It's important to be reminded of this every so often. It definitely helps to get through "tougher days" if you're able to have a little perspective on how great things actually are, or how much worse they could be.
The days you don't feel like getting out of bed. The days everything in your project goes wrong. The days you think your idea is actually worthless and you're a fraud. The days you dread your investors asking for a status update. The days Murphy's Law is a bitch. The days you have a bug that just makes no sense. The days your client is being an ass and you have no desire to deal with them. The days your boss is in a bad mood. The days that one douchey coworker just keeps getting in your face.
The days that make you wish you were doing something else.
Oh yeah, I've had them - I wasn't being patronizing.
I just believe, due to the problem-solving behavior of engineers/techs/programmers, we tend to tunnel-vision instead of looking at the big picture.
If the big picture is going wrong, it's a problem. Now, a lot of bad days add up to a bad big picture, but if you're planning right, and you have a bit of luck, a few bad days will eventually get washed away, no matter the project.
I think Spolsky's description[1] of working at the bakery explains best how it works for me. My bad days don't seem to be anything catastrophic going wrong, just a multitude of tiny frustrations. Basically the opposite for the good days.
Yes, working from home is great. It is a luxury. Working at your own pace is also nice.
But working "on the Internet" means you're also comparing yourself to the best, brightest, and driven. Then it seems like you're achieving maybe 10% of what you seemingly could be, because you're setting your own goals based on what you see out there.
It's like getting stuck in traffic. You can point out that I'm sitting in climate-controlled car, listening to a podcast, drinking coffee, having a better time than 99% of humans throughout history. It's true. I know it's true. And I'm still frustrated that I can't go faster, and I rock in my seat every time I move ahead a little as if trying to propel the car forward. It's irrational, that's the point, no amount of explaining will make it go away.
On that note, is being content a skill most can learn with effort or does it have significant biological prerequisites (genetics, prenatal environment, etc)?
No idea, but one thing is that it's probably better to operate under the assumption that you can overcome such irrational tendencies, and have a goal or outlook to grow in that dimension, rather than resigning yourself to "welp, I'm going to act stupid now and there's nothing I can do to improve this".
You can experiment with this very easily for yourself by asking yourself what problems you have right this moment. It turns out you never have problems when you have the time to ask yourself that question. The book The Power of Now is well worth reading. Most importantly, Tolle doesn't ask you to "believe" or have faith in what he says, just that you try it. And it works :)
So what is the hack that keeps us from constantly taking our luxuries for granted? Just as with the traffic situation, how often do we find ourselves complaining about having to do the laundry or the dishes or vacuuming or even heating up something for dinner -- all fairly small and easy tasks thanks to the help of technology, which took much more time and labor in a previous generation?
Yes, it's true that the complaining pushes us to find ways to make our lives even easier. But in the meantime, why are we unable to sustain our enjoyment for what we've got? If we could just change our thinking on this and begin to appreciate the amazing place we've reached on a more regular basis, imagine how much happier we'd all be. But what's the hack to do that?
I was given some brilliant advice by an older gentleman once: he said to find 1 or 2 things that enjoy more than most people, to let yourself really enjoy those things, and be modest in all other things - and then you'll really be happy, but be able to give more to those less fortunate. For instance, he loved music, and he splurged to have a high-quality system in his car. And he focused on really enjoying that, cut back in the rest of his life and gave more to charity, and still felt like he was "living the life".
I've done the same thing. I love watching a good movie at the end of the day, and I love visiting my home town. So I bought myself a nice TV, I take regular trips back home, and I feel like I have it made all the time. I drive a very modest vehicle and live in a very modest place, but I really appreciate how I live now and try to focus the rest of my resources on others.
That sounds like a pretty good approach to it. It might become a bit of a problem if it involves a regular investment, so choice and scale have to depend on means available for that to really work...
The typical "western" approach to happiness is: "I have X but I want Y, therefore, to be happy I need to achieve Y." This book reverses the equation: "I have X but want Y, therefore, to be happy I need to learn to want X." That idea may sound radically counterintuitive on first hearing, but it's reflected in many of the world's spiritual traditions.
What's especially great about it is that it approaches the subject from a rational, scientific viewpoint, so if you find yourself turned off by the spiritual side of buddhism or whatnot, the book will be welcome.
Also, music is a good call generally - the ability to play an instrument will repay itself many times over a lifetime.
And when one of the things that you enjoy more is the IT/Infra/Dev work that you do?
Them you should deserve a very nice home office, with all the monitors, computing power that you would want, and, of course, a remote job to enjoy all that! ;)
There's a great book called Living High and Letting Die by Peter Unger which relates to this subject. Essentially, the argument is we here in the first world have a moral obligation to continue onward and upward as long as we benefit those in the third world.
We have to first recognize our privilege or luxury before we are able to see how we can use it to help those people in the third world.
>So what is the hack that keeps us from constantly taking our luxuries for granted?
There is no hack. Humans are wired to seek novelty. Novelty by definition wears off. The best thing I've found is to try to seek novelty in creating rather than consuming, but our very nature ensures contentedness is an elusive goal.
Many people attempt to attain contentedness through religion. I'm religious myself, but I think that man was made to create, and to improve the world, so being content with the status quo isn't really something I've tried to work on.
That being said, I think that it is important to attempt to be thankful for what you have while still working towards the future.
Rather, I would say that we normalize to anything. It's awful for sustaining happiness, but pretty good for fighting unhappiness. Think of it this way; our lives are 100x better than those of our ancestors, and yet we aren't much happier. That means the people who lived to be thirty and rubbed sticks together to make fire, were no less happy. That is a powerful thing.
Going camping with a tent for a fairly extended period generally works well (and serves as great exercise and a holiday, too). Try to do this low tech though, eg. walking a good distance from your car so you can't use the car battery etc. When you spend 2 hours making a fire and getting some hot soup it gives you a chance to think about how easy it usually is.
Complaining is often a result of comparing our situation to the rest of the environment. When you are sitting in your car in traffic you see that other lane moving faster than you and you get frustrated. When you are at that amazing job you see that other guy two job levels above you with even more perks.
If you only surround yourself with an environment where you don't quite measure up then your baseline gets set two high. You need to recalibrate.
I recalibrate by doing Charity work. And I don't mean just writing a check. I roll up my sleeves and actually engage with people in less fortunate circumstances. Work in a soup kitchen or a food pantry. Volunteer to repair or rebuild someones house when they can't afford to or a tragedy has struck.
It exposes you to people who haven't had the breaks that you had and also helps raise the standard of living for someone less fortunate or lucky and that helps keep your baseline from getting to high.
I think we'll really need to start treating mindfulness as a fundamental life skill. I've realized only recently how essential it will be to develop in order to get much of anything out of life, given my mindset up to this point. Maybe some cultures are better about this; I certainly don't have the information on which to base generalizations. I have seen an increasing number of resources focused on stress reduction via mindfulness (also see Google Trends), but the potential benefits go beyond just stress.
Awareness, without making comparisons. That should be the key. I can't validate that myself yet though...
Set aside a certain number of days, during which you shall be content with the scantiest and cheapest fare, with coarse and rough dress, saying to yourself the while: “Is this the condition that I feared?” - Seneca
In my opinion this is wrong comparison. Simply because there is no physical obstacles that prevents you from doing what you have to do at your work, while in traffic there is plenty, hence the reason you're in traffic.
Such comparison alone distorts the view and paves the way to start to think that your minds lazy thoughts ("virtual obstacles") is actually something real, something you can't control.
In my personal experience, the moment you stop thinking about how hard it is to concentrate on a task and you start doing it, is the very moment when all those lazy thoughts disappears and you're back on empty "autobahn".
>So what is the hack that keeps us from constantly taking our luxuries for granted?
Meditation, traveling to developing countries, constantly reminding yourself how much you enjoy little things like music, coffee, talking to friends etc. Works for me at least.
Nothing like going without a hot shower or first world plumbing for several weeks can make you appreciate all the little luxuries we enjoy.
It's old-fashioned, but give this a try. The hack is simply to write down (typing is OK) five things you're grateful about.
For example, related to your job, you may work with technology that is fun or hot in the market, or better than what you were doing 5 or 10 years ago. Your co-workers no doubt have at least some positive qualities, so write "I am grateful that my co-workers have a good sense of humor," for example.
You may be fortunate to be making as much money as you are, or working in the conditions you have.
This is especially good for things that are an important part of your life, but which you may feel frustration or anxiety toward, such as your job, your relationships, the initiatives or projects you're working on, etc. But even for things that are a downright negative, such as sickness, you can still be grateful. For example, a sickness might have given you perspective on the important things in life, or helped you behave in a healthier manner.
Try writing down five things to be grateful about every day, and maybe again if you're feeling strong negative emotions about the subject, and see if your overall emotional posture toward the subject improves over a period of two weeks.
Study Stoicism or Buddhism (if you don't like the religious aspect, it's easy enough to only focus on the philosophical - that's what I do).
There's a surprising amount of overlap between the two. I always liked Buddhism conceptually, but it never really clicked with me. Stoicism on the other hand feels quite natural. Maybe it's a anglo-centric thing.
At the root of both philosophies is the realization of impermanence of all things. Recognizing (and really feeling) this impermanence goes a long way to helping you to mindfully appreciate what you have.
To give you the flavour of what I mean, some Stoic practices include:
- negative visualisation: imagine what it will be like when thing/person X is no longer in your life (which is inevitable). This, somewhat counter-intuitively, brings you into the present and helps you enjoy what you have.
- periodic self deprivation: go a week without your smartphone, or hot showers. This does two things: it teaches you that you can survive without something you're attached to, and also lets you appreciate it. In some ways the essence of Buddhism and Stoicism is "appreciation without attachment".
Stoicism is very practical - Epictetus, Seneca etc basically set you homework. The foundational principle is that there are 2 classes of things: those completely within your control, and everything else. Happiness, freedom and living a good life come focusing your energy on the first class, and being indifferent to the second. The "homework" is about helping you practically interact with the world from that perspective.
edit: for further reading, I'd recommend Irvine's A Guide To The Good Life. Although I find reading Epictetus and Seneca much more enlightening, Irvine is a nice on-ramp.
Yesterday, I wrote a sentence that encapsulates very well how we adjust to technological luxuries: "I searched the web for 'singing hemorrhoid' and the first video result is lame."
When I re-read it, I realized that being alive in 2014 is unbelievably awesome.
Then the conversation went straight into "Four Yorkshiremen".
A: In my day, we were grateful for just one singing hemorrhoid video.
B: And we had to download it from Usenet binaries.
C: In RealMedia format.
Me: And part 51 of 117 was missing.
A: And we had to use bauds.
Me: I had a demibaud modem.
C: Luxury! We had to make our own punchcards and send'm through the mail.
B: At least you had mail. We stapled our punchcards to passing hobos and hoped they made it somewhere with a router.
