12 ms·

> If you tell people that if they work 12+ hours a day in their 20s that they would be millionaires or billionaires Billionaire isn’t a realistic goal, but mil

> If you tell people that if they work 12+ hours a day in their 20s that they would be millionaires or billionaires Billionaire isn’t a realistic goal, but millionaire is a common outcome for software developers who work hard through their 20s and 30s now. It doesn’t even require a FAANG job or living in a super expensive city any more, just wise job selection, a reasonable amount of financial savvy and budget adherence, and a deliberate effort to work on your career path. You don’t need to own substantial equity in a company in your 20s to have a reason to work hard, as long as you’re doing work that builds your skill set, reputation, and network. Everything you do (or don’t do) has some impact on your persona capital over time. Working hard in the mailroom or stocking shelves at a grocery store isn’t going to translate into a successful software career, but making an impact and helping people get things done at several companies through your 20s is the easiest way to build a strong network that opens doors in your 30s and beyond

necrotic_comp 5y ago
And luck. Don't forget luck.
- giantg2 5y ago
  This. I have experienced a lot of bad luck. Luck is a huge component that can even negate other factors like hard work.
hashkb 5y ago
Not common. As in, strictly less than half.
minikites 5y ago
>just wise job selection, a reasonable amount of financial savvy and budget adherence, and a deliberate effort to work on your career path The "just" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. You seem to be saying that privileged people become successful, which is kind of a tautology.
sidlls 5y ago
> millionaire is a common outcome for software developers who work hard through their 20s and 30s now. No, it's not. It's common for some FAANG engineers. It's not common at all for the industry as a whole. Look at all these comments doubling-down on the "7%/$10k-per-year" arithmetic, as if the only thing that affects savings rates is knowledge of this basic math. For a data driven community there sure are a lot of people ignoring the data.
- denimnerd42 5y ago
  Anyone making high 5 or low 6 figures will be a millionaire at the start retirement if they can save a modest amount from a reasonably early start, say 30 years old.
  - hatchnyc 5y ago
    While technically correct, this doesn't square with most people's intuitive sense of what "being a millionaire" means. It's not having a solid retirement nest egg, it is being able to jet off to your yacht in St. Tropez on a private jet. I think this is largely due to inflation. A million dollars in the 50s or 60s would be around 10 million today, while at the turn of the 20th century when the term really became popular it would be worth 30 million today. A "millionaire" of the time is really living a different lifestyle and can likely afford a very extravagant upper class lifestyle purely on interest of their wealth. With housing costs having risen so much faster still beyond inflation, today you can easily be "a millionaire" simply by having a bit of equity in a modest home in a costal city.
    - denimnerd42 5y ago
      yeah well that's true about people's intuition but it hasn't been the case for a long time. to "jet off on a private jet" anywhere regularly probably requires a salary on the order of a million per year.
    - closeparen 5y ago
      But most people's intuitive sense of "being a millionaire" informs how they think about tax policy...
freewilly1040 5y ago
> wise job selection I.e. choosing companies that have (or eventually get) publicly traded stock that goes up a bunch. There are whole classes of people who sit around all day trying to figure out which companies will grow and succeed and which ones won't. They aren't really that good at it. There's a certain point of working hard enough to clear the interview bar of the FAANG companies or similar, but beyond that your financial success is largely tied to a favorable roll of the dice.
bko 5y ago
> Working hard in the mailroom or stocking shelves at a grocery store isn’t going to translate into a successful software career Right, but it might lead to satisfaction regardless. Even the most menial positions are often rewarded. I have worked a few menial jobs, and effort is even more important. When I worked hard and went the extra mile when required, I got rewarded with better shifts, more flexibility and more respect. It also personally felt good. I find that people who don't work hard and are apathetic about the work they do are often deeply unhappy, while people that take pride in their work and work hard are satisfied. The best feeling I get in the day is after a grueling workout. There are health benefits sure, but its not worth the amount of discomfort and suffering I have to endure. If there were a pill that gave me the same benefits, I would be less satisfied than putting in the work. But maybe that's just me. People who work hard often have better personal circumstances as well. Who would want to be with a partner that just spends their life going through the motions with no real purpose or drive?
- lupire 5y ago
  Putting that extra effort into forming a union might pay off a lot more than trying to impress MegaMart AI Scheduler v3.6 Putting the extra effort into a menial job isn't "a grueling workout", it's mortgaging your body and health for a price you'll regret in 20 years.
  - bko 5y ago
    I don't know what to tell you if you think that. I guess don't put in effort in a menial job? Just quit, slack off and post on HN instead? I don't think menial work leads to "mortgaging your body". Some jobs sure, but those very physically demanding jobs pay well because the alternative would be a job that pays equally as poorly and is not physically demanding. You can always default to working at a grocer or fast food job. Those factory jobs at Amazon that are fairly grueling pay a lot better than similar jobs in those areas w/ that skill set. People don't really work them very long either due to the demands. So you can do that for a few years, make more money and hopefully invest it in building out a more valuable skill-set or give better opportunities to your children.
  - 5y ago
overtonwhy 5y ago
Allow yourself to be exploited by capital in exchange for experience and you'll probably be rewarded later when you get to exploit inexperienced people? Sounds like a big risk for labor and a big win for capital.
- minikites 5y ago
  Well said. That's why capital has to write essays like this to make it seem like a better deal than it is, lest the rest of us figure it out and organize.
- tmule 5y ago
