50 ms·

I got my higher education for free. I expect to save nothing for my children or their education. I expect to have to put aside very little for retirement. The

I got my higher education for free. I expect to save nothing for my children or their education. I expect to have to put aside very little for retirement. The thing is, I just can’t find an argument why I should be able to get very rich doing my job. It’s a comfortable job. It pays a good salary. I got here by taking no risk at all. I wouldn’t want to switch jobs just to drive up my pay even if I could. I have other things to think about. I have worked 20 years in the same job and so have my colleagues. This is a cultural difference I feel.

friedman23 6y ago
I don't think you've fully thought through your position. You making less isn't some altruistic thing. You making less directly contributes to your (already likely wealthy) boss making more. It's not like you making less means the poor live better lives, it's essentially donating money to your employer.
- seltzered_ 6y ago
  There's cultural differences here depending on where the employer is based. I believe the employee-CEO pay gap is substantially less for many European companies (excluding UK).
  - titanomachy 6y ago
    So do the shareholders make a lot more then? Or are companies just less productive?
    - alkonaut 6y ago
      It's probably true that in software, there are fewer companies that make silly revenue per employee. I work in "traditional" industry, meaning the revenue we make is for saying widgets we make in factories. Having 10% profit margins or 5% yearly growth is fantastic in our industry. In the US my feeling is that a larger fraction of developers work in the type of tech that has higher room for growth. And more importantly, the entire industry has to compete pay wise with these tech companies that can pay based on exponential growth and almost unlimmited properties (like FAANG). Since I don't have people across the street making twice my pay because they work at a FAANG, there is less of that.
    - johbjo 6y ago
      The markets might be more competitive, which means less profits.
  - throwawayin12 6y ago
    Right, they only own one Porsche here and a few houses.
    - Hamuko 6y ago
      I was actually surprised by how shitty of a car our CEO had (it was an Opel). Well, not sure if it was his, but it was the one I saw him in during a company outing.
- jopsen 6y ago
  And by switching to a better paying job you end up working somewhere that produces more value per engineer, which in turns makes the world wealthier.. which overall is good :) That said, I don't think it's just a matter of culture. Also just because capitalism likely makes the world better on average, doesn't mean we all have to go ferengi and dedicate our lives to pursuit of maximum profit :D (Perhaps there is a balance)
  - joelbluminator 6y ago
    Huh? If he earns more at Pornhub he makes the world better? Even FAANG is debatable.
    - jeofken 6y ago
      Defining “better” isn’t easy, but “more valuable” is a falsifiable measure. I hate Facebook and Google but they do provide a lot of value to their customers (advertisers)
      - joelbluminator 6y ago
        Facebook's effect on society is still being studied, the jury is still out. It may very well be more damaging than doing good. Just because people are paying for something doesn't mean its doing anything good. Tobacco is a good example.
        jopsen 6y ago
        Like it or not, there is also a huge amount of legitimate interactions on facebook. My dad didn't use internet forums before.. now he's on facebook groups about wood working -- I doubt the projects and reviews people in those groups share are fake news :) Fact is: without facebook my dad probably wouldn't participate in any online community.
      - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
        Right, thats why uber recently discovered that massive fraud in ad spending did not affect their sales
- alkonaut 6y ago
  It’s not altruism, it’s just that I’d need to actively chase more pay to get it. And I’m not in a position where I want to (don’t want to switch jobs etc). Marginal taxes are also quite high (over 50%) so there are diminishing returns. For reference I make around $70k as a senior type eng. Not huge but the “ceiling” (for cash comp) if I switched jobs 10 times and ended up at a very well paying job in the end would be 20-40% more - which is 10-20% net!
eplanit 6y ago
That's very interesting, and I'm sincerely glad that you're happy. In the U.S., the value system is (was, at least) about personal ambition, talent, and action which determine if one "should be able to get very rich". There's no shame in wanting to work for a company and focus on a work-life balance. Americans (again, traditionally) celebrate(d) those with higher ambitions and achievement. In Silicon Valley and the startup world (many of whom are on HN), the entrepreneur/founder vs. employee issue can be very sensitive.
arcticbull 6y ago
A lot of folks here are calling out the lower pay for SWEs in Europe and Canada as a failure - but also praise the low wealth inequality and low income inequality in Europe and Canada. You can't have low inequality by definition if you decide to start paying one group a ton of money. Well, this is a lot like the housing conversation in the US. "I want my house to go up in value, and be a great investment!" Also: "Why can't I afford a house?" You can't have your cake and eat it too. It's not necessarily a failure, it's just a different place to draw the line on social contract. While individual contributors earn less the social safety net also makes it much easier to found and grow a business without the threat of death and guarantees a peaceable minimum standard of living. It's also worth pointing out that salary, especially at high seniority levels, becomes a smaller and smaller part of total compensation.
- betaby 6y ago
  I wouldn't call Canadian (or Fr or Se) wealth inequality 'low'. 'Why I can't afford a house', again is more a problem in Fr/De/Se than in US, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_owne...
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    Inequality in Canada is substantially lower than in America (and is on par with Australia, and between Fr and Se). This is evidenced in their Gini coefficients. [1] - Gini for SE is 0.25 - Gini for FR is 0.31 - Gini for CA is 0.33 - Gini for US is 0.48 - Gini for ZA is 0.65 I've also included South Africa for comparison, one of the least equal societies on earth. A photo of what a 0.65 Gini country looks like is here (https://blog.prif.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/SA_Drone_Picture_BLOG.jpg https://blog.prif.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/SA_Drone_Pi...) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
    - betaby 6y ago
      From your link, GINI of Canada and Tajikistan is the same or Finland and Azerbaijan. Totalitarian states like Belarus or Kazakhstan have one of the lowest GINIs in the world, now I question gini usefulness even more.
shekispeaks 6y ago
Getting very rich allows me to do cook less, do less chores and build up my skill further (get better) or to pursue passions that do not pay well. I calculated moving to Europe as a SWE would lead to a drastic lifestyle change for me—even with retirement, healthcare and children's education considered (with 2 children, Europe wins at 3 hands down).
- ricardobeat 6y ago
  Reminds me of something I read a few weeks ago. An old lady who lives in a cabin in the woods is being interviewed. The interviewer asks: "isn't it incredibly inconvenient that you need to gather firewood and light a fire every time you want to drink some tea?" "Isn't it inconvenient that you have to work for someone else for 8 hours every day, only so you don't need to start a fire?" I'm positive you can do all of those things with an average salary, at least in northern europe. There is little to worry about once you have a roof over your head. You may not have that Tesla though.
  - KraftKacke 6y ago
    I recently learned, people worked less when we were hunter/gatherer, had more leisure time. I don't want to skip on modern medicine and shit, but it does make you think... [*] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yocja_N5s1I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yocja_N5s1I
    - zdragnar 6y ago
      Most hunting species are only active a few hours, because most prey species are only active a few hours a day, because there isn't exactly an excess of food or personal security in nature. Gathering also doesn't make sense as a full time occupation, as most plant species only fruit / produce edibles infrequently, and even then you are competing with wild animals (birds eat far more from the local wild raspberry plants than I do, even when i think to try picking some). Farmers, conversely, often work from before sunup to after sunset. Whether it is sowing, harvesting, animal husbandry, or maintenance of buildings, fences, equipment, there is no shortage to be done. All this is to say, hunter / gatherers didn't have some secret to a life of leisure, they minimized energy output to deal with food insecurity and general difficulty actually hunting amd gathering.
offby37years 6y ago
As a software engineer your leverage should be higher than near any other profession. This is why SV engineers are paid handsomely. Your productive output eclipses that of any profession without force multipliers. Your income should not be based on input (risk, comfort), but rather your output (scale, value).
- anoncake 6y ago
  > Your income should not be based on input (risk, comfort), but rather your output (scale, value). Why?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - samtho 6y ago
    Compensation, in a perfect world, should be based on how much value you bring to the company.
    - anoncake 6y ago
      You did not answer the question, you just repeated the initial claim.
      - oneplane 6y ago
        You seem to be dodging the obvious: the "why" is because a company has no value when you are risk-free and comfortable because it gets nothing from the inputs towards you, only from your outputs. That doesn't mean it is exactly that black-and-white; your input and output are related. Then there is the availability thing; people with skills and experience are not easy to find so you often want to retain them at the company, and compensation is a great motivator.
    - batiudrami 6y ago
      It is clear that your perfect world and my perfect world are quite different.
distribot 6y ago
I'm kind of surprised by the idea of saving nothing for your children. Is it a symptom of the dog eat dog American system of capitalism that it seems kinda wild to me? I guess if you can be certain that their fundamental needs will be met, it isn't as important. But in the US your life can be pretty crap, even if not abject developing world style poverty.
- nackerhewz 6y ago
  It's because most people in Europe don't really make enough to do so. Also if you somehow manage to increase your income, over half of it disappears in taxes and social security contributions.
  - terwey 6y ago
    Denmark and the Netherlands have the highest income tax bracket at 52/53%. Germany is 43%. However they are stacked taxes. In Germany (where I reside), the first €9744 (2021) is untaxed, then 14% until a certain amount (can't find it atm) and max 43%. However, if you do your tax returns your effective tax rate will drop significantly. I'd wager that most pay around 25% in total income taxes, excluding things like the health insurance and other taxes. However, we indeed do not worry about saving up money to put our kids through school. Earning 65k which what most companies in the tech scene now offer to lure them in as a SWE in Germany is a great salary realistically, considering for example an architect with a masters degree will earn around 55k and no real improvement in sight. Also don't forget to factor in that the concept of being fired for PROPER reason is nearly impossible in most European countries. Even if an employer hits hard times they cannot just lay off an entire department to quickly green out the numbers in the books, there needs to be proper grounds. I currently need to give my employer 3 months notice before I can even leave, same goes for them to me.
    - ABeeSea 6y ago
      Except for financially dubious start-ups, getting laid off at a tech company comes with a fairly nice severance package. Dropbox, for example, is giving 3 months salary, Q1 equity, and 100% of 2020 bonuses.
aantix 6y ago
>I have worked 20 years in the same job Very different. I cannot imagine staying anymore more than two years - aren't you bored?
- tharkun__ 6y ago