I'd add that not only are we comparing ourselves to actual people that are the "best and brightest", but also to a mental conglomeration of success stories that somehow feel like they are all done by a single super human even though rationally you know you are thinking of the small individual achievements of thousands or millions of other people.
In the face of that kind of comparison, it's hard not to a bit down occasionally, even though you know the reality does not match the perception.
This is called relative deprivation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_deprivation) and Malcolm Gladwell's book "David and Goliath" has some interesting examples of its destructive power, such as when bright students enroll in STEM courses in top-tier schools, but end up dropping out from STEM because the amount of students smarter than them discourages them.
I think it comes down to discovering your role... I'm not the best at any one thing I've ever done. I'm generally very good, and tend to have a greater combination of depth and breadth of knowledge than my peers... but any one thing, not nearly the best.
That's a hard lesson to learn, and accept... I think my goal in life is to accept my circumstance with contentment, whatever that is at any given time.
but do most people actually do the comparison, even once? Working on the internet also imparts a lot of anonymity. Your just one of thousands of people doing a similar job, maybe clients just assume this is what to expect, or like how many other things in the world are handled, its good enough to not expend further effort in finding better.
Still IT is a breeze, having grown up on a farm I feel lazy even when I do a sixty hour week. Having worked in low end jobs as an adult when times were bad I have great respect for those who do and never really feel at home amongst those who never have.
Still, working at home is awesome, but no matter how many others tell me that my job or similar is challenging all I have to do is look outside see the garbage man, see the lawn people, see people building house, and not think - damn I got it good.
First world problems is a meme on reddit that fits us well
>But working "on the Internet" means you're also comparing yourself to the best, brightest, and driven.
This reminds me of something that happened to me a few years ago. My spouse and I bought a condo in a very expensive area of a big city. We realized we were very lucky to have stock options that were worth real money to sell and pay for a downpayment on the place. I felt a little like we were "cheaters" or "fakers" because the other people in the building seemed so successful. It felt like we hadn't "earned" the money since it was pretty much luck getting the options at the right time.
The guy above us in his 50s had his own business - some lighting stores or something. The lady next to us was about our age (late 30's at the time) and was an event planner and had done the work for some famous awards show recently. The couple below us were retired, and the husband had been a highly-paid salesman. etc.
A few months in, we learn that the guy above us doesn't actually own his condo. It's owned by a trust set up by his family. The lady next door co-owns it with her father who paid for most it. The couple downstairs actually did own theirs the "normal" way, but they seemed like the only ones in the building. It was really eye-opening. We were no less successful or lucky than the other people in the building. Most of them had "cheated" in some way, too, and comparing ourselves to them in that way was pointless. Did I work any less hard than the lighting guy or the event planner? Hell no! Did they "earn" their condos any more than me? Not at all. They were no more or less successful than us or anyone else in the building, it just looked that way at first.
I never complain about recruiters. The fact that I'm being contacted spontaneously is completely a positive for me, and it gives me some confidence that if I were to look for a job again, my skills are in demand enough that I will never starve.
I've always found it a little off-putting when people complain about this. I get that it's probably annoying, and good for them for being in demand. But it still comes off as a humblebrag.
It's more akin to the "job offers" that a woman might get when walking down the wrong sort of street.
The basal level of respect for me as a professional with skills and preferences distinct from those of my peers is typically not present from the recruiter shotgunning spam all over the network.
the problem is if you think about it for longer than a minute you realize the recruiters are simply doing keyword searches and blind spamming as many people as possible.
"We shouldn’t forget that there is life outside our communities." - yes, let's not forget there are lawyers, doctors, actors, pilots, CEOs and other occupations that earn much more without having to re-learn a new API every year... Let's not forget that major companies in e.g. Silicon Valley are known for actively suppressing the salary growth. IMHO we are still underpaid and under-appreciated.
I view the constant learning and changing requirements of careers in software development to be one of its largest advantages and draws over, how I imagine some of those careers you listed are (others like lawyers and doctors I am certain have their own knowledge bases they have to learn constantly). I get to learn a new or modified API, language, or project domain every year if not more frequently, and I love it. You viewing it as 'having to re-learn a new API every year' indicates to me that you view it as a negative.
In regards to the under appreciated part, I also was well aware this wasn't a job like fire fighting or being a doctor where I was going to be appreciated on a daily basis, or even a job like teaching where I would get the occasional student that appreciated me making all the thankless bastards I had to deal with hopefully worth it.
I mean there is no reason you shouldn't try to find a place where you personally don't have to re-learn stuff every year, and are appreciated. But I like learning and being appreciated adds no value to me, I assume at least some others feel the same.
I am always in favor of being paid more, but I would be hard pressed to argue why I should be.
The ability to continue learning new things (and also implementing them) over the course of your entire career may be less common than you think.
Doctors and lawyers have a large body of working knowledge that they must learn, but the portion relevant to their specific practice might not change that much over their entire career. Software writers can get started on a tiny corpus of knowledge, but a huge portion of it has to be updated on a nearly constant basis.
It's like accelerating over the entire length of a foot race, except instead of sprinting the 50m dash, you are running an ultramarathon. By the time you retire, you have already forgotten more things than most people have ever bothered to learn.
I have already written software for doctors and nurses, lawyers and paralegals, rocket scientists, aircraft pilots, and other software writers like me. Every job required learning a significant amount of domain knowledge, even if only on a temporary basis. As a result, that quote by Heinlein from Time Enough for Love--the one about specialization being for insects--definitely applies. I can now convincingly bullshit any non-expert on practically any topic after only about 2 days of Internet research.
That's because I have learned to identify and focus upon the core elements of a problem and discard all irrelevancies. It may be odd to you, since you probably have the same skill now, but the vast majority of humanity is completely incapable of viewing a problem objectively. That is why we are valuable. We are the Professors surrounded by billions of Gilligans. We are the MacGyvers in a world of ticking time bombs. Bunsen and Beeker to a bunch of talking animals. Lisa Simpsons beset by Homers. Farnsworths (and Wernstroms) babysitting Benders and Frys.
Not your IMHO, you mean due to your out-group homogeneity bias. Pilots are generally NOT paid well, and the idea that lawyers and doctors don't have to constantly be retraining is ludicrous. Even actors and CEOs must constantly learn & adapt to maximize their reputation management. APIs are NOTHING compared to the effort of trying to be and stay popular.
What a weird set of purported counterexamples to the inconvenience of learning new APIs.
Lawyers and doctors certainly have continuing education requirements. There are constant changes to legal codes and precedent, and advances in medical technologies and practices. In the US, if a lawyer wants to practice in a different state, they will typically have to study local laws and re-take the state bar exam.
Actors are mostly unemployed and broke, and even the successful ones are constantly memorizing new roles and auditioning for new parts. Pilots must undergo significant training and certification in order to qualify to fly different types of aircraft. CEOs have to learn about and adapt to changing business circumstances, or else the entire company could go under.
I have the option to work from home, but I dislike doing so, specifically because it makes it easy for me to slack and procrastinate, and because I dislike bringing my work into my home environment.
I can use the prying eyes of my peers to guilt me into getting work done, sometimes. I also much prefer to be able to stand up, walk over to someones desk, and discuss a problem (or some newly discovered exoplanet, or the price of bitcoins, ...). Picking up a phone, sending an instant message or email just isn't the same thing.
However, I'm very much aware about what a luxurious situation I'm in. I live in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, get to do a job I love (most of the time), and get paid plenty. Compared to most places in the world, this place 50 years ago or even to other professions in the same country, I'm a lucky bastard.
Doesn't mean I sometimes have a hard time concentrating, or would like to be doing something other than the work assigned to me though, but I think that's normal and would happen to anyone in any situation. First world problems, eh?
I'm sitting at home with no commute, listening to music out of my computer speakers, in a house that's heated to my liking and I'm wearing sweatpants. For lunch I'll be baking a hot, fresh meal. At some point this afternoon I'll probably take a short nap to refresh myself.
No, we do not have luxurious jobs. Other people have really really shitty jobs.
Software developers are just getting the kind of relative pay and conditions improvements that a much larger number of people took for granted in the 60s and 70s. It's everyone else who is fucked.
We enrich "business guys" with connections to billion dollar exits while we ourselves make middle-class or slightly upper-middle class wages. Meanwhile anyone willing to take out the loans to put themselves through Dental school will eventually make more than we do and if they have the motivation to open up their own practice, much more than we do.
I agree with the sentiment, but I think your facts are a bit off and reflect HN insularity. The median 33% household income ("middle class") in the US is $30,000 to $62,500 (household).
Even if you are the sole earner in your household, it is still unlikely that you make less than $62,500. If you do make less than that, ask for a raise. If you don't make less than that, or your combined household income is more than that, you are a member of the upper class, and you should try and remember your privilege. (Hey, life's not so bad.)
That is not how "class" is defined. Social class is based on socioeconomic power, influence, and security. Generally, the upper class is the top 1% or 2% of incomes or net worths, and the lower/working class is far larger than the lower 33%.
Additionally, tying class tightly to income is nonsense, because it ignores people with significant wealth but little income and ignores the different socioeconomic climates across the US.
By any reasonable definition, being well-off means being able to take out a mortgage on a house, afford occasional vacations to other parts of the world, invest in the stock market, support a family, put your kids through college, give to different charities, save for retirement, all in addition to helping family members in need, which one would do under any circumstances. A software developer might be able to do these things in California, but only barely, unless they have a very cushy arrangement or they've ridden an exit for a startup. Those at the median household income in the US (or anywhere else) are being shafted. The economy is broken.
Hint: Don't live in California. There are plenty of well-paid software jobs in places like Boston, Chicago, Northern Virginia, Atlanta, Florida, Austin, etc.
They might not have the glut of "hot" startups that Silicon Valley does, but they have much more reasonable cost of living.
What I was alluding to with my comment was that software developers create a tremendous amount of wealth while seeing little of it. That is as true outside SV as it is inside.
True, and that's a fair point, but it's basically true of all employees anywhere in a capitalist economy. Even much-reviled Wall Street traders who receive million-dollar bonuses do so while bringing in many multiples of that in revenue for their firm.
However you don't see the politicians or those traders employers banging the drum to dilute the trader pool with foreign workers on extremely employer friendly worker visas.
> What I was alluding to with my comment was that software developers create a tremendous amount of wealth while seeing little of it.
Elite workers are still workers. The people who receive most of the wealth created by workers are capitalists, not workers. There's a fairly strong ideology dedicated to preserving that state, with a name that makes that orientation quite clear.
I'd encourage you to set up shop as an entrepreneur, consultant, or ISV. Then you will a.) get to keep all of the wealth you create (well, minus taxes - damn you Uncle Sam) and b.) get a true idea of how much wealth you actually create.
