5 ms·

I love how people trot out universal healthcare or pensions as a reason to ignore that European salaries are so much lower. With an American tech salary of $20

I love how people trot out universal healthcare or pensions as a reason to ignore that European salaries are so much lower. With an American tech salary of $200k/yr, I can pay for all of that (health insurance, student loans, etc.) and still sock away $100k/yr in savings. That $100k is more than enough to build up a massive nest egg which will provide for me better than any pension or unemployment insurance would. If you play your cards right, you can be financially independent after about a decade of working in the US tech industry. Your entire working career could be only 10 years. That would be insane to imagine in Europe, yet you think France has better quality of live? You mention having more vacation. I know plenty of people who switched to contracting in the US so they could have more time to focus on startups and hobbies. They only work maybe half the year, yet still make more than developers do in Europe. European developers are underpaid. Full stop. You could dramatically improve your financial circumstances by getting a job at a US tech company (though the visa situation makes that challenging).

user5994461 10y ago
> You mention having more vacation. I know plenty of people who switched to contracting in the US so they could have more time to focus on startups and hobbies. They only work maybe half the year, yet still make more than developers do in Europe. Doubt that. Contracting in London is very profitable. That's possibly the easiest money on the continent.
- morgante 10y ago
  Sure, contracting in London is "very" profitable but it's still not as profitable as contracting in SV/NYC. It only looks good in comparison because full-time rates are shit. Also, if you're talking about contracting then all the supposed benefits of a better work-life balance or vacation time are out the window.
  - user5994461 10y ago
    Hum. I've seen your name before. I have the feeling we had a similar conversation some time ago over a similar article.
Jare 10y ago
You don't understand; this is not about what YOU (or should I say WE, highly sought-after engineers) can have. The point is that it is an ENTIRE COUNTRY (for the most part) that has access to those benefits and standards of living.
- morgante 10y ago
  Uh, I do understand how socialism works. The point is that, from an individual financial perspective, you're much worse off in the EU. I'm not making a normative judgement, just a financial one.
  - Jare 10y ago
    Arguing why "people trot out" socialism from a purely individual financials POV is in large part a normative judgement. In any case, I certainly don't expect a tech visa in France to hope to attract people whose life goal is to retire in 10 years, so on that we probably agree.
    - morgante 10y ago
      > Arguing why "people trot out" socialism from a purely individual financials POV is in large part a normative judgement. You don't seem to understand what a normative judgement is. I'm not saying whether socialism is good or bad, just that it objectively does not balance out with the less compensation. The OP literally framed it as you getting "these benefits" in compensation for the lower salary and they are simply wrong. > I certainly don't expect a tech visa in France to hope to attract people whose life goal is to retire in 10 years, so on that we probably agree. If France isn't hoping to attract people who are hoping to make enough money to retire in 10 years, I question how they'll get any good founders. Successful founders are almost always in a position to retire within 10 years. It sounds like you're arguing that a socialist state will have trouble attracting capitalists. On that I agree. I don't really see how you imagine startups being built without capitalists though.
  - didibus 10y ago
    Well, you can't make an individual perspective and use the plural "you are much worse off in the EU" at the same time. Some individuals will fare better in the US, but on average, you'll fare better in France. Now I agree with you, financially as a tech engineer, you'll come out with more money working in the US. I disagree that the extra money will lead to a better quality of life, but QOL is very personal. Some people find pleasure in life from very different things.
prefect42 10y ago
Where do you that salary number from, American tech salary of 200k/yr?
- maverick_iceman 10y ago
  In Silicon Valley, 200K is a pretty normal salary, I'd say it's actually on the lower end for mid career people.
  - Pyxl101 10y ago
    $200K would be a high salary, meaning a fixed cash payment someone receives on a periodic basis (with $200K being the yearly sum). However, as the value of total compensation, meaning cash salary plus stock plans, retirement plans, the value of healthcare insurance, expected bonuses, etc., then yes I agree it's pretty normal. Indeed, the starting total compensation of college graduates at top tech companies like AmaGooBookSoft is apparently around $175K (see web search results for "What is the salary for graduates starting at <company X>?"). One Quora article claims that the average compensation of tech employees at these companies is above $200K. This is partly why areas that employ many tech workers are facing housing price crises: after covering their costs of living, the surplus compensation often goes into housing. Since housing is seen as "safe" and as a form of investment, it can soak up considerable amounts of surplus income, and since there's only so much of it in a given area, the competition for housing is intense.
