5 ms·

If all jobs had the same salary, benefits, career path, etc, there is no way I'd trade software development for a job involving strenuous physical labor.

symlinkk 4y ago
I would. Imagine getting paid to be outdoors in the sun getting exercise. Imagine not having to spend an extra hour each day in a crowded gym doing boring repetitive movements because your sedentary job would ruin your body otherwise. Imagine not having posture and back problems at age 30. Imagine having the output of a hard days work be a physical object you can point to your son and say “see? I made that”.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Fomite 4y ago
  A lot of physical jobs will happily ruin your body, and give you posture, back and knee problems at age 30.
- Bakary 4y ago
  If you are an American SWE or have a corresponding salary, you pretty much only have to work for 10 or so years before retiring, assuming you learn how personal finance works and learn to live without a fancy car or any status-related possessions. Heck you could do it in 5 years if you are a FAANG employee.
  - symlinkk 4y ago
    Genuinely wondering how you came up with that. How much do you think Americans have left after taxes and living expenses?
    - Bakary 4y ago
      I'll walk back on the five years FAANG claim as I was venting a bit. But let's say you earn $200K (you'd start with less but end up with more at the 5 year mark), $135-165K take home, $105K if you save 70% of your salary. If we count compound interest, investments, stocks, healthcare savings due to generous SWE contracts, you could definitely achieve freedom if you wanted to with the 4% rule. It would require abandoning some luxury, but even on 30% of your take home salary you would have a decent lifestyle, more than most make total. And then you'd be in a position to do what you want, be as healthy as you need to be, no longer a need to buy things to make you forget about your servitude. You could travel on the cheap with longer flights because you would have time to do so. Let's say I'm wrong, and it's more like 15-18 years. Well, that's still much much much better than what most people get. You can have decades of your life back. How much of your freedom are toys and consumption worth?
      - ElfinTrousers 4y ago
        Ok, but then you'd have spent your entire unrecoverable youth working for a FAANG. I realize this doesn't bother some people, and I don't understand that.
        Bakary 4y ago
        Of course it bothers people. But it's better than losing the last functional decades as well.
  - ninkendo 4y ago
    I’m not sure you could do it in 5 years at a FAANG even if you saved every penny (literally zero living expenses.) Because if you start a career at 22, that means you retire at 27, and have to have enough saved up for something like 40 years before social security kicks in. That’s a long time to be living off of savings. Can you have enough that you can live off the interest in your investments? Depends. You’d need near-zero-risk investments because you don’t want to get wiped out at the next recession (they happen every 10-ish years) and those tend to have low yields. Source: I’m 10 years into a faang and I have a bunch saved up, but I’m still in my 30s. There’s no way I could retire now with my wife and kids depending on me, the amount I make on the interest of my investments isn’t nearly enough and is too risky.
    - Bakary 4y ago
      I'll admit 5 years was hyperbolic and unrealistic, perhaps something reserved for the most promising workers at those FAANGs. But if you are 10 years into your FAANG career, you should be earning at minimum in the 300K net/210k take home range, and have done so for years. At this point you must be trading freedom for creature comforts or status goods if you are not financially independent.
      - ninkendo 4y ago
        What’s financially independent mean at age 35? Say you saved 200k every year (which isn’t even technically possible given that the typical tax rate for 300k means a smaller net than that.) You have 2 million in the bank. Can you live off 2 million for 30 years (social security age) while supporting a family as the sole earner, for that long? You gotta be really confident in your investments to take that plunge.
        Bakary 4y ago