Personally, I've done both the entrepreneur and employee route, and I created and kept a whole lot more money as an employee. I may go back to being an entrepreneur in the future - I'm certainly a lot more skilled than the last time I tried it - but the experience of founding my own startup and working 5 years in a big company has taught me a whole lot about the value that other job functions create, like sales, design, management, finance, capital, etc. It's really easy to look at your output as a software developer and say "I built the thing that makes my company hundreds of millions of dollars, and I only get to see hundreds of thousands of it", without realizing that none of that hundreds of millions in value would've been created without marketing to understand what people want, product design to understand how to supply it, UX to make it usable, sales to let people know about it, management to make all these functions work together, or finance to pay for it.
>I'd encourage you to set up shop as an entrepreneur, consultant, or ISV. Then you will a.) get to keep all of the wealth you create (well, minus taxes - damn you Uncle Sam) and b.) get a true idea of how much wealth you actually create.
Or you know, you'll get an inflated idea of how much you "actually" created, just because you get to tell people what to do, and belittle their contributions because, after all you are in charge.
Usually if you do that too much, they'll leave, your startup will tank, and (in a possibly painful dose of cold reality), you will find out exactly how much you actually created.
When I start my own company I will definitely take credit for the business I build. For the past 15 years I have been paid to build things for other people, I have been praised and I have been well paid, but I certainly don't claim credit for the creation of the companies that employed me. Even as a co-founder in my current position, there is a huge difference between coming on in a paid position and taking the risk to build something from nothing.
Developers sometimes get big heads because there is so much dead weight in the corporate world pulling paychecks for bullshit. I get that we build stuff that creates real tangible value. But just as people sometimes misunderstand the challenge of our work and the value that we bring to the table, it's easy to dismiss business-oriented entrepreneurs as just being privileged or having inside connections—all of which may be true, but until you have the stones to go put everything on the line and found your own company you don't have a leg to stand in terms of proclaiming who is bringing what value. Without the founder, nothing happens, period.
What you get as a developer in the bay area is way better than other US cities.
I've lived in a couple of those places over the course of a decade and a half, and I can tell you that while the cost of living is lower there, so also is the pay. Significantly lower.
You figure in the relative scarcity of jobs, and you're looking at making a lot less, limited carrier mobility, and real stress when layoffs invariably roll around.
Sure, I can't buy a house here, but I certainly make a lot more than I spend and I stock that extra away. This creates something many people don't have: options.
Options like:
Being picky about jobs.
Starting something on your own.
Buying a house with cash somewhere else if you decide to move.
These are hard to replace outside of this bubble many of us live in.
Sadly, this seems to be the case. I waffle a lot about whether I want to stay in the Bay Area, given the combination of currently being underemployed, the ridiculous cost of living and how much I'd need to make just in order to maintain the status quo, let alone finally live without a roommate.
But when I poke at other markets, with very few exceptions the pay differential for web developers is so steep and the choices are so few it's startling. (And I'm also frequently reminded how much of the rest of the United States is still populated by Microsoft shops rather than living in OSX/Unix-land like I do.) This is why I ended up moving out here in the first place a decade ago from the Tampa Bay area -- I was a Unix-head in a land of very few opportunities, and to my dismay, that really hasn't changed very much.
It's hard not to notice that a lot of the HN crowd that takes mobility for granted are people who co-founded their own startups and/or work at companies with a strong telecommuting culture. I think that's awesome, but finding such roles is not as easy -- even out here -- as I think people who've found them sometimes believe. (And I say that as someone who's primarily worked from home since 2011.)
As a software developer with several years in Boston and DC each, I can tell you 100k does not allow for a mortgage on a SFH within a 20 minute commute to work in either place, which is basically the american dream.
Boston is even worse, the available real estate is all older and smaller and nearly as expensive as SF. I'd say feature for feature your money probably goes further in SF than in Boston.
DC fucking blows on top of it. At least in other places, you have to be smart to make 6 figures. Here, every idiot that rides their desk long enough gets 6 figures and therefore you have to pay huge sums of money for a single family home within 90 minutes of DC.
But we shouldn't have to be flexible with an hour commute on a train while at the same time being told we live a life of luxury and are over paid. It appears to me the cognitive dissonance going on here similar to the SF people who say "It's not so bad, I found a studio for 2k/month in Oakland!"
If we were truly overpaid and in such demand we wouldn't live in crappy studios or be priced out of the neighborhoods we work in.
Look, unless you're a billionaire (and really, even then) life comes with tradeoffs. If you want to live in a super-expensive area, you're going to get a smaller/crappier place. If you're willing to put up with a longer commute, you'll get more for money in terms of housing.
The point is, you have the luxury of being able to make those choices. What about the people who sweep the floors in your office? What about the people who work at the trendy cafe where you eat lunch?
I'm scratching my head a bit that anyone would balk at an hour long train ride. I did it for years. You can read, work on a some project, or just relax.
I've lived and worked in two places you mention (Florida, Chicago, although very briefly in the latter).
There are "well-paid" software jobs there, if one adheres strictly to a comparison of salaries with the median. However the quantity of software jobs is lower, the type of software job is generally slanted toward the "crappy" end of the spectrum (software developers are an expense, and therefore to be treated as enemies to the mission of the company), and the pay is just not even in the same ballpark as the Bay area, even if it is (relatively) good.
Then there are other factors, such as quality of life, public services and other things that make it easier or even pleasant to raise a family. In Florida all these things, in my opinion, are seriously lacking or underwhelming. Coupled with the high level of job insecurity there, I didn't have to think too long or hard to decide to move my family from there to the Bay area.
> A software developer might be able to do these things in
> California, but only barely, unless they have a very cushy
> arrangement or they've ridden an exit for a startup.
You can live in an affordable part of the state...there is a California outside of LA and the Bay.
I agree, and took it one step further. Even though I grew up in LA and am co-founder of an SF-based startup, I don't live there anymore. I choose to live in Chicago for a higher quality of life and lower cost of living. My attitude is thus: I'll move back to SF when I'm rich, but when I'm rich, I won't need to move back to SF.
I live in San Diego. I don't make any more than your average programmer around here (very low six figures.) I can do all of those things, and in a nice area.
> The median 33% household income ("middle class") in the US is $30,000 to $62,500 (household).
What does this even mean? Median 33%? Median is 50% How can it have a range? Are you saying the 33th percentile household income in the US ranges from 30k to 62.5k depending on the state?
That is definitely what the GP thread meant, but the terminology was wrong. They wanted "percentile" median specifically refers to the 50th percentile. You could also use "tertile" (e.g. "The second tertile has income between 30k and 65k) which refers specifically to spliting into thirds.
They are also the 2nd and 4th sextiles, on either side of the median, which is the 3rd sextile, and approximately the same as the 33rd and 66th percentiles, or the 333rd and 666th permille.
Income is not a normal distribution, so the two numbers don't tell much of a story by themselves. Usually, the statistics are shown as quintiles, plus median, 95th percentile, and maybe also 99th percentile and 999th permille, depending on whether the statistics presenter wants the audience to gasp or not.
The median household income is $55,000, with a median of 1.5 earners at that level. So, it seems to me quite likely an earner makes less than $62,000. Also, the median personal income is about $30,000, although this includes everyone older than 15.
Software engineers are concentrated in major metropolitan areas, often high cost ones (e.g. the SF bay area), so comparisons to the national median income are not necessarily accurate.
You would need to compare it to other professions lawyers/medical doctors and other types of engineers - and I woudl bet that the median for those working in the tech industry's is lower than MD's and lawyers
A Ceng/PE has the same requirements as a MD or lawyer arguably more so in the case of lawyers - but a Ceng or PE will earn less than a MD or lawyer for the same level of experience
And dont you need a First from a good university to stand a good chance of high paying job in SV?
This is highly location dependent and programmers are often located in expensive cities.
100k in the bay area is just middle class, no upper qualification. Very unlikely to afford a home within 25 minutes of work unless they're in the south bay.
You need 200k total household income before a mortgage on a $1.3mm house (starter home cost in most neighborhoods) is realistic.
There is a 10x difference in the cost of a home in SF and Austin (where I just moved to from SF) and a 20x difference between SF and where my father lives in Ohio.
There is not a 20x difference in income between developers and the 30-60k US median. The medianites live out in the sticks where their mortgage is $150-600 a month.
$1.3MM will get you a VERY nice home in some of the more exclusive neighborhoods in SF (Noe Valley).
Only in SF do you have people complaining that they are "middle class" because they can't afford a single family home (already a luxury in major US cities) in a ritzy neighborhood and have to suffer through a >25 min commute.
Houses in SF on the edge of the ritzy neighborhoods cost $700k. But that's not living the american dream right
Sorry, but splitting "classes" in thirds is just ridiculous. The way the economy works is by concentrating wealth, so any class definition based on clustering according to income/net-worth cannot be linear. A logarithmic scale would make much more sense, by example: Poor:= 0-50%, Middle class:= 51%-75%, Upper class:=76-100%???
This model is extremely rough and inaccurate, but is a step in the right direction. The main problem it has is to assume that there has to be only 3 classes, which is arbitrary and does not describe the actual lives of real people. A second, related defect is that it does not recognize the existence of a small group of very vulnerable people below the "working poor".
For these reasons, I think it is best to model this clustering classification using a log-normal distribution, with at least five classes (Underclass < Working poor < Middle class < Upper-middle class < Upper class). Still, the "upper class" category lumps together the merely wealthy (smallish business owners, the most successful professionals) with the extremely rich, and all possibilities in-between.
> Still, the "upper class" category lumps together the merely wealthy (smallish business owners, the most successful professionals) with the extremely rich, and all possibilities in-between.
It also lumps in the high-income earners with the high-net worth people (the ones everyone thinks of when they say "rich").
You arbitrarily picked the midle tertile. There is a much bigger difference in lifestyle between the 33rd and 67th percentile or the 90th percentile and the 99th percentile than there is between the 67th percentile and the 90th percentile.
I would argue that wealth is a better measure of class than income anyway. There is an inflection point on the wealth curve, which (when you cross it) all you need to is not screw up really badly, and you will be wealthy for the rest of your life.
Yep, at about 2 million dollars you could go to a small friendly town buy a house there and have an income close to the median (and have your assets track with inflation) assuming you can get a 5-6% return on investment, not at all unachievable on 'safe' long term investments. This is all without doing a single hour of work after hitting that point.
Despite the name, "middle class" does not mean "around median income." This is more apparent in countries like India and Brazil, but it's increasingly true in the US. "Upper class" definitely does not mean "top third by income."
Many (or most) of the great technology companies have technical founders that benefit tremendously from a successful exist. Equating "business guys" with "the man" who get all the benefit and engineers as the poor labor is misguided and ignores basic facts.
Every technology startup that blows up have people with engineering backgrounds in positions of senior management. Across levels of seniority, engineers often make as much or more money as their non-technical counterparts. If you want to stay at the individual contributor level as an engineer that is, of course, totally fine, but you should compare yourself to other IC's in the organization without technical skills. I think you will find yourself to be very well positioned financially.