    - morgante 10y ago
      I'd say $200k is very typical (if not on the low end) of salary + stock for big companies. Not including other things like insurance or retirement plans which are hard to attach a quantifiable dollar amount to. In terms of straight dollars, you can easily earn $200k+/yr doing contracting.
      - rifung 10y ago
        Do you have a source for this? Or can people chime in? I could see this for Google or FB which are known to pay pretty well, but is this really "typical"? And even for Google or FB, I imagine $200k would require that you include annual bonuses too. > In terms of straight dollars, you can easily earn $200k+/yr doing contracting. But.. is contracting really ever easy? I mean it's hard work getting clients and how many people are qualified enough?
mhlakhani 10y ago
> With an American tech salary of $200k/yr, I can pay for all of that (health insurance, student loans, etc.) and still sock away $100k/yr in savings. Are you sure you're counting it as 200k and not a higher number? With taxes in the bay area, at least 70k of that is gone and surviving on 30k/year is kind of tough if you want to save a full 100k.
- morgante 10y ago
  > Are you sure you're counting it as 200k and not a higher number? Yes, I'm quite sure. This is based on my personal life. The trick is to do your saving it tax-advantage accounts and to take any deductions you can. Still, the taxes are the primary reason I'm not based in SV.
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    If its a tax advantaged account, its only a 401k at that income level; a traditional IRA is off limits, and while you might be able to do a backdoor Roth conversion, rumor is that loophole is going away. So what tax advantaged account are you using to stash away the other $77500/year?
    - morgante 10y ago
      I'm not doing all my savings in tax-advantaged accounts, but I get a fair bit through backdoor Roth, solo 401k, and HSA savings. Plus, as a small business owner I can deduct a lot of my expenses.
      - toomuchtodo 10y ago
        That's fair, but you should point out that you're using those advantages that aren't available to a typical employee (solo 401k where you can customize the plan, deducting your business expenses, etc).
        morgante 10y ago
wwweston 10y ago
> With an American tech salary of $200k/yr, I can pay for all of that (health insurance Even if you can pay for it, doesn't mean you can get it. Pre-ACA, I knew people who had the levels of income you're talking about (and higher) who couldn't buy health insurance on their own at any price. Some of them could get insurance through employer groups, assuming they didn't want to retire, assuming a given employer wanted to hire them, and assuming a given employer wanted them in a given risk pool. What they couldn't do was buy insurance on the individual market. We're apparently about to return to those days. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/20/opinion/20Dubinsky.html http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/2012/03/pre_existing_conditions_the_real_reason_insurers_won_t_cover_people_who_are_already_sick_.html I'm also not anxious to take giant salary cuts, but there are times as I get older that the logic of establishing a floor even if it means lowering the ceiling seems to make more sense.
- morgante 10y ago
  Sure, it was a lot worse pre-ACA. Thankfully, it's quite easy to purchase individual insurance these days (I pay $160/m for mine). We'll see what happens with the Republicans. More importantly, health insurances do not at all sufficiently explain the differences in salaries. Google will hire you here and give you great health insurance, even though they're also paying very well. Also, the notion that it requires really high taxes to implement single payer is simply not true. Singapore, for example, has a robust public health system while also having some of the lowest taxes in the world. After all, companies are already paying for insurance here. If we socialized it, I wouldn't expect tech salaries to drop.
  - rtpg 10y ago
    Other things the taxes in France pay for: - A functioning public transportation system (I was living in a city of 100k people and could get around by bus decently. The worst bus lines still came once every 20 minutes). - almost free access to culture - Being able to get your passport done in a week, not six. Maybe not the nicest people, but things happen a bit faster But I think the core reason you don't see super-high salaries is because the system makes offering absurdly high salaries very costly, instead preferring for more people to make reasonable salaries. You have things like the fortune tax so that even if you don't have a salary, if you have too much money you'll get an extra tax. It's a feature of the system, not a bug. The glib explanation is France hates rich people. Not everyone likes it but at least everyone gets 6 weeks vacation. And if you don't have a job you can still have a place to live and not live under constant fear of eviction.
zump 10y ago
I love how every thread eventually devolves into this.
herbst 10y ago
1. 200k are a exception not the norm 2. Quality of live is definitly higher in some parts of europe. There are public statistics for that [1] https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/rankings_by_country.jsp https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/rankings_by_country.j... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report [3] http://www.businessinsider.com/happiest-countries-best-quality-life-2016-11/ http://www.businessinsider.com/happiest-countries-best-quali... There is really no reason to argue that, more money does not mean more quality of life. Especially its very different if you look below to the IT bubble.