  Why would I be bored? Of course this means that you're actually not doing the exact same thing at the same company all the time. A good company allows for that. Either because you can easily switch projects, switch teams, move up, move sideways etc. Depends on things like company size, structure, culture etc. And yourself obviously.
  - laichzeit0 6y ago
    I think what parent means is: Don’t you have to actually maintain the crap you built using your resume-driven technology decisions? /s
    - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
      I found that the times in my career where I learned the most was when I hung around to face the consequences of my actions. That normally means staying longer than two years.
- onion2k 6y ago
  I average about 8 years in my jobs. I think I'd find it much more boring to be constantly looking for a new role. Job hunting is the worst.
- aprdm 6y ago
  How do you learn if you don't have to maintain what you wrote after two years...? Also, creating connections and really understanding a company/business is really fun IMO.
  - oblio 6y ago
    He probably doesn't want that kind of deep learning (not in the AI sense), he wants to have fun. Having fun is one of the most powerful forces in human history. Not always for good.
jojobas 6y ago
Work is exchange of the only finite resource you have (your life) for money. You sure would want the best deal you can get.
paxys 6y ago
Well if your company is doing well then someone is getting rich. Could be management, CEO, investors or whoever else. Sure you may be okay with it, but clearly not everyone is (hence the question).
- alkonaut 6y ago
  At the very top of the parent orgs’ parent org is Warren Buffett, so I guess it’s him!
pietrovismara 6y ago
I really appreciate your honesty, awareness and most of all dignity. Thank you.
irrational 6y ago
I graduated with 2 bachelors degrees and a masters degree with no debt through scholarships and grants. I have saved nothing for my children’s education. If they want to attend college, it is on them to pay their way just as it was for me. I’ve told them that I will help a bit during their first year. My company matches my retirement savings up to 5%. I save nothing else for retirement. I should have millions of dollars in my retirement fund by the time I retire (I already have over a million). That plus social security should take take care of my retirement. I have a very comfortable job. I live about a 15 minute leisurely bike ride from campus. I work 20-30 hours a week. My company doesn’t track my hours and as long as I get me assignments done everyone is happy. I can take up to 6 weeks of vacation a year plus 10 more fixed holidays that everyone gets. My health benefits are frankly amazing and cheap. On top of all of that I receive a very healthy six figure salary. There are many hundreds of developers at my company that are similarly blessed. My point is that it is possible to receive a very good salary while still receiving many of the benefits you claim.
- ulfw 6y ago
  Yea I am sorry but earning millions for 20 hours of work a week isn't normal in any kind of job I've seen. So count your blessings and luck. Normal this ain't.
  - hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
    Agreed - a lot of the parts of his story I thought "OK, that sounds extremely rare, but possible", but the working "20-30 hours a week" bit? Where the hell is that? Do people at FAANGs honestly work 4-6 hours a day 5 days a week?
    - irrational 6y ago
      I don't work at a FAANG. Not even close. I've been working remotely for most of the last year (just like everyone else), so I do about 4-5 hours of work in the morning and then spend the rest of the day remodeling the house. But even when I worked at the office, I would roll in around 10am. I'd go work out at one of the campus fitness facilities from 1-3 (15 minutes to walk there, 5 to change, 1 hour to work out, 10 minutes in the sauna, 10 minutes to shower and change, 15 minute walk back), and then head home at 5. And I always get exceptional year end reviews because I always get my work done in a timely manner.
sidlls 6y ago
I can understand this for oneself. But to be this complacent/indifferent to your kids' future is just kind of amusing to me. I haven't got billionaire status ambitions, but I also don't want my elder years to be effectively dictated by the vicissitudes of the political environment.
- Y-bar 6y ago
  I'm not OP but I'm paying my taxes specifically so that my children's future will be secured. My taxes pay into their and their peers education, it pays into their and their peers healthcare costs, it pays into my own retirement so that they will not have to worry about feeding me when I grow old. It pays into a social security net so that if there is an economic crash they will still have food on the table and a warm home. This means the number in my wallet and bank account may look smaller, but I still live a rich life with money to spend however I want. It's the exact opposite of complacency.
- alkonaut 6y ago
  As a parent, is there really any difference between "saving for your own future" or "saving for your kids"? I do some saving for my future (e.g. retirement or rainy day) but I don't have specific savings for my kids, or any particular goals for such saving (such as enough for higher education). Lots of people here save money for their kids so they can get their first apartment which is suddenly really expensive. But I'd rather improve the house we live in now, or take them on trips, and if they need $20k down in 10 years to move out, I can probably solve that. I started with 0 savings from my parents, they started with zero from theirs, and so on. I don't know anyone who received a significant amount of money from their parents that wasn't an inheritance. You can't count on politics being constant, but "there is a large welfare state here also in 15 years" I consider about as likely as the sun rising tomorrow.
tananaev 6y ago
What happens when the government doesn't have enough money to pay for retirement anymore? The system works well when you have growing workforce and productivity. It doesn't work with growing number of retirees and shrinking active workforce.
- alkonaut 6y ago
  I trust my government and pension system around as much as I trust my private savings being worth anything. I could keep my savings abroad I suppose. A disaster would mean I get perhaps 60 or 70 or 80% if my projected pension - but I’d live ok on that too. I’m not saving nothing personally, it’s just where I live you usually have to invest in a house if you want one. So the situation is you trust either the pension system or the housing market to hold up. If both were to fail I’d have problems.
- ahepp 6y ago
  Isn't that going to be a problem whether the pension is public or private?
- pietrovismara 6y ago
  What happens if society collapses? If a giant asteroid hits earth? If we find out aliens and they are ostile?
  - oblio 6y ago
    Well, we know what happens, already. You build a bunker, stock up on guns and food, build a bunker in a remote part of your country :-p I always find this kind of prepping unrealistic, the best thing you can do is a solid social group. If society collapses, even the best prepared loner will be dinner for the nearest somewhat organized group of people :-)
esoterica 6y ago
> I have worked 20 years in the same job and so have my colleagues. This is a cultural difference I feel. I think this is part of your company's culture, not your society's culture. There are also lots of Dunder-Mifflin type companies in America where nobody has any ambition and everyone just coasts until retirement.
- alkonaut 6y ago
  I think it's a bit weird to associate "ambition" with the propensity to switch jobs. I'm in a "traditional" industry so product and project cycles last decades, not just moths or years. It takes a couple of years for a new hire to be really productive. I can't compare it to some other places I have worked where half the staff would change every year and a large project would ship in 6 months.
xwdv 6y ago
You are taking a risk. The risk is that you assume your government will be able to provide you with a comfortable life even when you can no longer work. And when the time comes for your children to get higher education and retire themselves eventually you hope the government will also be there to step in. It works, until it doesn't. In America you can compensate yourself for this risk by simply getting a job where you are paid a higher salary than the average. Then you don't really care what happens with the social safety net, you've already hedged against it by saving and investing for yourself, and possibly becoming very rich. Personally I'd be stressed if I were in your position. Government welfare isn't some liquid asset. If you decide you want to go live in some other country with a higher standard of living, such as the United States, is your government going to give you $100k or more to go start a life there at the same standard of living you're used to? I doubt it. You'll have to start from scratch, little to no savings, no real credit history, and paying much more for things that were a lot cheaper back in your home country. And if you were to retire in the US, I have a dim view of your future if you have no savings for retirement. If you are already close to retirement and haven't saved anything, you simply will not be able to retire. Basically you're locked in to your home country, and have no realistic options for leaving unless you become richer. If the country goes to shit, so do you. This is not the case somewhere like America, where how well off you are is decoupled from how the country is doing as a whole. Government risk is eliminated, your cash flow and net worth is all that matters. That's much easier to understand and helps you sleep at night. Be careful.
- pavlov 6y ago
  I'm a European living in USA working for a FAANG. Frankly, my assessment is exactly the opposite from yours. United States is the country that's most likely to go to shit. All of us wealthy professionals here are sitting on a powder keg of inequality and delusional politics, and nobody will be decoupled from it when it blows up. I plan to stay for a few more years, then return to my safe North European home country with a solid stash of savings. My kids can go to good schools where teaching is in their native language. When they get older, they can go to free college if they're willing to put in the effort. When I retire, I won't need to worry about exhausting my savings because I've got a home fully paid and a sufficient baseline is guaranteed from the national pension system. There doesn't seem to by anything that would make me want to stay in America — perhaps the worst place on Earth to retire.
KronisLV 6y ago
That does sound like a pretty stress-free way to live! That said, living in Europe doesn't always equal good living conditions and stability - it depends on the particular country you're in as well. My net salary is just over 1000€ per month as a software dev. My living expenses eat up around half of that. If a quick search turns up that in USA the median salary for a dev is around 100k$ per year ( https://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/software-developer/salary https://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/software-develope... ), that means that i'd need anywhere from ~8 to ~14 years to save as much as they could in a year (depending on their disposable income, taxes, currency value etc.). In short, i'd much prefer not to spend a decade to get to the point where i'm as financially stable who's worked for a year, if even that. People oftentimes mention purchasing power parity, but it breaks down in a global economy: for example, i cannot afford AWS and most SaaS/PaaS tools. That's just one of the reasons why one could look for a better financial situation. Compound interest and investments in general could be another. Stability and peace of mind, although not guaranteed, could be a third.
- ano88888 6y ago
  That seems really underpaid. I live in south east asia and my net pay is above 4000 Euro (excluding year end bonus which could be 6 to 12 months salary) . There is no social benefits though.
  - Aeolun 6y ago
    Why would your year end bonus be equal to your yearly salary? That just seems out of whack.
  - digianarchist 6y ago
    South East Asia could mean Singapore or Cambodia. Huge difference between those countries
- snicker7 6y ago
  > over 1000€ per month I would like to know what country/city you are based out of. In the US, that wage is well below the poverty line.
EugeneOZ 6y ago
What you are describing sounds horrible. I’m living in Europe (Barcelona).
anovikov 6y ago
Upvote for your nickname!
nathias 6y ago
That is a completely wrong perspective, and might be symptomatic. You are not paid according to some argument that you personally deserve to be rich, you should be paid according to the value you produce in your context. And the relevant context is more and more global.