Engineers who work for technology companies are in the extreme minority. The average engineer works for a non-technology company doing work that management views as an expense, not a revenue generator, coding up features that sales people who make twice as much as them promised to a client months ago.
You think _Dentists_ chase down non paying clients? Ha ha!
Non-payers are part of their expected business, maybe someone fresh out of school who never talked to another practicing dentist might get surprised by this.
They hire people to chase down non paying clients and they still turn a hefty profit.
97% of people want to work. Like to code. That's what they want to do. And they expect the other 3% to organize these jobs for them. Because they don't know/can't/aren't interested in organizing these jobs on their own. It really boils down to: do you want to be a craftsman or wealthy man. Because if you want to be in the 3% organizing jobs for others, you won't have any time to do coding. It's very easy to end up in the mental trap of: "I just want to code" expecting to see the prize for all the hard work. But the prize always goes to the job "organizer" or creator and not to the one doing it. Never forget that.
And without the 97% of people doing the actual work, the "organizer" wouldn't have a job either. Sure, presently management is making a grossly disproportionate amount of the profit but that doesn't make it right. This lack of balance is one of the looming economic crises facing the US.
Your blithe comment implies that this is reasonable, I strongly disagree.
It's about making the trade with your eyes open. I am a "just wants to code" type, which is fine, because in the organization we have guys who just want to sell, and guys who just want to make presentations, and guys (presumably) who just want to do the squillion other tasks that make a large organization tick over. I don't feel exploited at all.
Please keep in mind that any of the 97% could be a job organizer too. It's a choice. I strongly disagree with children dying of cancer. But that's just the way this world works. People have this thing in their psyche were they want a "parent" to provide them money, shelter, security in exchange for their obedience (disguised as "work"). Getting rid of this childish mentality is good for you.
I believe that your cancer analogy is weak, in this instance. It may not have been your intent to be insulting, but I find it challenging to read your response without feeling insulted. Casting my response as "childish" strikes me as unreasonable, as well as linking me with the people "who have this thing in their psyche". These are not issues I have.
In any case, we're not talking about something irrefutable, like a law of physics. Income inequality has been on the rise in the US since the 70's and is, possibly, one of the causes contributing to the shrinking of the middle class.[0]
I am not advocating that anyone gets anything for free, rather that the majority of the employed receive equitable pay. The current distribution, were a nearly obscene amount is squeezed towards the top of the organization, is unsustainable and, I would argue, unhealthy for the economy.
Again, to reiterate, I am not arguing that the managers should no longer be paid or that they should make less than those they manage. I'm simply pointing out that, at present, the top tiers of management are making far too much and this effects the income of everyone further down the ladder.
For me maybe it is a little bit like law of physics. There are rich and there are poor. There are healthy, there are sick. The world is a cruel place that's just not fair no matter how you slice it. Maybe death is great equalizer - makes us all equal in the end. There is no way to fight it, that's by "design" (i.e. 'law of physics'). Accepting this world as it is and living happy regardless, for me, that's the border between the world of adults and the world of children. I prefer to insult you (even though I didn't want to) than to be disrespectful (in the sense of not saying openly what I really believe in, don't want to be dishonest).
97% of people like to code??? What??? Unless you mean 97% of developers - in which case, yeah, I should hope so. But even if you meant 97% of the tech industry? This industry is full of people who want to "design apps" or "manage developers" or some other such nonsense (obviously, those are real things - but there are plenty of people claiming they want to do them that have no idea what they actually entail)
I think the point was that 97% of people want to do their job, whatever it is, and the remaining 3% have to match those people with the ones paying the money for the job to get done.
An experienced software developer earns perhaps double the national average wage in the UK, depending on where they are in the country (it may be considerably more than double, it is never less than comfortably above the average).
Real wages are below their early 70s peak by about 14% right now.
By my calculation that puts an average programmer in a considerably better position than most people would have been seeing even in the early 70s.
We have luxurious jobs.
That's not to say we don't earn it, just that any suggestion that we're not well off both relative to the average and relative to any point in history doesn't stack up.
I live in Glasgow. Our sysadmin moved to Australia (Sydney) - close to tripled his salary but dropped his standard of living because of higher costs out there. I hear that a lot from people moving out there - great salaries, costs a fortune to live.
I am not sure if you are trolling or not. Maybe I have read your comment incorrectly.
There are some people in this world that are working in their job because of circumstances beyond their control. Just look at the folks in North Korea or most parts of Africa.
Those of us who have "luxurious" jobs did have a choice, those other folks don't.
I'm saying that software developer lifestyles only look good because of the terribly poor conditions many other people work in, both in developed economies and in more obviously poverty-stricken places. We're lucky not to be those people, but to me "luxury" implies either greed or wastefulness - that as software developers we're getting some kind of unreasonably good deal from the world. I don't think we are. I think more people should get the kind of deal that software developers do.
Sure, in relative terms you can say that developers are lucky. But I'm not sure it makes much sense to say "you're lucky that you don't live in poverty", because we should consider modestly affluent lifestyles to be the norm and poverty to be the aberration that needs to be explained.
> We're lucky not to be those people, but to me "luxury" implies either greed or wastefulness - that as software developers we're getting some kind of unreasonably good deal from the world.
I don't agree with that definition of "luxury", and I think there are many others who also do not. Luxury is about comfort and choice, not greed and wastefulness.
the state of great comfort and extravagant living.
"he lived a life of luxury"
synonyms: opulence, luxuriousness, sumptuousness, grandeur, magnificence, splendor, lavishness, the lap of luxury, a bed of roses, (the land of) milk and honey
This says that luxury is about great comfort, something beyond the ordinary. The aristocrats of Downton Abbey live in luxury, the average software developer does not.
No, that's the point of this article. The average developer does live in great comfort--beyond the ordinary--both in absolute terms worldwide (you have clean water and electricity), and relative terms within developed nations (you posess a well-paid skill that is in high demand and affords a flexible career).
I agree to disagree about this. To me, luxury is "opulence, luxuriousness, sumptuousness, grandeur, magnificence, splendor, lavishness, the lap of luxury, a bed of roses", and I don't associate those with typical developers. "Luxuriousness" is really a measure of consumption anyway, rather than income, so it would entirely depend on how people spend their money rather than how much they earn or receive. A big house, fast cars and yachts are luxury items even if you had to borrow money to buy them. Having a good job is not a luxury because people with good jobs can still live ascetically.
Maybe this is just a cultural difference thing here. When I hear "luxury" I hear something like "extravagance" or "indulgence". Luxury is something you don't need and shouldn't feel entitled to. I think most people do need good jobs, respectful working conditions, good housing and time with their friends and family. I don't consider those to be luxuries, and I don't think that there's anything extravagant about those things. To me, this just highlights how truly awful it is that most people do not have these things.
Fair enough. I'm fully on board with you that more people should have access to the advantages we do.
I do disagree with your characterizing "luxury" solely in terms of consumption. To me, somebody who lives an ascetic lifestyle while saving the wages of their good job still has "luxuries" that others lack: economic security, having the freedom to quit their job if they want, etc.
To me, luxury and comfort are two separate things. Comfort is not having to worry about the things that you need. Luxury is having things that you don't need. Comfort is having one or two new reliable and safe cars for your family. Luxury is also having that convertible sports-car for the weekends.
It's context dependant too. My 2003 Accord is a luxury, despite being far less nice and older than what I could afford, because I really have no need for it. Everything I need is within easy walking or transit distance, so even that car is a luxury for me.
> we should consider modestly affluent lifestyles to be the norm
That is a very interesting statement. I wish I could agree with you, but neither history nor the current state of the world support the idea that affluence is "normal."
True enough, but I don't think that should be the horizon. It's worth looking at the system in which we exist, and why the other jobs are so shitty. That goes way beyond semantics.
Yeah, you're right. But "luxurious" has connotations that go beyond "good conditions". It's not a luxury to be treated with dignity and respect, paid decently and allowed to make time for your family. That should be normal, and the real problem is that it isn't normal for enough people.
The fact that we have careers decent enough that we are not dehumanized on a daily basis or expected to work in depressing, unhealthy, sometimes dangerous conditions for just enough pay to scrape by should not be seen as luxury; it should be the norm.
And considering the value developers bring to companies, and comparing our salaries to other positions, developers in general are underpaid. It's perfectly reasonable to demand more perks.
But I guess this is why we have a lower class: to keep the worker bees on their toes. "See how good you have it? You could end up like one of them."
Everyone's underpaid because employers need to make a profit on you. If you bring a million in sales, and turn around and demand a million, then the company hasn't made anything. How much profit a company should be making on its developers is a different story.
And really, not all developers are mentally taxed for 8 hours a day. Some might do routine tasks for 2 or hours and then browse HN for the remaining 6, or just go right home. The labor market for developers is no where near efficient in this regard.
But really, if a high salary and benefits and perks aren't a luxury job, then what is a luxury job exactly?
Maybe in the industrialized world. Your frame is too small. Zoom out a bit. Put the entire 7B of us in the picture. Now, do you have a luxurious job? The answer is yes.
Look, if you don't enjoy programming/data/technology then you're probably in the wrong field.
But I think it's ok to have to force yourself to work on the stuff you don't enjoy as much. You just need to have adequate enjoyment from what you do, and the self discipline to do what you enjoy doing. At the end of the day, you're lucky to enjoy what you're doing half of the time, and to be making many times more than the rest of the world's population could make.
The Oatmeal pretty much summed up 6pm of every weeknight of my life (I'm a stay-at-home developer, my wife is a medical resident) http://theoatmeal.com/comics/making_things
I wouldn't call that luxurious job though. It's just that good programmers are hard to find, thus salaries go up. It's the same in all jobs that require specific skills that are relatively hard to learn. Doctors, lawyers, even skilled construction workers make a ton if they're good at their craft.
And programming is not that easy when you think about it. I keep learning new stuff every day in addition to paid hours. When I get stuck at smth, I keep working on my head during night or weekend. I feel responsible for my code quality and try to make it as good as possible by going extra mile. My GF (who earns 6x less) comes from work and relaxes till her next shift. When I finish work, that means I don't stare at screen, but I still keep it in my head.
I know bad programmers who make shitty wage for shitty code. I wouldn't call their jobs luxurious in any way. I feel sorry for for people in other fields whose skills are undervalued though.
Speaking to my father once, he told me "Man, you got the tiger by the tail." I try not to forget it. I don't always succeed at that.
He was more right than he knew -- maybe a couple years after he told me that, the business whose revenues he tripled decided they didn't like him, fired him, and he has been looking for work and underemployed ever since. He used to have a yacht, now he works at a chain hardware store.