- FatalBaboon 10y ago
  This. I went to the US last summer and found most people in awe when I told them I was there for the whole month, and it was not even my first vacation that year. The misunderstanding here, is that some believe 100k$ equals better life no matter what. In France the fact that most people have a decent life makes mine better as well. Also, I'd like to point out that universal, guaranteed, un-gameable health insurance is VERY different from any insurance you could ever buy from a company. I never even thought about the fact that something could go wrong to me and I would not have access to the best possible care for any reason whatsoever until I found out about Americans and I remember thinking that was really savage. Then I realized my luck. To me, the problem is not in the concept, it's about tax evasion.
  - herbst 10y ago
    > I never even thought about the fact that something could go wrong to me and I would not have access to the best possible care for any reason whatsoever until I found out about Americans and I remember thinking that was really savage. Then I realized my luck. I am based in Switzerland so my health care money also goes to private companies. But these are heavily regulated. However i can only agree with that statement. I always went to a private clinic because it was near my home and had less people there. It was not special or anything, it was just convenient. Whatever happens i knew i get help and if i get a bill it some bullshit small costs i can easily pay anyway. The highest bill i ever got was $500 but only because i wanted a lot of random blood tests that no reasonable health care would cover.
cgearhart 10y ago
No one in America seems to understand how close they are to financial ruin from surprisingly common stuff. My wife has lingering complications from the birth of our last child. My statement of benefits from the insurance company for 2016 shows that they paid $97,000 for her this year, and this was at least the third year in a row at that level. Fortunately, I already had pretty good insurance when this whole mess started for us, and we aren't really at risk of losing it. But I can tell you that it is a significant factor any time I consider changing jobs.
- morgante 10y ago
  Eh, it's just a matter of having and maintaining insurance. Obviously that's important to get right, but it's not like most engineers are walking around without insurance. That being said, if Republicans actually follow through on repealing the ACA it could get a whole lot more precarious.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- winter_blue 10y ago
  You could use the ACA and/or COBRA to ensure coverage while you're in between jobs -- so what's the problem?
  - cgearhart 10y ago
    Until a few years ago the ACA was not an option, and the incoming government has been pretty clear that they intend to eliminate the ACA as soon as possible.
benevol 10y ago
> With an American tech salary of $200k/yr Well, that means you're part of the "1%". In that case, you obviously don't have (m)any real problems. So, if you're thinking for the "1%", then your logic holds up. If on the other hand you believe to be part of the "1%" soon, then this quote may be of interest to you: “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” - Ronald Wright, A Short History of Progress
- morgante 10y ago
  $200k is closer to 4-5%, not 1%. More importantly, I'm not making some grand proclamation on morality of French governance vs American governances. I'm just affirming that as a developer, you are much better off in the US (particularly NYC/SV) where such salaries are fairly achievable and common.
  - benevol 10y ago
    > I'm not making some grand proclamation on morality Me neither. The point I was making is: Due to content in our media/movies (and general culture), most of us tend to think that we will be millionaires in the future, which will lead us to sacrifice some important things and aspects. However, most of us do not end up being millionaires. More precisely: The $200k/yr only holds true for a certain lucky elite.
    - morgante 10y ago
      Sure, if by "most of us" you mean most Americans I agree. If you mean most developers, I disagree. I think most developers can make $200k/yr if they want.
  - MagnumOpus 10y ago
    > $200k is closer to 4-5%, not 1%. Not quite right. What you are thinking of is household income where $400k is about the 99th percentile - usually achieved by two high earning individuals. For individual incomes, $288k makes you a 1%er, and $200k is in the top 2.5%. [1] [1] https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/ https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/
tom_mellior 10y ago
> Your entire working career could be only 10 years. [...] European developers are underpaid. Full stop. If your chosen standard is that software developers must be financially independent demi-gods after ten years, then yes, by that standard, European developers are underpaid. It's not clear that that's really the correct standard, though.
kahnpro 10y ago
You are dramatically overpaid. Full stop. Most people, even most developers, are not comparing such a high salary against Europe because most of us don't have a salary like yours.