- alkonaut 6y ago
  I didn’t say deserve - but since switching jobs is a chore, I’d want to be compensated for it. I don’t think it’s a job that should necessarily make me very rich though. Taking risk should, but just creating value that someone else can produce? There is talent scarcity but not that much scarcity. Other people would do my job at my pay (which I guess ties into the topic!) With the highest salaries perhaps 20-40% higher than mine and marginal tax 50% making that 10-20%, the prospect is basically, would I switch jobs a few times for that little, when I like my situation? If the ceiling was higher, I’d switch. It’s a self fulfilling prophecy :)
  - nathias 6y ago
    I think there is a comparable amount of value created between you and someone in USA, its just that in Europe managers capture more % of the profit. Its not an issue of scarcity (that makes sens only for the whole playing ground) but of distribution after the scarcity is already priced in.
    - alkonaut 6y ago
      In some industries, developers create almost infinite value-per-person. A company can make a product with 100 people and sell it to amillion customers. In other industries, engineers (software or not) just make products and products are built and sold with "normal" margins and limited growth opportuntites. A healthy company can make a 10% profit every year for a century. Scaling up means having more people because you need more sales, more manufacturing and so on. In some more pure tech industries like SaaS, Games etc, the profit margins can be much higher. I'd be upset too if I was at a company that made $1M profit per employee and I didn't have a cut. That doesn't apply to most software jobs (at least not here) though.
vatican_banker 6y ago
> I wouldn’t want to switch jobs just to drive up my pay even if I could [...] I have worked 20 years in the same job and so have my colleagues. Honestly this part of the European mentality is hard for an outsider understand. I lived there for ~10 years and heard this argument countless times. I want a fulfilling life and part of that is a fulfilling job. It's hard to believe a job on the same company can be fulfilling for 20+ years. Changing jobs is part of professional growth IMO. Different strokes for different folks I guess.
- alkonaut 6y ago
  Fwiw, I did change and change back. If I was working in web/db/internet stuff there would be much more jobs of the same kind. Then I’d switch more too I think. The reason I’m sticking is also because I work in a niche (which I like).
  - alkonaut 6y ago
    I want a fulfilling job perhaps more than I want to make more money, which is why I don't switch from a fulfilling one! Switching every two years to make more money would invariably mean that you switch from fulfilling jobs to less fulfilling ones (Assuming no fulfilment comes from the switch itself)!
- newswasboring 6y ago
  > It's hard to believe a job on the same company can be fulfilling for 20+ years. I don't see why not. I have never worked for small companies (always 25k+ sizes ) so my view may be skewed but the scope of these companies are so large that changing a project can mean totally different ways of working and sometimes totally different industries. Can it be that it's easier in europe to change your job context within the company and not so in america? > Changing jobs is part of professional growth IMO. Actually it's hard for me to understand why this is taken for granted in America and my home country India. Sounds like KPI chasing to me.
  - vatican_banker 6y ago
mister_hn 6y ago
It all boils down to what you want in your life. I've seen people (including myself) trying to change the lifestyle, thus money is a vehicle to do so and to build something with. Not everybody has got rich parents or sugar daddies, some people start from nearly zero and try to climb the social ladder. A higher salary can unlock multiple benefits, in terms of long-term economical security (e. g. in case of market crash and companies go bankrupt / berserk mode, laying people off) and maybe buy yourself a house/apartment. Plus, saving for children's future is one of the best gift a parent can do. Coming to an end: having a salary which is similar to what in SF are offered would be really good
robertlagrant 6y ago
Risk is only one reason to potentially be worth a high amount of money. Others are: having connections that result in value for a company, and having a scarce skill so you can do something valuable for a company. SWE falls under the latter, for the companies that can leverage them highly enough.
FlyingSnake 6y ago
I have come to the same realisation. I would rather have a better quality of life than I had in US than to get tons of $$ and live off in a gated community. Great public transport, healthcare, schools, world class Unis, top notch research institutes, and great cultural institutes. The Gemeinschaft approach works here because you need to contribute back to the society in order to reap it's benefits.
- kimburgess 6y ago
  100% this. As an outside observer, the US is country with an almost impressive list of societal issues. Inequality aside, it's filled with a hermit-like population with little to no knowledge of the world outside its borders unless they visited it as part of military action, failing power structures, regular school shootings, suicide bombings, riots, an uncontrolled pandemic, insurrection, religious extremists and a volatile political situation, at best. No matter how much danger money you have to build into a salary to attract or keep staff, no thank you.
  - selimthegrim 6y ago
    Wait what suicide bombings (barring Nashville)
  - rhexs 6y ago
    Recommend you take a break from the news then.
    - imtringued 6y ago
      I am more shocked how you messed up basic things like zoning. Single family house zoning? Really? Who the hell needs that? Heck, I will go one step further and declare that nobody needs exclusive residential zoning. You are building a von Neuman bottleneck (separation of commerce and residential areas) into your society. A lot of social issues stem from this incredibly bad idea.
yamrzou 6y ago
As another comment said: to pursue passions that do not pay well.
- alkonaut 6y ago
  The most scarce resource is time. Switching job would presumably require more work from me at least temporarily. I'd perhaps need to commute initially at least, for example. I'd like to know this: if I got 2x the pay in the US, could I instead ask to work 1/2 and get the current pay level I have? Most likely no, right? So in what way is that higher pay actually helping me pursue passions? I'd be working at least as much as I do now, and most likely more, for that money. When exactly are those passions supposed to be pursued? When retiring? I'm pursuing that now. I have had 6-8weeks off in summer the last 10 years. I like to travel, etc.
  - jlokier 6y ago
    Time isn't the most scarce resource for everyone. If your passions require more money than you have, it doesn't matter that you have 6-8 weeks off. You still can't do the things you want to do. You can relax, travel (limited due to funds though), which are both nice for a while but eventually become frustrating. My passions are expensive - too expensive unfortunately. For example I could really do with a house to build things in, but I can't afford to buy a house, so I can't build the sorts of things I'd like to build in one. And you should see the small factory I wish I could afford. Even small stuff like attending conferences is too expensive if you can't afford the travel and tickets. As I've gotten older I've come to see there are many situations where, if I'd had more money, things I tried to work on would have turned out very differently. That's the #1 reason I now pay more attention to income than I did for a long time, when I focused on voluntary work for what I thought was worth investing time in, with "SWE side gigs" to pay the bills. > When exactly are those passions supposed to be pursued? When retiring? I'm pursuing that now. I have had 6-8weeks off in summer the last 10 years. I like to travel, etc. Depending on what they are, it may have to be evenings, weekends, or when retiring. That'a definitely a compromise. But if you don't have the money and your passion projects need money, it will probably be never.
barnacled 6y ago
I honestly think this is a completely wrong-headed way of looking at things. You are paid what you're paid not because the company is determining what is 'fair' given all of your circumstances, but rather the minimum they feel they can get away with. Nearly all employees would accept more pay if they were offered it, nearly all employers would pay less if they could - so like any market it is always an equilibrium between the two. And frankly in some job markets the salary is negotiated better than others. There is a sort of learned helplessness to 'I don't deserve more for this job' etc. in the eternal words of Unforgiven - deserve's got nothing to do with it.
- alkonaut 6y ago
  > rather the minimum they feel they can get away with. I completely agree. I certainly would accept more pay. But I wouldn't switch jobs just to get it. There are several reasons, most importantly that interesting jobs in my niche are scarce. So my employer has a resource that is perhaps scarcer than myself!. Second (and this is the part where it becomes self-fulfilling), because there are no super high salaries, I'm close to a kind of ceiling. I'm not sure what that ceiling is and you could always be lucky and find some extremely well paying job, but let's say that for a job I'd be willing to do, the ceiling is within 50% more than I'm currently making. If marginal taxes are 50% (at least), then that's a net 25% pay rise. It's basically $1500 more a month net, and it would require me to make probably several job switches. It's certainly not insignificant, but it's just not significant enough. Had there been jobs across the street paying 3x what I do, then certainly I'd start chasing more money. But I value my 6-8w holidays, I can already afford to travel etc. I'm comfortable.
  - kgwgk 6y ago
    > If marginal taxes are 50% (..) that's a net 25% pay rise Only if you’re not paying any taxes currently :-)
    - alkonaut 6y ago
      Yeah that's probably the wrong way to express it (hadn't had coffee). If I get $N pay rise, it's only a $0.5N net pay rise, which makes it much less attractive.
alexchamberlain 6y ago
> I expect to save nothing for my children or their education. I expect to have to put aside very little for retirement. In the UK, at least, I'm not sure this is still true. On retirement, I planning on getting nothing from the government once I get there, and it's looking increasingly likely that I won't be allowed to retire until slightly later in life. That being said, I have paid off my student loans in less than 10 years of work, so I can't complain about the cost and quality of education.
- switch007 6y ago
  > On retirement, I planning on getting nothing from the government once I get there In the UK ever less is expected of the government. I keep reading "I don't expect a state pension" on the Internet. Of course, some people look at the finances and economic outlook and arrive at that conclusion on their own, but I feel a great many others are being primed for this situation. We just expect to be screwed by our government now and it seems like defeat. :(
  - alexchamberlain 6y ago
    I'm not sure what the right balance is, but I feel there is a slight aspect of _we can't have it all_. We're not prepared to have a debate in the UK about what the NHS should and shouldn't do, yet at the same time people are living longer and want to pay less tax. Something has to give. Tbh, I'm happy to save for my retirement, but I'm slightly biased towards a slightly less welfare society (though not as far as removing essential support and health care). I can choose to save more now for an earlier retirement, for example. I think the auto enrollment has gone a long way there.
eloisant 6y ago
I get it, and I would completely agree if the salary gap was the same for managers, HR, etc. So the question is: why are managers, HR, etc. paid so much more than SWE in Europe? They bring less value to the company.
- lalo2302 6y ago
  This is changing in Estonia already.
- throwawayzRUU6f 6y ago
  Pretty much every professionals' pay is proportionately lower. Doctors are paid around a 1/3 of what doctors get in the US Nurses around half Lawyers vary, but quick googling suggests it's around half to third Finance, insurance and real estate pays waaaay less Store managers at Walmart get about twice as much store managers at Lidl Europe The skew in upper management pay is even higher and on and on...
  - oblio 6y ago
