4 ms·
I'd bet it's just a function of what people are willing to do the job for. $93k gives you a very comfortable lifestyle, and tech workers tend to be much more mo
by _bxg1 8y ago
I'd bet it's just a function of what people are willing to do the job for. $93k gives you a very comfortable lifestyle, and tech workers tend to be much more motivated by the work itself than their peers. Those who really care about getting rich will go to SV and do a startup. So there's not as much pressure for increase.
- idiot900 8y ago$93k does not give a very comfortable lifestyle in SF/NYC.
- pkaye 8y agoYou certainly can is you bought your house 10+ years ago.
- TuringNYC 8y agoSo i guess 93k + a time machine would be great for most new grads.
- pkaye 8y agoI'm not stating it a solution to any problem. I'm just stating a fact that there are plenty of people who lived here a long time and bought their house cheap by current standards. I've lived in the bay area for a long time and my own unique circumstances made it difficult to build up savings to buy a house for a long time. People think everything was easier in the past but salaries were less also.
- VRay 8y agoIf that's the situation, maybe you should just quit your job, rent out your house, move way out to the middle of nowhere, and live off the rental profits
- pkaye 8y agoI'm perfectly fine where I live. I own my house and don't plan to rent it out anytime soon.
- GlickWick 8y agoThese are averages. SF/BOS/SEA/NYC/etc all have higher salaries. It also is a bit vague as to what a "tech worker" is, and these articles tend to include all of IT in that.
- brundolf 8y agoPresumably that amount is for living in normal places. Even in Austin TX, which has become relatively expensive, I lived quite comfortably on an entry-level salary of $65k in 2015.
- lotsofpulp 8y agoComfortable is subjective. For dual high income household, such as doctors/lawyers/engineers, if you want to raise kids in a neighborhood of similarly successful people, you’ll need to be pulling in a household $200k+ per year, even in medium CoL areas. It’s always relative, and for those that go to target schools and have lucrative careers, and their network is full of others in a similar boat, then they will be competing with that level of income.
- _bxg1 8y agoThat's not comfortable, that's socially-competitive. Comfortable means you never have to worry about basic needs, and you don't really have to worry about creature comforts like entertainment and hobbies. As a coworker once put it, "I just want to make enough money that I never have to think twice about getting guacamole on my Chipotle."
- commandlinefan 8y agoI wouldn't say it's _uncomfortable_, but it's liable to leave you struggling from time to time even here in north Texas.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago$93k supporting a family (stay at home partner, two kids) is most definitely not comfortable, whether in the Midwest or the coasts. Insurance premiums alone would be ~$15k/year (pretax, but still). Throw in a mortgage or rent @ $1500/month, that's another $18k/year, you've already consumed a third of your wages.
- jriot 8y agoIm at a $100k, my wife stays at home with our two school age kids, we live quite comfortably.
- toomuchtodo 8y agoI assume you live somewhere rural, with low cost of living, and not a suburb of a major metro. Is my assumption accurate? You might even be remote, in which case you've traded higher wages for lower employment mobility (which is a reasonable compromise to make, but not common).
- jriot 8y agoI am in the process of moving to live 30 minutes from New Orleans and yes I work remote.
- ModernMech 8y ago> my wife stays at home with our two school age kids Ah, so she's providing service equivalent to $100k
- jriot 8y agoWe haven't calculated the cost, but we know its up there. Particularly since we make 90% of our meals from scratch. She does all the baking, we share in the cooking and split clean-up.
- oflannabhra 8y agoDifferent people have different definitions of "comfortable", but it is entirely possible to live comfortably in the Midwest on a household income of ~$100k.
- Apocryphon 8y agoSV/SF CoL is still horribly high, NYC/DC and SEA probably little better.
- kamarg 8y agoEr...isn't the general agreement that if you want to get rich you absolutely should not go work for or found a startup but instead get a steady job at big corp and live below your means? People are always on about how shares in a startup should be counted as $0 compensation. Not to mention $93k doesn't go very far in places with large populations and high job prospects.
- _bxg1 8y ago1) I assume the $93k isn't in SV and Seattle 2) The general wisdom if you want to get financially well-off is what you describe. Those who'd prefer to risk it all for a shot at being filthy rich do startups.
- VRay 8y agoSome people on this thread think of "comfortable" as: "Own a decent house/condo within 20 minutes of work", and they're right, Seattle/SF isn't "comfortable" at 93k Everyone ELSE on this thread needs to learn how to manage their finances. $93k in Seattle is $65k after taxes, call it $50k after putting $15k a year into your retirement plan. Remainder: $4100 a month post-tax You can rent a small apartment within 30-60 minutes of downtown for $1500 a month, leaving $2600 for utilities, groceries, entertainment, etc. That's a good $50 a day left over for food and entertainment, easily. I'd call that comfortable, personally. That said, I wouldn't take an offer in Seattle for less than $200k and I wouldn't take an offer in Silicon Valley for (SeattlePay+$12,000)/0.9 because of the higher rent and state income tax
- ummonk 8y agoFounding a startup is a decent way to get rich, although a big roll of the dice. Joining one is not though.
- _bxg1 8y agoDepends whether you get shares, or an in with a crucial VC