user5994461 10y ago

> You mention having more vacation. I know plenty of people who switched to contracting in the US so they could have more time to focus on startups and hobbies. They only work maybe half the year, yet still make more than developers do in Europe. Doubt that. Contracting in London is very profitable. That's possibly the easiest money on the continent.

morgante 10y ago
Sure, contracting in London is "very" profitable but it's still not as profitable as contracting in SV/NYC. It only looks good in comparison because full-time rates are shit. Also, if you're talking about contracting then all the supposed benefits of a better work-life balance or vacation time are out the window.
- user5994461 10y ago
  Hum. I've seen your name before. I have the feeling we had a similar conversation some time ago over a similar article.

Jare 10y ago

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

morgante 10y ago
Uh, I do understand how socialism works. The point is that, from an individual financial perspective, you're much worse off in the EU. I'm not making a normative judgement, just a financial one.
- Jare 10y ago
  Arguing why "people trot out" socialism from a purely individual financials POV is in large part a normative judgement. In any case, I certainly don't expect a tech visa in France to hope to attract people whose life goal is to retire in 10 years, so on that we probably agree.
  - morgante 10y ago
    > Arguing why "people trot out" socialism from a purely individual financials POV is in large part a normative judgement. You don't seem to understand what a normative judgement is. I'm not saying whether socialism is good or bad, just that it objectively does not balance out with the less compensation. The OP literally framed it as you getting "these benefits" in compensation for the lower salary and they are simply wrong. > I certainly don't expect a tech visa in France to hope to attract people whose life goal is to retire in 10 years, so on that we probably agree. If France isn't hoping to attract people who are hoping to make enough money to retire in 10 years, I question how they'll get any good founders. Successful founders are almost always in a position to retire within 10 years. It sounds like you're arguing that a socialist state will have trouble attracting capitalists. On that I agree. I don't really see how you imagine startups being built without capitalists though.
- didibus 10y ago
  Well, you can't make an individual perspective and use the plural "you are much worse off in the EU" at the same time. Some individuals will fare better in the US, but on average, you'll fare better in France. Now I agree with you, financially as a tech engineer, you'll come out with more money working in the US. I disagree that the extra money will lead to a better quality of life, but QOL is very personal. Some people find pleasure in life from very different things.

prefect42 10y ago

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

maverick_iceman 10y ago
In Silicon Valley, 200K is a pretty normal salary, I'd say it's actually on the lower end for mid career people.
- Pyxl101 10y ago
  $200K would be a high salary, meaning a fixed cash payment someone receives on a periodic basis (with $200K being the yearly sum). However, as the value of total compensation, meaning cash salary plus stock plans, retirement plans, the value of healthcare insurance, expected bonuses, etc., then yes I agree it's pretty normal. Indeed, the starting total compensation of college graduates at top tech companies like AmaGooBookSoft is apparently around $175K (see web search results for "What is the salary for graduates starting at <company X>?"). One Quora article claims that the average compensation of tech employees at these companies is above $200K. This is partly why areas that employ many tech workers are facing housing price crises: after covering their costs of living, the surplus compensation often goes into housing. Since housing is seen as "safe" and as a form of investment, it can soak up considerable amounts of surplus income, and since there's only so much of it in a given area, the competition for housing is intense.
  - morgante 10y ago
    I'd say $200k is very typical (if not on the low end) of salary + stock for big companies. Not including other things like insurance or retirement plans which are hard to attach a quantifiable dollar amount to. In terms of straight dollars, you can easily earn $200k+/yr doing contracting.
    - rifung 10y ago
      Do you have a source for this? Or can people chime in? I could see this for Google or FB which are known to pay pretty well, but is this really "typical"? And even for Google or FB, I imagine $200k would require that you include annual bonuses too. > In terms of straight dollars, you can easily earn $200k+/yr doing contracting. But.. is contracting really ever easy? I mean it's hard work getting clients and how many people are qualified enough?

