5 ms·

I was making a touch under 80k/yr as a (physical, non software) engineer in my 30s not so long ago. People around me were making 40-50k. Professors in town made

by wenc 3y ago

I was making a touch under 80k/yr as a (physical, non software) engineer in my 30s not so long ago. People around me were making 40-50k. Professors in town made 60k. It was in a LCOL city in the northeast and it was comfortable. It really depends on your lifestyle and location. Tech salaries are not the norm for most people.

cvhashim04 3y ago
Yeah the OP seems kind of elitist?
- ye-olde-sysrq 3y ago
  80K is kind of rough for a 30-yr-old software engineer to be making in the US, especially after the recent inflation/prices bump, no matter where you live. I live in one of the lowest COL areas you could ask to live in if you still want easy access to a grocery store, and you couldn't house and feed multiple kids on 80k/yr.
  - CrackerNews 3y ago
    I don't even make that much as an engineer in my 30's. Poor people can technically get by, but there are a lot of sacrifices involved. It's understandable that a lot of people aren't willing to make them.
  - wenc 3y ago
    I think it’s expectations. Software engineers have a different relationship to salary than most people and it shapes expectations. People in physical engineering do make around that much and they support their families just fine. There are trade offs of course—instead of 4 kids you might have 2. Your spouse might have to work part time or full time. Instead of a big house with a backyard you might go for a smaller place or somewhere farther out in the country. Instead of distant vacations, you might road-trip. 80k really is quite workable if your expectations and budgeting is solid.
    - zer8k 3y ago
      You have strange definitions of "just fine". > Instead of 4 kids you might have 2 Ok. > Your spouse might have to work part time or full time This isn't "just fine". There is significant overlap in child success and a stay at home parent. There should be no case where a job at the caliber of ENGINEER cannot support a family to provide such an environment. > Instead of a big house with a backyard you might go for a smaller place or somewhere farther out in the country. You don't even get this at 80,000 if you want to live within 50 miles of any metro with jobs. Engineering jobs even more so. Going back to your statement before you now have a contradiction: 1. Have a spouse work 2. Have someone to drop your kids off at school because you live in the sticks I don't think you have actually experienced trying to do exactly what you proposed. Inflation and free money has created an environment hostile to having anyone but the state raise your children. I got a house extremely cheap in a middle-cost-of-living area (~50% markup over price prior to GFC, low 200s). If I was making 80,000 a year I wouldn't be able to afford this modest starter home. That's bullshit. There is no question. Starter homes haven't been cheap enough to afford on a single 80,000 salary in my area for 25 years.
      - oceanplexian 3y ago
        > If I was making 80,000 a year I wouldn't be able to afford this modest starter home. You can afford a modest starter home on 80k a year if you're not carrying any debt, lenders cap DTI around 40%, or $2600/month, although your finances would be tight, and you wouldn't be able to live in a state with excessive taxes like California. 2023: - Median US Home Price is $436,000 - Average interest rate: ~6% - Monthly payment on $348k (20% down) @ 6% = $2,086/month
        cableshaft 3y ago
        Most people can’t afford to put 20% down on their first home anymore. We only did 3.5% on a ~$230k home. If we waited to save up 20% we still wouldn’t have bought a house because it would have taken several more years and then the home prices jacked up 40% during the pandemic. Instead our home went up in value by that much instead. For your example house they’d have to have saved up $70,000 ahead of time. For people that rent and aren’t in tech that’s not too feasible, especially considering they may have that much in student loans also. I know a couple that managed to do it but they lived (as a married couple) with their parents for several years instead of renting so they could save up for it.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > I live in one of the lowest COL areas you could ask to live in if you still want easy access to a grocery store, and you couldn't house and feed multiple kids on 80k/yr. Then you don't live in one of the lowest COL areas. In my US state, the median income is $50k/yr and most people manage to house and feed multiple kids.
lotsofpulp 3y ago
Even in a LCOL area, with a family, I would not feel comfortable on $80k per year as I would not be able to save enough to afford out of pocket healthcare expenses for family, plus premiums, plus retirement savings, plus education savings for kids. Plus it is LCOL area, implying that there probably will not be many alternative $80k jobs if the one I had went away.
- wenc 3y ago
  Many people in the town I lived in have accomplished all that you’ve listed. Also 80k is a single income — with dual income it’s low six figures. In a LCOL location it’s not bad. Now their job market may not be hot but layoffs also rarely happen because these are industries that value stability (diversified multinationals but based in a LCOL location). Many folks in my former company have worked there for 30 years. Plus today, there’s the remote market. I think the scenarios your are imagining don’t apply as universally as one might think. Our perspectives are often shaped by our immediate experiences. I have a data point that deviates from the experiences of most people on this site (that I suspect much of non-tech America shares)
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    Yes, dual income households in $120k to $180k range would work in a LCOL area. Although, I would never be able to sleep at night if I was counting on depending on an employer for 30 years, not only to keep me employed, but to keep paying me competitive wages when they know I have no other options. My biggest concern is price of quality goods and services like repairmen and elder care workers and whatnot greatly increasing by the time I am old (2050s) due to demographic changes. I foresee more and more old people bidding for the labor of fewer and fewer young people. And the government chipping away at the purchasing power of the dollar to address this (since that is the easiest and maybe only thing they can do).
    - wenc 3y ago
      It’s a trade off people make for the lifestyle that they want. I decided that lifestyle wasn’t for me but it really does work for a lot of people.
wing-_-nuts 3y ago
Yeah, the 200k+ salaries have only recently became available to much of the country thanks to the proliferation of remote work. Not everyone is willing to make the sacrifice of living in the bay area for those faang salaries. There are more important things in life than money once you earn enough to take care of your needs.
nonameiguess 3y ago
I don't think people here have a good sense of what a low cost of living really means. I was still an Army officer in my early 30s and still fairly junior. Made more than 80k, but not a ton more, and it isn't totally comparable, especially with completely free healthcare, but we lived like kings. My first house was on nearly a quarter acre, four beds, three baths, three-car garage, historic trees, in a very quiet neighborhood, no crime, and the purchase price was $120,000. Not only could I easily raise kids, but much lower paid enlisted personnel still raised kids, too. That was only 2010. Housing costs have certainly gone up since then, but nowhere near the ridiculous costs on the coasts. My wife's sister just bought a townhouse in Queens that is finally big enough for their kids, and it's not any bigger than my first house, and they paid $2.5 million. You just can't compare what counts as a livable salary when some places cost 10 times as much for similar housing. And the fact that they're even in Queens at all is because they can't afford Manhattan. I'm not even sure it truly is comparable since the places there don't have garages. Her last place they had to buy a parking spot separately, for only one car, for an additional $60,000. That's half the price of my first house to park one car.