        Well it depends on your personal circumstances. As per the 4% rule, you can definitely live off $80K with a family. That's above the US median wage by a large margin. You could live on $40K too, which is terrible if working but completely different if not. Again, this will depend on what you value in life. Think about what not having to work actually means. There's a list of advantages that is too large to properly enumerate. Being able to see your children. Eating correctly and cheaply. Engaging in intimate relationships with vigor, time and energy. Being in great health. Fixing maintenance problems yourself. No career forcing you to live in a particular place. Traveling inexpensively when you want. Less obesity, stress and copium. Have hobbies and self-actualization. All of this in years that still qualify as your prime instead of when your body is failing you. The same salary when not working is like operating in a different world. And ironically this would also give you the time to pursue entrepreneurship or any number of money-making ventures if you are so inclined. Heck, just go part-time if you miss it. If you are a FAANG person you can have a higher salary than people's full time. Most people will not have that opportunity. I certainly won't, barring some miracle. But you have it. What will you do when you retire at 55 and realize that pretty much all of the really healthy years of your life have been spent in an office? Great, you've got a comfy retirement but it's too late.
- SantalBlush 4y ago
  You just described what a weekend home project is like, not a real blue-collar job.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- badpun 4y ago
  > Imagine getting paid to be outdoors in the sun getting exercise. Combine that with - imagine being outside when it's cold, windy and raining - and you still have to do an 8 hour shift in those conditions. At minimum, it sounds like a fast-track to arthritis (a painful and non-curable condition that will plague you for the rest of your life). Or, imagine doing hard, physical labor for 8 hours in sweltering heat, which makes other human people avoid going out at all.
- ElfinTrousers 4y ago
  If you think desk jobs are bad for your posture and back, I have some bad news about physical labor. But don't take my word for it: try it sometime.
zmgsabst 4y ago
If being a security guard paid half instead of a tenth what I made as $BIGCO software developer, I’d switch back immediately.
AlotOfReading 4y ago
Man, I'd go back to being an archaeologist in a heartbeat. I like software, but the whole corporate thing gets old real fast.
- the_only_law 4y ago
  Archeology sounds awesome, but I imagine it’s one of those highly academic fields where barely anyone makes it.
  - AlotOfReading 4y ago
    There's a surprisingly large number of jobs, but making even middle class income is difficult unless you're one of the dozens of people that get a staff job with the government or win the academic lottery and get a tenure track position.
- theonething 4y ago
  do both. archaeology software
  - badpun 4y ago
    Or software archeology! (going through interesting old code bases and documenting them for posterity).
jimt1234 4y ago
I would. I enjoy working on software, but honestly, the most satisfying job I ever had was a janitor, cleaning office buildings. Seriously. The job was at night - I'm a night owl. The job was performed almost entirely in solitude - I hate people LOL. I could listen to music all night and it never interrupted my work. No meetings or drawn out decisions. No "case of the Mondays". I worked my butt off physically, but at the end of my shift, my brain was still totally fresh. I used to look at it like I was getting paid to exercise because the work was so physical. I slept like a damn baby when I was a janitor. But, most of all, I really enjoyed cleaning: coming in at night, looking at a total disaster area, working my butt off, then leaving just before dawn with everything looking spotless. I took pride in it. Kinda funny how most of the software projects I work on now are around hygiene, cleaning up old code and dead configs, stuff like that. Once a janitor, always a janitor. Oh yeah, the worst thing about being a janitor isn't the pay. It's being treated like shit by literally everyone. People can be assholes, especially when they're talking to the janitor.