My wife, whose dad is a coal miner and works harder in one day than I've had to my entire career, cannot figure out why I'm able to work from home whenever I want, and why my boss isn't firing me because I often sleep in and don't get online or make it into the office until maybe an hour after my "normal" hours.
Or how I can "just take off" whenever I need to go to the doctor, or for one of my sons' doctor's appointments or events at school.
I've never known what it was like to not have this flexibility. I expect this flexibility, and will not work for an employer that will not give me this flexibility.
And these expectations only increase as I get further into my career or change jobs. I'm even considering taking a contracting position making 80% less and working 80% less, so I can spend 20% doing my own (productive) thing. What other profession allows this?
So yes, I definitely think I personally take this for granted, and feel in a way I'm spoiled, or at the very least desensitized to the fact that a large majority have it way more difficult than I do. I do try to keep this in mind, though, but it is hard in the day-to-day grind.
No, I am keenly, almost obsessively aware of how lucky I am and how fragile my situation can be.
I have three kids, a stay at home wife, make a considerable salary and have a job I absolutely love and excel at.
But I am still fundamentally subsisting; my living expenses are just covered by what I make and am not able to save a considerable amount. This scares the bejesus out of me because all my kids are young: I have lots of expenses coming up related to providing well for them.
The most important thought I have daily, which was reinforced by the subtext of this article, is that education is the most important thing I can give to my kids.
When there are people who are "struggling to find a minimum wage job for years" to me, that means that they lack the education or skills to have a job that pays more and is in more demand. This is a failing of many parties - but it's the base of the issue.
I want my kids to be able to do whatever it is they want, but to have the skills to actually make that decision for themselves.
So, I am profoundly a aware of my position, am thankful for it and am working to ensure that I provide my children an even better life than my already great one.
I addressed that fragility in my own life by following most of Dave Ramsey's advice. If you're in debt and you're not budgeting strictly, I humbly suggest that you pick up one of his books and start today.
For a bit of inspiration: I started the process with about $47k in debt. This included student loans, auto loans, and credit cards. After 19 months of working on "baby step #2," I've reduced that debt to $10k, and I expect to have it fully paid by August of this year. I used to feel as you do, about the fragility of my situation, and I now feel much much better, since my monthly expenses have reduced by about $700 (due to no longer needing to service that debt), and soon I'll feel better still, as I accumulate an emergency fund of 6 months' living expenses.
Obviously, I can't know your personal situation or your specific challenges, so take this advice from a stranger on the internet for what it's worth. If you can benefit from it though, you will feel so much better about your situation.
I have three kids as well, and have some small hope to offer (assuming your kids are young): once the kids are at elementary school age, the financial situation gets a bit easier. After school activities typically cost less than preschool, and your wife may be able to get part-time work at that point.
Also note: with 3 kids, there is likely no place in the US where it is cheaper to send your kids to a mediocre private school than to just move to a better school district (unless you live in a rural area where your commute would severely be affected). That's one thing that I would most like to change at a policy level, but it's something that in the short-term will affect decisions you make.
> When there are people who are "struggling to find a minimum wage job for years" to me, that means that they lack the education or skills to have a job that pays more and is in more demand.
I'm not sure I agree. There are plenty of "low-skill", reasonably high paying jobs. The problem is that when you're in a cycle of having no money, you spend all your time managing what money you can get ahold of and trying to get quick cash influxes to keep the bills paid. You don't have the resources to sit back and plan a more stable path for yourself.
After your second kid, it should have been quite clear to you that you would not be able to have a third kid and save as much as you should. Why did you choose to have the 3rd kid?
Early on in my career, I put my resume out to look for another job after a layoff. Recruiters nearly called me around the clock. I expressed frustration after the third call in a row in front of my wife. She reminded me what a blessing it was to have so many people trying to get me work and so many opportunities available, most which would give me a raise.
He father struggled after layoffs to find work in his profession, with long gaps between jobs. I realized how blessed I was to be in this line of work and stopped complaining, even about the copy/paste emails.
That said, there are different levels of competency in each profession, and recruiters are just as prone to rookie mistakes and lazy work as coders are. I have the luxury of working only with good recruiters and can filter the rest easily.
I've also lived through relatively scarce times (2002) when it was hard to get a recruiter to return my calls. I can imagine that many recruiters and firms went under and know people involved in software who had to scramble to find work (myself included). That does help me appreciate the 90% of my career that work has been plentiful.
technology workers complaining about recruiters is analogous to young, attractive people complaining about people hitting on them constantly. it sets off the same b.s. detectors in my brain.
to me, it's really just a childish and transparent way of bragging. even reasonable people slip into these modes when they are faced with an abundance of opportunity, most of which they don't want or feel are beneath them.
Yeah, but I think the problem with cut-and-paste recruiter spam is that it's not really an opportunity. Most of the "offers" I get don't match my skillset and would not result in a job even if I pursued them. They simply increase the noise in the channel and don't add any value to anyone.
This is further compounded by the likelihood that the jobs advertised may be sham postings that are only being spammed out to you to fulfill legal requirements for restricted visas held by imported workers.
For your own amusement, try responding to one or two, and see what happens.
It isn't quite so posh when you discover that the job opportunities constantly streaming into your inbox don't actually exist.
these are all symptoms of an industry that finds its workers in high demand, which is the root of the issue we're discussing. people are complaining about being in demand.
the problem with going to bars is that everyone who hits on me is not really my type. most of the 'offers' i get are from fatties and uglies or losers, and would not result in a relationship even even if i decided to sleep with them. these people simply increase the noise at the bar and don't add value to anyone.
oh my god it's just like, so annoying, you know? faux outrage
Ok, that's almost there. Now instead of sitting at a bar, sit at a public park while reading a book. And instead of being propositioned by ugly people, let's say that they are pimps, each trying to get you to stand on their street corner. Also, you have a big, fat wedding ring, and a huge sign around your neck saying "NO PIMPS". Also, you don't know this, since you ignore them as much as you can, but the pimps' customers all have herpaidsyphichlamorrhea. And they live in Antarctica. And they won't pay you market price.
No. I was pointing out how the previous analogy was flawed. People expect to talk to strangers at bars, particularly about a specific purpose.
People sit on park benches to enjoy public space without being bothered by random strangers. It doesn't have to be a pimp that spams you. It could be a construction foreman asking you to fill sandbags at his worksite, or a cab dispatcher wanting you to drive around town collecting fares. Complaining about people that annoy you with offers for work that you don't want is complaining that they don't actually care what you want, not just complaining that you have so many opportunities available.
But even my current employer doesn't care what I want, or even that I am an actual human being that still exists on this planet for the 128 hours a week that are not recorded on my time card. So it isn't just the recruiters. My complaint, such as it is, is that I resent the dehumanization of my industry and the diminishing levels of respect I see for people that have the same valuable skill as I do from the people that do not.
Basically, I'm complaining that nerds are not popular. I can see how that complaint would be easily dismissed, even by the nerds.
60 hour work week to meet a marketing deadline. No thanks. If I could get a 1/3 for a job that has no requirement of producing something and fixed hours. That way I can code for myself.
I consider myself very fortunate, despite having a very strict [e.g. practically nonexistent] work-from-home allowance. It's not something I take lightly, for better and worse.
For instance, at the moment I spend ~40 hrs in the office and ~40hrs in grad school and on side projects. As a result, I have very little time available for leisure or even meaningful relationships. My extra-work effort is driven in part by a fear of skill obsolescence, and competition with my peers - who are among the best in the world at what they do.
At times I wonder if my priorities are a little backwards, but at times I feel so driven I'm not sure I could truly relax even if I wanted to.
And your'e stacking that up against the stress the gardener or construction worker has of losing their job and not having a million other options, or not being able to support medical insurance for their family because of what they earn?
Even excluding that, having worked in a fairly brain dead job I found the stress of 9 hours a day doing something that dull WAY more stressful than being able to use my mind but being under some pressure to do so.
I'm not saying "we have problems, 'they' don't". I'm illustrating the fact that EVERYBODY has problems. Software development isn't all peachy 100% of the time. [Let's call it 80% of the time ;)]
As opposed to the nurse who lost a patient, the social worker who has to remove a child from their home, a teacher that gets to see all of problems kids bring from homes, many aspects of being a police officer, etc?
My girlfriend is a social worker and works at a primary school. These are some responses I have had to "how was your day":
"Today a girl was raped by his grandfather. We suspect he's also his father."
"A 10-year-old boy commited suicide. I went to his family's home and they still had the body lying down on the living room."
"A boy has told us that her mother every night gets money from men to 'spend time' with her sisters. Today I went to court to try to take the girls away from her, but the judge allowed her to keep them."
I don't allow myself to think I have bad days at work.
Software engineering is one of the lowest stress jobs out there. I've worked some stressful jobs, and software engineering doesn't even compare. For example try getting yelled at and sworn at and personally attacked regularly. You really have it good if you find your job to be so stressful.
Believe it or not a LOT of people take work home with them, and its something you gotta work on not doing. Not job specific.
It's basic economics. A lot of people can mine coal or cook a burger. Not a lot of people can write or design software. The demand outweighs the supply and hence, leverage exists for those smart enough to take advantage of it.
More importantly, engineers earn a fraction of the value they create for employers.
While this might be true for a large portion of HN's audience, there are also developers stuck in shitty positions in countries where making $100K writing software is a pipe dream. I'd be happy if I was paid a third of that.
Indeed, and I certainly don't need $100K either. I don't even live in an area where the cost of living is especially high, but I currently make less than what I was earning working on an assembly line in a factory. While I'm not dirt-poor I'm unable to make any savings or plans for the future. As I don't have much aside, I can't really try my luck in a better area as moving is not free. At least I'm only responsible for myself, so there's that.
Those other people, the OP is talking about, I know many of them. Many of my friends are unemployed. But even though I tried really hard to convince those of whom I thought had the head to do it, to start a IT education, or at least start learning to code at home while they have no job yet. Still I wasn't able to convince anyone. They all said that it is too hard and not something they are interested in.
That was kind of sad that they would rather sit around waiting for a low payed job instead of investing some efford for a brighter future.
I understand that not everybody is able do learn the stuff we do but many people just don't want to.
About working from home: I won't do it again, unless needed
I will go somewhere else (rent a room/desk if needed) and I'll work there.
Going from "work mode" to "home mode" is very important
"Living in the bubble of Hacker News does distort the perspective. We tend to ignore how luxurious our jobs are. We shouldn’t forget that there is life outside our communities."
If you really don't like recruiters, feel free to send them to http://www.rankarecruiter.co.uk/ - it's a joke side designed to waste their time, just like they waste ours.
311 comments
[ 5.8 ms ] story [ 522 ms ] threadThe days that make you wish you were doing something else.
I'm sure you've had "tough days"
I just believe, due to the problem-solving behavior of engineers/techs/programmers, we tend to tunnel-vision instead of looking at the big picture.