  Strange framing. Working very hard in the US has made my compensation increase 7X in 9 years. I’m not capital (this isn’t a static group, btw), I don’t feel exploited, and I don’t exploit anyone - I invested in myself and successfully optimized for long-run outcomes.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    I worked hard, got a masters, basically doing everything "right". I'm 9 years in with maybe a +20% inflation adjusted salary.
  - overtonwhy 5y ago
    Strange how you're assuming that your personal anecdotal experience is applicable to everyone else.
    - tmule 5y ago
      I’m in the midst of people who essentially have had the same career trajectory, while starting in this country with debt and zero social capital. It’s not applicable to everyone, but it’s also pretty darn attainable - unless you’re convinced that it’s not/
giantg2 5y ago
I updated to multi-millionaire. The idea was that people would have enough money to quit their job and live very comfortably. I think the network effect is highly overblown for the average person. Sure, networks can be good for the people in the top 10%, but I don't see it really helping most of us because what are the chances our average friends will be in a position to hire us to a high position. I don't see an average developer being even a millionaire after a decade. Average salary is about $100k, but might be skewed due to the high cost areas. That's $1M before tax, living expenses, etc. Maybe you could hit $1M after 2 decades if lucky.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  Is the average for a developer really that low (in the US)? In the Boston-area market (now remote, but same pay scale), we're paying more than that for fresh college hires. Get hired, contribute to your 401(k), buy a house, and do that for 15 years and in most markets I think your change in net worth over the 15 years is more likely to be >$1MM than less.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Yes. I make under $100k with 9 years experience and a masters as a midlevel. https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/software-developer-salary-SRCH_KO0,18.htm https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/software-developer-salary...
    - thebean11 5y ago
      GlassDoor is notorious for having salary data that's consistently lower than reality. Compare any individual company's GlassDoor and levels.fyi
      - giantg2 5y ago
        Levels.fyi is skewed to the top paying tech companies though. BLS shows median as $110k https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/mobile/software-developers.htm https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/...
the_jeremy 5y ago
> just wise job selection, a reasonable amount of financial savvy and budget adherence, and a deliberate effort to work on your career path. None of that requires working 12+ hours a day. I am one employee out of x,000 at my company. The difference between me giving 75% and me giving 150% (hours) seems very unlikely to affect the stock price in any meaningful way.
- cloverich 5y ago
  Do you think your colleagues can distinguish between someone who excel's and someone who does not? Do you think when they find some lucky opportunity, they would be more likely to reach out to the harder working colleagues they know or the lazier ones? It doesn't require 12 hour work days and we could exagerate ad nauseum, but generally speaking working hard and working smart earns you more than just a marginal impact on your current business -- it earns you a reputation that you can leverage towards greater opportunity.
  - the_jeremy 5y ago
    Sure. There are definitely colleagues I would recommend over others if I had to only choose one, but I don't. Bouncing between large companies means "sure, I'll refer you and get $5k for doing so" as long as I think you can pass the interview.
ryandrake 5y ago
> Working hard in the mailroom or stocking shelves at a grocery store isn’t going to translate into a successful software career Equally, working hard as a software engineer isn't going to translate into the "uncapped salary" class of employment like CEO/CTO, VP, Founder, etc. There's a class ceiling where only a certain type of person gains entry. You can hard-work yourself to the bone writing code, but that "VP of Engineering" role is going to go to the external candidate who is already "VP of Engineering" somewhere else, and who has been some flavor of Director or VP his whole career. Jobs are a lot more class-stratified and career immobile than we like to think they are. This reminds me of a previous "hard work" discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27517158 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27517158
- romanhn 5y ago
  This has nothing to do with class, similar to how declining a junior engineer for an architect role is not classist. A VP Engineering role is a senior management position, and being a fantastic programmer is not a reasonable transition point. It's a lot more reasonable to either make a lateral hire or promote internally from a lower level (say, Director). Tiny startups take more chances with whom they place into these positions out of necessity. At the end of the day though, vast majority of coders don't have the right set of skills to be a successful VP right there and then, as their day-to-day responsibilities do not meaningfully overlap. Doesn't mean they can't get there, but there's a career progression aspect to it which is certainly within their grasp. Vast majority of Directors and VPs work their way up, just like everyone else.
  - watwut 5y ago
    But that is not argument against what he said. All software engineers cant be VPs. It is not possible - there are not enough positions and many people are not suitable for that role. If everyone worked super hard, still only minority would got these positions.
    - romanhn 5y ago
      That was not the main argument of the parent comment, this was: > There's a class ceiling where only a certain type of person gains entry It is true that working hard alone is not going to get you into a VP role, but working hard on the right things has a much higher likelihood of accomplishing that. Impact != hours put in, and vice versa, and frankly this is where a lot of the hard working people find themselves. Doing a difficult, but low leverage activity (relatively speaking) really well does not automatically entitle one to a role that is intended to be high leverage, all the time.
lm28469 5y ago
> but millionaire is a common outcome for software developers who work hard through their 20s and 30s now. lol, the world isn't limited to SF and FAANG. Software developers are the new factory workers, becoming millionaire is far from "common"
coldtea 5y ago
>Billionaire isn’t a realistic goal, but millionaire is a common outcome for software developers who work hard through their 20s and 30s now. In some bubble yes. There are 10s of millions of software developers in the world, and hardly 1% of them is any kind of millionaire...