    Well, the US GNI is also higher than that of every European country minus the microstates, Norway and Switzerland. Partly because even though productivity is comparable, Americans just work more (longer hours, fewer and shorter holidays), partly because the system is just more efficient: single market, just 1 language, great centralized soft power that opens many doors.
- benhurmarcel 6y ago
  They are not. Pay is lower in Europe than in the US across all "well paid" jobs.
rorykoehler 6y ago
I live in Germany and don't have any of those things. This attitude pisses me off to no end because it forces everyone into the subservient employee rut. I don't trust or want to rely on the government and pensions especially. Higher education and healthcare I like but at a primary and secondary school level they force you to go to school but the schooling they provide is not at an acceptable level. I would never pay for it if it wasn't free. Everything in Europe is designed around keeping the wealthy wealthy and the proles under the thumb. It's a deadend road. I support your right to choose this path but I don't agree it should come at the expense of the intellectually curious and entrepreneurial types.
mockingbirdy 6y ago
I agree, it's basically risk-free here with paid education and the social safety net. I’m also from Germany. There is significant wealth inequality, but making €40-60k pre-tax a year is very attainable for most developers here. In Switzerland, it’s even higher (€60-70k+) and they have to pay fewer taxes (with a higher cost of living). But the „average life“ in Germany for a developer is very good. About 4-5 weeks of vacation every year, no expectations of working more than 9-5 (at the average employer), and after 1 year working at a job you’re eligible for unemployment insurance which means you get 60% of your net salary for 1 year if you’re unemployed. With regards to attaining riches: You can live comfortably with €2000/month net as a single (and easily with €3-4k with two incomes and two small kids in a smaller city), so for most people, it’s possible to save 500+€/month (most don’t because of lifestyle inflation, but that’s a different matter). With side hustles (small freelance work) you can easily save €500-1000/month which means that after 5-7 years you are able to save €80,000. Continuously investing in stocks, pension plans and ETFs (what most Germans also don’t do) means that you can accumulate half a million euros by the age of 45-50. And this is the average developer, no 10x rockstar. Having a net worth of €700k to one million euros when you’re 67 years old with a very good work-life-balance is nothing to be ashamed of. With more ambition, you can freelance for €75/h which translates to a six-figure income. With that, it’s possible to build a net worth of 2-3 million over 20-30 years. For people who want to be a millionaire in 10-15 years, this is not very attractive. But when you consider the work-life-balance and the labor rights, it's easy to see how people would choose that. For high-achievers, I would also recommend working in the US or Switzerland. But for average developers, it's not that bad of a deal.
LockAndLol 6y ago
I agree, what for? I would rather reduce the wages of those richer than SWEs by taxing them more and using that to reduce housing prices, increase wages of health workers and educational staff, and pay for more social programs to get the poor out of their misery. Optimally, it's my firm belief that we should be working towards UBI to reduce bullshit jobs everywhere. I want people to be able to work on things that matter and things they care about, while living in a place they care about and for without having to constantly sweat about money. If European SWEs wanted to raise their wages, we would have to unionize and demand a greater share of revenue. Also, we would have to vote for politicians that want to force large companies to pay their fair share in taxes. Google, Amazon, apple and others have a leg up because they can make billions without paying our countries their due taxes.
petters 6y ago
> The thing is, I just can’t find an argument why I should be able to get very rich doing my job. Sure, but if you are a really good engineer in software, someone is going to get "very rich" from your work. Why not (partly) you?
- capableweb 6y ago
  Well, you could work for yourself. Often times, it's more stressful, more risky with lower pay until you "make it". So since you can live stress free and afford basically anything you want on a salary as a software developer in Europe, not sure why you would want anything more than that. Of course, plenty of people work for themselves, that's the beauty of the free marketplace. But to assume increasing salaries _is the way to go_ feels like such a capitalist/american viewpoint that it's hard to understand why it's trying to be applicable to Europe too.
- johbjo 6y ago
  > Why not (partly) you? The short answer is that he is replaceable, while the owners are not.
  - petters 6y ago
    Well then they are perhaps already getting a fair wage.
stiray 6y ago
> I got my higher education for free. I expect to save nothing for my children or their education. I expect to have to put aside very little for retirement. Exactly this. European social democracy allows people to have relatively calm life without burden to start their careers with huge school debt. Or worrying about health insurances. Once you will have family (OP), you will see that not saving for their health insurances and school also helps a lot and I wouldn't change this for USA system. On the other side, it is very simple for software engineer to get a job anywhere in the world, but do take into account pros and cons. Anyway, to the topic, the way of raising salaries in any sector has always been the same. Form a syndicate, get enough people to join and go on strike (and if you live in EU you are very well covered and protected regarding syndicate activities).
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
throwawayin12 6y ago
Right, if you don't value your work, why would anybody else? I see this opinion a lot and I do take it personally. I come from a workers family and getting into IT was hard. I still pay off a (small 10k) debt from university. It took me years to get into the industry, working for very little pay. All the while I didn't do anything for my pension. Now I have a good income, but income alone is not enough to buy a house near the city. Having a migration background in Germany might not have helped. Do you really think engineers, bankers, administration, lawyers, teachers and real estate agents have it worse? In an industry that's created to destroy jobs, why would I work for less?
sajithdilshan 6y ago
> I got here by taking no risk at all. This is the most European thing I've ever heard. Most people would not like to take risks and would not even think about stepping outside of their comfort zone. Personally, I think this is the reason why there are less startups in Europe compared to US. No one would like to take a risk unless it's absolutely necessary. > I have worked 20 years in the same job and so have my colleagues. I do not mean to be offensive and I know everyone has their own cup of tea. But 20 years doing the same the job?? This would literally be death to me personally as a software engineer. Changing your job is part of your career growth in-order to expose yourself to new challenges, problems and new environments. Of course this comes with a risk factor and personally, this risk and excitement is what makes life interesting. I would kill my self if I got stuck in the same job for 20 years.
- politelemon 6y ago
  I can see what you mean, it does however assume that staying in a job is the same as being stuck in a job, doing the exact same thing you were doing 20 years ago - perhaps this assumption is a reflection of US work culture (you tell me, I don't know)? If you have a good job with a stimulating environment, colleagues, and decent pay, then the perception of being stuck does not exist. Over time the role will change to reflect the changing organisation and role.
  - sajithdilshan 6y ago
    > Over time the role will change to reflect the changing organisation and role. > perhaps this assumption is a reflection of US work culture (you tell me, I don't know)? I do not know anything about US work culture from first hand experience. I'm a software engineer from Sri Lanka working in Germany as a software engineer. It was my personal opinion and as I've said everyone has their own preference. > Over time the role will change to reflect the changing organisation and role. If the role has evolved, then it will not be the same job you did 'x' number of years ago. But according to original post, OP says "I have worked 20 years in the same job". Maybe I understood it incorrectly, but it seems like the role hasn't evolved or changed at all.
ChrisRR 6y ago
It sounds like one of these american stereotypes that quite often turns out to be true. That everyone should aim to be super stinking rich, or everyone is living in the gutter, but there's no inbetween Unis are telling people that they can be the next zuckerberg or bezos, instead of telling them that they can earn well enough to have a very comfortable lifestyle for the rest of their lives
forty 6y ago
Exactly. A company I know well had to lay off people in France and in the US. People in France keep almost their full wages for a whole year, and the medical insurance for free for a year. I hope the ones in the US find a job quicky and that their higher salary can cover any (medical) cost in the meantime. I would not be so sure. Lower wages for this amount of security seems a great deal to me.
pikzel 6y ago
I don't get why I would get a smaller cut of the profit just because I save less for my children than Americans do. I should be paid what is reasonable for the work I do, not how much money I spent on education.
- alkonaut 6y ago
  > I don't get why I would get a smaller cut of the profit just because I save less for my children than Americans do In a sense you don't, depending on how you count. My gross salary is after the pension is deduced. The gross includes my kids university costs, but they are deduced as taxes so don't show up on the net. An american deduces the kids university costs from his net salary (and there could be more, e.g. pensions). Comparing pay as a simple number "gross pay" is extremely difficult. Comparing net pay purchasing power or similar after necessary expenses including savings (and kids university) is probably more accurate.
eecks 6y ago
> I expect to have to put aside very little for retirement Which country? You should definitely be saving for retirement
- alkonaut 6y ago
  Sweden. I am saving but probably 60% of my "retirement savings" are mandatory payments (payroll taxes effectively) and if I save nothing at all, I'll still have a low-but-liveable pension. The last 40% of my pension or so is what I'm saving for, so basically it's the "extra". It's not nearly as much as you'd have to save in a country where you have to fund your whole retirement. Also I don't think I'll want to retire very soon which helps the calculation. Saving durig a 50 year career to live 10-15 years is very different from saving for a 40 year career to be retired 20-25 years. I'm hoping to work to at least 70 or longer and that makes a huge difference too. I some times hear US devs talking about wanting to retire at 55 or 60 - which I'd want too if I didn't have summer off every year!
RestlessMind 6y ago
> I just can’t find an argument why I should be able to get very rich doing my job Another way to think about this is that your job generates certain value in the economy. If labor's salary doesn't capture that, then that value is going somewhere - either to your governments via taxes or to capital owners. I understand that some Europeans will not have problems with the former, but are you comfortable letting capital class capture all the remaining value after taxes? If not, that is a good enough argument because allowing that to happen is what is driving wealth inequality to high levels.
rodgerd 6y ago
What you're decribing reminds me of something Bob Metcalfe wrote years ago (but I'm afraid I don't care enough to find the original), that is: people obsessing over getting their taxes lowered are dummies, because companies will pay positions to a particular level in the social context of their employees. If a job - such a software developer - is supposed by employees to be upper middle class, that's what a company will pay in California, or India, or Germany, or whereever. Tax rates, housing costs, what have you, will be factored into that. Hence, within the US, we immediately see companies expecting to pay remote, outside-SF employees less. In a similar vein, you're describing a lower headline salary buying a comparable standard of living because you aren't paying a mortage-equivalent sum for healthcare and education.

