2017 State of Global Tech Salaries(hired.com)
hired.com
2017 State of Global Tech Salaries
https://hired.com/state-of-salaries-2017
283 comments
Thank you for mentioning how linearly scaling income with CoL is inaccurate. This comes up a lot in /r/personalfinance and /r/financialindependence and people are always getting it wrong. This particular paragraph really rankled me:
> In Austin, the average salary for a software engineer on Hired is $110K. But this is the equivalent to making $198K in San Francisco when you consider the cost of living difference between the two cities.
Sure, I'm willing to believe that the CoL is 80% higher in San Francisco than Austin, if you take no measures to control expenses. But for the reasons you point out, by no means does that mean that your salary is effectively 80% higher in Austin. The only way this calculation makes sense is if you are spending 100% of your income, and only on goods that are more expensive in the higher CoL area! Rent would count for that, but electronics sure don't. Most of the physical things that you buy, and of course any vacations you take, don't get more expensive at all in a higher CoL city. Hell, the vacations likely are less expensive in a high CoL city, because you're near a big international airport with lots of outbound flights.
> In Austin, the average salary for a software engineer on Hired is $110K. But this is the equivalent to making $198K in San Francisco when you consider the cost of living difference between the two cities.
Sure, I'm willing to believe that the CoL is 80% higher in San Francisco than Austin, if you take no measures to control expenses. But for the reasons you point out, by no means does that mean that your salary is effectively 80% higher in Austin. The only way this calculation makes sense is if you are spending 100% of your income, and only on goods that are more expensive in the higher CoL area! Rent would count for that, but electronics sure don't. Most of the physical things that you buy, and of course any vacations you take, don't get more expensive at all in a higher CoL city. Hell, the vacations likely are less expensive in a high CoL city, because you're near a big international airport with lots of outbound flights.
I actually like private company RSUs and the lack of data around them.
I can get super amazing offers from Microsoft of Google who will throw RSUs at me based on the assumption I actually had such great offers from the last company, even if it is private.
The secret is to tell them that there's a huge secondary market and lots of liquidity. There, the secret's out, they have no way of verifying, and the secondary market for private tech company shares is a huge and growing and fragmented area.
So at first they'll try to low ball you because you weren't with a "unicorn IPO". But then you reveal all the liquidity you have and thats that
I can get super amazing offers from Microsoft of Google who will throw RSUs at me based on the assumption I actually had such great offers from the last company, even if it is private.
The secret is to tell them that there's a huge secondary market and lots of liquidity. There, the secret's out, they have no way of verifying, and the secondary market for private tech company shares is a huge and growing and fragmented area.
So at first they'll try to low ball you because you weren't with a "unicorn IPO". But then you reveal all the liquidity you have and thats that
You really think Google is this naive?
They are fully aware there's a stupid dance around negotiations and they don't really care which routine you choose to take.
They are fully aware there's a stupid dance around negotiations and they don't really care which routine you choose to take.
Naive? This is exactly what they do. If you come over from Facebook and Google offers you the standard RSU package, but you let them know what kind of vesting RSU packing you already have, they'll up the ante.
Sounds like you are more uncomfortable with the idea that some people don't have to work for the same outcome.
Sounds like you are more uncomfortable with the idea that some people don't have to work for the same outcome.
I was disagreeing with your sentiment "I actually like private company RSUs and the lack of data around them." as if the ambiguity of pre-IPO RSU value somehow empowers you in negotiations.
Google is not naive - they won't fall for any neat trick about "a huge secondary market and lots of liquidity". You aren't getting a higher offer after a low-ball because you used your black-box RSUs to negotiate.
You could simply decline their offer and tell them it's not enough. Negotiate hard by declining repeatedly - it will take weeks, but stay strong. Eventually you'll end up at the same much-higher result.
That's what I meant by the "dance". Initial offers will always be a low-ball. They just want the non-negotiators to accept the low-ball. But they'll negotiate with the negotiators and your technique won't get you a different result - whether it's repeatedly declining, or using pre-IPO RSUs, or even lying about your other offers (which they can't verify anyway) - it's just a dance. You'll end up at the same place.
Google is not naive - they won't fall for any neat trick about "a huge secondary market and lots of liquidity". You aren't getting a higher offer after a low-ball because you used your black-box RSUs to negotiate.
You could simply decline their offer and tell them it's not enough. Negotiate hard by declining repeatedly - it will take weeks, but stay strong. Eventually you'll end up at the same much-higher result.
That's what I meant by the "dance". Initial offers will always be a low-ball. They just want the non-negotiators to accept the low-ball. But they'll negotiate with the negotiators and your technique won't get you a different result - whether it's repeatedly declining, or using pre-IPO RSUs, or even lying about your other offers (which they can't verify anyway) - it's just a dance. You'll end up at the same place.
These are great points. I've had jobs where salary ranged from 62% to 100% of total comp. It is very difficult for me to figure out whether I am above or below the average.
This right here.
I would love to read an article that addressed these in their analyses as well.
I would love to read an article that addressed these in their analyses as well.
I wonder how typical it is for total comp to be so stock-heavy, though, outside of the handful of Googles and Apples of the world.
This is especially true for new grads who are willing to share an apartment. Student loan also doesn't scale with COL. For frugal engineers without family, SF Bay Area or Seattle can make a lot of sense.
It is invalid to consider stocks, bonus, and other incentives in your calculations. Companies take them away all the time.
You have salary, and that is it. Fringe benefits (insurance, 401k match...) is a useful thing to get and part of the picture, but the company can change them to your negative when they feel like it.
stocks and bonus are nice, but you dare not count on them until after you get them. People who do otherwise find themselves broke when expected money doesn't come in.
You have salary, and that is it. Fringe benefits (insurance, 401k match...) is a useful thing to get and part of the picture, but the company can change them to your negative when they feel like it.
stocks and bonus are nice, but you dare not count on them until after you get them. People who do otherwise find themselves broke when expected money doesn't come in.
Actually, a company can't take away granted RSU's that are still vesting. That's a signed agreement.
They can, however, reduce your salary at will.
They can, however, reduce your salary at will.
True, but there is no reason to believe that those stocks will be worth anything when they vest.
Sure, but they can also reduce your salary at any time. So it's a bit unfair to consider salary any "more real" than vesting RSUs.
I just mean your claim "stocks and bonus are nice, but you dare not count on them until after you get them" is false because you can't "count on" salary coming either.
I just mean your claim "stocks and bonus are nice, but you dare not count on them until after you get them" is false because you can't "count on" salary coming either.
Elaborate?
This analysis may be reasonable as far as it goes, but it can still make financial sense for someone to live and work in the Bay Area. I recently took a new job near San Francisco paying ~$160k. Living cheaply, our actual consumption for my family of 3 is about ~50k a year. (Yes, this is possible -- and life can still be enjoyable if you like spending time in nature/other inexpensive activities.) After taxes, that leaves me $50-60k a year to invest/save for retirement.