necrotic_comp 5y ago

And luck. Don't forget luck.

giantg2 5y ago
This. I have experienced a lot of bad luck. Luck is a huge component that can even negate other factors like hard work.

hashkb 5y ago

Not common. As in, strictly less than half.

minikites 5y ago

>just wise job selection, a reasonable amount of financial savvy and budget adherence, and a deliberate effort to work on your career path The "just" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. You seem to be saying that privileged people become successful, which is kind of a tautology.

sidlls 5y ago

> millionaire is a common outcome for software developers who work hard through their 20s and 30s now. No, it's not. It's common for some FAANG engineers. It's not common at all for the industry as a whole. Look at all these comments doubling-down on the "7%/$10k-per-year" arithmetic, as if the only thing that affects savings rates is knowledge of this basic math. For a data driven community there sure are a lot of people ignoring the data.

denimnerd42 5y ago
Anyone making high 5 or low 6 figures will be a millionaire at the start retirement if they can save a modest amount from a reasonably early start, say 30 years old.
- hatchnyc 5y ago
  While technically correct, this doesn't square with most people's intuitive sense of what "being a millionaire" means. It's not having a solid retirement nest egg, it is being able to jet off to your yacht in St. Tropez on a private jet. I think this is largely due to inflation. A million dollars in the 50s or 60s would be around 10 million today, while at the turn of the 20th century when the term really became popular it would be worth 30 million today. A "millionaire" of the time is really living a different lifestyle and can likely afford a very extravagant upper class lifestyle purely on interest of their wealth. With housing costs having risen so much faster still beyond inflation, today you can easily be "a millionaire" simply by having a bit of equity in a modest home in a costal city.
  - denimnerd42 5y ago
    yeah well that's true about people's intuition but it hasn't been the case for a long time. to "jet off on a private jet" anywhere regularly probably requires a salary on the order of a million per year.
  - closeparen 5y ago
    But most people's intuitive sense of "being a millionaire" informs how they think about tax policy...