If the big picture is going wrong, it's a problem. Now, a lot of bad days add up to a bad big picture, but if you're planning right, and you have a bit of luck, a few bad days will eventually get washed away, no matter the project.
[1] http://www.joelonsoftware.com/uibook/chapters/fog0000000057....
But working "on the Internet" means you're also comparing yourself to the best, brightest, and driven. Then it seems like you're achieving maybe 10% of what you seemingly could be, because you're setting your own goals based on what you see out there.
It's like getting stuck in traffic. You can point out that I'm sitting in climate-controlled car, listening to a podcast, drinking coffee, having a better time than 99% of humans throughout history. It's true. I know it's true. And I'm still frustrated that I can't go faster, and I rock in my seat every time I move ahead a little as if trying to propel the car forward. It's irrational, that's the point, no amount of explaining will make it go away.
Tell that to everyone who comes to terms with it and is at peace or is content and thankful for their situation?
On that note, is being content a skill most can learn with effort or does it have significant biological prerequisites (genetics, prenatal environment, etc)?
I'd appreciate links to studies on the matter.
Yes, it's true that the complaining pushes us to find ways to make our lives even easier. But in the meantime, why are we unable to sustain our enjoyment for what we've got? If we could just change our thinking on this and begin to appreciate the amazing place we've reached on a more regular basis, imagine how much happier we'd all be. But what's the hack to do that?
I've done the same thing. I love watching a good movie at the end of the day, and I love visiting my home town. So I bought myself a nice TV, I take regular trips back home, and I feel like I have it made all the time. I drive a very modest vehicle and live in a very modest place, but I really appreciate how I live now and try to focus the rest of my resources on others.
http://www.amazon.com/How-Want-What-You-Have/dp/0805033173
The typical "western" approach to happiness is: "I have X but I want Y, therefore, to be happy I need to achieve Y." This book reverses the equation: "I have X but want Y, therefore, to be happy I need to learn to want X." That idea may sound radically counterintuitive on first hearing, but it's reflected in many of the world's spiritual traditions.
What's especially great about it is that it approaches the subject from a rational, scientific viewpoint, so if you find yourself turned off by the spiritual side of buddhism or whatnot, the book will be welcome.
Also, music is a good call generally - the ability to play an instrument will repay itself many times over a lifetime.
Them you should deserve a very nice home office, with all the monitors, computing power that you would want, and, of course, a remote job to enjoy all that! ;)
There's a great book called Living High and Letting Die by Peter Unger which relates to this subject. Essentially, the argument is we here in the first world have a moral obligation to continue onward and upward as long as we benefit those in the third world.
We have to first recognize our privilege or luxury before we are able to see how we can use it to help those people in the third world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_High_and_Letting_Die
There is no hack. Humans are wired to seek novelty. Novelty by definition wears off. The best thing I've found is to try to seek novelty in creating rather than consuming, but our very nature ensures contentedness is an elusive goal.
Many people attempt to attain contentedness through religion. I'm religious myself, but I think that man was made to create, and to improve the world, so being content with the status quo isn't really something I've tried to work on.
That being said, I think that it is important to attempt to be thankful for what you have while still working towards the future.
If you only surround yourself with an environment where you don't quite measure up then your baseline gets set two high. You need to recalibrate.
I recalibrate by doing Charity work. And I don't mean just writing a check. I roll up my sleeves and actually engage with people in less fortunate circumstances. Work in a soup kitchen or a food pantry. Volunteer to repair or rebuild someones house when they can't afford to or a tragedy has struck.
It exposes you to people who haven't had the breaks that you had and also helps raise the standard of living for someone less fortunate or lucky and that helps keep your baseline from getting to high.
Awareness, without making comparisons. That should be the key. I can't validate that myself yet though...
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI
Such comparison alone distorts the view and paves the way to start to think that your minds lazy thoughts ("virtual obstacles") is actually something real, something you can't control.
In my personal experience, the moment you stop thinking about how hard it is to concentrate on a task and you start doing it, is the very moment when all those lazy thoughts disappears and you're back on empty "autobahn".
Meditation, traveling to developing countries, constantly reminding yourself how much you enjoy little things like music, coffee, talking to friends etc. Works for me at least.
Nothing like going without a hot shower or first world plumbing for several weeks can make you appreciate all the little luxuries we enjoy.
For example, related to your job, you may work with technology that is fun or hot in the market, or better than what you were doing 5 or 10 years ago. Your co-workers no doubt have at least some positive qualities, so write "I am grateful that my co-workers have a good sense of humor," for example.
You may be fortunate to be making as much money as you are, or working in the conditions you have.
This is especially good for things that are an important part of your life, but which you may feel frustration or anxiety toward, such as your job, your relationships, the initiatives or projects you're working on, etc. But even for things that are a downright negative, such as sickness, you can still be grateful. For example, a sickness might have given you perspective on the important things in life, or helped you behave in a healthier manner.
Try writing down five things to be grateful about every day, and maybe again if you're feeling strong negative emotions about the subject, and see if your overall emotional posture toward the subject improves over a period of two weeks.
(I haven't really tried negative visualization, but I suppose I occasionally do some voluntary discomfort.)
There's a surprising amount of overlap between the two. I always liked Buddhism conceptually, but it never really clicked with me. Stoicism on the other hand feels quite natural. Maybe it's a anglo-centric thing.
At the root of both philosophies is the realization of impermanence of all things. Recognizing (and really feeling) this impermanence goes a long way to helping you to mindfully appreciate what you have.
To give you the flavour of what I mean, some Stoic practices include:
- negative visualisation: imagine what it will be like when thing/person X is no longer in your life (which is inevitable). This, somewhat counter-intuitively, brings you into the present and helps you enjoy what you have.
- periodic self deprivation: go a week without your smartphone, or hot showers. This does two things: it teaches you that you can survive without something you're attached to, and also lets you appreciate it. In some ways the essence of Buddhism and Stoicism is "appreciation without attachment".
Stoicism is very practical - Epictetus, Seneca etc basically set you homework. The foundational principle is that there are 2 classes of things: those completely within your control, and everything else. Happiness, freedom and living a good life come focusing your energy on the first class, and being indifferent to the second. The "homework" is about helping you practically interact with the world from that perspective.
edit: for further reading, I'd recommend Irvine's A Guide To The Good Life. Although I find reading Epictetus and Seneca much more enlightening, Irvine is a nice on-ramp.
When I re-read it, I realized that being alive in 2014 is unbelievably awesome.
Then the conversation went straight into "Four Yorkshiremen".
A: In my day, we were grateful for just one singing hemorrhoid video. B: And we had to download it from Usenet binaries. C: In RealMedia format. Me: And part 51 of 117 was missing. A: And we had to use bauds. Me: I had a demibaud modem. C: Luxury! We had to make our own punchcards and send'm through the mail. B: At least you had mail. We stapled our punchcards to passing hobos and hoped they made it somewhere with a router.
In the face of that kind of comparison, it's hard not to a bit down occasionally, even though you know the reality does not match the perception.
That's a hard lesson to learn, and accept... I think my goal in life is to accept my circumstance with contentment, whatever that is at any given time.
Still IT is a breeze, having grown up on a farm I feel lazy even when I do a sixty hour week. Having worked in low end jobs as an adult when times were bad I have great respect for those who do and never really feel at home amongst those who never have.
Still, working at home is awesome, but no matter how many others tell me that my job or similar is challenging all I have to do is look outside see the garbage man, see the lawn people, see people building house, and not think - damn I got it good.
First world problems is a meme on reddit that fits us well
This reminds me of something that happened to me a few years ago. My spouse and I bought a condo in a very expensive area of a big city. We realized we were very lucky to have stock options that were worth real money to sell and pay for a downpayment on the place. I felt a little like we were "cheaters" or "fakers" because the other people in the building seemed so successful. It felt like we hadn't "earned" the money since it was pretty much luck getting the options at the right time.
The guy above us in his 50s had his own business - some lighting stores or something. The lady next to us was about our age (late 30's at the time) and was an event planner and had done the work for some famous awards show recently. The couple below us were retired, and the husband had been a highly-paid salesman. etc.
A few months in, we learn that the guy above us doesn't actually own his condo. It's owned by a trust set up by his family. The lady next door co-owns it with her father who paid for most it. The couple downstairs actually did own theirs the "normal" way, but they seemed like the only ones in the building. It was really eye-opening. We were no less successful or lucky than the other people in the building. Most of them had "cheated" in some way, too, and comparing ourselves to them in that way was pointless. Did I work any less hard than the lighting guy or the event planner? Hell no! Did they "earn" their condos any more than me? Not at all. They were no more or less successful than us or anyone else in the building, it just looked that way at first.
It's all noise, no signal. It's just spam, and these poor recruiters are basically dialing for dollars (or [e]mailin' for money).
However, if people are whining about actual signed/sealed/delivered job OFFERS, then they definitely should shut up & count their blessings
The basal level of respect for me as a professional with skills and preferences distinct from those of my peers is typically not present from the recruiter shotgunning spam all over the network.
In regards to the under appreciated part, I also was well aware this wasn't a job like fire fighting or being a doctor where I was going to be appreciated on a daily basis, or even a job like teaching where I would get the occasional student that appreciated me making all the thankless bastards I had to deal with hopefully worth it.
I mean there is no reason you shouldn't try to find a place where you personally don't have to re-learn stuff every year, and are appreciated. But I like learning and being appreciated adds no value to me, I assume at least some others feel the same.
I am always in favor of being paid more, but I would be hard pressed to argue why I should be.
Doctors and lawyers have a large body of working knowledge that they must learn, but the portion relevant to their specific practice might not change that much over their entire career. Software writers can get started on a tiny corpus of knowledge, but a huge portion of it has to be updated on a nearly constant basis.
It's like accelerating over the entire length of a foot race, except instead of sprinting the 50m dash, you are running an ultramarathon. By the time you retire, you have already forgotten more things than most people have ever bothered to learn.
I have already written software for doctors and nurses, lawyers and paralegals, rocket scientists, aircraft pilots, and other software writers like me. Every job required learning a significant amount of domain knowledge, even if only on a temporary basis. As a result, that quote by Heinlein from Time Enough for Love--the one about specialization being for insects--definitely applies. I can now convincingly bullshit any non-expert on practically any topic after only about 2 days of Internet research.
That's because I have learned to identify and focus upon the core elements of a problem and discard all irrelevancies. It may be odd to you, since you probably have the same skill now, but the vast majority of humanity is completely incapable of viewing a problem objectively. That is why we are valuable. We are the Professors surrounded by billions of Gilligans. We are the MacGyvers in a world of ticking time bombs. Bunsen and Beeker to a bunch of talking animals. Lisa Simpsons beset by Homers. Farnsworths (and Wernstroms) babysitting Benders and Frys.
That's why we get paid the big bucks.
