4 ms·

"There's nothing stupid about working for $30,000 doing a job that's worth half a million, when your friends are earning $20,000 as barristas at starbucks." Th

"There's nothing stupid about working for $30,000 doing a job that's worth half a million, when your friends are earning $20,000 as barristas at starbucks." That's patently false. Undervaluing your labor because your friends work in a poorly compensated industry makes no sense. If anything the money you are earning when you are younger is more important to secure for ROI purposes.

logicallee 10y ago
All right: to the best of my current understanding, there is nothing wrong with ever taking a salary vastly under market in one's twenties, including literally performing CTO-level work worth half a million and equal to the work of many developers under you (or hell, even leading or directing them), for $30,000. There's nothing wrong with that, and it's not a bad life choice. Especially if one's social life is also important and includes many other twenty-somethings in various professions. we're just going to disagree if you think otherwise - we don't have to get into an argument about it. In my world view not everything is about maximizing salary.
- kaishiro 10y ago
  I don't think you're wrong, per se, but barring that I'm really unclear on what point you're trying to make.
  - logicallee 10y ago
    my only point is that the supply at that price is greater than 0 - that some people will do it. who are in their twenties. you won't find someone even over thirty willing to do it though. it's a descriptive statement.
    - fuzzfactor 10y ago
      Seems to me that the number of retired engineers working as Wal-Mart greeters is actually more than one, and has been for a while.
      - fharper1961 10y ago
        Why would they do that? Maybe they just want to get out of the house and do something useful? Otherwise if it was for $$$s, and they aren't poor without a safety net, seems like they'd be better off learning higher value skills and getting a better job.
        mikelevins 10y ago
        Why would they do that? I've considered it, but I don't think I can do that work. I'm not actually retired, and may never be able to, because of a catastrophic health event around twelve years ago. I get paid very well when I'm working, and that plus learned frugality and a supportive family has enabled me to get by pretty comfortably, but the same health catastrophe created a situation in which it's quite difficult to find people who want to hire me. That difficulty is increased by a couple of other personal limitations that don't hamper my productivity (I can be outstandingly productive given the right tools, goals, and situation), but the right combination of things is just a little different from and more specific than the common default, and that's enough to have a strong negative effect on my chances of being hired. I'm a white crow, is what it comes down to--or a nail that sticks up. My solution so far is to take work I'm likely to excel at when I can get it, and especially when people are comfortable paying me on par with what I've been usually been paid before (because it's good pay), but to be open to any steady work of any kind that I think I can do, because I also often have to weather extended periods of no work. The longest so far has been a little over two years. Oh, and of course I'm always working on projects meant to become things that will generate residual income in the long run. I would certainly work as a Wal-Mart greeter if I thought I could do it. There are a lot of other low-paying jobs that I would do if I thought I could do them. The main problem with low-paying jobs is that a lot of them require sustained physical exertion that I can't do, or rigid work schedules that I can't observe, or both.
      - logicallee 10y ago
        ? but they wouldn't take a job as an engineer at that same salary; whereas a kid who is working as a wal-mart shop cart person or cashier, would do CTO-level technical work (if they happened to be able to) for the same salary -- or more precisely the number of such kids who are willing to is not exactly 0. It is larger than strictly zero.
- taco_emoji 10y ago
  I feel like you're not fully articulating your point here; in what circumstance would prioritizing leisure entail working for 6% of one's market value?
  - logicallee 10y ago
    doesn't really matter. as I just wrote, my only point is that the supply at that price is greater than 0 - that some people will do it. who are in their twenties. you won't find someone even over thirty willing to do it though. it's a descriptive statement.
    - infinite8s 10y ago
      Are you sure the people that will do it are the ones you want to be doing it (if you are paying?). If they are so vastly underestimating their market value, perhaps it's because they are actually vastly overestimating their ability.
      - vanderreeah 10y ago
        I have to agree with the perhaps inappropriately named logicallee. And I'd go further - it's not just a matter of age, nor (as others in this thread have said) of inability or stupidity, if someone works for a salary under market value. I am far from the best at my job in the world, but I'm ok, and for the longest time as a freelancer I charged way under the market (in fact I suspect I still do, though not so egregiously). This was - I think - not because I "overestimated my ability" or anything like that. I was simply not a business-minded person. I was afraid to ask for more. I earned enough to live from, and the rest seemed somehow distasteful to me. I'm not saying this is the ideal, just a fact. And if I have these characteristics, perhaps others do too.

