luck.
  - oldmanjay 10y ago
    Sure, family money.
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    A causal mechanism that seems likely to propogate to the future. Winning the lottery can lead to present success. Having one once, in a fair game (and that's a valid condition to check) is exceptionally unlikely to lead to future success. OTOH, pursing a line of work in which you haven't yet succeeded, but others have, may be an area in which lack of present success doesn't preclude future success. I tend to look to process with more emphasis than outcome.

Kinnard 10y ago

Perhaps it may not be winter everywhere all at once?

TeMPOraL 10y ago
It depends on the number of nuclear weapons that detonated.

CoachRufus87 10y ago

6 months of gross salary, net salary, or expenses?

sp332 10y ago
The ability to live for 6 months on your savings. So, expenses I guess.
nstj 10y ago
It's a completely reasonable question - not sure why you'd downvote
kasey_junk 10y ago
Typically it means 6 months of expenses you can't get rid of if you have to. So if you current budget says that you need $500 a month in groceries, but you know you could get that down to $200 with realistic sacrifice, you count the $200 not the $500.
- et-al 10y ago
  The key part is the realistic sacrifice you mentioned. When budgeting, people often understate their expenses and tolerance for cheap food. Leave the grocery budget as is, but cut down steaks and eating out.
samatman 10y ago
How about: get 6 months of expenses, then get up to 6 months of net, then 6 months of gross, then keep saving at that rate while investing anything you don't need to keep liquid? There is no ceiling past which it doesn't make sense to have money.
- mrec 10y ago
  That assumes decent real returns on investment, which I'm not convinced really exist any more without taking on more risk than many are comfortable with. If your savings get to a level where they're evaporating to inflation faster than you can top them up, that arguably doesn't make sense any more. Good piece on Bill Gross today which I largely agree with; key pull quote for me is "capitalism cannot function efficiently at zero-bound rates". http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-funds-janus-gross-idUKKCN10E1EY?il=0 http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-funds-janus-gross-idUKKCN10...

deadmik3 10y ago

> Keep having children Really? This is fiscal advice?

atemerev 10y ago
It might be, with nearly inevitable retirement schemes crash.
sp332 10y ago
I think he means: don't put off having kids because the near-to-mid-term outlook is iffy. Your kids (he says!) won't be super expensive until the long-term, and since there's no way to know what that looks like, there's no reason to put it off.
- Qworg 10y ago
  In some ways, I disagree. I've found the expenses of children to be bathtub shaped - very expensive up front, dropping until they start public school, then ramping up slowly until they make the big jump to college.
  - bryanlarsen 10y ago
    Which sounds like a good reason to have them ASAP, to get as much of that initial expense as possible out of the way before winter comes.
    - ben010783 10y ago
      I think putting them off makes sense because you can start investing early and people tend to earn more as they get older, so it could be less of a financial burden if you have children at an older age.
  - cesarbs 10y ago
    How do they ramp up until college? We saw a considerable reduction in expenses when our kid started public school, since we went from $$$ day care to $ after-school care. We expect expenses to stay somewhat the same until she hits her teenage years when she'll likely become more demanding in terms of clothes, going out with friends, etc. (at which point we plan on encouraging her to find a part-time job).

daveguy 10y ago

FTA: talking about a tech dip with a big external shock. He quotes: "another US genital waving adventure" as one of the shocks along with banking crises, trade route blocking, war, etc. I had quite the wtf? moment with this one. Can someone explain to me what "another US genital waving adventure" means?

anarchy8 10y ago
I think he means the US Invasion of Iraq
lvs 10y ago
A needless and costly war.
KentBeck 10y ago
The invasion of Iraq is what I had in mind. I wanted to point out the senselessness of that operation.

pg_is_a_butt 10y ago

lady whining about baltic invasion as it relates to website developers??! no wonder this ninny cries lady tears all day and calls it depression. you're all idiots.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

knavely 10y ago

I have noticed that people who have lived through dramatic downturns tend to look for a pattern or signs of it happening again. It's probably basic human behavior, once you get burned by something you tend to flinch when you see something similar. I am also not saying he is wrong of course... But I have noticed similar pessimism since 2012. People justifying being unadventurous with "the bubble is gonna burst soon. I have lived through it before." I wonder where else there can be growth though?