friedman23 6y ago

I don't think you've fully thought through your position. You making less isn't some altruistic thing. You making less directly contributes to your (already likely wealthy) boss making more. It's not like you making less means the poor live better lives, it's essentially donating money to your employer.

seltzered_ 6y ago
There's cultural differences here depending on where the employer is based. I believe the employee-CEO pay gap is substantially less for many European companies (excluding UK).
- titanomachy 6y ago
  So do the shareholders make a lot more then? Or are companies just less productive?
  - alkonaut 6y ago
    It's probably true that in software, there are fewer companies that make silly revenue per employee. I work in "traditional" industry, meaning the revenue we make is for saying widgets we make in factories. Having 10% profit margins or 5% yearly growth is fantastic in our industry. In the US my feeling is that a larger fraction of developers work in the type of tech that has higher room for growth. And more importantly, the entire industry has to compete pay wise with these tech companies that can pay based on exponential growth and almost unlimmited properties (like FAANG). Since I don't have people across the street making twice my pay because they work at a FAANG, there is less of that.
  - johbjo 6y ago
    The markets might be more competitive, which means less profits.
- throwawayin12 6y ago
  Right, they only own one Porsche here and a few houses.
  - Hamuko 6y ago
    I was actually surprised by how shitty of a car our CEO had (it was an Opel). Well, not sure if it was his, but it was the one I saw him in during a company outing.
jopsen 6y ago
And by switching to a better paying job you end up working somewhere that produces more value per engineer, which in turns makes the world wealthier.. which overall is good :) That said, I don't think it's just a matter of culture. Also just because capitalism likely makes the world better on average, doesn't mean we all have to go ferengi and dedicate our lives to pursuit of maximum profit :D (Perhaps there is a balance)
- joelbluminator 6y ago
  Huh? If he earns more at Pornhub he makes the world better? Even FAANG is debatable.
  - jeofken 6y ago
    Defining “better” isn’t easy, but “more valuable” is a falsifiable measure. I hate Facebook and Google but they do provide a lot of value to their customers (advertisers)
    - joelbluminator 6y ago
      Facebook's effect on society is still being studied, the jury is still out. It may very well be more damaging than doing good. Just because people are paying for something doesn't mean its doing anything good. Tobacco is a good example.
      - jopsen 6y ago
        Like it or not, there is also a huge amount of legitimate interactions on facebook. My dad didn't use internet forums before.. now he's on facebook groups about wood working -- I doubt the projects and reviews people in those groups share are fake news :) Fact is: without facebook my dad probably wouldn't participate in any online community.
    - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
      Right, thats why uber recently discovered that massive fraud in ad spending did not affect their sales
alkonaut 6y ago
It’s not altruism, it’s just that I’d need to actively chase more pay to get it. And I’m not in a position where I want to (don’t want to switch jobs etc). Marginal taxes are also quite high (over 50%) so there are diminishing returns. For reference I make around $70k as a senior type eng. Not huge but the “ceiling” (for cash comp) if I switched jobs 10 times and ended up at a very well paying job in the end would be 20-40% more - which is 10-20% net!

eplanit 6y ago

That's very interesting, and I'm sincerely glad that you're happy. In the U.S., the value system is (was, at least) about personal ambition, talent, and action which determine if one "should be able to get very rich". There's no shame in wanting to work for a company and focus on a work-life balance. Americans (again, traditionally) celebrate(d) those with higher ambitions and achievement. In Silicon Valley and the startup world (many of whom are on HN), the entrepreneur/founder vs. employee issue can be very sensitive.

arcticbull 6y ago

A lot of folks here are calling out the lower pay for SWEs in Europe and Canada as a failure - but also praise the low wealth inequality and low income inequality in Europe and Canada. You can't have low inequality by definition if you decide to start paying one group a ton of money. Well, this is a lot like the housing conversation in the US. "I want my house to go up in value, and be a great investment!" Also: "Why can't I afford a house?" You can't have your cake and eat it too. It's not necessarily a failure, it's just a different place to draw the line on social contract. While individual contributors earn less the social safety net also makes it much easier to found and grow a business without the threat of death and guarantees a peaceable minimum standard of living. It's also worth pointing out that salary, especially at high seniority levels, becomes a smaller and smaller part of total compensation.

betaby 6y ago
I wouldn't call Canadian (or Fr or Se) wealth inequality 'low'. 'Why I can't afford a house', again is more a problem in Fr/De/Se than in US, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_owne...
- arcticbull 6y ago
  Inequality in Canada is substantially lower than in America (and is on par with Australia, and between Fr and Se). This is evidenced in their Gini coefficients. [1] - Gini for SE is 0.25 - Gini for FR is 0.31 - Gini for CA is 0.33 - Gini for US is 0.48 - Gini for ZA is 0.65 I've also included South Africa for comparison, one of the least equal societies on earth. A photo of what a 0.65 Gini country looks like is here (https://blog.prif.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/SA_Drone_Picture_BLOG.jpg https://blog.prif.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/SA_Drone_Pi...) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
  - betaby 6y ago
    From your link, GINI of Canada and Tajikistan is the same or Finland and Azerbaijan. Totalitarian states like Belarus or Kazakhstan have one of the lowest GINIs in the world, now I question gini usefulness even more.

shekispeaks 6y ago

Getting very rich allows me to do cook less, do less chores and build up my skill further (get better) or to pursue passions that do not pay well. I calculated moving to Europe as a SWE would lead to a drastic lifestyle change for me—even with retirement, healthcare and children's education considered (with 2 children, Europe wins at 3 hands down).

ricardobeat 6y ago
Reminds me of something I read a few weeks ago. An old lady who lives in a cabin in the woods is being interviewed. The interviewer asks: "isn't it incredibly inconvenient that you need to gather firewood and light a fire every time you want to drink some tea?" "Isn't it inconvenient that you have to work for someone else for 8 hours every day, only so you don't need to start a fire?" I'm positive you can do all of those things with an average salary, at least in northern europe. There is little to worry about once you have a roof over your head. You may not have that Tesla though.
- KraftKacke 6y ago
  I recently learned, people worked less when we were hunter/gatherer, had more leisure time. I don't want to skip on modern medicine and shit, but it does make you think... [*] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yocja_N5s1I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yocja_N5s1I
  - zdragnar 6y ago
    Most hunting species are only active a few hours, because most prey species are only active a few hours a day, because there isn't exactly an excess of food or personal security in nature. Gathering also doesn't make sense as a full time occupation, as most plant species only fruit / produce edibles infrequently, and even then you are competing with wild animals (birds eat far more from the local wild raspberry plants than I do, even when i think to try picking some). Farmers, conversely, often work from before sunup to after sunset. Whether it is sowing, harvesting, animal husbandry, or maintenance of buildings, fences, equipment, there is no shortage to be done. All this is to say, hunter / gatherers didn't have some secret to a life of leisure, they minimized energy output to deal with food insecurity and general difficulty actually hunting amd gathering.

offby37years 6y ago

As a software engineer your leverage should be higher than near any other profession. This is why SV engineers are paid handsomely. Your productive output eclipses that of any profession without force multipliers. Your income should not be based on input (risk, comfort), but rather your output (scale, value).

anoncake 6y ago
> Your income should not be based on input (risk, comfort), but rather your output (scale, value). Why?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- samtho 6y ago
  Compensation, in a perfect world, should be based on how much value you bring to the company.
  - anoncake 6y ago
    You did not answer the question, you just repeated the initial claim.
    - oneplane 6y ago
      You seem to be dodging the obvious: the "why" is because a company has no value when you are risk-free and comfortable because it gets nothing from the inputs towards you, only from your outputs. That doesn't mean it is exactly that black-and-white; your input and output are related. Then there is the availability thing; people with skills and experience are not easy to find so you often want to retain them at the company, and compensation is a great motivator.
  - batiudrami 6y ago
    It is clear that your perfect world and my perfect world are quite different.

distribot 6y ago

I'm kind of surprised by the idea of saving nothing for your children. Is it a symptom of the dog eat dog American system of capitalism that it seems kinda wild to me? I guess if you can be certain that their fundamental needs will be met, it isn't as important. But in the US your life can be pretty crap, even if not abject developing world style poverty.

nackerhewz 6y ago
It's because most people in Europe don't really make enough to do so. Also if you somehow manage to increase your income, over half of it disappears in taxes and social security contributions.
- terwey 6y ago
  Denmark and the Netherlands have the highest income tax bracket at 52/53%. Germany is 43%. However they are stacked taxes. In Germany (where I reside), the first €9744 (2021) is untaxed, then 14% until a certain amount (can't find it atm) and max 43%. However, if you do your tax returns your effective tax rate will drop significantly. I'd wager that most pay around 25% in total income taxes, excluding things like the health insurance and other taxes. However, we indeed do not worry about saving up money to put our kids through school. Earning 65k which what most companies in the tech scene now offer to lure them in as a SWE in Germany is a great salary realistically, considering for example an architect with a masters degree will earn around 55k and no real improvement in sight. Also don't forget to factor in that the concept of being fired for PROPER reason is nearly impossible in most European countries. Even if an employer hits hard times they cannot just lay off an entire department to quickly green out the numbers in the books, there needs to be proper grounds. I currently need to give my employer 3 months notice before I can even leave, same goes for them to me.
  - ABeeSea 6y ago
    Except for financially dubious start-ups, getting laid off at a tech company comes with a fairly nice severance package. Dropbox, for example, is giving 3 months salary, Q1 equity, and 100% of 2020 bonuses.

aantix 6y ago

>I have worked 20 years in the same job Very different. I cannot imagine staying anymore more than two years - aren't you bored?