Compare that with a salary of $105k in inexpensive Salt Lake City, which is where my second-choice offer was. After taxes and consumption for a similar lifestyle, I'd be saving somewhere around $30-40k/year, a substantial decrease. Not to mention the fact that if the startup that made that offer went under, it would be much harder to find another interesting job with similar compensation in Salt Lake than San Francisco.
I don't plan on living in the Bay Area long-term, but in the early stages of my career I can accumulate a lot more savings and also grow my skills faster by living here than probably anywhere else in the world.
Compare that with a salary of $105k in inexpensive Salt Lake City, which is where my second-choice offer was. After taxes and consumption for a similar lifestyle, I'd be saving somewhere around $30-40k/year, a substantial decrease. Not to mention the fact that if the startup that made that offer went under, it would be much harder to find another interesting job with similar compensation in Salt Lake than San Francisco.
I don't plan on living in the Bay Area long-term, but in the early stages of my career I can accumulate a lot more savings and also grow my skills faster by living here than probably anywhere else in the world.
That's a tough argument to make that SF beats SLC in net savings.
You should try living with your family in a house with a backyard, it's quite enjoyable and could be pretty cheap over time if you see any appreciation.
Secondly there are a lot more taxes on a lot more things in SF, are you factoring that in?
Also I'd bet you are worth more than 105k in SLC if you looked around longer.
I love SF and it's great to live there for many reasons, but I don't think "cheaper than utah" is one of them.
You should try living with your family in a house with a backyard, it's quite enjoyable and could be pretty cheap over time if you see any appreciation.
Secondly there are a lot more taxes on a lot more things in SF, are you factoring that in?
Also I'd bet you are worth more than 105k in SLC if you looked around longer.
I love SF and it's great to live there for many reasons, but I don't think "cheaper than utah" is one of them.
While we'll probably end up in a house with a yard eventually, I don't feel a pressing need for that lifestyle at the moment.
I am factoring in taxes and cost of living. The difference doesn't make up for the $55k wage gap. It's possible that I could have done better than $105k if I had looked harder, but based on how much my friends in that area make I doubt it. My salary in the Bay Area also has a lot more headroom to continue growing.
The calculus worked out better for SF in my case because I'm saving most of my income either way. If I wanted a higher-consumption lifestyle (big house, two cars, lots of eating out etc.) then a lower-income lower-COL area might have been a better deal overall. But I'm at a stage where I don't mind "sacrificing" a bit for a better future. And honestly, it doesn't feel like a sacrifice anyway -- my wife and I are still living a lot better than we were until recently as university students, and enjoying every day. There's no reason why consumption has to scale with income!
I am factoring in taxes and cost of living. The difference doesn't make up for the $55k wage gap. It's possible that I could have done better than $105k if I had looked harder, but based on how much my friends in that area make I doubt it. My salary in the Bay Area also has a lot more headroom to continue growing.
The calculus worked out better for SF in my case because I'm saving most of my income either way. If I wanted a higher-consumption lifestyle (big house, two cars, lots of eating out etc.) then a lower-income lower-COL area might have been a better deal overall. But I'm at a stage where I don't mind "sacrificing" a bit for a better future. And honestly, it doesn't feel like a sacrifice anyway -- my wife and I are still living a lot better than we were until recently as university students, and enjoying every day. There's no reason why consumption has to scale with income!
> While we'll probably end up in a house with a yard eventually
How, might I ask? Assuming $1.5M for a townhouse or a house in the Bay Area, Google's mortgage calculator says ~7k monthly in payments. At $160k and 25% tax, you're left w/ 10k/mo; you'd be spending 70% of your income on housing, not counting maintenance. You'd need to make a significant downpayment (which even then, IDK if it helps, since I've seen housing easily range to more than $2M+, and I feel like I'm lowballing it (ha!) at $1.5M) or have your partner also pull a decent income, no?
(I've never bought a house, so please, feel free to inform me, b/c from where I'm standing, it's incredibly daunting.)
How, might I ask? Assuming $1.5M for a townhouse or a house in the Bay Area, Google's mortgage calculator says ~7k monthly in payments. At $160k and 25% tax, you're left w/ 10k/mo; you'd be spending 70% of your income on housing, not counting maintenance. You'd need to make a significant downpayment (which even then, IDK if it helps, since I've seen housing easily range to more than $2M+, and I feel like I'm lowballing it (ha!) at $1.5M) or have your partner also pull a decent income, no?
(I've never bought a house, so please, feel free to inform me, b/c from where I'm standing, it's incredibly daunting.)
You can make money in one place, save it, then spend it somewhere else. This is why people in nice but cheap places are so afraid of Californians.
What do you mean saying "This is why people in nice but cheap places are so afraid of Californians."?
In much of the west coast, and near western state, local housing prices are often driven up by Californians leaving the state with either lots of savings and/or equity cashed out from the house they just sold. So there has historically been a lot of anti-Californian backlash in places like Seattle and Portland, whose house markets haven't always been hot in their own right.
Imagine you live in a place where the average salary is $50k, but it's a nice place, and often people will move to your place from somewhere where the average salary was $200k. Economically, it is difficult to compete with those people for things that are already scarce (housing).
Imagine you live in a place where the average salary is $50k, but it's a nice place, and often people will move to your place from somewhere where the average salary was $200k. Economically, it is difficult to compete with those people for things that are already scarce (housing).
Grand Jct Colorado.
Full of California retirees.
> I don't plan on living in the Bay Area long-term
You can live in a similar house with great schools in the east bay for 800k so that's about $4000 payment, very doable to live comfortably and even save up a bit making $160k/year.
Heck, rather than spend that much on a home in the city, a house in a rural northern state will only run you around 100K, maybe 200K for something newer. The remote work dream.
It's rare to be worth a lot more than $105k in SLC; wages are pretty low and deep specific expertise isn't often bought so much as grown in house. Especially with a startup.
If you're looking at $105k in SLC, you should be asking for $225k+ in SF by my experience.
--
We did the calculation between $125k in SF and $45k in SLC a decade ago and SLC came out well ahead for a family of four.
If you're looking at $105k in SLC, you should be asking for $225k+ in SF by my experience.
--
We did the calculation between $125k in SF and $45k in SLC a decade ago and SLC came out well ahead for a family of four.
I think SLC salaries vary a lot by technology too. There's a lot of developers I know in that range here that would be around 135 in SF. Completely agreed on how much better of a value it is here though.
Same with Seattle. Houses going for 300-500k, Salaries 110k+, minimum. I really don't think it's true either for my region.
If you love the startup world, hard to beat SF.
If you love the startup world, hard to beat SF.
Not much left in Seattle under 500k. The market is pushing the prices even higher.
South Seattle, West Seattle and some parts of North Seattle are still fairly affordable, for an engineer at least.
>You should try living with your family in a house with a backyard, it's quite enjoyable and could be pretty cheap over time if you see any appreciation.