by wenc 3y ago

cvhashim04 3y ago

Yeah the OP seems kind of elitist?

ye-olde-sysrq 3y ago
80K is kind of rough for a 30-yr-old software engineer to be making in the US, especially after the recent inflation/prices bump, no matter where you live. I live in one of the lowest COL areas you could ask to live in if you still want easy access to a grocery store, and you couldn't house and feed multiple kids on 80k/yr.
- CrackerNews 3y ago
  I don't even make that much as an engineer in my 30's. Poor people can technically get by, but there are a lot of sacrifices involved. It's understandable that a lot of people aren't willing to make them.
- wenc 3y ago
  I think it’s expectations. Software engineers have a different relationship to salary than most people and it shapes expectations. People in physical engineering do make around that much and they support their families just fine. There are trade offs of course—instead of 4 kids you might have 2. Your spouse might have to work part time or full time. Instead of a big house with a backyard you might go for a smaller place or somewhere farther out in the country. Instead of distant vacations, you might road-trip. 80k really is quite workable if your expectations and budgeting is solid.
  - zer8k 3y ago
    You have strange definitions of "just fine". > Instead of 4 kids you might have 2 Ok. > Your spouse might have to work part time or full time This isn't "just fine". There is significant overlap in child success and a stay at home parent. There should be no case where a job at the caliber of ENGINEER cannot support a family to provide such an environment. > Instead of a big house with a backyard you might go for a smaller place or somewhere farther out in the country. You don't even get this at 80,000 if you want to live within 50 miles of any metro with jobs. Engineering jobs even more so. Going back to your statement before you now have a contradiction: 1. Have a spouse work 2. Have someone to drop your kids off at school because you live in the sticks I don't think you have actually experienced trying to do exactly what you proposed. Inflation and free money has created an environment hostile to having anyone but the state raise your children. I got a house extremely cheap in a middle-cost-of-living area (~50% markup over price prior to GFC, low 200s). If I was making 80,000 a year I wouldn't be able to afford this modest starter home. That's bullshit. There is no question. Starter homes haven't been cheap enough to afford on a single 80,000 salary in my area for 25 years.
    - oceanplexian 3y ago
      > If I was making 80,000 a year I wouldn't be able to afford this modest starter home. You can afford a modest starter home on 80k a year if you're not carrying any debt, lenders cap DTI around 40%, or $2600/month, although your finances would be tight, and you wouldn't be able to live in a state with excessive taxes like California. 2023: - Median US Home Price is $436,000 - Average interest rate: ~6% - Monthly payment on $348k (20% down) @ 6% = $2,086/month
      - cableshaft 3y ago
        Most people can’t afford to put 20% down on their first home anymore. We only did 3.5% on a ~$230k home. If we waited to save up 20% we still wouldn’t have bought a house because it would have taken several more years and then the home prices jacked up 40% during the pandemic. Instead our home went up in value by that much instead. For your example house they’d have to have saved up $70,000 ahead of time. For people that rent and aren’t in tech that’s not too feasible, especially considering they may have that much in student loans also. I know a couple that managed to do it but they lived (as a married couple) with their parents for several years instead of renting so they could save up for it.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > I live in one of the lowest COL areas you could ask to live in if you still want easy access to a grocery store, and you couldn't house and feed multiple kids on 80k/yr. Then you don't live in one of the lowest COL areas. In my US state, the median income is $50k/yr and most people manage to house and feed multiple kids.