tharkun__ 6y ago
Why would I be bored? Of course this means that you're actually not doing the exact same thing at the same company all the time. A good company allows for that. Either because you can easily switch projects, switch teams, move up, move sideways etc. Depends on things like company size, structure, culture etc. And yourself obviously.
- laichzeit0 6y ago
  I think what parent means is: Don’t you have to actually maintain the crap you built using your resume-driven technology decisions? /s
  - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
    I found that the times in my career where I learned the most was when I hung around to face the consequences of my actions. That normally means staying longer than two years.
onion2k 6y ago
I average about 8 years in my jobs. I think I'd find it much more boring to be constantly looking for a new role. Job hunting is the worst.
aprdm 6y ago
How do you learn if you don't have to maintain what you wrote after two years...? Also, creating connections and really understanding a company/business is really fun IMO.
- oblio 6y ago
  He probably doesn't want that kind of deep learning (not in the AI sense), he wants to have fun. Having fun is one of the most powerful forces in human history. Not always for good.

jojobas 6y ago

Work is exchange of the only finite resource you have (your life) for money. You sure would want the best deal you can get.

paxys 6y ago

Well if your company is doing well then someone is getting rich. Could be management, CEO, investors or whoever else. Sure you may be okay with it, but clearly not everyone is (hence the question).

alkonaut 6y ago
At the very top of the parent orgs’ parent org is Warren Buffett, so I guess it’s him!

pietrovismara 6y ago

I really appreciate your honesty, awareness and most of all dignity. Thank you.

irrational 6y ago

I graduated with 2 bachelors degrees and a masters degree with no debt through scholarships and grants. I have saved nothing for my children’s education. If they want to attend college, it is on them to pay their way just as it was for me. I’ve told them that I will help a bit during their first year. My company matches my retirement savings up to 5%. I save nothing else for retirement. I should have millions of dollars in my retirement fund by the time I retire (I already have over a million). That plus social security should take take care of my retirement. I have a very comfortable job. I live about a 15 minute leisurely bike ride from campus. I work 20-30 hours a week. My company doesn’t track my hours and as long as I get me assignments done everyone is happy. I can take up to 6 weeks of vacation a year plus 10 more fixed holidays that everyone gets. My health benefits are frankly amazing and cheap. On top of all of that I receive a very healthy six figure salary. There are many hundreds of developers at my company that are similarly blessed. My point is that it is possible to receive a very good salary while still receiving many of the benefits you claim.

ulfw 6y ago
Yea I am sorry but earning millions for 20 hours of work a week isn't normal in any kind of job I've seen. So count your blessings and luck. Normal this ain't.
- hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
  Agreed - a lot of the parts of his story I thought "OK, that sounds extremely rare, but possible", but the working "20-30 hours a week" bit? Where the hell is that? Do people at FAANGs honestly work 4-6 hours a day 5 days a week?
  - irrational 6y ago
    I don't work at a FAANG. Not even close. I've been working remotely for most of the last year (just like everyone else), so I do about 4-5 hours of work in the morning and then spend the rest of the day remodeling the house. But even when I worked at the office, I would roll in around 10am. I'd go work out at one of the campus fitness facilities from 1-3 (15 minutes to walk there, 5 to change, 1 hour to work out, 10 minutes in the sauna, 10 minutes to shower and change, 15 minute walk back), and then head home at 5. And I always get exceptional year end reviews because I always get my work done in a timely manner.

sidlls 6y ago

I can understand this for oneself. But to be this complacent/indifferent to your kids' future is just kind of amusing to me. I haven't got billionaire status ambitions, but I also don't want my elder years to be effectively dictated by the vicissitudes of the political environment.

Y-bar 6y ago
I'm not OP but I'm paying my taxes specifically so that my children's future will be secured. My taxes pay into their and their peers education, it pays into their and their peers healthcare costs, it pays into my own retirement so that they will not have to worry about feeding me when I grow old. It pays into a social security net so that if there is an economic crash they will still have food on the table and a warm home. This means the number in my wallet and bank account may look smaller, but I still live a rich life with money to spend however I want. It's the exact opposite of complacency.
alkonaut 6y ago
As a parent, is there really any difference between "saving for your own future" or "saving for your kids"? I do some saving for my future (e.g. retirement or rainy day) but I don't have specific savings for my kids, or any particular goals for such saving (such as enough for higher education). Lots of people here save money for their kids so they can get their first apartment which is suddenly really expensive. But I'd rather improve the house we live in now, or take them on trips, and if they need $20k down in 10 years to move out, I can probably solve that. I started with 0 savings from my parents, they started with zero from theirs, and so on. I don't know anyone who received a significant amount of money from their parents that wasn't an inheritance. You can't count on politics being constant, but "there is a large welfare state here also in 15 years" I consider about as likely as the sun rising tomorrow.

tananaev 6y ago

What happens when the government doesn't have enough money to pay for retirement anymore? The system works well when you have growing workforce and productivity. It doesn't work with growing number of retirees and shrinking active workforce.

alkonaut 6y ago
I trust my government and pension system around as much as I trust my private savings being worth anything. I could keep my savings abroad I suppose. A disaster would mean I get perhaps 60 or 70 or 80% if my projected pension - but I’d live ok on that too. I’m not saving nothing personally, it’s just where I live you usually have to invest in a house if you want one. So the situation is you trust either the pension system or the housing market to hold up. If both were to fail I’d have problems.
ahepp 6y ago
Isn't that going to be a problem whether the pension is public or private?
pietrovismara 6y ago
What happens if society collapses? If a giant asteroid hits earth? If we find out aliens and they are ostile?
- oblio 6y ago
  Well, we know what happens, already. You build a bunker, stock up on guns and food, build a bunker in a remote part of your country :-p I always find this kind of prepping unrealistic, the best thing you can do is a solid social group. If society collapses, even the best prepared loner will be dinner for the nearest somewhat organized group of people :-)

esoterica 6y ago

> I have worked 20 years in the same job and so have my colleagues. This is a cultural difference I feel. I think this is part of your company's culture, not your society's culture. There are also lots of Dunder-Mifflin type companies in America where nobody has any ambition and everyone just coasts until retirement.

alkonaut 6y ago
I think it's a bit weird to associate "ambition" with the propensity to switch jobs. I'm in a "traditional" industry so product and project cycles last decades, not just moths or years. It takes a couple of years for a new hire to be really productive. I can't compare it to some other places I have worked where half the staff would change every year and a large project would ship in 6 months.

xwdv 6y ago

You are taking a risk. The risk is that you assume your government will be able to provide you with a comfortable life even when you can no longer work. And when the time comes for your children to get higher education and retire themselves eventually you hope the government will also be there to step in. It works, until it doesn't. In America you can compensate yourself for this risk by simply getting a job where you are paid a higher salary than the average. Then you don't really care what happens with the social safety net, you've already hedged against it by saving and investing for yourself, and possibly becoming very rich. Personally I'd be stressed if I were in your position. Government welfare isn't some liquid asset. If you decide you want to go live in some other country with a higher standard of living, such as the United States, is your government going to give you $100k or more to go start a life there at the same standard of living you're used to? I doubt it. You'll have to start from scratch, little to no savings, no real credit history, and paying much more for things that were a lot cheaper back in your home country. And if you were to retire in the US, I have a dim view of your future if you have no savings for retirement. If you are already close to retirement and haven't saved anything, you simply will not be able to retire. Basically you're locked in to your home country, and have no realistic options for leaving unless you become richer. If the country goes to shit, so do you. This is not the case somewhere like America, where how well off you are is decoupled from how the country is doing as a whole. Government risk is eliminated, your cash flow and net worth is all that matters. That's much easier to understand and helps you sleep at night. Be careful.

pavlov 6y ago
I'm a European living in USA working for a FAANG. Frankly, my assessment is exactly the opposite from yours. United States is the country that's most likely to go to shit. All of us wealthy professionals here are sitting on a powder keg of inequality and delusional politics, and nobody will be decoupled from it when it blows up. I plan to stay for a few more years, then return to my safe North European home country with a solid stash of savings. My kids can go to good schools where teaching is in their native language. When they get older, they can go to free college if they're willing to put in the effort. When I retire, I won't need to worry about exhausting my savings because I've got a home fully paid and a sufficient baseline is guaranteed from the national pension system. There doesn't seem to by anything that would make me want to stay in America — perhaps the worst place on Earth to retire.

KronisLV 6y ago

That does sound like a pretty stress-free way to live! That said, living in Europe doesn't always equal good living conditions and stability - it depends on the particular country you're in as well. My net salary is just over 1000€ per month as a software dev. My living expenses eat up around half of that. If a quick search turns up that in USA the median salary for a dev is around 100k$ per year ( https://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/software-developer/salary https://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/software-develope... ), that means that i'd need anywhere from ~8 to ~14 years to save as much as they could in a year (depending on their disposable income, taxes, currency value etc.). In short, i'd much prefer not to spend a decade to get to the point where i'm as financially stable who's worked for a year, if even that. People oftentimes mention purchasing power parity, but it breaks down in a global economy: for example, i cannot afford AWS and most SaaS/PaaS tools. That's just one of the reasons why one could look for a better financial situation. Compound interest and investments in general could be another. Stability and peace of mind, although not guaranteed, could be a third.

ano88888 6y ago
That seems really underpaid. I live in south east asia and my net pay is above 4000 Euro (excluding year end bonus which could be 6 to 12 months salary) . There is no social benefits though.
- Aeolun 6y ago
  Why would your year end bonus be equal to your yearly salary? That just seems out of whack.
- digianarchist 6y ago
  South East Asia could mean Singapore or Cambodia. Huge difference between those countries
snicker7 6y ago
> over 1000€ per month I would like to know what country/city you are based out of. In the US, that wage is well below the poverty line.

