3 ms·

Programmers in my experience are some of the least risky people I know. The majority will absolutely take their talents to the next highest bidder regardless of

Programmers in my experience are some of the least risky people I know. The majority will absolutely take their talents to the next highest bidder regardless of moral or ethical scruples. I don’t blame em, personally, I also see it as the only logical outcome

arielweisberg 3y ago
In a country with not much of a social safety net and runaway medical/elder care costs is there really another option? You need to sock away massive amounts of money as quickly as possible if you want to reduce tail risk and as a side bonus you might get to reach financial freedom earlier. My choices would be very different if I didn't think I was more or less on my own.
- lapcat 3y ago
  > In a country with not much of a social safety net and runaway medical/elder care costs is there really another option? Yes, there is really another option, because most people don't even have the option of taking Google-level compensation. Indeed, it's very likely that working as a software engineer for less than BigCo compensation will still put you ahead financially of most people. "How is it an option to live like 99% of the people actually do live?" seems like a very strange idea to me.
  - etrautmann 3y ago
    That doesn’t address the tail risk concern, and a huge number of people are living far below a comfortable level. Just because it’s possible doesn’t mean it’s reasonable or desirable.
    - lapcat 3y ago
      > That doesn’t address the tail risk concern Medicaid covers the cost of nursing homes, and it's not necessarily an advantage to have money saved just for that, because they'll just take the money anyway. Some people try to give away their assets to their families beforehand so that Medicaid will cover the costs, which is a legal no-no. > Just because it’s possible This is an understatement, when the subject is how 99% of the people live. Of course it can be great to be in the top 1%, but it's not "unreasonable" to be outside the top 1%.
      - arielweisberg 3y ago
        My mother ran a senior family home for 15 year. Private business founded by her. I do not want to end up in a Medicaid paid for nursing home or family home. Even the stories of her residents coming from other expensive family homes were horrifying. Elder care is horrifying. People die in pain all the time from neglect and incompetence. People who came to her were regularly on their way to a painful death and she brought them back by just not being an idiot and putting in some effort. Broken bones and many other conditions went undiagnosed or improperly diagnosed/treated. Doctors prescribing medication after medication to deal with the side effects of the medications they already prescribed that weren’t needed in the first place. Dosages all over the map that are inappropriate for someone in the given age and condition. You better hope you keep your brain to manage your own medical care or have someone who can do it for you.
        lapcat 3y ago
        > Even the stories of her residents coming from other expensive family homes were horrifying. You just made my point for me. The money you've saved won't actually "reduce tail risk". To the contrary, your best strategy for that is to focus on your family rather than on your job, to ensure that there's someone on the tail end who cares enough about you to take care of you if you can no longer take care of yourself.
  - saalweachter 3y ago
    The tricky part is that there's "living within your means" and there's "living within what your means could be if you made significantly less money than you do now". You can live just fine -- hell, still be in a top income percentile -- on half of what a well compensated big tech SWE gets in their total comp package. But just as software expands to fill the hardware available, so do lifestyles expand to fit the budget available. So you might need to move to a cheaper house, apartment. Take fewer vacations. Lower your savings rate. You might even need to -- shudder -- budget and plan your spending in advance. Even if you come out the other side still comfortable and financially stable and working an interesting, rewarding job, it's still a whole thing, a stressful transformation that takes a large investment of time and energy to achieve.
