5 ms·

Isn't this an age-old story? Choosing whether or not to take a pay cut to get work you prefer? My initial reaction to "oh woe, my employer pays me so much that

Isn't this an age-old story? Choosing whether or not to take a pay cut to get work you prefer? My initial reaction to "oh woe, my employer pays me so much that I don't want to leave!" is "… and this is a problem?"

sokoloff 6y ago
If you find the work tedious or unethical and have arranged your finances such that you’re trapped into the bi-weekly drip of cash, I’d find that to be a problem.
- Smaug123 6y ago
  I can't help thinking that in that case this really is your fault. Remember, we're talking about SF tech salaries being given to employees who aren't in SF here; many people get by comfortably on far less. (Obviously there are orders of magnitude more people who get paid much less than the sums we're talking about, and don't have enough to get by comfortably. But the question is specifically about people who have been golden-chained to a job in the top 5%-ish of income.)
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    There is a type of chain that is "I'm seeking to FIRE in 10 years and if I quit this job, I can't do that." It doesn't have to be yachts, jets, or nose candy causing the pressure. [0] - FIRE - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIRE_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIRE_movement
    - Smaug123 6y ago
      I still don't see how your position is any worse when Spotify is paying you more.
      - sokoloff 6y ago
        In one case, Spotify is paying me a locally-relevant market wage and I quit Spotify when I find working there mentally exhausting, easily matching my income from my choice of other local employers. Because that market wage is lower than SF, I experience lesser lifestyle inflation and still FIRE in 10 years or I choose to have a more luxe retirement and retire in 16 years. In the other case, Spotify is dumping cash on me by the bucketload, we drive new cars, live in an amazing house, I regularly take amazing vacations with my family, kids go to private schools, and I still plan to FIRE in 10 years and be able to maintain that lifestyle. 3 years in, I realize that I'm miserable and the thought of grinding out 7 more years of this is difficult to bear, but I can't bear asking my family to curtail their standard of living to accommodate my unwillingness to keep bearing the burden of the daily grind. Am I as a person happier in scenario 1 or scenario 2? There's no question that you're richer in scenario 2, but life isn't all about money.
wooger 6y ago
I think 99% of the population would quit today if they didn't need the money.
- Smaug123 6y ago
  Certainly. But the alternative action that anybody can unilaterally take is…? My comment was in response to someone noting that Spotify could be constructing golden chains by paying people far above the market rates for where they live. The people involved are given the means to retire strictly faster in the world where Spotify does that, vs the world in which they don't.
EvilEy3 6y ago
For you definitely no. But for employer they would rather have new excited person working for a bowl of rice than old and tired "just doing my work".

sokoloff 6y ago

If you find the work tedious or unethical and have arranged your finances such that you’re trapped into the bi-weekly drip of cash, I’d find that to be a problem.

Smaug123 6y ago
I can't help thinking that in that case this really is your fault. Remember, we're talking about SF tech salaries being given to employees who aren't in SF here; many people get by comfortably on far less. (Obviously there are orders of magnitude more people who get paid much less than the sums we're talking about, and don't have enough to get by comfortably. But the question is specifically about people who have been golden-chained to a job in the top 5%-ish of income.)
- sokoloff 6y ago
  There is a type of chain that is "I'm seeking to FIRE in 10 years and if I quit this job, I can't do that." It doesn't have to be yachts, jets, or nose candy causing the pressure. [0] - FIRE - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIRE_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIRE_movement
  - Smaug123 6y ago
    I still don't see how your position is any worse when Spotify is paying you more.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      In one case, Spotify is paying me a locally-relevant market wage and I quit Spotify when I find working there mentally exhausting, easily matching my income from my choice of other local employers. Because that market wage is lower than SF, I experience lesser lifestyle inflation and still FIRE in 10 years or I choose to have a more luxe retirement and retire in 16 years. In the other case, Spotify is dumping cash on me by the bucketload, we drive new cars, live in an amazing house, I regularly take amazing vacations with my family, kids go to private schools, and I still plan to FIRE in 10 years and be able to maintain that lifestyle. 3 years in, I realize that I'm miserable and the thought of grinding out 7 more years of this is difficult to bear, but I can't bear asking my family to curtail their standard of living to accommodate my unwillingness to keep bearing the burden of the daily grind. Am I as a person happier in scenario 1 or scenario 2? There's no question that you're richer in scenario 2, but life isn't all about money.

wooger 6y ago

I think 99% of the population would quit today if they didn't need the money.

Smaug123 6y ago
Certainly. But the alternative action that anybody can unilaterally take is…? My comment was in response to someone noting that Spotify could be constructing golden chains by paying people far above the market rates for where they live. The people involved are given the means to retire strictly faster in the world where Spotify does that, vs the world in which they don't.

EvilEy3 6y ago

For you definitely no. But for employer they would rather have new excited person working for a bowl of rice than old and tired "just doing my work".