EugeneOZ 6y ago

What you are describing sounds horrible. I’m living in Europe (Barcelona).

anovikov 6y ago

Upvote for your nickname!

nathias 6y ago

That is a completely wrong perspective, and might be symptomatic. You are not paid according to some argument that you personally deserve to be rich, you should be paid according to the value you produce in your context. And the relevant context is more and more global.

alkonaut 6y ago
I didn’t say deserve - but since switching jobs is a chore, I’d want to be compensated for it. I don’t think it’s a job that should necessarily make me very rich though. Taking risk should, but just creating value that someone else can produce? There is talent scarcity but not that much scarcity. Other people would do my job at my pay (which I guess ties into the topic!) With the highest salaries perhaps 20-40% higher than mine and marginal tax 50% making that 10-20%, the prospect is basically, would I switch jobs a few times for that little, when I like my situation? If the ceiling was higher, I’d switch. It’s a self fulfilling prophecy :)
- nathias 6y ago
  I think there is a comparable amount of value created between you and someone in USA, its just that in Europe managers capture more % of the profit. Its not an issue of scarcity (that makes sens only for the whole playing ground) but of distribution after the scarcity is already priced in.
  - alkonaut 6y ago
    In some industries, developers create almost infinite value-per-person. A company can make a product with 100 people and sell it to amillion customers. In other industries, engineers (software or not) just make products and products are built and sold with "normal" margins and limited growth opportuntites. A healthy company can make a 10% profit every year for a century. Scaling up means having more people because you need more sales, more manufacturing and so on. In some more pure tech industries like SaaS, Games etc, the profit margins can be much higher. I'd be upset too if I was at a company that made $1M profit per employee and I didn't have a cut. That doesn't apply to most software jobs (at least not here) though.

vatican_banker 6y ago

> I wouldn’t want to switch jobs just to drive up my pay even if I could [...] I have worked 20 years in the same job and so have my colleagues. Honestly this part of the European mentality is hard for an outsider understand. I lived there for ~10 years and heard this argument countless times. I want a fulfilling life and part of that is a fulfilling job. It's hard to believe a job on the same company can be fulfilling for 20+ years. Changing jobs is part of professional growth IMO. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

alkonaut 6y ago
Fwiw, I did change and change back. If I was working in web/db/internet stuff there would be much more jobs of the same kind. Then I’d switch more too I think. The reason I’m sticking is also because I work in a niche (which I like).
- alkonaut 6y ago
  I want a fulfilling job perhaps more than I want to make more money, which is why I don't switch from a fulfilling one! Switching every two years to make more money would invariably mean that you switch from fulfilling jobs to less fulfilling ones (Assuming no fulfilment comes from the switch itself)!
newswasboring 6y ago
> It's hard to believe a job on the same company can be fulfilling for 20+ years. I don't see why not. I have never worked for small companies (always 25k+ sizes ) so my view may be skewed but the scope of these companies are so large that changing a project can mean totally different ways of working and sometimes totally different industries. Can it be that it's easier in europe to change your job context within the company and not so in america? > Changing jobs is part of professional growth IMO. Actually it's hard for me to understand why this is taken for granted in America and my home country India. Sounds like KPI chasing to me.
- vatican_banker 6y ago

mister_hn 6y ago

It all boils down to what you want in your life. I've seen people (including myself) trying to change the lifestyle, thus money is a vehicle to do so and to build something with. Not everybody has got rich parents or sugar daddies, some people start from nearly zero and try to climb the social ladder. A higher salary can unlock multiple benefits, in terms of long-term economical security (e. g. in case of market crash and companies go bankrupt / berserk mode, laying people off) and maybe buy yourself a house/apartment. Plus, saving for children's future is one of the best gift a parent can do. Coming to an end: having a salary which is similar to what in SF are offered would be really good

robertlagrant 6y ago

Risk is only one reason to potentially be worth a high amount of money. Others are: having connections that result in value for a company, and having a scarce skill so you can do something valuable for a company. SWE falls under the latter, for the companies that can leverage them highly enough.

FlyingSnake 6y ago

I have come to the same realisation. I would rather have a better quality of life than I had in US than to get tons of $$ and live off in a gated community. Great public transport, healthcare, schools, world class Unis, top notch research institutes, and great cultural institutes. The Gemeinschaft approach works here because you need to contribute back to the society in order to reap it's benefits.

kimburgess 6y ago
100% this. As an outside observer, the US is country with an almost impressive list of societal issues. Inequality aside, it's filled with a hermit-like population with little to no knowledge of the world outside its borders unless they visited it as part of military action, failing power structures, regular school shootings, suicide bombings, riots, an uncontrolled pandemic, insurrection, religious extremists and a volatile political situation, at best. No matter how much danger money you have to build into a salary to attract or keep staff, no thank you.
- selimthegrim 6y ago
  Wait what suicide bombings (barring Nashville)
- rhexs 6y ago
  Recommend you take a break from the news then.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    I am more shocked how you messed up basic things like zoning. Single family house zoning? Really? Who the hell needs that? Heck, I will go one step further and declare that nobody needs exclusive residential zoning. You are building a von Neuman bottleneck (separation of commerce and residential areas) into your society. A lot of social issues stem from this incredibly bad idea.

yamrzou 6y ago

As another comment said: to pursue passions that do not pay well.

alkonaut 6y ago
The most scarce resource is time. Switching job would presumably require more work from me at least temporarily. I'd perhaps need to commute initially at least, for example. I'd like to know this: if I got 2x the pay in the US, could I instead ask to work 1/2 and get the current pay level I have? Most likely no, right? So in what way is that higher pay actually helping me pursue passions? I'd be working at least as much as I do now, and most likely more, for that money. When exactly are those passions supposed to be pursued? When retiring? I'm pursuing that now. I have had 6-8weeks off in summer the last 10 years. I like to travel, etc.
- jlokier 6y ago
  Time isn't the most scarce resource for everyone. If your passions require more money than you have, it doesn't matter that you have 6-8 weeks off. You still can't do the things you want to do. You can relax, travel (limited due to funds though), which are both nice for a while but eventually become frustrating. My passions are expensive - too expensive unfortunately. For example I could really do with a house to build things in, but I can't afford to buy a house, so I can't build the sorts of things I'd like to build in one. And you should see the small factory I wish I could afford. Even small stuff like attending conferences is too expensive if you can't afford the travel and tickets. As I've gotten older I've come to see there are many situations where, if I'd had more money, things I tried to work on would have turned out very differently. That's the #1 reason I now pay more attention to income than I did for a long time, when I focused on voluntary work for what I thought was worth investing time in, with "SWE side gigs" to pay the bills. > When exactly are those passions supposed to be pursued? When retiring? I'm pursuing that now. I have had 6-8weeks off in summer the last 10 years. I like to travel, etc. Depending on what they are, it may have to be evenings, weekends, or when retiring. That'a definitely a compromise. But if you don't have the money and your passion projects need money, it will probably be never.

barnacled 6y ago

I honestly think this is a completely wrong-headed way of looking at things. You are paid what you're paid not because the company is determining what is 'fair' given all of your circumstances, but rather the minimum they feel they can get away with. Nearly all employees would accept more pay if they were offered it, nearly all employers would pay less if they could - so like any market it is always an equilibrium between the two. And frankly in some job markets the salary is negotiated better than others. There is a sort of learned helplessness to 'I don't deserve more for this job' etc. in the eternal words of Unforgiven - deserve's got nothing to do with it.

alkonaut 6y ago
> rather the minimum they feel they can get away with. I completely agree. I certainly would accept more pay. But I wouldn't switch jobs just to get it. There are several reasons, most importantly that interesting jobs in my niche are scarce. So my employer has a resource that is perhaps scarcer than myself!. Second (and this is the part where it becomes self-fulfilling), because there are no super high salaries, I'm close to a kind of ceiling. I'm not sure what that ceiling is and you could always be lucky and find some extremely well paying job, but let's say that for a job I'd be willing to do, the ceiling is within 50% more than I'm currently making. If marginal taxes are 50% (at least), then that's a net 25% pay rise. It's basically $1500 more a month net, and it would require me to make probably several job switches. It's certainly not insignificant, but it's just not significant enough. Had there been jobs across the street paying 3x what I do, then certainly I'd start chasing more money. But I value my 6-8w holidays, I can already afford to travel etc. I'm comfortable.
- kgwgk 6y ago
  > If marginal taxes are 50% (..) that's a net 25% pay rise Only if you’re not paying any taxes currently :-)
  - alkonaut 6y ago
    Yeah that's probably the wrong way to express it (hadn't had coffee). If I get $N pay rise, it's only a $0.5N net pay rise, which makes it much less attractive.

alexchamberlain 6y ago

> I expect to save nothing for my children or their education. I expect to have to put aside very little for retirement. In the UK, at least, I'm not sure this is still true. On retirement, I planning on getting nothing from the government once I get there, and it's looking increasingly likely that I won't be allowed to retire until slightly later in life. That being said, I have paid off my student loans in less than 10 years of work, so I can't complain about the cost and quality of education.

switch007 6y ago
> On retirement, I planning on getting nothing from the government once I get there In the UK ever less is expected of the government. I keep reading "I don't expect a state pension" on the Internet. Of course, some people look at the finances and economic outlook and arrive at that conclusion on their own, but I feel a great many others are being primed for this situation. We just expect to be screwed by our government now and it seems like defeat. :(
- alexchamberlain 6y ago
  I'm not sure what the right balance is, but I feel there is a slight aspect of _we can't have it all_. We're not prepared to have a debate in the UK about what the NHS should and shouldn't do, yet at the same time people are living longer and want to pay less tax. Something has to give. Tbh, I'm happy to save for my retirement, but I'm slightly biased towards a slightly less welfare society (though not as far as removing essential support and health care). I can choose to save more now for an earlier retirement, for example. I think the auto enrollment has gone a long way there.

eloisant 6y ago

I get it, and I would completely agree if the salary gap was the same for managers, HR, etc. So the question is: why are managers, HR, etc. paid so much more than SWE in Europe? They bring less value to the company.

