6 ms·

"If you haven't made it big at 40+, that means you worked on a lot of failed projects, that makes it harder to believe you can change that." I find it unlikely

by fsloth 8y ago

"If you haven't made it big at 40+, that means you worked on a lot of failed projects, that makes it harder to believe you can change that." I find it unlikely a programmer, no matter how good, would make it big. There are exceptions, sure, but globally programmer is not a highly paid professional like a surgeon, for example. I don't think there is nothing wrong with a steady paycheck and doing a job that engages ones mental faculties. I'm soon 40. I enjoy puzzles, delivering value to demanding end users and getting feedback from my work. It's really nice when a feature you've implemented gets good feedback and customers discuss about it publicly. So, I suppose in 'boring' tasks I'm motivated by delivering end user value for demanding professionals and the occasional math puzzler or investigating new algorithm or technology is just sugaring on top.

rootusrootus 8y ago
A lot of people on HN are in SV (or another big tech hub like Seattle), and make 300K+ in total comp. It's a lot more lucrative [in general] to be a developer in the US than it is in most of the rest of the world.
- fsloth 8y ago
  Sure, but while high, that's still not "I'll buy myself a Learjet and a tropical island" level income. Anyway, the topic was career satisfaction. Without any good life strategies the happiness money brings peaks at 70k or such (basically you don't have to worry about regular life expenses). So, I would not use the total comp as a metric in this discussion.
  - jokerx 8y ago
    Said parent commenter: "Without any good life strategies the happiness money brings peaks at 70k or such (basically you don't have to worry about regular life expenses)." Please! Try having a few kids and living in a desirable metro area. I didn't stop worrying about money until my salary was twice that, and my wife works too. So many sayings about financial happiness seem written for single people with no dependents.
    - rootusrootus 8y ago
      Agreed. I don't worry about money per se, but I am always on the lookout for a bit more. Within reason, of course. Kids are expensive, and the more I make now the more relaxed my retirement will be. 70K isn't enough to build much of a nest egg IMO. Also, the money:happiness ratio has been investigated quite a lot, and as I recall it never really peaks, it just becomes less of a factor.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - fsloth 8y ago
      "I didn't stop worrying about money until my salary was twice that, and my wife works too." Good for you. But I really wasn't trying to say how much people have the right to earn, just pointing out that likely there is some upper limit where money alone does not bring much additional happiness. Obviously people have different priorities, life situations and preferences. I just wanted to point out that money can't be used as an objective measure of happiness or professional success in the most generic philosophical sense. I can totally see how a metropolitan location would increase life satisfaction by providing a rich selection of entertainment, cultural venues and restaurants (i.e. experiences).
    - ajeet_dhaliwal 8y ago
      I think this particular saying should be changed to 70k per individual (including children), a family of 4 would then be at 280k - I would be more inclined to agree with the 'happiness' factor then, some people are miserable and they won't be happy with millions either.
      - whatsstolat 8y ago
        You don't need that much money for the kids themselves but I find spending quite a bit on conveniences to compensate for being short on time. Cleaners, gardener, dry cleaners, extended childcare facilities etc.
    - souprock 8y ago
      Clearly "desirable metro area" is the problem. Some would even call it a self-contradiction. The increased salary of an expensive area does not normally compensate for the increased costs. It might if you are content with a studio apartment and you put most of your income into a retirement fund that you will spend only after you leave the area. You're in deep trouble if housing is a significant need for you. It's like this: salary goes up 50%, and expenses go up 200%, so you lose. 70k, with just a single income, is perfectly fine if you live somewhere cheap. You can easily own a home and raise a family with that kind of money. I know people who manage that on far less.

by fsloth 8y ago

rootusrootus 8y ago

A lot of people on HN are in SV (or another big tech hub like Seattle), and make 300K+ in total comp. It's a lot more lucrative [in general] to be a developer in the US than it is in most of the rest of the world.

fsloth 8y ago
Sure, but while high, that's still not "I'll buy myself a Learjet and a tropical island" level income. Anyway, the topic was career satisfaction. Without any good life strategies the happiness money brings peaks at 70k or such (basically you don't have to worry about regular life expenses). So, I would not use the total comp as a metric in this discussion.
- jokerx 8y ago
  Said parent commenter: "Without any good life strategies the happiness money brings peaks at 70k or such (basically you don't have to worry about regular life expenses)." Please! Try having a few kids and living in a desirable metro area. I didn't stop worrying about money until my salary was twice that, and my wife works too. So many sayings about financial happiness seem written for single people with no dependents.
  - rootusrootus 8y ago
    Agreed. I don't worry about money per se, but I am always on the lookout for a bit more. Within reason, of course. Kids are expensive, and the more I make now the more relaxed my retirement will be. 70K isn't enough to build much of a nest egg IMO. Also, the money:happiness ratio has been investigated quite a lot, and as I recall it never really peaks, it just becomes less of a factor.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - fsloth 8y ago
    "I didn't stop worrying about money until my salary was twice that, and my wife works too." Good for you. But I really wasn't trying to say how much people have the right to earn, just pointing out that likely there is some upper limit where money alone does not bring much additional happiness. Obviously people have different priorities, life situations and preferences. I just wanted to point out that money can't be used as an objective measure of happiness or professional success in the most generic philosophical sense. I can totally see how a metropolitan location would increase life satisfaction by providing a rich selection of entertainment, cultural venues and restaurants (i.e. experiences).
  - ajeet_dhaliwal 8y ago
    I think this particular saying should be changed to 70k per individual (including children), a family of 4 would then be at 280k - I would be more inclined to agree with the 'happiness' factor then, some people are miserable and they won't be happy with millions either.
    - whatsstolat 8y ago
      You don't need that much money for the kids themselves but I find spending quite a bit on conveniences to compensate for being short on time. Cleaners, gardener, dry cleaners, extended childcare facilities etc.
  - souprock 8y ago
    Clearly "desirable metro area" is the problem. Some would even call it a self-contradiction. The increased salary of an expensive area does not normally compensate for the increased costs. It might if you are content with a studio apartment and you put most of your income into a retirement fund that you will spend only after you leave the area. You're in deep trouble if housing is a significant need for you. It's like this: salary goes up 50%, and expenses go up 200%, so you lose. 70k, with just a single income, is perfectly fine if you live somewhere cheap. You can easily own a home and raise a family with that kind of money. I know people who manage that on far less.