morgante 10y ago

I agree with the mentality, but the advice doesn't seem great. In particular, I already follow all of it (even in good times you should have 6 months savings). Since I wasn't around during the dot-com crash, could some of the veterans on HN give more practical advice on how to position yourself to ride out a crash? Right now, my theory is to try to get yourself a job at a stabler tech company with proven profitability (ex. Google). Does that make sense?

mgkimsal 10y ago
> my theory is to try to get yourself a job at a stabler tech company with proven profitability How about just a stable company, then make yourself valuable there? Sure if you like tech, you can try for google, but there's so many companies which are dying for competent IT folks (even if their hiring practices seem to fight it) that you can provide a load of value to people in almost any situation. The question then comes up about are they positioned to pay you for that value - is it valuable enough to them? Gotta spend a bit more time finding those, but... they're definitely out there. Basic advice - have a lot of savings, and if your main income stops, be extra frugal (and... hey, even be frugal now if you can). "Cash is king", and having buffer of months or years in the bank can give you time to be more selective and avoid making panic-decisions (which generally aren't when you're in the best frame of mind to make decisions).
- morgante 10y ago
  My argument against other large companies is: 1. They seem much more likely to undergo major layoffs than Google et al.. If you're not growing, layoffs seem to be a constant. 2. During layoffs, the first people to go are cost centers. IT is a cost center unless your industry is technology. 3. The difference in pay is astronomical. Like, easily 2-3x from the times I've tried interviewing. Even small startups pay developers better (in cash) than most non-tech companies seem to. I'm not too worried about the savings thing. I think I'm covered for a decade if necessary.
  - mgkimsal 10y ago

pmiller2 10y ago

6 months in the bank is pretty standard personal finance advice. The rest is just good, solid career advice that applies to a greater or lesser extent any time.

erdevs 10y ago

If you think winter might be coming and want to prepare financially, the #1 most important piece of advice is this: Lower your expenses. Nothing gets you into trouble more than having a high expense load. Get as close as you can to spending nothing. The next most important piece of advice is to build up cash. 6 months of your monthly burn is cutting it way too close. You should save until you have at least two years. What's more, you should save until you can actually invest some money. These two bits of advice go hand in hand. The lower your expenses, the easier is to save 24+ months of runway up. And the reverse is true too. Beyond that, you can do a couple other things to prepare yourself. You could join a larger, profitable company with no history of major layoffs. (Eg Google, Facebook, many others.) Or, you could take the opportunity now to start your own company, and maybe think about what sorts of businesses could benefit from an economic downturn when you do so. Focus on getting it profitable, rather than focusing on rapacious growth. Obviously, these moves (getting a job at a stable company or stating a company and getting it profitable) are more out of your control and harder to pull off. Which is why cutting expenses and saving as much as possible are the most critical endeavors.

elchief 10y ago
I dropped mine pretty dramatically in the last year. Quit smoking. $12/pack * pack/day = $4380/year Eating at home every meal (save one/week). Went from $10/meal out to $3/meal in (I don't eat breakfast usually). $5000/year No drinking on school nights ~ $4000/year That's a lot of after tax cash.
- crgt 10y ago
  $12/pack ?!? It's less than half that? Or where are you that the taxes are that high?
  - brianpgordon 10y ago
    Looks like it's even more than that in New York. http://fairreporters.net/health/prices-of-cigarettes-by-state/ http://fairreporters.net/health/prices-of-cigarettes-by-stat...

ChuckMcM 10y ago

To be honest the dot com crash caught me unprepared, and the feeling of having 10+ million dollars in future equity go to less than $100K is not something I'd wish on anyone. But not all of my investment value was "future", I had a bit more than $500k in Sun stock that I could sell at "any time." When I sold it when Oracle bought them it was worth about $12K. I did not make the mistake of buying a big house on the promise that in the future I'd be able to afford it. A friend of mine bought his house and his neighbor's house to combine into a larger lot, but since the stock was going up he got jumbo loans and was selling stock periodically to make the payments. When things went south he ended up selling the neighbors house at a loss refinancing his own house at a lower rate to stay in it affordably. But I did make the mistake of not paying off my house when I could have using "bubble" stock (like that Sun stock). 2001 to probably 2006 were very wintry years. I analyzed my behavior during the last dot com bubble and my biggest driver was tax avoidance. How stupid is that? I would say "sure this stock is 'worth' $500K but if I sell it I'm going to have to pay a huge amount of tax on it and that will net out to a smaller number." I was looking at "losing" 25% of the value of the investment by turning it into cash. Ridiculous right? Well now I think it is ridiculous. Every 3 months I take a long look at my assets and debts and future plans and re-balance as necessary to avoid a single thing from killing me financially.