logicallee 10y ago

All right: to the best of my current understanding, there is nothing wrong with ever taking a salary vastly under market in one's twenties, including literally performing CTO-level work worth half a million and equal to the work of many developers under you (or hell, even leading or directing them), for $30,000. There's nothing wrong with that, and it's not a bad life choice. Especially if one's social life is also important and includes many other twenty-somethings in various professions. we're just going to disagree if you think otherwise - we don't have to get into an argument about it. In my world view not everything is about maximizing salary.

kaishiro 10y ago
I don't think you're wrong, per se, but barring that I'm really unclear on what point you're trying to make.
- logicallee 10y ago
  my only point is that the supply at that price is greater than 0 - that some people will do it. who are in their twenties. you won't find someone even over thirty willing to do it though. it's a descriptive statement.
  - fuzzfactor 10y ago
    Seems to me that the number of retired engineers working as Wal-Mart greeters is actually more than one, and has been for a while.
    - fharper1961 10y ago
      Why would they do that? Maybe they just want to get out of the house and do something useful? Otherwise if it was for $$$s, and they aren't poor without a safety net, seems like they'd be better off learning higher value skills and getting a better job.
      - mikelevins 10y ago
        Why would they do that? I've considered it, but I don't think I can do that work. I'm not actually retired, and may never be able to, because of a catastrophic health event around twelve years ago. I get paid very well when I'm working, and that plus learned frugality and a supportive family has enabled me to get by pretty comfortably, but the same health catastrophe created a situation in which it's quite difficult to find people who want to hire me. That difficulty is increased by a couple of other personal limitations that don't hamper my productivity (I can be outstandingly productive given the right tools, goals, and situation), but the right combination of things is just a little different from and more specific than the common default, and that's enough to have a strong negative effect on my chances of being hired. I'm a white crow, is what it comes down to--or a nail that sticks up. My solution so far is to take work I'm likely to excel at when I can get it, and especially when people are comfortable paying me on par with what I've been usually been paid before (because it's good pay), but to be open to any steady work of any kind that I think I can do, because I also often have to weather extended periods of no work. The longest so far has been a little over two years. Oh, and of course I'm always working on projects meant to become things that will generate residual income in the long run. I would certainly work as a Wal-Mart greeter if I thought I could do it. There are a lot of other low-paying jobs that I would do if I thought I could do them. The main problem with low-paying jobs is that a lot of them require sustained physical exertion that I can't do, or rigid work schedules that I can't observe, or both.
    - logicallee 10y ago
      ? but they wouldn't take a job as an engineer at that same salary; whereas a kid who is working as a wal-mart shop cart person or cashier, would do CTO-level technical work (if they happened to be able to) for the same salary -- or more precisely the number of such kids who are willing to is not exactly 0. It is larger than strictly zero.
taco_emoji 10y ago
I feel like you're not fully articulating your point here; in what circumstance would prioritizing leisure entail working for 6% of one's market value?
- logicallee 10y ago
  doesn't really matter. as I just wrote, my only point is that the supply at that price is greater than 0 - that some people will do it. who are in their twenties. you won't find someone even over thirty willing to do it though. it's a descriptive statement.
  - infinite8s 10y ago
    Are you sure the people that will do it are the ones you want to be doing it (if you are paying?). If they are so vastly underestimating their market value, perhaps it's because they are actually vastly overestimating their ability.
    - vanderreeah 10y ago
      I have to agree with the perhaps inappropriately named logicallee. And I'd go further - it's not just a matter of age, nor (as others in this thread have said) of inability or stupidity, if someone works for a salary under market value. I am far from the best at my job in the world, but I'm ok, and for the longest time as a freelancer I charged way under the market (in fact I suspect I still do, though not so egregiously). This was - I think - not because I "overestimated my ability" or anything like that. I was simply not a business-minded person. I was afraid to ask for more. I earned enough to live from, and the rest seemed somehow distasteful to me. I'm not saying this is the ideal, just a fact. And if I have these characteristics, perhaps others do too.