You should try living in a cabin in the woods. Way cheaper plus you get fit from chopping up firewood for the winter. Obviously only a fool would live in a city in Utah when they could live in rural Alaska for cheaper!
You should try living in a cabin in the woods. Way cheaper plus you get fit from chopping up firewood for the winter. Obviously only a fool would live in a city in Utah when they could live in rural Alaska for cheaper!
Why are you acting like I said Utah was better? I said there are many reasons to live in SF.
The point is I don't agree with the conclusion a family can save more living in SF.
As great as SF is for some people with a young family not having a house with a backyard is a big deal.
Regarding your final incorrect assumption, yes I would love living in a cabin in the woods and chopping firewood.
The point is I don't agree with the conclusion a family can save more living in SF.
As great as SF is for some people with a young family not having a house with a backyard is a big deal.
Regarding your final incorrect assumption, yes I would love living in a cabin in the woods and chopping firewood.
"You should try living in a cabin in the woods."
This isn't even close to a reasonable retort.
This isn't even close to a reasonable retort.
It is if you have a preference for urban environments and your choice is between SF/NYC/London/etc and Salt Lake City, where it feels like every other street is as wide as the average block in another city.
To each their own of course.
To each their own of course.
Well, in SLC you are about an hour drive away from arguably the best skiing on the planet.
To each their own of course.:-)
To each their own of course.:-)
To be fair, SF is far closer to and more practical for good skiing than London or NYC.
And yes, living in the Bay Area, I miss (from Switzerland) skiing being an hour's drive away. It's all relative...
And yes, living in the Bay Area, I miss (from Switzerland) skiing being an hour's drive away. It's all relative...
> SF/NYC/London/etc and Salt Lake City, where it feels like every other street is as wide as the average block in another city.
Funny you mention that because I make the same comparison with London vis-a-vis SF.
Funny you mention that because I make the same comparison with London vis-a-vis SF.
Outside SF proper, the SV urban design is as bad as in Utah.
Appropriate username :)
I spent most of my time in Eden and Ogden so I don't know anything about SLC's urban design beyond my impression of the sprawl from brief visits. Personally, I think terrible urban design is the norm in the US (in no small part to suburban sprawl) and SF/Bay Area are easily some of the worst offenders in my limited experience. I can't really think of any well designed cities in California because the vast majority are parts of huge metropolitan areas where everything is so spread out that you end up driving through five or more different towns each with their own geographies and philosophies on urban design just on your daily commute.
I think I'm heavily biased though, because most of the old cities in Europe seem to me to be far better despite their chaotic growth over many centuries.
I spent most of my time in Eden and Ogden so I don't know anything about SLC's urban design beyond my impression of the sprawl from brief visits. Personally, I think terrible urban design is the norm in the US (in no small part to suburban sprawl) and SF/Bay Area are easily some of the worst offenders in my limited experience. I can't really think of any well designed cities in California because the vast majority are parts of huge metropolitan areas where everything is so spread out that you end up driving through five or more different towns each with their own geographies and philosophies on urban design just on your daily commute.
I think I'm heavily biased though, because most of the old cities in Europe seem to me to be far better despite their chaotic growth over many centuries.
Yes, terrible urban design and bad infrastructure and bad policy is pervasive in the USA.
You can just look at neighboring Mexico with 1/6th the per capita income and correspondingly lower public budgets where transportation, urban maintenance, and quality of city life are routinely better. And not just relatively better: Mexican cities (outside the shady border region) are nicer than American cities to live in. If you could put a typical neighborhood from Puebla or Guadalajara or León or Mexico City into Dallas or Los Angeles or San Jose or Atlanta, it would be the best, nicest neighborhood in the city.
And that's not even bringing up the great cities of Europe at all. Because that would be completely unfair.
It's like the health care system: Even a great country does some things horribly wrong and suffers for it.
You can just look at neighboring Mexico with 1/6th the per capita income and correspondingly lower public budgets where transportation, urban maintenance, and quality of city life are routinely better. And not just relatively better: Mexican cities (outside the shady border region) are nicer than American cities to live in. If you could put a typical neighborhood from Puebla or Guadalajara or León or Mexico City into Dallas or Los Angeles or San Jose or Atlanta, it would be the best, nicest neighborhood in the city.
And that's not even bringing up the great cities of Europe at all. Because that would be completely unfair.
It's like the health care system: Even a great country does some things horribly wrong and suffers for it.
I went to Mexico city with my family about 10 years ago and it didn't seem as you describe. I remember looking out our car window and seeing huge expanses of what seemed like shacks. Many of the road were wide with seemingly no lane markings, and people making their own lanes. We were at one such intersection, and got pulled over by a corrupt cop who was on foot. Supposedly we came too close to one the of people who constantly surround our car whever we stop, trying to sell us stuff. The cop took my dad's driver's license and demanded 1000 pesos to give it back. My dad negotiated it down to 200 pesos. We went to a hotel specifically chosen because it looked modern and had wifi. The pool was normal sized, but only had 1 foot of water, and it was green.
What were you doing in a car in Mexico City? First time I drove there, it had me shell shocked for months.
Next time, get out on foot and see the city. You can't see anything from a car. [0]
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6r83MF9BRZA&feature=youtu.be
Next time, get out on foot and see the city. You can't see anything from a car. [0]
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6r83MF9BRZA&feature=youtu.be
Although, interestingly, the SLC design predates cars: http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/plat-of-zion/
If Brigham Young could foresee how cars would abuse the design, he would have laid out Salt Lake City like Paris or maybe like Kyoto.
Alas, President Young had long since exhausted his outrageously lavish budget of divine providence just getting to Utah.
Alas, President Young had long since exhausted his outrageously lavish budget of divine providence just getting to Utah.
[deleted]
As a newly graduated Site Reliability Engineer who's working in the Bay Area. I'm living and working in Sunnyvale, my expenses are way lower than expected, I was able to get a house a 20 minute bike away from work. I get a free caltrain pass, so I really don't need a car. I think the "cost of living" adjustment here is unfair. Sure, living in SF proper can cost you upwards of 8k-9k a month but there are MUCH more reasonable apartments where most of the tech jobs are in the South Bay area.
Simple COL adjustment factors give you a baseline, but they don't really work reliably beyond straightforward apples-to-apples comparisons. It probably works pretty well for comparing house/condo and transportation choices between one suburban location and another where rents are modest and you need a car.
But doing a naive COL comparison between, say, Manhattan and Columbus, Ohio just isn't going to capture the lifestyle differences and tradeoffs.
But doing a naive COL comparison between, say, Manhattan and Columbus, Ohio just isn't going to capture the lifestyle differences and tradeoffs.
Do you have a family and rent your own place or do you share accommodation? That is a huge factor. I have single friends who pay $600 rent as opposed to me paying $3000.
I cannot even imagine what kind of lifestyle would result in spending 8K a month in SF. I live in SF spending 4K a month for 2 people
What's your commute like? My friend that moved there who tries to convince me to move out there, has a 2hr one way commute. How many sq feet is your living space for you and your family?
