5 ms·

Everything else being the same, it's better to make 300k than 175k/year. And not everything is the same, normally in those better paid jobs you have better Engi

Everything else being the same, it's better to make 300k than 175k/year. And not everything is the same, normally in those better paid jobs you have better Engineers, a lot of challenging problems, many nice perks, etc. What you don't normally have is flexibility to negotiate special conditions e.g. 4day work week. Also you don't get highly ethical companies, just average ones at that (and it might actually be better to donate the diff between 300k and 175k vs working in a slightly more ethical place for 175k). So as far as general advice goes, it makes sense to recommend trying to get those FAANG jobs if you can.

lumost 5y ago
It's worth highlighting that this was the opposite device a decade ago when the large caps were IBM/MSFT/CISCO etc. The marginal value of a good software engineer is very high when there is good cash flow. It's difficult to increase cash flow without engaging in some software activity. Organizations tend to find that growing a large software organization is counterproductive to effective development vs. growing a better software organization.
ramraj07 5y ago
You might have better engineers in FAAnG but it’s not given that you love your work. Many of my colleagues in those places are bored out of their minds because of how silly or numbing the work is. Part of the reason why I’ve not tried the transition yet.
- franciscop 5y ago
  Yes, of course, that's how statistics and probability work, you are not guaranteed anything. But chances are higher.
- postmeta 5y ago
  plenty of low paying silly and mind-numbing work out there too tho
tubby12345 5y ago
>What you don't normally have is flexibility to negotiate special conditions e.g. 4day work week This isn't true. Google allows you to "scale" your work (eg 80% pay for 80% time).
- Ozzie_osman 5y ago
  Do you have a source for this? I know a lot of people at Google and have never heard of this. In fact, a few years ago I explicitly asked a Google recruiter about this, and they said it wasn't an option. Is it a more recent thing perhaps?
  - Jensson 5y ago
    It was absolutely an option 5 years ago when I worked there. I knew lots of engineers who worked 80% and took every Friday off. Not sure if your manager is forced to give you that option but it didn't seem to be hard to get at least. I think by default such requests gets accepted and your manager would need to give a good reason why you couldn't work part time.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - opinion-is-bad 5y ago
    I think it depends on the team and your role in it. I worked at one of the Google X moonshots and never heard of this. There were a couple engineers from other teams that were donating one day a week to helping us, which is a similar 80/20 split. These 20% were somewhat common at Google, I believe, but it was never to take time off work.
- franciscop 5y ago
  Okay in Google it's a official perk, bad example; my point still stands that you have more negotiation power with specific personal perks in smaller companies than in larger ones.
- jjav 5y ago
  > This isn't true. Google allows you to "scale" your work (eg 80% pay for 80% time). Well.. sort of. My partner was doing 80% for 80% at goog for many years, which sounds like a good deal. Except the demands were more like 40-50 hours/week, with management always saying that full-timers were working way more than 50 hours, so at 80% salary you better be working 40-50hrs/wk.
vincnetas 5y ago
i had to read this twice to make sure i was reading it correctly: and it might actually be better to donate the diff between 300k and 175k vs working in a slightly more ethical place for 175k this really triggered me. you basically say its ok to do shady things as long as you give something to the poor. sounds so much like "indulgence" in Christian churches where you could pay off your sins. sad. i'd say money is not a permission for you to do bad things, and it should not make you fell better about bad things you did (and continue to do) just by giving some of the money away. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence
- franga2000 5y ago
  This is a very specific situation. Someone WILL fill that position at Evil Corp. and they will also get the 300k. The amount of evil done stays the same regardless of whether you take the position or not. But, if you take it and donate 100k to charity each year (especially one that works to undo harm done by your employer), more good is being done as well. X harm + Y good > X harm + 0 good
  - FartyMcFarter 5y ago
    You're missing several important factors there. - with fewer people interested in working at Evil Corp, salaries there will trend up and they may not be able to grow as much as a consequence. - if the most skilled people don't want to work at Evil Corp, that also makes it harder to do evil. I really hope people aren't using oversimplified analysis to justify working on evil stuff.
  - dwaltrip 5y ago
    > Someone WILL fill that position at Evil Corp. and they will also get the 300k. That’s not actually how it works. Maybe it’s 90% true, but the 10% matters, even if it is difficult to evaluate. What is the impact of a position at Evil Corp staying open for 6 months longer than it would have otherwise if GP doesn’t take the job? I don’t know, that is a difficult question. But I know it isn’t zero impact. Our actions matter.
- 5y ago
louis___ 5y ago
But everything else is _never_ the same. Once you're paid more, you move into a bigger house, have more needs, and without knowing it you're just as tight on money as you were before. But then you just have more stress at work, and you just can't quit that easily bc there arent so many jobs that pay as much as this one... Just to provide the other side of this general advice, that is really everywhere, but rarely delivers in regards to happiness.
- BlargMcLarg 5y ago
  >Once you're paid more, you move into a bigger house, have more needs, and without knowing it you're just as tight on money as you were before This absolutely isn't a given. Lifestyle inflation to the extreme is in one's own hands first and foremost. Which is the most audacious part in this whole topic: yes your CoL is likely to be high if you earn such a giant income, but you are given options the majority of the west, let alone the world, will never have. As long as the percentage of one's income spent is roughly similar across all.
  - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
    >This absolutely isn't a given. Lifestyle inflation to the extreme is in one's own hands first and foremost. yes, but most people do that lifestyle inflation - by most I'm going to go with 90+ percent
- franciscop 5y ago
  I've 4x my salary in the last 4 years and barely spend more than in the beginning, that's definitely up to every and each one of us (and TBF you would spend more at least to match the inflation even with no life changes, but in Japan there's almost none).