symlinkk 4y ago

I would. Imagine getting paid to be outdoors in the sun getting exercise. Imagine not having to spend an extra hour each day in a crowded gym doing boring repetitive movements because your sedentary job would ruin your body otherwise. Imagine not having posture and back problems at age 30. Imagine having the output of a hard days work be a physical object you can point to your son and say “see? I made that”.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Fomite 4y ago
A lot of physical jobs will happily ruin your body, and give you posture, back and knee problems at age 30.
Bakary 4y ago
If you are an American SWE or have a corresponding salary, you pretty much only have to work for 10 or so years before retiring, assuming you learn how personal finance works and learn to live without a fancy car or any status-related possessions. Heck you could do it in 5 years if you are a FAANG employee.
- symlinkk 4y ago
  Genuinely wondering how you came up with that. How much do you think Americans have left after taxes and living expenses?
  - Bakary 4y ago
    I'll walk back on the five years FAANG claim as I was venting a bit. But let's say you earn $200K (you'd start with less but end up with more at the 5 year mark), $135-165K take home, $105K if you save 70% of your salary. If we count compound interest, investments, stocks, healthcare savings due to generous SWE contracts, you could definitely achieve freedom if you wanted to with the 4% rule. It would require abandoning some luxury, but even on 30% of your take home salary you would have a decent lifestyle, more than most make total. And then you'd be in a position to do what you want, be as healthy as you need to be, no longer a need to buy things to make you forget about your servitude. You could travel on the cheap with longer flights because you would have time to do so. Let's say I'm wrong, and it's more like 15-18 years. Well, that's still much much much better than what most people get. You can have decades of your life back. How much of your freedom are toys and consumption worth?
    - ElfinTrousers 4y ago
      Ok, but then you'd have spent your entire unrecoverable youth working for a FAANG. I realize this doesn't bother some people, and I don't understand that.
      - Bakary 4y ago
        Of course it bothers people. But it's better than losing the last functional decades as well.
- ninkendo 4y ago
  I’m not sure you could do it in 5 years at a FAANG even if you saved every penny (literally zero living expenses.) Because if you start a career at 22, that means you retire at 27, and have to have enough saved up for something like 40 years before social security kicks in. That’s a long time to be living off of savings. Can you have enough that you can live off the interest in your investments? Depends. You’d need near-zero-risk investments because you don’t want to get wiped out at the next recession (they happen every 10-ish years) and those tend to have low yields. Source: I’m 10 years into a faang and I have a bunch saved up, but I’m still in my 30s. There’s no way I could retire now with my wife and kids depending on me, the amount I make on the interest of my investments isn’t nearly enough and is too risky.
  - Bakary 4y ago
    I'll admit 5 years was hyperbolic and unrealistic, perhaps something reserved for the most promising workers at those FAANGs. But if you are 10 years into your FAANG career, you should be earning at minimum in the 300K net/210k take home range, and have done so for years. At this point you must be trading freedom for creature comforts or status goods if you are not financially independent.
    - ninkendo 4y ago
      What’s financially independent mean at age 35? Say you saved 200k every year (which isn’t even technically possible given that the typical tax rate for 300k means a smaller net than that.) You have 2 million in the bank. Can you live off 2 million for 30 years (social security age) while supporting a family as the sole earner, for that long? You gotta be really confident in your investments to take that plunge.
      - Bakary 4y ago
        Well it depends on your personal circumstances. As per the 4% rule, you can definitely live off $80K with a family. That's above the US median wage by a large margin. You could live on $40K too, which is terrible if working but completely different if not. Again, this will depend on what you value in life. Think about what not having to work actually means. There's a list of advantages that is too large to properly enumerate. Being able to see your children. Eating correctly and cheaply. Engaging in intimate relationships with vigor, time and energy. Being in great health. Fixing maintenance problems yourself. No career forcing you to live in a particular place. Traveling inexpensively when you want. Less obesity, stress and copium. Have hobbies and self-actualization. All of this in years that still qualify as your prime instead of when your body is failing you. The same salary when not working is like operating in a different world. And ironically this would also give you the time to pursue entrepreneurship or any number of money-making ventures if you are so inclined. Heck, just go part-time if you miss it. If you are a FAANG person you can have a higher salary than people's full time. Most people will not have that opportunity. I certainly won't, barring some miracle. But you have it. What will you do when you retire at 55 and realize that pretty much all of the really healthy years of your life have been spent in an office? Great, you've got a comfy retirement but it's too late.
SantalBlush 4y ago
You just described what a weekend home project is like, not a real blue-collar job.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
badpun 4y ago
> Imagine getting paid to be outdoors in the sun getting exercise. Combine that with - imagine being outside when it's cold, windy and raining - and you still have to do an 8 hour shift in those conditions. At minimum, it sounds like a fast-track to arthritis (a painful and non-curable condition that will plague you for the rest of your life). Or, imagine doing hard, physical labor for 8 hours in sweltering heat, which makes other human people avoid going out at all.
ElfinTrousers 4y ago
If you think desk jobs are bad for your posture and back, I have some bad news about physical labor. But don't take my word for it: try it sometime.

zmgsabst 4y ago

If being a security guard paid half instead of a tenth what I made as $BIGCO software developer, I’d switch back immediately.

AlotOfReading 4y ago

Man, I'd go back to being an archaeologist in a heartbeat. I like software, but the whole corporate thing gets old real fast.

the_only_law 4y ago
Archeology sounds awesome, but I imagine it’s one of those highly academic fields where barely anyone makes it.
- AlotOfReading 4y ago
  There's a surprisingly large number of jobs, but making even middle class income is difficult unless you're one of the dozens of people that get a staff job with the government or win the academic lottery and get a tenure track position.
theonething 4y ago
do both. archaeology software
- badpun 4y ago
  Or software archeology! (going through interesting old code bases and documenting them for posterity).

jimt1234 4y ago

I would. I enjoy working on software, but honestly, the most satisfying job I ever had was a janitor, cleaning office buildings. Seriously. The job was at night - I'm a night owl. The job was performed almost entirely in solitude - I hate people LOL. I could listen to music all night and it never interrupted my work. No meetings or drawn out decisions. No "case of the Mondays". I worked my butt off physically, but at the end of my shift, my brain was still totally fresh. I used to look at it like I was getting paid to exercise because the work was so physical. I slept like a damn baby when I was a janitor. But, most of all, I really enjoyed cleaning: coming in at night, looking at a total disaster area, working my butt off, then leaving just before dawn with everything looking spotless. I took pride in it. Kinda funny how most of the software projects I work on now are around hygiene, cleaning up old code and dead configs, stuff like that. Once a janitor, always a janitor. Oh yeah, the worst thing about being a janitor isn't the pay. It's being treated like shit by literally everyone. People can be assholes, especially when they're talking to the janitor.