My commute is a 15-minute walk, or 5-minute bike ride. :) I chose the apartment based on proximity to work -- could have saved $100-200/mo with a longer commute, but the savings would have been more than eaten up by the gas/car maintenance costs and I hate commuting. I still own a car, but don't use it to get to work.
We live in a 680 sq ft one-bedroom apartment in an older development ($2200/mo). We'll have to upgrade when my baby outgrows his large walk-in closet, but it fits our needs fine for now.
We live in a 680 sq ft one-bedroom apartment in an older development ($2200/mo). We'll have to upgrade when my baby outgrows his large walk-in closet, but it fits our needs fine for now.
> We live in a 680 sq ft one-bedroom apartment in an older development ($2200/mo).
Whoa, that's almost double the estimated mortgage for the 5 bedroom houses with an acre of land my family has been looking at purchasing.
I'll never move to the SF Bay Area. I encourage others not to, either. Get the companies there to open up to remote employees instead.
Whoa, that's almost double the estimated mortgage for the 5 bedroom houses with an acre of land my family has been looking at purchasing.
I'll never move to the SF Bay Area. I encourage others not to, either. Get the companies there to open up to remote employees instead.
I mean, this is the fundamental crux of these CoL discussions: How much does the quality of your residence matter to you?
People try and mechanically translate equivalent lifestyles from place to place, but that's probably not the best way of analyzing things. Yes, if you choose to have a midwestern lifestyle in SF, it will be ludicrously expensive. However, you don't have to. If instead, you're able to replace the utility you'd get for a nice place with the activities/amenities SF has and a small town doesn't, the cost differential is not nearly as stark.
Obviously, some people do value a nice home much more than anything they could get from living in SF, and that's fine. But that's not everyone, which is important to keep in mind when understanding why people move to the bay (or big cities in general).
People try and mechanically translate equivalent lifestyles from place to place, but that's probably not the best way of analyzing things. Yes, if you choose to have a midwestern lifestyle in SF, it will be ludicrously expensive. However, you don't have to. If instead, you're able to replace the utility you'd get for a nice place with the activities/amenities SF has and a small town doesn't, the cost differential is not nearly as stark.
Obviously, some people do value a nice home much more than anything they could get from living in SF, and that's fine. But that's not everyone, which is important to keep in mind when understanding why people move to the bay (or big cities in general).
It's not about size or fanciness. Urban areas and housing have significant air, water, and noise pollution.
Right, and what the poster above you was saying is that people will sacrifice in that regard (or they simply don't care) to gain the benefits of living in an urban area like the culture, food, close proximity to bars and nightlife, etc.
This isn't a black and white issue and it always disheartens me when people are so quick to trash the Bay Area.
This isn't a black and white issue and it always disheartens me when people are so quick to trash the Bay Area.
So, being one of those suburban family people, I'm curious. What is this "night life" you speak of, and do you actually enjoy it? Is it more theoretically enjoyable than actually enjoyable?
My understanding is probably pretty bad: You pay about a hundred dollars each for a baby sitter, a taxi, and admission to the venue. ($300 so far, will be $400) There is very loud music that prevents conversation and may damage your ears, and you don't get to skip songs that you hate. You can get drinks, like beer for $10 and a cup/glass/whatever of wine for $30. You are expected to dance, by yourself or rubbing on a stranger's crotch/rear, but not traditional. Maybe you just stand near the bar and drink. That's it; this is how city folk enjoy nightlife. On your way home you get mugged.
I picture the awful experiences of high school dances, but very drunk and very expensive and you don't know anybody. It seems so empty. You're with people, yet in a certain way it seems lonely.
I'm also not sure what you mean by "the culture". It seems that there would be numerous cultures. If you meet a random person, the chance that they share your culture would be pretty low. This cuts down on empathy and creates misunderstandings. If you just like to gawk at other cultures, you'd do better to occasionally visit less-diluted places like Kyoto or rural Japan. You can also find American culture in many rural parts of the country.
We do have bars in suburbia, sadly, though I've never been to one. I don't think I'm missing anything...?
We also have food, not even counting the road kill. :-) Head over to Kentucky to experience a fried-brain sandwich. I guess you're implying that you actually get your meals at those places that charge tens or even hundreds of dollars per plate and then still expect tips? This too strikes me as odd and difficult to understand. You have to travel there. Most of those places won't let you eat barefoot, topless, or bottomless. Your kid screams and everybody gives you the hate-glare, or some other kid screams and you give them the hate-glare. The food contains ingredients that you wouldn't use. Maybe your allergies get ignored or your credit card gets stolen. You can't just relax in your own place, safe and secure and private. You can't pace around while you eat.
My understanding is probably pretty bad: You pay about a hundred dollars each for a baby sitter, a taxi, and admission to the venue. ($300 so far, will be $400) There is very loud music that prevents conversation and may damage your ears, and you don't get to skip songs that you hate. You can get drinks, like beer for $10 and a cup/glass/whatever of wine for $30. You are expected to dance, by yourself or rubbing on a stranger's crotch/rear, but not traditional. Maybe you just stand near the bar and drink. That's it; this is how city folk enjoy nightlife. On your way home you get mugged.
I picture the awful experiences of high school dances, but very drunk and very expensive and you don't know anybody. It seems so empty. You're with people, yet in a certain way it seems lonely.
I'm also not sure what you mean by "the culture". It seems that there would be numerous cultures. If you meet a random person, the chance that they share your culture would be pretty low. This cuts down on empathy and creates misunderstandings. If you just like to gawk at other cultures, you'd do better to occasionally visit less-diluted places like Kyoto or rural Japan. You can also find American culture in many rural parts of the country.
We do have bars in suburbia, sadly, though I've never been to one. I don't think I'm missing anything...?
We also have food, not even counting the road kill. :-) Head over to Kentucky to experience a fried-brain sandwich. I guess you're implying that you actually get your meals at those places that charge tens or even hundreds of dollars per plate and then still expect tips? This too strikes me as odd and difficult to understand. You have to travel there. Most of those places won't let you eat barefoot, topless, or bottomless. Your kid screams and everybody gives you the hate-glare, or some other kid screams and you give them the hate-glare. The food contains ingredients that you wouldn't use. Maybe your allergies get ignored or your credit card gets stolen. You can't just relax in your own place, safe and secure and private. You can't pace around while you eat.
Yes. Urban areas are typically more expensive than rural areas. Maybe if urban residents stopped subsidizing unsustainable rural living, this price gap would shrink.
> Maybe if urban residents stopped subsidizing unsustainable rural living, this price gap would shrink.
Rural areas produce, raise, and educate workers that end up working in cities. So small towns (and small countries, for that matter) make big investments in their children and they just move away. Cities don't grow solely due to birth rates, so they are only "sustainable" from a limited perspective.
The rural/urban split is a give-and-take relationship at least as complex as figuring out what an "equivalent Bay-area" salary would be.