lumost 5y ago

It's worth highlighting that this was the opposite device a decade ago when the large caps were IBM/MSFT/CISCO etc. The marginal value of a good software engineer is very high when there is good cash flow. It's difficult to increase cash flow without engaging in some software activity. Organizations tend to find that growing a large software organization is counterproductive to effective development vs. growing a better software organization.

ramraj07 5y ago

You might have better engineers in FAAnG but it’s not given that you love your work. Many of my colleagues in those places are bored out of their minds because of how silly or numbing the work is. Part of the reason why I’ve not tried the transition yet.

franciscop 5y ago
Yes, of course, that's how statistics and probability work, you are not guaranteed anything. But chances are higher.
postmeta 5y ago
plenty of low paying silly and mind-numbing work out there too tho

tubby12345 5y ago

>What you don't normally have is flexibility to negotiate special conditions e.g. 4day work week This isn't true. Google allows you to "scale" your work (eg 80% pay for 80% time).

Ozzie_osman 5y ago
Do you have a source for this? I know a lot of people at Google and have never heard of this. In fact, a few years ago I explicitly asked a Google recruiter about this, and they said it wasn't an option. Is it a more recent thing perhaps?
- Jensson 5y ago
  It was absolutely an option 5 years ago when I worked there. I knew lots of engineers who worked 80% and took every Friday off. Not sure if your manager is forced to give you that option but it didn't seem to be hard to get at least. I think by default such requests gets accepted and your manager would need to give a good reason why you couldn't work part time.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- opinion-is-bad 5y ago
  I think it depends on the team and your role in it. I worked at one of the Google X moonshots and never heard of this. There were a couple engineers from other teams that were donating one day a week to helping us, which is a similar 80/20 split. These 20% were somewhat common at Google, I believe, but it was never to take time off work.
franciscop 5y ago
Okay in Google it's a official perk, bad example; my point still stands that you have more negotiation power with specific personal perks in smaller companies than in larger ones.
jjav 5y ago
> This isn't true. Google allows you to "scale" your work (eg 80% pay for 80% time). Well.. sort of. My partner was doing 80% for 80% at goog for many years, which sounds like a good deal. Except the demands were more like 40-50 hours/week, with management always saying that full-timers were working way more than 50 hours, so at 80% salary you better be working 40-50hrs/wk.

vincnetas 5y ago

i had to read this twice to make sure i was reading it correctly: and it might actually be better to donate the diff between 300k and 175k vs working in a slightly more ethical place for 175k this really triggered me. you basically say its ok to do shady things as long as you give something to the poor. sounds so much like "indulgence" in Christian churches where you could pay off your sins. sad. i'd say money is not a permission for you to do bad things, and it should not make you fell better about bad things you did (and continue to do) just by giving some of the money away. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence

franga2000 5y ago
This is a very specific situation. Someone WILL fill that position at Evil Corp. and they will also get the 300k. The amount of evil done stays the same regardless of whether you take the position or not. But, if you take it and donate 100k to charity each year (especially one that works to undo harm done by your employer), more good is being done as well. X harm + Y good > X harm + 0 good
- FartyMcFarter 5y ago
  You're missing several important factors there. - with fewer people interested in working at Evil Corp, salaries there will trend up and they may not be able to grow as much as a consequence. - if the most skilled people don't want to work at Evil Corp, that also makes it harder to do evil. I really hope people aren't using oversimplified analysis to justify working on evil stuff.
- dwaltrip 5y ago
  > Someone WILL fill that position at Evil Corp. and they will also get the 300k. That’s not actually how it works. Maybe it’s 90% true, but the 10% matters, even if it is difficult to evaluate. What is the impact of a position at Evil Corp staying open for 6 months longer than it would have otherwise if GP doesn’t take the job? I don’t know, that is a difficult question. But I know it isn’t zero impact. Our actions matter.
5y ago

louis___ 5y ago

But everything else is _never_ the same. Once you're paid more, you move into a bigger house, have more needs, and without knowing it you're just as tight on money as you were before. But then you just have more stress at work, and you just can't quit that easily bc there arent so many jobs that pay as much as this one... Just to provide the other side of this general advice, that is really everywhere, but rarely delivers in regards to happiness.

BlargMcLarg 5y ago
>Once you're paid more, you move into a bigger house, have more needs, and without knowing it you're just as tight on money as you were before This absolutely isn't a given. Lifestyle inflation to the extreme is in one's own hands first and foremost. Which is the most audacious part in this whole topic: yes your CoL is likely to be high if you earn such a giant income, but you are given options the majority of the west, let alone the world, will never have. As long as the percentage of one's income spent is roughly similar across all.
- bryanrasmussen 5y ago
  >This absolutely isn't a given. Lifestyle inflation to the extreme is in one's own hands first and foremost. yes, but most people do that lifestyle inflation - by most I'm going to go with 90+ percent
franciscop 5y ago
I've 4x my salary in the last 4 years and barely spend more than in the beginning, that's definitely up to every and each one of us (and TBF you would spend more at least to match the inflation even with no life changes, but in Japan there's almost none).