freewilly1040 5y ago

> wise job selection I.e. choosing companies that have (or eventually get) publicly traded stock that goes up a bunch. There are whole classes of people who sit around all day trying to figure out which companies will grow and succeed and which ones won't. They aren't really that good at it. There's a certain point of working hard enough to clear the interview bar of the FAANG companies or similar, but beyond that your financial success is largely tied to a favorable roll of the dice.

bko 5y ago

> Working hard in the mailroom or stocking shelves at a grocery store isn’t going to translate into a successful software career Right, but it might lead to satisfaction regardless. Even the most menial positions are often rewarded. I have worked a few menial jobs, and effort is even more important. When I worked hard and went the extra mile when required, I got rewarded with better shifts, more flexibility and more respect. It also personally felt good. I find that people who don't work hard and are apathetic about the work they do are often deeply unhappy, while people that take pride in their work and work hard are satisfied. The best feeling I get in the day is after a grueling workout. There are health benefits sure, but its not worth the amount of discomfort and suffering I have to endure. If there were a pill that gave me the same benefits, I would be less satisfied than putting in the work. But maybe that's just me. People who work hard often have better personal circumstances as well. Who would want to be with a partner that just spends their life going through the motions with no real purpose or drive?

lupire 5y ago
Putting that extra effort into forming a union might pay off a lot more than trying to impress MegaMart AI Scheduler v3.6 Putting the extra effort into a menial job isn't "a grueling workout", it's mortgaging your body and health for a price you'll regret in 20 years.
- bko 5y ago
  I don't know what to tell you if you think that. I guess don't put in effort in a menial job? Just quit, slack off and post on HN instead? I don't think menial work leads to "mortgaging your body". Some jobs sure, but those very physically demanding jobs pay well because the alternative would be a job that pays equally as poorly and is not physically demanding. You can always default to working at a grocer or fast food job. Those factory jobs at Amazon that are fairly grueling pay a lot better than similar jobs in those areas w/ that skill set. People don't really work them very long either due to the demands. So you can do that for a few years, make more money and hopefully invest it in building out a more valuable skill-set or give better opportunities to your children.
- 5y ago

overtonwhy 5y ago

Allow yourself to be exploited by capital in exchange for experience and you'll probably be rewarded later when you get to exploit inexperienced people? Sounds like a big risk for labor and a big win for capital.

minikites 5y ago
Well said. That's why capital has to write essays like this to make it seem like a better deal than it is, lest the rest of us figure it out and organize.
tmule 5y ago
Strange framing. Working very hard in the US has made my compensation increase 7X in 9 years. I’m not capital (this isn’t a static group, btw), I don’t feel exploited, and I don’t exploit anyone - I invested in myself and successfully optimized for long-run outcomes.
- giantg2 5y ago
  I worked hard, got a masters, basically doing everything "right". I'm 9 years in with maybe a +20% inflation adjusted salary.
- overtonwhy 5y ago
  Strange how you're assuming that your personal anecdotal experience is applicable to everyone else.
  - tmule 5y ago
    I’m in the midst of people who essentially have had the same career trajectory, while starting in this country with debt and zero social capital. It’s not applicable to everyone, but it’s also pretty darn attainable - unless you’re convinced that it’s not/

giantg2 5y ago

I updated to multi-millionaire. The idea was that people would have enough money to quit their job and live very comfortably. I think the network effect is highly overblown for the average person. Sure, networks can be good for the people in the top 10%, but I don't see it really helping most of us because what are the chances our average friends will be in a position to hire us to a high position. I don't see an average developer being even a millionaire after a decade. Average salary is about $100k, but might be skewed due to the high cost areas. That's $1M before tax, living expenses, etc. Maybe you could hit $1M after 2 decades if lucky.