Lawyers and doctors certainly have continuing education requirements. There are constant changes to legal codes and precedent, and advances in medical technologies and practices. In the US, if a lawyer wants to practice in a different state, they will typically have to study local laws and re-take the state bar exam.
Actors are mostly unemployed and broke, and even the successful ones are constantly memorizing new roles and auditioning for new parts. Pilots must undergo significant training and certification in order to qualify to fly different types of aircraft. CEOs have to learn about and adapt to changing business circumstances, or else the entire company could go under.
I can use the prying eyes of my peers to guilt me into getting work done, sometimes. I also much prefer to be able to stand up, walk over to someones desk, and discuss a problem (or some newly discovered exoplanet, or the price of bitcoins, ...). Picking up a phone, sending an instant message or email just isn't the same thing.
However, I'm very much aware about what a luxurious situation I'm in. I live in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, get to do a job I love (most of the time), and get paid plenty. Compared to most places in the world, this place 50 years ago or even to other professions in the same country, I'm a lucky bastard.
Doesn't mean I sometimes have a hard time concentrating, or would like to be doing something other than the work assigned to me though, but I think that's normal and would happen to anyone in any situation. First world problems, eh?
I'm pretty aware of it.
Software developers are just getting the kind of relative pay and conditions improvements that a much larger number of people took for granted in the 60s and 70s. It's everyone else who is fucked.
We enrich "business guys" with connections to billion dollar exits while we ourselves make middle-class or slightly upper-middle class wages. Meanwhile anyone willing to take out the loans to put themselves through Dental school will eventually make more than we do and if they have the motivation to open up their own practice, much more than we do.
Even if you are the sole earner in your household, it is still unlikely that you make less than $62,500. If you do make less than that, ask for a raise. If you don't make less than that, or your combined household income is more than that, you are a member of the upper class, and you should try and remember your privilege. (Hey, life's not so bad.)
Additionally, tying class tightly to income is nonsense, because it ignores people with significant wealth but little income and ignores the different socioeconomic climates across the US.
They might not have the glut of "hot" startups that Silicon Valley does, but they have much more reasonable cost of living.
Elite workers are still workers. The people who receive most of the wealth created by workers are capitalists, not workers. There's a fairly strong ideology dedicated to preserving that state, with a name that makes that orientation quite clear.
Personally, I've done both the entrepreneur and employee route, and I created and kept a whole lot more money as an employee. I may go back to being an entrepreneur in the future - I'm certainly a lot more skilled than the last time I tried it - but the experience of founding my own startup and working 5 years in a big company has taught me a whole lot about the value that other job functions create, like sales, design, management, finance, capital, etc. It's really easy to look at your output as a software developer and say "I built the thing that makes my company hundreds of millions of dollars, and I only get to see hundreds of thousands of it", without realizing that none of that hundreds of millions in value would've been created without marketing to understand what people want, product design to understand how to supply it, UX to make it usable, sales to let people know about it, management to make all these functions work together, or finance to pay for it.
Or you know, you'll get an inflated idea of how much you "actually" created, just because you get to tell people what to do, and belittle their contributions because, after all you are in charge.
Developers sometimes get big heads because there is so much dead weight in the corporate world pulling paychecks for bullshit. I get that we build stuff that creates real tangible value. But just as people sometimes misunderstand the challenge of our work and the value that we bring to the table, it's easy to dismiss business-oriented entrepreneurs as just being privileged or having inside connections—all of which may be true, but until you have the stones to go put everything on the line and found your own company you don't have a leg to stand in terms of proclaiming who is bringing what value. Without the founder, nothing happens, period.
What you get as a developer in the bay area is way better than other US cities.
I've lived in a couple of those places over the course of a decade and a half, and I can tell you that while the cost of living is lower there, so also is the pay. Significantly lower.
You figure in the relative scarcity of jobs, and you're looking at making a lot less, limited carrier mobility, and real stress when layoffs invariably roll around.
Sure, I can't buy a house here, but I certainly make a lot more than I spend and I stock that extra away. This creates something many people don't have: options.
Options like:
Being picky about jobs. Starting something on your own. Buying a house with cash somewhere else if you decide to move.
These are hard to replace outside of this bubble many of us live in.
But when I poke at other markets, with very few exceptions the pay differential for web developers is so steep and the choices are so few it's startling. (And I'm also frequently reminded how much of the rest of the United States is still populated by Microsoft shops rather than living in OSX/Unix-land like I do.) This is why I ended up moving out here in the first place a decade ago from the Tampa Bay area -- I was a Unix-head in a land of very few opportunities, and to my dismay, that really hasn't changed very much.
It's hard not to notice that a lot of the HN crowd that takes mobility for granted are people who co-founded their own startups and/or work at companies with a strong telecommuting culture. I think that's awesome, but finding such roles is not as easy -- even out here -- as I think people who've found them sometimes believe. (And I say that as someone who's primarily worked from home since 2011.)
Boston is even worse, the available real estate is all older and smaller and nearly as expensive as SF. I'd say feature for feature your money probably goes further in SF than in Boston.
The suburbs also have developer jobs.
But we shouldn't have to be flexible with an hour commute on a train while at the same time being told we live a life of luxury and are over paid. It appears to me the cognitive dissonance going on here similar to the SF people who say "It's not so bad, I found a studio for 2k/month in Oakland!"
If we were truly overpaid and in such demand we wouldn't live in crappy studios or be priced out of the neighborhoods we work in.
The point is, you have the luxury of being able to make those choices. What about the people who sweep the floors in your office? What about the people who work at the trendy cafe where you eat lunch?
I guess it's a Chicago thing.
There are "well-paid" software jobs there, if one adheres strictly to a comparison of salaries with the median. However the quantity of software jobs is lower, the type of software job is generally slanted toward the "crappy" end of the spectrum (software developers are an expense, and therefore to be treated as enemies to the mission of the company), and the pay is just not even in the same ballpark as the Bay area, even if it is (relatively) good.
Then there are other factors, such as quality of life, public services and other things that make it easier or even pleasant to raise a family. In Florida all these things, in my opinion, are seriously lacking or underwhelming. Coupled with the high level of job insecurity there, I didn't have to think too long or hard to decide to move my family from there to the Bay area.
What does this even mean? Median 33%? Median is 50% How can it have a range? Are you saying the 33th percentile household income in the US ranges from 30k to 62.5k depending on the state?
(Or so. I understand the data)
They are also the 2nd and 4th sextiles, on either side of the median, which is the 3rd sextile, and approximately the same as the 33rd and 66th percentiles, or the 333rd and 666th permille.
Income is not a normal distribution, so the two numbers don't tell much of a story by themselves. Usually, the statistics are shown as quintiles, plus median, 95th percentile, and maybe also 99th percentile and 999th permille, depending on whether the statistics presenter wants the audience to gasp or not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_S...
And dont you need a First from a good university to stand a good chance of high paying job in SV?
100k in the bay area is just middle class, no upper qualification. Very unlikely to afford a home within 25 minutes of work unless they're in the south bay.
You need 200k total household income before a mortgage on a $1.3mm house (starter home cost in most neighborhoods) is realistic.
There is a 10x difference in the cost of a home in SF and Austin (where I just moved to from SF) and a 20x difference between SF and where my father lives in Ohio.
There is not a 20x difference in income between developers and the 30-60k US median. The medianites live out in the sticks where their mortgage is $150-600 a month.
Only in SF do you have people complaining that they are "middle class" because they can't afford a single family home (already a luxury in major US cities) in a ritzy neighborhood and have to suffer through a >25 min commute.
Houses in SF on the edge of the ritzy neighborhoods cost $700k. But that's not living the american dream right
This model is extremely rough and inaccurate, but is a step in the right direction. The main problem it has is to assume that there has to be only 3 classes, which is arbitrary and does not describe the actual lives of real people. A second, related defect is that it does not recognize the existence of a small group of very vulnerable people below the "working poor".
For these reasons, I think it is best to model this clustering classification using a log-normal distribution, with at least five classes (Underclass < Working poor < Middle class < Upper-middle class < Upper class). Still, the "upper class" category lumps together the merely wealthy (smallish business owners, the most successful professionals) with the extremely rich, and all possibilities in-between.
It also lumps in the high-income earners with the high-net worth people (the ones everyone thinks of when they say "rich").
I would argue that wealth is a better measure of class than income anyway. There is an inflection point on the wealth curve, which (when you cross it) all you need to is not screw up really badly, and you will be wealthy for the rest of your life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_class
Every technology startup that blows up have people with engineering backgrounds in positions of senior management. Across levels of seniority, engineers often make as much or more money as their non-technical counterparts. If you want to stay at the individual contributor level as an engineer that is, of course, totally fine, but you should compare yourself to other IC's in the organization without technical skills. I think you will find yourself to be very well positioned financially.
Non-payers are part of their expected business, maybe someone fresh out of school who never talked to another practicing dentist might get surprised by this.
They hire people to chase down non paying clients and they still turn a hefty profit.
Yes, dentistry is a luxury
Your blithe comment implies that this is reasonable, I strongly disagree.
In any case, we're not talking about something irrefutable, like a law of physics. Income inequality has been on the rise in the US since the 70's and is, possibly, one of the causes contributing to the shrinking of the middle class.[0]
I am not advocating that anyone gets anything for free, rather that the majority of the employed receive equitable pay. The current distribution, were a nearly obscene amount is squeezed towards the top of the organization, is unsustainable and, I would argue, unhealthy for the economy.
Again, to reiterate, I am not arguing that the managers should no longer be paid or that they should make less than those they manage. I'm simply pointing out that, at present, the top tiers of management are making far too much and this effects the income of everyone further down the ladder.
[0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United...
Real wages are below their early 70s peak by about 14% right now.
By my calculation that puts an average programmer in a considerably better position than most people would have been seeing even in the early 70s.
We have luxurious jobs.
That's not to say we don't earn it, just that any suggestion that we're not well off both relative to the average and relative to any point in history doesn't stack up.
The US and Australia pay far more. I basically had to go contract when I got back here so that I could match the money.
I live in Glasgow. Our sysadmin moved to Australia (Sydney) - close to tripled his salary but dropped his standard of living because of higher costs out there. I hear that a lot from people moving out there - great salaries, costs a fortune to live.
Houses are pokey and weird over here after that...
There are some people in this world that are working in their job because of circumstances beyond their control. Just look at the folks in North Korea or most parts of Africa.
Those of us who have "luxurious" jobs did have a choice, those other folks don't.
I'm saying that software developer lifestyles only look good because of the terribly poor conditions many other people work in, both in developed economies and in more obviously poverty-stricken places. We're lucky not to be those people, but to me "luxury" implies either greed or wastefulness - that as software developers we're getting some kind of unreasonably good deal from the world. I don't think we are. I think more people should get the kind of deal that software developers do.
