3 ms·
Not that 400K isn't believable, I don't think it's the norm, but being outside of the Bay Area or the US for that matter, I'll buy it. However there's one othe
by bad_user 8y ago
Not that 400K isn't believable, I don't think it's the norm, but being outside of the Bay Area or the US for that matter, I'll buy it.
However there's one other area where startups have failed to evolve, doing a worse job than big companies actually and that's accepting remote employees.
Big companies have been doing better because at the very least they are opening offices in multiple countries, whereas most of the startups I'm seeing are staying in the technological centers, a majority being in Silicon Valley and hiring locally. Which is nuts.
For somebody living outside of San Francisco's bubble or other expensive and overrated cities like New York or London, 150K is actually better than 400K. In many of Europe's cities, minus the expensive ones (e.g. Zurich, London, Paris), you can have a great life with 150K.
It doesn't happen though. And for the very few startups I've seen accepting remote employees, many times they are hired as contractors, without any perks or stock options and an extreme expectation for low hourly rates.
Well, you know what they say, most startups die and this is one reason why.
- Chyzwar 8y agoI disagree. There is nothing worse than teams scattered around the world in "Tech Hubs". Big companies have no idea how to run remote teams, they only know how to outsource. A startup needs to deliver fast and have access to capital. SV, in particular, have most important ingredients - money and talent.
- taysic 8y agoBeing remote is one of the few things startups can compete on for really talented employees who for whatever reason don't want to live in a tech hub.
- user5994461 8y agoYou can have a great life with 150k in London or Paris. Very very great.
- humanrebar 8y ago> For somebody living outside of San Francisco's bubble or other expensive and overrated cities like New York or London, 150K is actually better than 400K. There's no way that's true. You can easily save six figures per year on 400k total comp, no matter where you live. Saving 100k per year on 150k is much more of a challenge, especially when health insurance and taxes are accounted for. Point being, you need to measure net savings. And you don't want to adjust that by cost of living.
- UncleMeat 8y agoI live in the bay area. 2 incomes. My rent is ~30k/yr. If I rented a house and had a family it might be ~60k/yr. Are you seriously claiming that 150k after tax income doesn't cover the difference in COL in the bay area?