lalo2302 6y ago
This is changing in Estonia already.
throwawayzRUU6f 6y ago
Pretty much every professionals' pay is proportionately lower. Doctors are paid around a 1/3 of what doctors get in the US Nurses around half Lawyers vary, but quick googling suggests it's around half to third Finance, insurance and real estate pays waaaay less Store managers at Walmart get about twice as much store managers at Lidl Europe The skew in upper management pay is even higher and on and on...
- oblio 6y ago
  Well, the US GNI is also higher than that of every European country minus the microstates, Norway and Switzerland. Partly because even though productivity is comparable, Americans just work more (longer hours, fewer and shorter holidays), partly because the system is just more efficient: single market, just 1 language, great centralized soft power that opens many doors.
benhurmarcel 6y ago
They are not. Pay is lower in Europe than in the US across all "well paid" jobs.

rorykoehler 6y ago

I live in Germany and don't have any of those things. This attitude pisses me off to no end because it forces everyone into the subservient employee rut. I don't trust or want to rely on the government and pensions especially. Higher education and healthcare I like but at a primary and secondary school level they force you to go to school but the schooling they provide is not at an acceptable level. I would never pay for it if it wasn't free. Everything in Europe is designed around keeping the wealthy wealthy and the proles under the thumb. It's a deadend road. I support your right to choose this path but I don't agree it should come at the expense of the intellectually curious and entrepreneurial types.

mockingbirdy 6y ago

I agree, it's basically risk-free here with paid education and the social safety net. I’m also from Germany. There is significant wealth inequality, but making €40-60k pre-tax a year is very attainable for most developers here. In Switzerland, it’s even higher (€60-70k+) and they have to pay fewer taxes (with a higher cost of living). But the „average life“ in Germany for a developer is very good. About 4-5 weeks of vacation every year, no expectations of working more than 9-5 (at the average employer), and after 1 year working at a job you’re eligible for unemployment insurance which means you get 60% of your net salary for 1 year if you’re unemployed. With regards to attaining riches: You can live comfortably with €2000/month net as a single (and easily with €3-4k with two incomes and two small kids in a smaller city), so for most people, it’s possible to save 500+€/month (most don’t because of lifestyle inflation, but that’s a different matter). With side hustles (small freelance work) you can easily save €500-1000/month which means that after 5-7 years you are able to save €80,000. Continuously investing in stocks, pension plans and ETFs (what most Germans also don’t do) means that you can accumulate half a million euros by the age of 45-50. And this is the average developer, no 10x rockstar. Having a net worth of €700k to one million euros when you’re 67 years old with a very good work-life-balance is nothing to be ashamed of. With more ambition, you can freelance for €75/h which translates to a six-figure income. With that, it’s possible to build a net worth of 2-3 million over 20-30 years. For people who want to be a millionaire in 10-15 years, this is not very attractive. But when you consider the work-life-balance and the labor rights, it's easy to see how people would choose that. For high-achievers, I would also recommend working in the US or Switzerland. But for average developers, it's not that bad of a deal.

LockAndLol 6y ago

I agree, what for? I would rather reduce the wages of those richer than SWEs by taxing them more and using that to reduce housing prices, increase wages of health workers and educational staff, and pay for more social programs to get the poor out of their misery. Optimally, it's my firm belief that we should be working towards UBI to reduce bullshit jobs everywhere. I want people to be able to work on things that matter and things they care about, while living in a place they care about and for without having to constantly sweat about money. If European SWEs wanted to raise their wages, we would have to unionize and demand a greater share of revenue. Also, we would have to vote for politicians that want to force large companies to pay their fair share in taxes. Google, Amazon, apple and others have a leg up because they can make billions without paying our countries their due taxes.

petters 6y ago

> The thing is, I just can’t find an argument why I should be able to get very rich doing my job. Sure, but if you are a really good engineer in software, someone is going to get "very rich" from your work. Why not (partly) you?

capableweb 6y ago
Well, you could work for yourself. Often times, it's more stressful, more risky with lower pay until you "make it". So since you can live stress free and afford basically anything you want on a salary as a software developer in Europe, not sure why you would want anything more than that. Of course, plenty of people work for themselves, that's the beauty of the free marketplace. But to assume increasing salaries _is the way to go_ feels like such a capitalist/american viewpoint that it's hard to understand why it's trying to be applicable to Europe too.
johbjo 6y ago
> Why not (partly) you? The short answer is that he is replaceable, while the owners are not.
- petters 6y ago
  Well then they are perhaps already getting a fair wage.

stiray 6y ago

> I got my higher education for free. I expect to save nothing for my children or their education. I expect to have to put aside very little for retirement. Exactly this. European social democracy allows people to have relatively calm life without burden to start their careers with huge school debt. Or worrying about health insurances. Once you will have family (OP), you will see that not saving for their health insurances and school also helps a lot and I wouldn't change this for USA system. On the other side, it is very simple for software engineer to get a job anywhere in the world, but do take into account pros and cons. Anyway, to the topic, the way of raising salaries in any sector has always been the same. Form a syndicate, get enough people to join and go on strike (and if you live in EU you are very well covered and protected regarding syndicate activities).

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

throwawayin12 6y ago

Right, if you don't value your work, why would anybody else? I see this opinion a lot and I do take it personally. I come from a workers family and getting into IT was hard. I still pay off a (small 10k) debt from university. It took me years to get into the industry, working for very little pay. All the while I didn't do anything for my pension. Now I have a good income, but income alone is not enough to buy a house near the city. Having a migration background in Germany might not have helped. Do you really think engineers, bankers, administration, lawyers, teachers and real estate agents have it worse? In an industry that's created to destroy jobs, why would I work for less?

sajithdilshan 6y ago

> I got here by taking no risk at all. This is the most European thing I've ever heard. Most people would not like to take risks and would not even think about stepping outside of their comfort zone. Personally, I think this is the reason why there are less startups in Europe compared to US. No one would like to take a risk unless it's absolutely necessary. > I have worked 20 years in the same job and so have my colleagues. I do not mean to be offensive and I know everyone has their own cup of tea. But 20 years doing the same the job?? This would literally be death to me personally as a software engineer. Changing your job is part of your career growth in-order to expose yourself to new challenges, problems and new environments. Of course this comes with a risk factor and personally, this risk and excitement is what makes life interesting. I would kill my self if I got stuck in the same job for 20 years.

politelemon 6y ago
I can see what you mean, it does however assume that staying in a job is the same as being stuck in a job, doing the exact same thing you were doing 20 years ago - perhaps this assumption is a reflection of US work culture (you tell me, I don't know)? If you have a good job with a stimulating environment, colleagues, and decent pay, then the perception of being stuck does not exist. Over time the role will change to reflect the changing organisation and role.
- sajithdilshan 6y ago
  > Over time the role will change to reflect the changing organisation and role. > perhaps this assumption is a reflection of US work culture (you tell me, I don't know)? I do not know anything about US work culture from first hand experience. I'm a software engineer from Sri Lanka working in Germany as a software engineer. It was my personal opinion and as I've said everyone has their own preference. > Over time the role will change to reflect the changing organisation and role. If the role has evolved, then it will not be the same job you did 'x' number of years ago. But according to original post, OP says "I have worked 20 years in the same job". Maybe I understood it incorrectly, but it seems like the role hasn't evolved or changed at all.

ChrisRR 6y ago

It sounds like one of these american stereotypes that quite often turns out to be true. That everyone should aim to be super stinking rich, or everyone is living in the gutter, but there's no inbetween Unis are telling people that they can be the next zuckerberg or bezos, instead of telling them that they can earn well enough to have a very comfortable lifestyle for the rest of their lives

forty 6y ago

Exactly. A company I know well had to lay off people in France and in the US. People in France keep almost their full wages for a whole year, and the medical insurance for free for a year. I hope the ones in the US find a job quicky and that their higher salary can cover any (medical) cost in the meantime. I would not be so sure. Lower wages for this amount of security seems a great deal to me.

pikzel 6y ago

I don't get why I would get a smaller cut of the profit just because I save less for my children than Americans do. I should be paid what is reasonable for the work I do, not how much money I spent on education.

alkonaut 6y ago
> I don't get why I would get a smaller cut of the profit just because I save less for my children than Americans do In a sense you don't, depending on how you count. My gross salary is after the pension is deduced. The gross includes my kids university costs, but they are deduced as taxes so don't show up on the net. An american deduces the kids university costs from his net salary (and there could be more, e.g. pensions). Comparing pay as a simple number "gross pay" is extremely difficult. Comparing net pay purchasing power or similar after necessary expenses including savings (and kids university) is probably more accurate.

eecks 6y ago

> I expect to have to put aside very little for retirement Which country? You should definitely be saving for retirement

alkonaut 6y ago
Sweden. I am saving but probably 60% of my "retirement savings" are mandatory payments (payroll taxes effectively) and if I save nothing at all, I'll still have a low-but-liveable pension. The last 40% of my pension or so is what I'm saving for, so basically it's the "extra". It's not nearly as much as you'd have to save in a country where you have to fund your whole retirement. Also I don't think I'll want to retire very soon which helps the calculation. Saving durig a 50 year career to live 10-15 years is very different from saving for a 40 year career to be retired 20-25 years. I'm hoping to work to at least 70 or longer and that makes a huge difference too. I some times hear US devs talking about wanting to retire at 55 or 60 - which I'd want too if I didn't have summer off every year!

RestlessMind 6y ago

> I just can’t find an argument why I should be able to get very rich doing my job Another way to think about this is that your job generates certain value in the economy. If labor's salary doesn't capture that, then that value is going somewhere - either to your governments via taxes or to capital owners. I understand that some Europeans will not have problems with the former, but are you comfortable letting capital class capture all the remaining value after taxes? If not, that is a good enough argument because allowing that to happen is what is driving wealth inequality to high levels.

rodgerd 6y ago

What you're decribing reminds me of something Bob Metcalfe wrote years ago (but I'm afraid I don't care enough to find the original), that is: people obsessing over getting their taxes lowered are dummies, because companies will pay positions to a particular level in the social context of their employees. If a job - such a software developer - is supposed by employees to be upper middle class, that's what a company will pay in California, or India, or Germany, or whereever. Tax rates, housing costs, what have you, will be factored into that. Hence, within the US, we immediately see companies expecting to pay remote, outside-SF employees less. In a similar vein, you're describing a lower headline salary buying a comparable standard of living because you aren't paying a mortage-equivalent sum for healthcare and education.