flush 10y ago
> I would say "sure this stock is 'worth' $500K but if I sell it I'm going to have to pay a huge amount of tax on it and that will net out to a smaller number." I was looking at "losing" 25% of the value of the investment by turning it into cash. Ridiculous right? Well now I think it is ridiculous. Not that ridiculous! Give yourself some credit. One of the reasons taxes work this way is to incentivize people to keep their money invested.
- boucher 10y ago
  If you're holding all of your assets in a single stock solely because you don't want to take a tax hit, then yeah that's a really bad strategy.
harryh 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

rubiquity 10y ago

I don't live in Silicon Valley so this is a genuine question: Are things starting to fall apart over there or is Kent Beck just offering up some sage advice? (Either way: Thanks, Kent!)

potatolicious 10y ago
The sky isn't falling, but there is a perceptible slowdown. Which is probably the best time to start thinking about this, as opposed to in the middle of a round of layoffs... Tech as a whole is still growing briskly - FB/GOOG/AAPL/etc are evidence enough of that. But there have been some high-profile (and expensive) startup busts, and certain niches are looking less healthy now than they were before (see: edu-tech or med-tech). The net effect is that demand for engineering talent is lower than before, but not by a catastrophic amount. If you were extremely employable before, you are likely to still be extremely employable now. If your interview skills were marginal before, you may not be employable now.
- rubiquity 10y ago
  Thank you for the context!
- abrichr 10y ago
  Other than the Theranos story, what makes you say med-tech is looking less healthy (or edu-tech for that matter)?
  - potatolicious 10y ago
    Perception matters - my admittedly unscientific feel is that there's more due diligence being done (which is a good thing, good lord), which also means less dumb money flowing around to companies that have no merit. Ed-tech I think is in a similar space, though not because of any particular scandal. More careful investors are good for the economy overall, but still represents reduced hiring demand from the previously irrationally frothy peak.

mathattack 10y ago

Defer gratification until you have six months in the bank, if that’s an option. Phenomenal advice. Having some cushion when between jobs is great. It's also peace of mind.

pond_lilly 10y ago

This is just amazing. One percenter gives us some imbecile advice like defer gratification and don't buy a house. What is worse, he actually has the audacity to suggest to keep having children. Newsflash for you, Mr. Beck, the world is overpopulated and the planet is crumbling under our weight and impact. But then again, as a corporation, FB needs a constant stream of customers to assure growth, so keep breeding, sheeple, 1% needs its money. Mr. Beck should get hell for the advice like that, if, of course, the breeding masses are aware of our predicament.

joeevans1000 10y ago

His financial advice includes "Keep having children". OMG, lol... uh... speechless...

Kurtz79 10y ago
I guess his point was: do not let your fear for an uncertain future keep you from having children.

jorblumesea 10y ago

I would slightly disagree with the housing. At least in some areas, owning is cheaper than renting, especially if you plan to stay in the area long term. Seattle is definitely that way. Mostly you have to be smart and buy something you can't afford. A decent fixer upper will put you in great financial shape.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

bogomipz 10y ago

People have been beating the drums pretty loudly lately for a global downturn. It almost feels like mainstream media is trying to cheer it into existence. Yes there are "concerning" signals if you look - a decline in China's GDP, the plunging price of a barrel of crude oil, Britain leaving the EU. There are always areas of concern in even "good" times. However Op Ed columnists and Cable TV pundits seem to be falling all over themselves warning of the impending doom. And honestly it feels like sport. Yes its always wise to have some saving, the more the better to a point any way. However it also wise to realize that a lot of this is fear mongering by the news media. And for an industry that has less credibility and relevance in people's daily lives than it once did, a lot of this just feels very contrived. Bad news sells, bad news is always good for the news media. There's an old newsroom adage "If it bleeds it leads." I realize this was a FB post and not a mainstream news media post but the fear mongering is starting to have this effect. My coat is in the closet right where I left it, its August now, the sun is out and I'm wearing shorts.