sokoloff 5y ago
Is the average for a developer really that low (in the US)? In the Boston-area market (now remote, but same pay scale), we're paying more than that for fresh college hires. Get hired, contribute to your 401(k), buy a house, and do that for 15 years and in most markets I think your change in net worth over the 15 years is more likely to be >$1MM than less.
- giantg2 5y ago
  Yes. I make under $100k with 9 years experience and a masters as a midlevel. https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/software-developer-salary-SRCH_KO0,18.htm https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/software-developer-salary...
  - thebean11 5y ago
    GlassDoor is notorious for having salary data that's consistently lower than reality. Compare any individual company's GlassDoor and levels.fyi
    - giantg2 5y ago
      Levels.fyi is skewed to the top paying tech companies though. BLS shows median as $110k https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/mobile/software-developers.htm https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/...

the_jeremy 5y ago

> just wise job selection, a reasonable amount of financial savvy and budget adherence, and a deliberate effort to work on your career path. None of that requires working 12+ hours a day. I am one employee out of x,000 at my company. The difference between me giving 75% and me giving 150% (hours) seems very unlikely to affect the stock price in any meaningful way.

cloverich 5y ago
Do you think your colleagues can distinguish between someone who excel's and someone who does not? Do you think when they find some lucky opportunity, they would be more likely to reach out to the harder working colleagues they know or the lazier ones? It doesn't require 12 hour work days and we could exagerate ad nauseum, but generally speaking working hard and working smart earns you more than just a marginal impact on your current business -- it earns you a reputation that you can leverage towards greater opportunity.
- the_jeremy 5y ago
  Sure. There are definitely colleagues I would recommend over others if I had to only choose one, but I don't. Bouncing between large companies means "sure, I'll refer you and get $5k for doing so" as long as I think you can pass the interview.

ryandrake 5y ago

> Working hard in the mailroom or stocking shelves at a grocery store isn’t going to translate into a successful software career Equally, working hard as a software engineer isn't going to translate into the "uncapped salary" class of employment like CEO/CTO, VP, Founder, etc. There's a class ceiling where only a certain type of person gains entry. You can hard-work yourself to the bone writing code, but that "VP of Engineering" role is going to go to the external candidate who is already "VP of Engineering" somewhere else, and who has been some flavor of Director or VP his whole career. Jobs are a lot more class-stratified and career immobile than we like to think they are. This reminds me of a previous "hard work" discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27517158 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27517158

romanhn 5y ago
This has nothing to do with class, similar to how declining a junior engineer for an architect role is not classist. A VP Engineering role is a senior management position, and being a fantastic programmer is not a reasonable transition point. It's a lot more reasonable to either make a lateral hire or promote internally from a lower level (say, Director). Tiny startups take more chances with whom they place into these positions out of necessity. At the end of the day though, vast majority of coders don't have the right set of skills to be a successful VP right there and then, as their day-to-day responsibilities do not meaningfully overlap. Doesn't mean they can't get there, but there's a career progression aspect to it which is certainly within their grasp. Vast majority of Directors and VPs work their way up, just like everyone else.
- watwut 5y ago
  But that is not argument against what he said. All software engineers cant be VPs. It is not possible - there are not enough positions and many people are not suitable for that role. If everyone worked super hard, still only minority would got these positions.
  - romanhn 5y ago
    That was not the main argument of the parent comment, this was: > There's a class ceiling where only a certain type of person gains entry It is true that working hard alone is not going to get you into a VP role, but working hard on the right things has a much higher likelihood of accomplishing that. Impact != hours put in, and vice versa, and frankly this is where a lot of the hard working people find themselves. Doing a difficult, but low leverage activity (relatively speaking) really well does not automatically entitle one to a role that is intended to be high leverage, all the time.

lm28469 5y ago

> but millionaire is a common outcome for software developers who work hard through their 20s and 30s now. lol, the world isn't limited to SF and FAANG. Software developers are the new factory workers, becoming millionaire is far from "common"

coldtea 5y ago

>Billionaire isn’t a realistic goal, but millionaire is a common outcome for software developers who work hard through their 20s and 30s now. In some bubble yes. There are 10s of millions of software developers in the world, and hardly 1% of them is any kind of millionaire...