Rural areas produce, raise, and educate workers that end up working in cities. So small towns (and small countries, for that matter) make big investments in their children and they just move away. Cities don't grow solely due to birth rates, so they are only "sustainable" from a limited perspective.
The rural/urban split is a give-and-take relationship at least as complex as figuring out what an "equivalent Bay-area" salary would be.
I'm not so sure that's true. A not insignificant portion of those people move back out to rural (not suburban) areas to raise families, escape urban burnout, or because of evolving personal tastes. When they do, they often bring significantly more wealth back than they "cost" growing up because of the opportunities they had in the city. It seems that the life and death of a small town depends far more on economic factors like competition from globalization, or environmental fluctuations (droughts, hurricanes, etc). In the US many, if not most, big cities would easily grow from immigration alone.
Obviously cities depend on rural areas since it's far more economical to grow food on cheap plots of land than in steel hydroponic skyscrapers and few cities are built on top of vast fresh water reserves. However, not all rural areas are alike and the majority of the land in the US isnt fertile enough to sustain a competitive agricultural industry like in California, which produces far more of the nation's food and other natural resources than it's share of the population.
Obviously cities depend on rural areas since it's far more economical to grow food on cheap plots of land than in steel hydroponic skyscrapers and few cities are built on top of vast fresh water reserves. However, not all rural areas are alike and the majority of the land in the US isnt fertile enough to sustain a competitive agricultural industry like in California, which produces far more of the nation's food and other natural resources than it's share of the population.
>Maybe if urban residents stopped subsidizing unsustainable rural living
What do you mean?
What do you mean?
Many things necessary (or common) for living in suburban and rural places is subsidized through taxes, flat-rate costs of goods/services, and several other means. I'll give a few examples:
* Internet, electricity, or cable costs significantly more to provide to people living in single family homes with distant neighbors than it does to provide to residents of a highrise apartment building. The consumers, however, pay the same price. The highrise apartment dwellers subsidize the cost of the rural homeowner.
* The postal service. One postal worker in NYC can walk a few blocks, and deliver more mail than one postal worker in a small rural town who must drive 10s of miles to complete the same task.
* Gas. The Federal government subsidizes gasoline. Suburban/Rural residents drive more and consume more gas than urban residents who are more likely to use public transit.
* Roads. The road surface per resident in rural locations is significantly higher than road surface per resident in urban areas. State and federal taxes contribute (not all, but some) of the funding for road construction.
* Government backed home loans and home loan interest tax deductions. Owning a home in large cities is often cost-prohibitive, so urban dwellers do not often receive these tax breaks that suburban and rural residents receive.
* Water. Water sanitization, plumbing, etc. are all much more expensive due to, for example, the amount of pipe and construction labor required per resident.
(edit): I wanted to add a book recommendation for anyone interested in this stuff. It's called Happy City by Charles Montgomery. It speaks to the history of suburban America, and explains why suburban cities are the way they are.
* Internet, electricity, or cable costs significantly more to provide to people living in single family homes with distant neighbors than it does to provide to residents of a highrise apartment building. The consumers, however, pay the same price. The highrise apartment dwellers subsidize the cost of the rural homeowner.
* The postal service. One postal worker in NYC can walk a few blocks, and deliver more mail than one postal worker in a small rural town who must drive 10s of miles to complete the same task.
* Gas. The Federal government subsidizes gasoline. Suburban/Rural residents drive more and consume more gas than urban residents who are more likely to use public transit.
* Roads. The road surface per resident in rural locations is significantly higher than road surface per resident in urban areas. State and federal taxes contribute (not all, but some) of the funding for road construction.
* Government backed home loans and home loan interest tax deductions. Owning a home in large cities is often cost-prohibitive, so urban dwellers do not often receive these tax breaks that suburban and rural residents receive.
* Water. Water sanitization, plumbing, etc. are all much more expensive due to, for example, the amount of pipe and construction labor required per resident.
(edit): I wanted to add a book recommendation for anyone interested in this stuff. It's called Happy City by Charles Montgomery. It speaks to the history of suburban America, and explains why suburban cities are the way they are.
> * Gas. The Federal government subsidizes gasoline. Suburban/Rural residents drive more and consume more gas than urban residents who are more likely to use public transit.
There is in fact a federal fuel tax, in addition to state fuel taxes. There is no direct gasoline subsidy.
Some people argue that the tax deductions and structures used by drilling companies are a kind of subsidy, but that's debatable and most of them make sense.
> * Roads. The road surface per resident in rural locations is significantly higher than road surface per resident in urban areas. State and federal taxes contribute (not all, but some) of the funding for road construction.
Rural roads are also less trafficked, meaning they last much longer and don't require multiple lanes.
> * Water. Water sanitization, plumbing, etc. are all much more expensive due to, for example, the amount of pipe and construction labor required per resident.
In most rural areas, there is no water service. You get a well put in. The cost of water infrastructure is zero.
The larger argument that infrastructure is cheaper when population density is higher is, of course, trivially true. The general maligning of rural living, much of which is baseless, just bothers me. The idea that rural living is unsustainable is just silly - we got along quite well before massive megacities ever existed; if anything is unsustainable, it's the total population. Fortunately, in general, and throughout history, cities are population sinks - human reproduction falls below replacement rate in cities.
There is in fact a federal fuel tax, in addition to state fuel taxes. There is no direct gasoline subsidy.
Some people argue that the tax deductions and structures used by drilling companies are a kind of subsidy, but that's debatable and most of them make sense.
> * Roads. The road surface per resident in rural locations is significantly higher than road surface per resident in urban areas. State and federal taxes contribute (not all, but some) of the funding for road construction.
Rural roads are also less trafficked, meaning they last much longer and don't require multiple lanes.
> * Water. Water sanitization, plumbing, etc. are all much more expensive due to, for example, the amount of pipe and construction labor required per resident.
In most rural areas, there is no water service. You get a well put in. The cost of water infrastructure is zero.
The larger argument that infrastructure is cheaper when population density is higher is, of course, trivially true. The general maligning of rural living, much of which is baseless, just bothers me. The idea that rural living is unsustainable is just silly - we got along quite well before massive megacities ever existed; if anything is unsustainable, it's the total population. Fortunately, in general, and throughout history, cities are population sinks - human reproduction falls below replacement rate in cities.
>The larger argument that infrastructure is cheaper when population density is higher is, of course, trivially true.
I'm not sure even that is trivially true. Infrastructure projects in dense cities (which is what most people are talking about here when they say "cities") can be extremely expensive. See Boston Big Dig, Manhattan Second Avenue Subway, etc. Yes, they serve a lot of people. Cheap they ain't.
I'm not sure even that is trivially true. Infrastructure projects in dense cities (which is what most people are talking about here when they say "cities") can be extremely expensive. See Boston Big Dig, Manhattan Second Avenue Subway, etc. Yes, they serve a lot of people. Cheap they ain't.