mhlakhani 10y ago

> With an American tech salary of $200k/yr, I can pay for all of that (health insurance, student loans, etc.) and still sock away $100k/yr in savings. Are you sure you're counting it as 200k and not a higher number? With taxes in the bay area, at least 70k of that is gone and surviving on 30k/year is kind of tough if you want to save a full 100k.

morgante 10y ago
> Are you sure you're counting it as 200k and not a higher number? Yes, I'm quite sure. This is based on my personal life. The trick is to do your saving it tax-advantage accounts and to take any deductions you can. Still, the taxes are the primary reason I'm not based in SV.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  If its a tax advantaged account, its only a 401k at that income level; a traditional IRA is off limits, and while you might be able to do a backdoor Roth conversion, rumor is that loophole is going away. So what tax advantaged account are you using to stash away the other $77500/year?
  - morgante 10y ago
    I'm not doing all my savings in tax-advantaged accounts, but I get a fair bit through backdoor Roth, solo 401k, and HSA savings. Plus, as a small business owner I can deduct a lot of my expenses.
    - toomuchtodo 10y ago
      That's fair, but you should point out that you're using those advantages that aren't available to a typical employee (solo 401k where you can customize the plan, deducting your business expenses, etc).
      - morgante 10y ago

wwweston 10y ago

> With an American tech salary of $200k/yr, I can pay for all of that (health insurance Even if you can pay for it, doesn't mean you can get it. Pre-ACA, I knew people who had the levels of income you're talking about (and higher) who couldn't buy health insurance on their own at any price. Some of them could get insurance through employer groups, assuming they didn't want to retire, assuming a given employer wanted to hire them, and assuming a given employer wanted them in a given risk pool. What they couldn't do was buy insurance on the individual market. We're apparently about to return to those days. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/20/opinion/20Dubinsky.html http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/2012/03/pre_existing_conditions_the_real_reason_insurers_won_t_cover_people_who_are_already_sick_.html I'm also not anxious to take giant salary cuts, but there are times as I get older that the logic of establishing a floor even if it means lowering the ceiling seems to make more sense.

morgante 10y ago
Sure, it was a lot worse pre-ACA. Thankfully, it's quite easy to purchase individual insurance these days (I pay $160/m for mine). We'll see what happens with the Republicans. More importantly, health insurances do not at all sufficiently explain the differences in salaries. Google will hire you here and give you great health insurance, even though they're also paying very well. Also, the notion that it requires really high taxes to implement single payer is simply not true. Singapore, for example, has a robust public health system while also having some of the lowest taxes in the world. After all, companies are already paying for insurance here. If we socialized it, I wouldn't expect tech salaries to drop.
- rtpg 10y ago
  Other things the taxes in France pay for: - A functioning public transportation system (I was living in a city of 100k people and could get around by bus decently. The worst bus lines still came once every 20 minutes). - almost free access to culture - Being able to get your passport done in a week, not six. Maybe not the nicest people, but things happen a bit faster But I think the core reason you don't see super-high salaries is because the system makes offering absurdly high salaries very costly, instead preferring for more people to make reasonable salaries. You have things like the fortune tax so that even if you don't have a salary, if you have too much money you'll get an extra tax. It's a feature of the system, not a bug. The glib explanation is France hates rich people. Not everyone likes it but at least everyone gets 6 weeks vacation. And if you don't have a job you can still have a place to live and not live under constant fear of eviction.

zump 10y ago

I love how every thread eventually devolves into this.

herbst 10y ago

1. 200k are a exception not the norm 2. Quality of live is definitly higher in some parts of europe. There are public statistics for that [1] https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/rankings_by_country.jsp https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/rankings_by_country.j... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report [3] http://www.businessinsider.com/happiest-countries-best-quality-life-2016-11/ http://www.businessinsider.com/happiest-countries-best-quali... There is really no reason to argue that, more money does not mean more quality of life. Especially its very different if you look below to the IT bubble.