lotsofpulp 3y ago

Even in a LCOL area, with a family, I would not feel comfortable on $80k per year as I would not be able to save enough to afford out of pocket healthcare expenses for family, plus premiums, plus retirement savings, plus education savings for kids. Plus it is LCOL area, implying that there probably will not be many alternative $80k jobs if the one I had went away.

wenc 3y ago
Many people in the town I lived in have accomplished all that you’ve listed. Also 80k is a single income — with dual income it’s low six figures. In a LCOL location it’s not bad. Now their job market may not be hot but layoffs also rarely happen because these are industries that value stability (diversified multinationals but based in a LCOL location). Many folks in my former company have worked there for 30 years. Plus today, there’s the remote market. I think the scenarios your are imagining don’t apply as universally as one might think. Our perspectives are often shaped by our immediate experiences. I have a data point that deviates from the experiences of most people on this site (that I suspect much of non-tech America shares)
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  Yes, dual income households in $120k to $180k range would work in a LCOL area. Although, I would never be able to sleep at night if I was counting on depending on an employer for 30 years, not only to keep me employed, but to keep paying me competitive wages when they know I have no other options. My biggest concern is price of quality goods and services like repairmen and elder care workers and whatnot greatly increasing by the time I am old (2050s) due to demographic changes. I foresee more and more old people bidding for the labor of fewer and fewer young people. And the government chipping away at the purchasing power of the dollar to address this (since that is the easiest and maybe only thing they can do).
  - wenc 3y ago
    It’s a trade off people make for the lifestyle that they want. I decided that lifestyle wasn’t for me but it really does work for a lot of people.

wing-_-nuts 3y ago

Yeah, the 200k+ salaries have only recently became available to much of the country thanks to the proliferation of remote work. Not everyone is willing to make the sacrifice of living in the bay area for those faang salaries. There are more important things in life than money once you earn enough to take care of your needs.

nonameiguess 3y ago

I don't think people here have a good sense of what a low cost of living really means. I was still an Army officer in my early 30s and still fairly junior. Made more than 80k, but not a ton more, and it isn't totally comparable, especially with completely free healthcare, but we lived like kings. My first house was on nearly a quarter acre, four beds, three baths, three-car garage, historic trees, in a very quiet neighborhood, no crime, and the purchase price was $120,000. Not only could I easily raise kids, but much lower paid enlisted personnel still raised kids, too. That was only 2010. Housing costs have certainly gone up since then, but nowhere near the ridiculous costs on the coasts. My wife's sister just bought a townhouse in Queens that is finally big enough for their kids, and it's not any bigger than my first house, and they paid $2.5 million. You just can't compare what counts as a livable salary when some places cost 10 times as much for similar housing. And the fact that they're even in Queens at all is because they can't afford Manhattan. I'm not even sure it truly is comparable since the places there don't have garages. Her last place they had to buy a parking spot separately, for only one car, for an additional $60,000. That's half the price of my first house to park one car.