Extremely expensive but used by millions a day. The reason they are expensive is because so many people are already there, and construction has to limit impact to very significant economic activity that must still go on while the work is done. "Ya we could do it cheaper if we just cut off traffic for a couple of years, we'd save a few billion at the cost of a hundred billion in lost opportunity."
> The idea that rural living is unsustainable is just silly - we got along quite well before massive megacities ever existed
Yes. When we were living agrarian lifestyles. That way of life is as sustainable as it is rare.
Yes. When we were living agrarian lifestyles. That way of life is as sustainable as it is rare.
It's worth pointing out that, in some of those points, even "urban" and "suburban" communities are net-negative in their infrastructure planning. Let's not lay into rural areas but not insolvent municipalities. More details about these issues at https://www.strongtowns.org/.
That is a very simplistic analysis.
1. Infrastructure is incredibly expensive in dense urban areas.
A road/rail tunnel can cost upwards of $100 million per mile (a few projects have run at close to $1 billion per mile).
Likewise buying back land to add an extra lane to a road can run into hundreds of millions of $$$.
Infrastructure like electricity is indeed more expensive for rural areas but often cheaper for low-medium density cities - overhead power lines are 5-10x cheaper than underground lines.
2. A lot of the subsidies for rural areas are actually to help businesses and farming and benefit the major cities.
E.g. Prices in our cities would increase enourmosly if we didn't have a good interstate highway system.
And gas subsidies mostly benefit trucking and farmers.
1. Infrastructure is incredibly expensive in dense urban areas.
A road/rail tunnel can cost upwards of $100 million per mile (a few projects have run at close to $1 billion per mile).
Likewise buying back land to add an extra lane to a road can run into hundreds of millions of $$$.
Infrastructure like electricity is indeed more expensive for rural areas but often cheaper for low-medium density cities - overhead power lines are 5-10x cheaper than underground lines.
2. A lot of the subsidies for rural areas are actually to help businesses and farming and benefit the major cities.
E.g. Prices in our cities would increase enourmosly if we didn't have a good interstate highway system.
And gas subsidies mostly benefit trucking and farmers.
Urban areas generate more tax revenue and receive less benefits per capita than suburban and rural areas. Here's an article about a study confirming this phenomenon in Indiana:
http://www.ibj.com/articles/15690-study-urban-tax-money-subs...
I would note that's specifically Indiana tax distribution within the state and the outflow vs. inflow delta is relatively small (single digits).
That said, it was well documented in the last election that red states receive net money from (typically more urban) blue states. However, it's rather a leap to go from there to cities subsidize. There are also a lot of costs with supporting cities and some of those rural costs are needed to support things like a nationwide transportation system.
That said, it was well documented in the last election that red states receive net money from (typically more urban) blue states. However, it's rather a leap to go from there to cities subsidize. There are also a lot of costs with supporting cities and some of those rural costs are needed to support things like a nationwide transportation system.
Sure because a lot of those areas are poor. Surely, we're not talking about making it even harder to live in a rural area?
There is huge cash flow to rural areas. The problem is the same infrastructure is cheaper when shared among large groups. You need more road per person when people have 80 acres vs 0.5 acres.
Further, things like farm subsides, rural health care, and even poverty programs are just huge money sinks.
IMO, it's important to separate things that must be in rural areas vs. things that are more expensive because they are in rural areas.
Further, things like farm subsides, rural health care, and even poverty programs are just huge money sinks.
IMO, it's important to separate things that must be in rural areas vs. things that are more expensive because they are in rural areas.
It is easy to pick on rural subsidies when you have enough food to eat. It is to everyone's advantage to ensure that there is more than enough food so that in the worst case years nobody starves to death.
How best to ensure that is debatable. However don't knock the rural subsidies unless you have a better plan to ensure that even in drought years there is enough to eat.
How best to ensure that is debatable. However don't knock the rural subsidies unless you have a better plan to ensure that even in drought years there is enough to eat.
Producing 2x the food we need is reasonable for some value of reasonable. But, we so far that point it's a bad joke.
If you want an efficient solution, zero meat subsides. A physical food bank with ultimate year reserve. Minor edibale plant subsidy, and nothing else.
If you want an efficient solution, zero meat subsides. A physical food bank with ultimate year reserve. Minor edibale plant subsidy, and nothing else.
Tax deductibility of mortgage interest is essentially renters subsidising homeowners.
Some countries in Europe do it, and the EU is not happy with it. I'm personally grateful they're shoving the repeal of this tax deductibility down the member nations' throats (very very controversial measure). Homeowners have a stranglehold on politics because renters don't vote enough :(
Some countries in Europe do it, and the EU is not happy with it. I'm personally grateful they're shoving the repeal of this tax deductibility down the member nations' throats (very very controversial measure). Homeowners have a stranglehold on politics because renters don't vote enough :(
That may be true (although there are tax deductions for renting in some places). However, people own property in cities and rent outside of cities so I'm not sure how relevant it is to the subsidy comment.
(Which presumably is some variant of the oil/cars/roads claim because cities can apparently somehow exist in isolation of everything surrounding them.)
(Which presumably is some variant of the oil/cars/roads claim because cities can apparently somehow exist in isolation of everything surrounding them.)
This is a good point. In retrospect, I think you are right, and I didn't understand what op meant.
And here I am, like a schmuck, paying almost 11.5% of my gross income in rent, on a 3 bedr/2.5 bath freestanding house. I think I'd have to earn more than $360k to get even close to that in SF/SV.
About the only places a median-priced house is more affordable than where I am now, relative to median income, are Illinois, Ohio, Iowa, Indiana, and selected places in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and upstate New York.
And at the bottom of that home affordability list? San Jose. Anaheim, SF, LA, and SD round out the California contingent of places where the median income-earner does not make enough to afford to buy a median-priced home. The only other places in the US that can claim that are Naples, White Plains, and Honolulu.
Don't move more employees to California, people. Move more satellite offices to the Rust Belt. Before all those factories closed, the workers educated their kids for better jobs, but now there's f'kall for them to do. There's a broad talent pool there, not even close to depletion, just waiting for someone to rescue them from their restaurant websites, online insurance forms, and line-of-business CRUD apps. I would move back there in a second if there were more decent employers around.
About the only places a median-priced house is more affordable than where I am now, relative to median income, are Illinois, Ohio, Iowa, Indiana, and selected places in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and upstate New York.
And at the bottom of that home affordability list? San Jose. Anaheim, SF, LA, and SD round out the California contingent of places where the median income-earner does not make enough to afford to buy a median-priced home. The only other places in the US that can claim that are Naples, White Plains, and Honolulu.
Don't move more employees to California, people. Move more satellite offices to the Rust Belt. Before all those factories closed, the workers educated their kids for better jobs, but now there's f'kall for them to do. There's a broad talent pool there, not even close to depletion, just waiting for someone to rescue them from their restaurant websites, online insurance forms, and line-of-business CRUD apps. I would move back there in a second if there were more decent employers around.
