5 ms·

Off the top of my head: 1. More money means less time till I hit FU money and can choose work without any consideration of pay 2. 200k/yr is not as much as it

Off the top of my head: 1. More money means less time till I hit FU money and can choose work without any consideration of pay 2. 200k/yr is not as much as it seems if you're in the bay area and have kids 3. Bigger title -> more input on core design decisions. Hate some idea coming from the higher ups? You're in a position to do something about it. 4. Bigger title -> more control in picking interesting problems to work on. People trust you to say "this should be a priority"

geodel 4y ago
In general I agree. It's just that I don't know if salaried job lead to FU money. The only person I had or will be able to say FU is to myself sitting alone in living room.
- ketchupdebugger 4y ago
  You'd be able to reach FIRE money as a SWE. Possibly FU money if you get to vp level at a FAANG and then work for 10 years.
- Hermitian909 4y ago
  Depends on who you are and what your growth potential is. I know SWEs getting offers in the 7-8 figure range. That's not in any way typical but if you're smart enough, hardworking, and get the right breaks hitting a 7 figure income isn't something I'd consider weird and is definitely FU money.
burnoutgal 4y ago
Do you worry about being hit by a bus before you have FU money? Personally I'd rather work half time for twice as many years than try to race to retire. A lot of responses seem to be focused on high cost-of-living areas, which is kind of a chicken-and-egg problem. If you want to be a moderately checked out person, living in a smaller city and stretching your giant bay area salary is the way to go. If you want to be aggressively careerist, you have to be face-to-face in the bay networking. More input and more interesting problems both feel like more responsibility for the same comp, imo, which might be appealing for some people but is anathema to me. The people higher up got there by being more argumentative, or backstabbing, or ingratiating themselves, and instead of going along with them now you get to fight them. No thanks.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  I’d rather work twice as many hours per year for half as many years. It’s not that one choice is obviously dominant over the other across all people.
  - ryandrake 4y ago
    Yes, given "getting hit by a bus" is a probabilistic event that is independent of my working hours, I would rather make 2x for half as many years, all other things being equal. I'd also rather make 3x for a third as many years, and so on, if it were possible. Given time value of money and compounding interest, it's always better to front load your working time and make Nx for 1/N as much calendar time worked. And for the controversial part: The above is why I think it's insane to, for example, take 1-2 years of not working, early in your 20s, to go see the world and "find yourself." Those 1-2 years, if spent earning, could mean retiring an extra 3-6 years earlier.
    - sokoloff 4y ago
      I agree with your conclusion, but I think there’s a fair argument to say that an extra week of leisure in your 20s is worth more than an extra week of leisure in your 50s or 60s. That is even more true if you’re working 48 weeks/year in your 20s and zero weeks in your 60s.
    - happimess 4y ago
      I think it's insane to, for example, work at an office early in your 20s, to put a couple grand in your 401(k). Those 1-2 years, if spent exploring, could mean finding a happier and more thoughtful way to progress through the latter 70% of your life.
      - spacemadness 4y ago
        I think this points out a difference in viewing everything in life as an efficiency problem focused on retirement age and overall wealth. Makes sense for a forum of engineers to see it this way I suppose.
summerlight 4y ago
> 4. Bigger title -> more control in picking interesting problems to work on. People trust you to say "this should be a priority" This is probably one of the most dominant non-financial factor for engineers. Because if you want to make a visible, critical design decisions for billion-user products you usually want to be at least L6~L7, the level where you're now an owner of a non-trivial product/system spanning across teams.

geodel 4y ago

In general I agree. It's just that I don't know if salaried job lead to FU money. The only person I had or will be able to say FU is to myself sitting alone in living room.

ketchupdebugger 4y ago
You'd be able to reach FIRE money as a SWE. Possibly FU money if you get to vp level at a FAANG and then work for 10 years.
Hermitian909 4y ago
Depends on who you are and what your growth potential is. I know SWEs getting offers in the 7-8 figure range. That's not in any way typical but if you're smart enough, hardworking, and get the right breaks hitting a 7 figure income isn't something I'd consider weird and is definitely FU money.

burnoutgal 4y ago

Do you worry about being hit by a bus before you have FU money? Personally I'd rather work half time for twice as many years than try to race to retire. A lot of responses seem to be focused on high cost-of-living areas, which is kind of a chicken-and-egg problem. If you want to be a moderately checked out person, living in a smaller city and stretching your giant bay area salary is the way to go. If you want to be aggressively careerist, you have to be face-to-face in the bay networking. More input and more interesting problems both feel like more responsibility for the same comp, imo, which might be appealing for some people but is anathema to me. The people higher up got there by being more argumentative, or backstabbing, or ingratiating themselves, and instead of going along with them now you get to fight them. No thanks.

sokoloff 4y ago
I’d rather work twice as many hours per year for half as many years. It’s not that one choice is obviously dominant over the other across all people.
- ryandrake 4y ago
  Yes, given "getting hit by a bus" is a probabilistic event that is independent of my working hours, I would rather make 2x for half as many years, all other things being equal. I'd also rather make 3x for a third as many years, and so on, if it were possible. Given time value of money and compounding interest, it's always better to front load your working time and make Nx for 1/N as much calendar time worked. And for the controversial part: The above is why I think it's insane to, for example, take 1-2 years of not working, early in your 20s, to go see the world and "find yourself." Those 1-2 years, if spent earning, could mean retiring an extra 3-6 years earlier.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    I agree with your conclusion, but I think there’s a fair argument to say that an extra week of leisure in your 20s is worth more than an extra week of leisure in your 50s or 60s. That is even more true if you’re working 48 weeks/year in your 20s and zero weeks in your 60s.
  - happimess 4y ago
    I think it's insane to, for example, work at an office early in your 20s, to put a couple grand in your 401(k). Those 1-2 years, if spent exploring, could mean finding a happier and more thoughtful way to progress through the latter 70% of your life.
    - spacemadness 4y ago
      I think this points out a difference in viewing everything in life as an efficiency problem focused on retirement age and overall wealth. Makes sense for a forum of engineers to see it this way I suppose.

summerlight 4y ago

> 4. Bigger title -> more control in picking interesting problems to work on. People trust you to say "this should be a priority" This is probably one of the most dominant non-financial factor for engineers. Because if you want to make a visible, critical design decisions for billion-user products you usually want to be at least L6~L7, the level where you're now an owner of a non-trivial product/system spanning across teams.