Sure, in relative terms you can say that developers are lucky. But I'm not sure it makes much sense to say "you're lucky that you don't live in poverty", because we should consider modestly affluent lifestyles to be the norm and poverty to be the aberration that needs to be explained.
I don't agree with that definition of "luxury", and I think there are many others who also do not. Luxury is about comfort and choice, not greed and wastefulness.
the state of great comfort and extravagant living. "he lived a life of luxury" synonyms: opulence, luxuriousness, sumptuousness, grandeur, magnificence, splendor, lavishness, the lap of luxury, a bed of roses, (the land of) milk and honey
This says that luxury is about great comfort, something beyond the ordinary. The aristocrats of Downton Abbey live in luxury, the average software developer does not.
[1]: https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=cr&ei=rmQPU_OnKaW_ygOph4GAD...
No, that's the point of this article. The average developer does live in great comfort--beyond the ordinary--both in absolute terms worldwide (you have clean water and electricity), and relative terms within developed nations (you posess a well-paid skill that is in high demand and affords a flexible career).
Maybe this is just a cultural difference thing here. When I hear "luxury" I hear something like "extravagance" or "indulgence". Luxury is something you don't need and shouldn't feel entitled to. I think most people do need good jobs, respectful working conditions, good housing and time with their friends and family. I don't consider those to be luxuries, and I don't think that there's anything extravagant about those things. To me, this just highlights how truly awful it is that most people do not have these things.
I do disagree with your characterizing "luxury" solely in terms of consumption. To me, somebody who lives an ascetic lifestyle while saving the wages of their good job still has "luxuries" that others lack: economic security, having the freedom to quit their job if they want, etc.
I would not read the same thing into that word, which may be a regional thing? To me luxury and comfort are not the same as excess.
It's context dependant too. My 2003 Accord is a luxury, despite being far less nice and older than what I could afford, because I really have no need for it. Everything I need is within easy walking or transit distance, so even that car is a luxury for me.
That is a very interesting statement. I wish I could agree with you, but neither history nor the current state of the world support the idea that affluence is "normal."
And considering the value developers bring to companies, and comparing our salaries to other positions, developers in general are underpaid. It's perfectly reasonable to demand more perks.
But I guess this is why we have a lower class: to keep the worker bees on their toes. "See how good you have it? You could end up like one of them."
And really, not all developers are mentally taxed for 8 hours a day. Some might do routine tasks for 2 or hours and then browse HN for the remaining 6, or just go right home. The labor market for developers is no where near efficient in this regard.
But really, if a high salary and benefits and perks aren't a luxury job, then what is a luxury job exactly?
Look, if you don't enjoy programming/data/technology then you're probably in the wrong field.
But I think it's ok to have to force yourself to work on the stuff you don't enjoy as much. You just need to have adequate enjoyment from what you do, and the self discipline to do what you enjoy doing. At the end of the day, you're lucky to enjoy what you're doing half of the time, and to be making many times more than the rest of the world's population could make.
I wouldn't call that luxurious job though. It's just that good programmers are hard to find, thus salaries go up. It's the same in all jobs that require specific skills that are relatively hard to learn. Doctors, lawyers, even skilled construction workers make a ton if they're good at their craft.
And programming is not that easy when you think about it. I keep learning new stuff every day in addition to paid hours. When I get stuck at smth, I keep working on my head during night or weekend. I feel responsible for my code quality and try to make it as good as possible by going extra mile. My GF (who earns 6x less) comes from work and relaxes till her next shift. When I finish work, that means I don't stare at screen, but I still keep it in my head.
I know bad programmers who make shitty wage for shitty code. I wouldn't call their jobs luxurious in any way. I feel sorry for for people in other fields whose skills are undervalued though.
P.S. Greetings from Vilnius
He was more right than he knew -- maybe a couple years after he told me that, the business whose revenues he tripled decided they didn't like him, fired him, and he has been looking for work and underemployed ever since. He used to have a yacht, now he works at a chain hardware store.
Or how I can "just take off" whenever I need to go to the doctor, or for one of my sons' doctor's appointments or events at school.
I've never known what it was like to not have this flexibility. I expect this flexibility, and will not work for an employer that will not give me this flexibility.
And these expectations only increase as I get further into my career or change jobs. I'm even considering taking a contracting position making 80% less and working 80% less, so I can spend 20% doing my own (productive) thing. What other profession allows this?
So yes, I definitely think I personally take this for granted, and feel in a way I'm spoiled, or at the very least desensitized to the fact that a large majority have it way more difficult than I do. I do try to keep this in mind, though, but it is hard in the day-to-day grind.
So thanks for the reality check.
Generations before us have fought so that we, as people, wouldn't have to endure the working conditions of coal miners forever.
I have three kids, a stay at home wife, make a considerable salary and have a job I absolutely love and excel at.
But I am still fundamentally subsisting; my living expenses are just covered by what I make and am not able to save a considerable amount. This scares the bejesus out of me because all my kids are young: I have lots of expenses coming up related to providing well for them.
The most important thought I have daily, which was reinforced by the subtext of this article, is that education is the most important thing I can give to my kids.
When there are people who are "struggling to find a minimum wage job for years" to me, that means that they lack the education or skills to have a job that pays more and is in more demand. This is a failing of many parties - but it's the base of the issue.
I want my kids to be able to do whatever it is they want, but to have the skills to actually make that decision for themselves.
So, I am profoundly a aware of my position, am thankful for it and am working to ensure that I provide my children an even better life than my already great one.
For a bit of inspiration: I started the process with about $47k in debt. This included student loans, auto loans, and credit cards. After 19 months of working on "baby step #2," I've reduced that debt to $10k, and I expect to have it fully paid by August of this year. I used to feel as you do, about the fragility of my situation, and I now feel much much better, since my monthly expenses have reduced by about $700 (due to no longer needing to service that debt), and soon I'll feel better still, as I accumulate an emergency fund of 6 months' living expenses.
Obviously, I can't know your personal situation or your specific challenges, so take this advice from a stranger on the internet for what it's worth. If you can benefit from it though, you will feel so much better about your situation.
Take care.
Also note: with 3 kids, there is likely no place in the US where it is cheaper to send your kids to a mediocre private school than to just move to a better school district (unless you live in a rural area where your commute would severely be affected). That's one thing that I would most like to change at a policy level, but it's something that in the short-term will affect decisions you make.
Unless, of course, you're stuck underwater in a house that you'd lose lots of money on if you sold it.
I'm not sure I agree. There are plenty of "low-skill", reasonably high paying jobs. The problem is that when you're in a cycle of having no money, you spend all your time managing what money you can get ahold of and trying to get quick cash influxes to keep the bills paid. You don't have the resources to sit back and plan a more stable path for yourself.
He father struggled after layoffs to find work in his profession, with long gaps between jobs. I realized how blessed I was to be in this line of work and stopped complaining, even about the copy/paste emails.
That said, there are different levels of competency in each profession, and recruiters are just as prone to rookie mistakes and lazy work as coders are. I have the luxury of working only with good recruiters and can filter the rest easily.
I've also lived through relatively scarce times (2002) when it was hard to get a recruiter to return my calls. I can imagine that many recruiters and firms went under and know people involved in software who had to scramble to find work (myself included). That does help me appreciate the 90% of my career that work has been plentiful.
to me, it's really just a childish and transparent way of bragging. even reasonable people slip into these modes when they are faced with an abundance of opportunity, most of which they don't want or feel are beneath them.
For your own amusement, try responding to one or two, and see what happens.
It isn't quite so posh when you discover that the job opportunities constantly streaming into your inbox don't actually exist.
oh my god it's just like, so annoying, you know? faux outrage
But yeah, faux outrage.
i think you're proving my point more than refuting it.
People sit on park benches to enjoy public space without being bothered by random strangers. It doesn't have to be a pimp that spams you. It could be a construction foreman asking you to fill sandbags at his worksite, or a cab dispatcher wanting you to drive around town collecting fares. Complaining about people that annoy you with offers for work that you don't want is complaining that they don't actually care what you want, not just complaining that you have so many opportunities available.
But even my current employer doesn't care what I want, or even that I am an actual human being that still exists on this planet for the 128 hours a week that are not recorded on my time card. So it isn't just the recruiters. My complaint, such as it is, is that I resent the dehumanization of my industry and the diminishing levels of respect I see for people that have the same valuable skill as I do from the people that do not.
Basically, I'm complaining that nerds are not popular. I can see how that complaint would be easily dismissed, even by the nerds.
For instance, at the moment I spend ~40 hrs in the office and ~40hrs in grad school and on side projects. As a result, I have very little time available for leisure or even meaningful relationships. My extra-work effort is driven in part by a fear of skill obsolescence, and competition with my peers - who are among the best in the world at what they do.
At times I wonder if my priorities are a little backwards, but at times I feel so driven I'm not sure I could truly relax even if I wanted to.
It's 11pm and I might be thinking of a problem at work I've been tangling for for the past 4 days.
A gardner or a construction worker leaves work and _leaves work_, you feel me?
Even excluding that, having worked in a fairly brain dead job I found the stress of 9 hours a day doing something that dull WAY more stressful than being able to use my mind but being under some pressure to do so.
"Hope it goes well", I replied.
"It won't" she said, "the baby is already dead".
That put every shitty day I've ever had at work in context.
Not saying we don't have bad days, we do, just there are some things that thankfully we'll never come face to face with.
"Today a girl was raped by his grandfather. We suspect he's also his father."
"A 10-year-old boy commited suicide. I went to his family's home and they still had the body lying down on the living room."
"A boy has told us that her mother every night gets money from men to 'spend time' with her sisters. Today I went to court to try to take the girls away from her, but the judge allowed her to keep them."
I don't allow myself to think I have bad days at work.
You either meant s/girl/boy or s/his/her.
Software engineering is one of the lowest stress jobs out there. I've worked some stressful jobs, and software engineering doesn't even compare. For example try getting yelled at and sworn at and personally attacked regularly. You really have it good if you find your job to be so stressful.
Believe it or not a LOT of people take work home with them, and its something you gotta work on not doing. Not job specific.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405274870472310...
http://careers.unc.edu/blogs/career-exploration/top-10-most-...
http://www.businessinsider.com/high-paying-jobs-for-people-w...
More importantly, engineers earn a fraction of the value they create for employers.
It's the lawyers we should all be scoffing at...
That was kind of sad that they would rather sit around waiting for a low payed job instead of investing some efford for a brighter future.
I understand that not everybody is able do learn the stuff we do but many people just don't want to.
I will go somewhere else (rent a room/desk if needed) and I'll work there.
Going from "work mode" to "home mode" is very important
"Living in the bubble of Hacker News does distort the perspective. We tend to ignore how luxurious our jobs are. We shouldn’t forget that there is life outside our communities."
Oh this applies to many more things than jobs.
It is important when working from home to have a "work area" which is only for work and nothing else. When you work from your bed you get in trouble.