A nice big detached house just isn't my priority, it's not something I want. In fact, they personally sicken me, is much rather have a more cozy apartment with one or two bedrooms. Oh, and nice weather and a thriving culture scene would be nice (yes, I live in California).
If companies followed your advice, they would lose way too many employees, it turns out many tech people at the high end value different things and know exactly what they are doing. We already know where the big house people are.
If companies followed your advice, they would lose way too many employees, it turns out many tech people at the high end value different things and know exactly what they are doing. We already know where the big house people are.
I presume from your tone that you are childless. "Cozy" gets really old, really quick when you have kids. And when they get larger, you really don't want them living right on top of you.
As someone living outside of California, I value 40 hour work weeks and my kids sleeping in a different room. Thriving culture is nice, but a decent public school district is better.
SV companies may not be losing employees now (other than to rampant poaching and job-hopping), but they certainly aren't attracting certain classes of employees for their on-site work. They can bring in the young singles who may be willing to work 80 hours a week and sleep in a broom closet for $1000/month. They can get the geniuses that can command the high salary that it takes to secure the sort of housing situation that the entire remainder of the continent takes for granted. They can't get the parents from middle America that think many SV tech employers are literally insane.
Everyone in the US, aside from those specific places I already mentioned, can currently afford to buy a 2 bedr/1 bath house or condo on an income that is considered just mediocre in their area. Those are not "big houses". Our version of living in a broom closet under the stairs is a 1 bedr/1 bath apartment or manufactured home at $500/month or less. (Our version of living in a van down by the river is still living in a van down by the river.) Even a five-bedroom house is not "big" if you have four kids in it, or plan to put that many in it.
If companies followed my advice, they would reduce their recruitment, labor, and facilities costs during their expansions. They wouldn't lose anyone unless they also decided to shut down offices in California.
As someone living outside of California, I value 40 hour work weeks and my kids sleeping in a different room. Thriving culture is nice, but a decent public school district is better.
SV companies may not be losing employees now (other than to rampant poaching and job-hopping), but they certainly aren't attracting certain classes of employees for their on-site work. They can bring in the young singles who may be willing to work 80 hours a week and sleep in a broom closet for $1000/month. They can get the geniuses that can command the high salary that it takes to secure the sort of housing situation that the entire remainder of the continent takes for granted. They can't get the parents from middle America that think many SV tech employers are literally insane.
Everyone in the US, aside from those specific places I already mentioned, can currently afford to buy a 2 bedr/1 bath house or condo on an income that is considered just mediocre in their area. Those are not "big houses". Our version of living in a broom closet under the stairs is a 1 bedr/1 bath apartment or manufactured home at $500/month or less. (Our version of living in a van down by the river is still living in a van down by the river.) Even a five-bedroom house is not "big" if you have four kids in it, or plan to put that many in it.
If companies followed my advice, they would reduce their recruitment, labor, and facilities costs during their expansions. They wouldn't lose anyone unless they also decided to shut down offices in California.
> I presume from your tone that you are childless. "Cozy" gets really old, really quick when you have kids. And when they get larger, you really don't want them living right on top of you.
I have a child and big houses still disgust me. They really aren't necessary, and, at least for me, is not where I want to allocate more of my money to. Instead, I value living two blocks from where I work. To each their own.
> SV companies may not be losing employees now (other than to rampant poaching and job-hopping), but they certainly aren't attracting certain classes of employees for their on-site work.
We heard this 10 years ago and 20 years ago. Yes, and it is all intentional.
> They can't get the parents from middle America that think many SV tech employers are literally insane.
I have a nice 40 hour work week, it isn't anywhere near as you described. Also, I'm in LA, not SV.
> Even a five-bedroom house is not "big" if you have four kids in it, or plan to put that many in it.
If I ever plan to have four kids, then maybe a big house is reasonable. I have one kid, and anyways, we just moved from China, where the thought of a 5 bedroom house is considered very...American. In much of the world, people have much less than that, and everything goes along quite well.
> If companies followed my advice, they would reduce their recruitment, labor, and facilities costs during their expansions.
The employees they want aren't going to move to nowhere middle america. The problem is that, if their job falls through, they will have to move again to find another. Being in an area of critical mass, even if the cost of living is higher, has a big advantage that the next job will be in the same place also. You could argue that the critical mass could exist elsewhere, but the negative externalities would follow.
I've lived in many places in the USA: Tri-cities (middle of nowhere Washington State), Toledo, Vicksburg (nowhere Mississippi), Seattle, Salt Lake City, Austin, Boca Raton, Bay Area, now LA (not to mention Lausanne and Beijing outside of the USA). I prefer the urban to the the suburban, I understand why others might prefer suburban, but I don't think they are an overwhelming majority, especially in our industry.
I have a child and big houses still disgust me. They really aren't necessary, and, at least for me, is not where I want to allocate more of my money to. Instead, I value living two blocks from where I work. To each their own.
> SV companies may not be losing employees now (other than to rampant poaching and job-hopping), but they certainly aren't attracting certain classes of employees for their on-site work.
We heard this 10 years ago and 20 years ago. Yes, and it is all intentional.
> They can't get the parents from middle America that think many SV tech employers are literally insane.
I have a nice 40 hour work week, it isn't anywhere near as you described. Also, I'm in LA, not SV.
> Even a five-bedroom house is not "big" if you have four kids in it, or plan to put that many in it.
If I ever plan to have four kids, then maybe a big house is reasonable. I have one kid, and anyways, we just moved from China, where the thought of a 5 bedroom house is considered very...American. In much of the world, people have much less than that, and everything goes along quite well.
> If companies followed my advice, they would reduce their recruitment, labor, and facilities costs during their expansions.
The employees they want aren't going to move to nowhere middle america. The problem is that, if their job falls through, they will have to move again to find another. Being in an area of critical mass, even if the cost of living is higher, has a big advantage that the next job will be in the same place also. You could argue that the critical mass could exist elsewhere, but the negative externalities would follow.
I've lived in many places in the USA: Tri-cities (middle of nowhere Washington State), Toledo, Vicksburg (nowhere Mississippi), Seattle, Salt Lake City, Austin, Boca Raton, Bay Area, now LA (not to mention Lausanne and Beijing outside of the USA). I prefer the urban to the the suburban, I understand why others might prefer suburban, but I don't think they are an overwhelming majority, especially in our industry.
It almost sounds like you're saying that people who don't like living urban aren't worth hiring. Everyone I know has been contacted by a recruiter for one of the major employers of software professionals, and for all but one of them, the requirement to relocate to the west coast has been an instant deal-breaker. We like living where home is, or at least the places that vaguely resemble home.
I'm suggesting that the people they can hire don't need to move to those places. They are already living there. As it is, people are moving away from there--wherever it may be, exactly--often to their own disadvantage, just because the local companies are not expanding their workforces, and the companies that are expanding are not moving in.
That's exactly why I have also had to move around between multiple metropolitan areas. If you can catch me before I leave a city, you can hire me much more cheaply than if I'm pulling up every last root to go to the employer that can offer me the best net savings rate in the state, or the region, or the country, or the world. I have already had to move several times to find adequately remunerative work, and it bounced me right out of the Rust Belt. I'd still move back for the right job.