    - lapcat 3y ago
      > it's still a whole thing, a stressful transformation that takes a large investment of time and energy to achieve. Unless you're born with a silver spoon in your mouth, I wouldn't call it a "transformation". I would call it "normal". If there's a transformation, it's from a person who has to be concerned about budgets to a person who makes so much money that they don't need to care. I guess I'm just "lucky" that I've never had BigCo compensation, so I don't have to worry about the stressful transformation.
      - saalweachter 3y ago
        What, you think having experienced the stress of having to work multiple jobs or barely getting paid enough to survive or having an employer who looks at you as a subhuman cog makes someone more willing to leave the comfort of being given enough money you don't have to care about it while having a decent work/life balance and an employer who at least pretends to care about you? We're not playing "who has it worse" here; I'm not asking you to shed tears for the poor SWEs going from mid-six-figures to low-six-figures. I'm telling you that changing jobs is already stressful, and very few people are going to chose even more stress by moving houses or cities, etc, over just getting another soulless corporate job that pays well enough to make everything go back to normal, if they're given the option.
- lambic 3y ago
  My country does have a good safety net, so I choose to work for a company that shares my core ethics and has a solid work/life balance. I could be earning a lot more but I choose sanity over wealth.
- techdmn 3y ago
  > My choices would be very different if I didn't think I was more or less on my own. I suspect this is well understood by the forces that shape social structure in the U.S., and that the current state of affairs is largely by design.
- itishappy 3y ago
  > is there really another option? Let's be super explicit here: you're arguing that risk reduction is your top priority, above any moral or ethical concerns. (And that risk reduction requires maximizing compensation.) Can't really fault ya, but yeah, there is another option.
- neves 3y ago
  Well, that's why your country has no social safety net. It is a feature, not a bug :-) That's why you don't have public health system, or maternity leave, or you have high student debt. To take way your freedom and power where to work.
nytesky 3y ago
That’s an interesting change, from when I graduated two decades ago. I remember I did not want to work for defense contractor and wanted to work on worthwhile work like NASA or something. Course is early-Internet, and I had no idea how expensive life was going to be. But a lot of people did not want to work for a big company, like Microsoft, and open source was a much more heralded movement.
- Sirizarry 3y ago
  I think that attitude is definitely still around with hackers and enthusiasts but tech and programming as a job has expanded so much that it’s picked up anyone who wants a high paying job with little/less qualification. It’s become a means of rising out of poverty without having to spend thousands on school. I had a solid 7 year run as (mostly) a web dev and I was fully self taught so it was definitely the case for me
  - nytesky 3y ago
    Interestingly, I came from a very modest family (rural south, one parent was a teacher, the other disabled), so I never knew how expensive “city” life would be that most professionals aspire to. So I was mostly interested in interesting and meaningful work, and assumed literally any salary for a college graduate would be more than I ever need. Wow was I wrong. So current tech gens are making a killer salary as early and often as possible are making the wise choice. I do also thing the class of grads who used to go to investment banking and consulting now go to tech, and they were always “mercenaries”.
    - Sirizarry 3y ago
      I think mercenary is a very apt word to use here. I think I’ll have to use it more often

