4 ms·

Every time something like this is posted a, likely very good, engineer who does not live in the Valley post about how overpaid these engineers are. Compensatio

Every time something like this is posted a, likely very good, engineer who does not live in the Valley post about how overpaid these engineers are. Compensation is heavily dependent on market rates. It's far more difficult to hire a strong senior engineer in the valley than it is in most other cities in the US. Even companies in fairly remote areas can hire a remote developer or pay a SF engineer to relocate for less than what most Valley engineers make. It's not about what you can actually do... It's about what you can do compared to the other available people around you.

souprock 8y ago
Here, I'll break the trend: they are underpaid It's all relative to how much things cost. Suppose one of these engineers wants to buy a home. Here, somebody of similar skill could afford any one of: a. new McMansion b. waterfront property with a boat dock and canal access to the ocean c. canal access for an airboat d. a condo literally on the beach e. 11 acres, sheep, goats, can fire an AR-15 in the backyard For each of the above, I've had a coworker get it. For half those prices, a house within a couple thousand feet of work can be had. An actual house right on the beach seems possible too, perhaps requiring a 30-minute commute in low traffic. That is single-income by the way. So, are these things available? If these would be unaffordable, you're underpaid, no matter how big your dollar figure may be.
- esoterica 8y ago
  Why are you using a McMansion and a boat dock as part of the canonical benchmark lifestyle? What if you want to live in a tiny apartment and direct your money towards travel, cars, hobby gear, or index fund shares so you can retire at 35 instead? All these things cost the same whether you live in the Bay Area or rural Kansas, so you’re better off maximizing absolute income even it means living somewhere with expensive real estate.
  - kmonsen 8y ago
    Or even better lets say you want to save 75% of your income for 20 years then do some fun stuff. Suddenly high income/high cost areas look much better.
    - souprock 8y ago
      That is effectively a decision to not have a family.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - ChristianGeek 8y ago
    Because a tiny apartment in the Bay Area is going to cost you as much as a McMansion in rural Kansas.
    - esoterica 8y ago
      And if it costs you as much but you get paid way more, then you have way more money to spend on other shit. The math is not that complicated.
      - burfog 8y ago
        Yes, you can save money if you are willing to live in a dystopia, crammed in like sardines. The quality-of-life comparison is not that complicated.
        esoterica 8y ago
        Not everyone has been brainwashed by their suburban upbringing into believing that living in an apartment is “dystopian”.
        sershe 8y ago
        Yeah, it's easy. Living in the burbs effing sucks.
        burfog 8y ago
        It may, compared to rural, but it beats city life. That is, it does unless you actually like stepping over homeless people and being mugged.
        sershe 8y ago
        I think burbs combine the worst of rural and urban; it's still noisy and everyone can see you and there's often enough crime to not feel quite safe; but it's also soul very inconvenient in every way and you have much more house maintenance to do. And you get unique things like rural house work is sometimes combined with crappy HOAs enforcing same; and also unlike both rural and urban cases finding a place with good views / lots of open air is very hard. It's just literally hell made to raise kids. For every other purpose it's about as good as a HS building that you cannot leave is in the rankings of the good buildings to spend time in.
- dmode 8y ago
  Why is housing the benchmark of wealth ? And the great thing about living in a high income area is that you can have a nice vacation home that matches your criteria above
- xiphias2 8y ago
  The most important problem for me at living in a similar place was just one thing: lack of women. I was compensated for not having a girlfriend, as it is a scarce resource that a high salary can't buy. By looking back in my life to those years, it wasn't worth it.

souprock 8y ago

Here, I'll break the trend: they are underpaid It's all relative to how much things cost. Suppose one of these engineers wants to buy a home. Here, somebody of similar skill could afford any one of: a. new McMansion b. waterfront property with a boat dock and canal access to the ocean c. canal access for an airboat d. a condo literally on the beach e. 11 acres, sheep, goats, can fire an AR-15 in the backyard For each of the above, I've had a coworker get it. For half those prices, a house within a couple thousand feet of work can be had. An actual house right on the beach seems possible too, perhaps requiring a 30-minute commute in low traffic. That is single-income by the way. So, are these things available? If these would be unaffordable, you're underpaid, no matter how big your dollar figure may be.

esoterica 8y ago
Why are you using a McMansion and a boat dock as part of the canonical benchmark lifestyle? What if you want to live in a tiny apartment and direct your money towards travel, cars, hobby gear, or index fund shares so you can retire at 35 instead? All these things cost the same whether you live in the Bay Area or rural Kansas, so you’re better off maximizing absolute income even it means living somewhere with expensive real estate.
- kmonsen 8y ago
  Or even better lets say you want to save 75% of your income for 20 years then do some fun stuff. Suddenly high income/high cost areas look much better.
  - souprock 8y ago
    That is effectively a decision to not have a family.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- ChristianGeek 8y ago
  Because a tiny apartment in the Bay Area is going to cost you as much as a McMansion in rural Kansas.
  - esoterica 8y ago
    And if it costs you as much but you get paid way more, then you have way more money to spend on other shit. The math is not that complicated.
    - burfog 8y ago
      Yes, you can save money if you are willing to live in a dystopia, crammed in like sardines. The quality-of-life comparison is not that complicated.
      - esoterica 8y ago
        Not everyone has been brainwashed by their suburban upbringing into believing that living in an apartment is “dystopian”.
      - sershe 8y ago
        Yeah, it's easy. Living in the burbs effing sucks.
        burfog 8y ago
        It may, compared to rural, but it beats city life. That is, it does unless you actually like stepping over homeless people and being mugged.
        sershe 8y ago
        I think burbs combine the worst of rural and urban; it's still noisy and everyone can see you and there's often enough crime to not feel quite safe; but it's also soul very inconvenient in every way and you have much more house maintenance to do. And you get unique things like rural house work is sometimes combined with crappy HOAs enforcing same; and also unlike both rural and urban cases finding a place with good views / lots of open air is very hard. It's just literally hell made to raise kids. For every other purpose it's about as good as a HS building that you cannot leave is in the rankings of the good buildings to spend time in.
dmode 8y ago
Why is housing the benchmark of wealth ? And the great thing about living in a high income area is that you can have a nice vacation home that matches your criteria above
xiphias2 8y ago
The most important problem for me at living in a similar place was just one thing: lack of women. I was compensated for not having a girlfriend, as it is a scarce resource that a high salary can't buy. By looking back in my life to those years, it wasn't worth it.