FatalBaboon 10y ago
This. I went to the US last summer and found most people in awe when I told them I was there for the whole month, and it was not even my first vacation that year. The misunderstanding here, is that some believe 100k$ equals better life no matter what. In France the fact that most people have a decent life makes mine better as well. Also, I'd like to point out that universal, guaranteed, un-gameable health insurance is VERY different from any insurance you could ever buy from a company. I never even thought about the fact that something could go wrong to me and I would not have access to the best possible care for any reason whatsoever until I found out about Americans and I remember thinking that was really savage. Then I realized my luck. To me, the problem is not in the concept, it's about tax evasion.
- herbst 10y ago
  > I never even thought about the fact that something could go wrong to me and I would not have access to the best possible care for any reason whatsoever until I found out about Americans and I remember thinking that was really savage. Then I realized my luck. I am based in Switzerland so my health care money also goes to private companies. But these are heavily regulated. However i can only agree with that statement. I always went to a private clinic because it was near my home and had less people there. It was not special or anything, it was just convenient. Whatever happens i knew i get help and if i get a bill it some bullshit small costs i can easily pay anyway. The highest bill i ever got was $500 but only because i wanted a lot of random blood tests that no reasonable health care would cover.

cgearhart 10y ago

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

morgante 10y ago
Eh, it's just a matter of having and maintaining insurance. Obviously that's important to get right, but it's not like most engineers are walking around without insurance. That being said, if Republicans actually follow through on repealing the ACA it could get a whole lot more precarious.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
winter_blue 10y ago
You could use the ACA and/or COBRA to ensure coverage while you're in between jobs -- so what's the problem?
- cgearhart 10y ago
  Until a few years ago the ACA was not an option, and the incoming government has been pretty clear that they intend to eliminate the ACA as soon as possible.

benevol 10y ago

> With an American tech salary of $200k/yr Well, that means you're part of the "1%". In that case, you obviously don't have (m)any real problems. So, if you're thinking for the "1%", then your logic holds up. If on the other hand you believe to be part of the "1%" soon, then this quote may be of interest to you: “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” - Ronald Wright, A Short History of Progress

morgante 10y ago
$200k is closer to 4-5%, not 1%. More importantly, I'm not making some grand proclamation on morality of French governance vs American governances. I'm just affirming that as a developer, you are much better off in the US (particularly NYC/SV) where such salaries are fairly achievable and common.
- benevol 10y ago
  > I'm not making some grand proclamation on morality Me neither. The point I was making is: Due to content in our media/movies (and general culture), most of us tend to think that we will be millionaires in the future, which will lead us to sacrifice some important things and aspects. However, most of us do not end up being millionaires. More precisely: The $200k/yr only holds true for a certain lucky elite.
  - morgante 10y ago
    Sure, if by "most of us" you mean most Americans I agree. If you mean most developers, I disagree. I think most developers can make $200k/yr if they want.
- MagnumOpus 10y ago
  > $200k is closer to 4-5%, not 1%. Not quite right. What you are thinking of is household income where $400k is about the 99th percentile - usually achieved by two high earning individuals. For individual incomes, $288k makes you a 1%er, and $200k is in the top 2.5%. [1] [1] https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/ https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/

tom_mellior 10y ago

> Your entire working career could be only 10 years. [...] European developers are underpaid. Full stop. If your chosen standard is that software developers must be financially independent demi-gods after ten years, then yes, by that standard, European developers are underpaid. It's not clear that that's really the correct standard, though.

kahnpro 10y ago

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