arielweisberg 3y ago

In a country with not much of a social safety net and runaway medical/elder care costs is there really another option? You need to sock away massive amounts of money as quickly as possible if you want to reduce tail risk and as a side bonus you might get to reach financial freedom earlier. My choices would be very different if I didn't think I was more or less on my own.

lapcat 3y ago
> In a country with not much of a social safety net and runaway medical/elder care costs is there really another option? Yes, there is really another option, because most people don't even have the option of taking Google-level compensation. Indeed, it's very likely that working as a software engineer for less than BigCo compensation will still put you ahead financially of most people. "How is it an option to live like 99% of the people actually do live?" seems like a very strange idea to me.
- etrautmann 3y ago
  That doesn’t address the tail risk concern, and a huge number of people are living far below a comfortable level. Just because it’s possible doesn’t mean it’s reasonable or desirable.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    > That doesn’t address the tail risk concern Medicaid covers the cost of nursing homes, and it's not necessarily an advantage to have money saved just for that, because they'll just take the money anyway. Some people try to give away their assets to their families beforehand so that Medicaid will cover the costs, which is a legal no-no. > Just because it’s possible This is an understatement, when the subject is how 99% of the people live. Of course it can be great to be in the top 1%, but it's not "unreasonable" to be outside the top 1%.
    - arielweisberg 3y ago
      My mother ran a senior family home for 15 year. Private business founded by her. I do not want to end up in a Medicaid paid for nursing home or family home. Even the stories of her residents coming from other expensive family homes were horrifying. Elder care is horrifying. People die in pain all the time from neglect and incompetence. People who came to her were regularly on their way to a painful death and she brought them back by just not being an idiot and putting in some effort. Broken bones and many other conditions went undiagnosed or improperly diagnosed/treated. Doctors prescribing medication after medication to deal with the side effects of the medications they already prescribed that weren’t needed in the first place. Dosages all over the map that are inappropriate for someone in the given age and condition. You better hope you keep your brain to manage your own medical care or have someone who can do it for you.
      - lapcat 3y ago
        > Even the stories of her residents coming from other expensive family homes were horrifying. You just made my point for me. The money you've saved won't actually "reduce tail risk". To the contrary, your best strategy for that is to focus on your family rather than on your job, to ensure that there's someone on the tail end who cares enough about you to take care of you if you can no longer take care of yourself.
- saalweachter 3y ago
  The tricky part is that there's "living within your means" and there's "living within what your means could be if you made significantly less money than you do now". You can live just fine -- hell, still be in a top income percentile -- on half of what a well compensated big tech SWE gets in their total comp package. But just as software expands to fill the hardware available, so do lifestyles expand to fit the budget available. So you might need to move to a cheaper house, apartment. Take fewer vacations. Lower your savings rate. You might even need to -- shudder -- budget and plan your spending in advance. Even if you come out the other side still comfortable and financially stable and working an interesting, rewarding job, it's still a whole thing, a stressful transformation that takes a large investment of time and energy to achieve.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    > it's still a whole thing, a stressful transformation that takes a large investment of time and energy to achieve. Unless you're born with a silver spoon in your mouth, I wouldn't call it a "transformation". I would call it "normal". If there's a transformation, it's from a person who has to be concerned about budgets to a person who makes so much money that they don't need to care. I guess I'm just "lucky" that I've never had BigCo compensation, so I don't have to worry about the stressful transformation.
    - saalweachter 3y ago
      What, you think having experienced the stress of having to work multiple jobs or barely getting paid enough to survive or having an employer who looks at you as a subhuman cog makes someone more willing to leave the comfort of being given enough money you don't have to care about it while having a decent work/life balance and an employer who at least pretends to care about you? We're not playing "who has it worse" here; I'm not asking you to shed tears for the poor SWEs going from mid-six-figures to low-six-figures. I'm telling you that changing jobs is already stressful, and very few people are going to chose even more stress by moving houses or cities, etc, over just getting another soulless corporate job that pays well enough to make everything go back to normal, if they're given the option.
lambic 3y ago
My country does have a good safety net, so I choose to work for a company that shares my core ethics and has a solid work/life balance. I could be earning a lot more but I choose sanity over wealth.
techdmn 3y ago
> My choices would be very different if I didn't think I was more or less on my own. I suspect this is well understood by the forces that shape social structure in the U.S., and that the current state of affairs is largely by design.
itishappy 3y ago
> is there really another option? Let's be super explicit here: you're arguing that risk reduction is your top priority, above any moral or ethical concerns. (And that risk reduction requires maximizing compensation.) Can't really fault ya, but yeah, there is another option.
neves 3y ago
Well, that's why your country has no social safety net. It is a feature, not a bug :-) That's why you don't have public health system, or maternity leave, or you have high student debt. To take way your freedom and power where to work.

nytesky 3y ago

That’s an interesting change, from when I graduated two decades ago. I remember I did not want to work for defense contractor and wanted to work on worthwhile work like NASA or something. Course is early-Internet, and I had no idea how expensive life was going to be. But a lot of people did not want to work for a big company, like Microsoft, and open source was a much more heralded movement.

Sirizarry 3y ago
I think that attitude is definitely still around with hackers and enthusiasts but tech and programming as a job has expanded so much that it’s picked up anyone who wants a high paying job with little/less qualification. It’s become a means of rising out of poverty without having to spend thousands on school. I had a solid 7 year run as (mostly) a web dev and I was fully self taught so it was definitely the case for me
- nytesky 3y ago
  Interestingly, I came from a very modest family (rural south, one parent was a teacher, the other disabled), so I never knew how expensive “city” life would be that most professionals aspire to. So I was mostly interested in interesting and meaningful work, and assumed literally any salary for a college graduate would be more than I ever need. Wow was I wrong. So current tech gens are making a killer salary as early and often as possible are making the wise choice. I do also thing the class of grads who used to go to investment banking and consulting now go to tech, and they were always “mercenaries”.
  - Sirizarry 3y ago
    I think mercenary is a very apt word to use here. I think I’ll have to use it more often