Network effects are a bitch when you're out in the periphery. I'm not certain that the industry needs to have a nucleus at all. I am certainly bitter and salty that the nucleus that exists isn't anywhere near me.
I'm suggesting that the people they can hire don't need to move to those places. They are already living there. As it is, people are moving away from there--wherever it may be, exactly--often to their own disadvantage, just because the local companies are not expanding their workforces, and the companies that are expanding are not moving in.
That's exactly why I have also had to move around between multiple metropolitan areas. If you can catch me before I leave a city, you can hire me much more cheaply than if I'm pulling up every last root to go to the employer that can offer me the best net savings rate in the state, or the region, or the country, or the world. I have already had to move several times to find adequately remunerative work, and it bounced me right out of the Rust Belt. I'd still move back for the right job.
Network effects are a bitch when you're out in the periphery. I'm not certain that the industry needs to have a nucleus at all. I am certainly bitter and salty that the nucleus that exists isn't anywhere near me.
>Whoa, that's almost double the estimated mortgage for the 5 bedroom houses with an acre of land my family has been looking at purchasing.
Wow, I found a 20 bedroom house in rural Somalia that's half that price.
I'll never move to Florida and encourage others not to, either. Get the people there to move somewhere cheaper instead.
Wow, I found a 20 bedroom house in rural Somalia that's half that price.
I'll never move to Florida and encourage others not to, either. Get the people there to move somewhere cheaper instead.
You're responding to a comment comparing San Francisco to other parts of the United States with all of the baseline luxuries that implies. Florida's GDP per capita is $38,497. In Somalia it's about $600.
I understand that you're making a point about quality of life, but there are no serious comparisons to be made between Somalia and Florida and it says a lot about the (erroneous) views of those in the Bay Area that comments like this one are pretty common on HN.
I understand that you're making a point about quality of life, but there are no serious comparisons to be made between Somalia and Florida and it says a lot about the (erroneous) views of those in the Bay Area that comments like this one are pretty common on HN.
If you can get a 5 bedroom house on an acre of land for $1100/month where you're looking, then honestly real estate prices in pretty much any city are going to be a shock.
I said almost double, not exactly double. It comes up to about $1200 - $1600 depending on the property here.
I live in Florida, to boot. Real estate isn't exactly cheap here.
I live in Florida, to boot. Real estate isn't exactly cheap here.
> We live in a 680 sq ft one-bedroom apartment in an older development ($2200/mo). We'll have to upgrade when my baby outgrows his large walk-in closet, but it fits our needs fine for now.
And there's the kicker. In SLC you could afford a real house for that much. It's good that you can save that much right now, though. Definitely going to pay off.
And there's the kicker. In SLC you could afford a real house for that much. It's good that you can save that much right now, though. Definitely going to pay off.
Yeah, a lot of dollars-and-cents comparisons kind of ignore lifestyle concerns.
> We live in a 680 sq ft one-bedroom apartment
I am barely willing to live by myself in a space of this size, let alone with spouse and children. For those that are, the bay area presents an opportunity to save some of the large salaries being offered. For those that are not, it's a deal-breaker.
I am barely willing to live by myself in a space of this size, let alone with spouse and children. For those that are, the bay area presents an opportunity to save some of the large salaries being offered. For those that are not, it's a deal-breaker.
You don't have to go to Utah to beat that. My mortgage on a SFH in Oakland is $2350/mo, I have 1800 sq ft and a garage and a big yard.
[deleted]
That's crazy. I pay $1,900 for a 800sqft in Brooklyn and I thought that was bad!
Not OP, but I live 1.5 hours away from my job in south bay. I can stomach it for now but the commute is slowly killing me. Working in the Bay is really about balancing your rent with your willingness to commute. You can have a short commute if you're willing to live really close to your job, but those places (SF and/or south bay) tend to be very pricey. Although, south bay (Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale) is cheaper per sq ft. than SF since it's more suburban. It makes a lot of sense to get a job in south bay and get a house if you have a family. If you're younger and want to live somewhere more dense or cheaper, it's harder. If your job is in SF, you can live in Oakland/Berkeley (which is a good deal cheaper than SF), and as long as you and your job is near a BART station, your commute can be sub 30 minutes. Otherwise, you're out of luck, since it takes forever to get anywhere in the city by car/uber/bus. If your job is in south bay, the commute from Oakland/Berkeley is 1 hr+, approaching 2 hrs when traffic is really really bad. And you'll need a car or a corporate bus. You could also live in San Jose and take the train up, which is much faster, although I'm not so sure about the rent situation in San Jose. Last I checked, the rent was ~2.2-2.4k for a one-bedroom, which is actually about on par with both Oakland and south bay. Although for the same price in south bay or Fremont, you'll get more room, at the expense of living in a much more suburban area.
I'm sorry but your situation sounds like it simply doesn't apply to the average SF engineer.
For starters, your salary is about $30k more than the average SF salary.
You managed to find a decent sized 1 bedroom that is FAR below market rate in SF (~3500 to your 2200).
And although not as uncommon, it's still worth mentioning... You're married, and can share living expenses with another person. That means your already low rent of $2200 is even lower, compared to someone who might be single.
For starters, your salary is about $30k more than the average SF salary.
You managed to find a decent sized 1 bedroom that is FAR below market rate in SF (~3500 to your 2200).
And although not as uncommon, it's still worth mentioning... You're married, and can share living expenses with another person. That means your already low rent of $2200 is even lower, compared to someone who might be single.
50k a year for a family of three? Sure, maybe if you are really, really frugal and live far south or east. But living in the city, you could barely pay rent + groceries with 50k a year for a family of three. We live relatively frugal and got a good deal for rent, but I'm pretty sure we are over 50k a year, even more now that we are a family of three and need to consider the outrageous prices of daycare. That last point is something I now miss a lot from my home country: professional (2+ years of technical/uni training) daycare at reasonable prices, even free depending on the area/your income.
Edit: I just saw that you live in the city. The rest of the argument still holds though.
Edit: I just saw that you live in the city. The rest of the argument still holds though.
I live in San Bruno, not SF. I agree that it would probably be very difficult to have a decent quality of life at our spending level living in SF proper. But we're just an 18-minute BART ride away from downtown when we want to go in.
> I don't plan on living in the Bay Area long-term
And that is the key. If you were looking at living in the Bay Area long term it would be a different story.
In SLC as a software engineer if you live reasonably frugally you can own a decent family home outright in under 7 years.
For me that opens up a whole new level of freedom.
And that is the key. If you were looking at living in the Bay Area long term it would be a different story.
In SLC as a software engineer if you live reasonably frugally you can own a decent family home outright in under 7 years.
For me that opens up a whole new level of freedom.
> If you were looking at living in the Bay Area long term it would be a different story.
Agreed.
> In SLC as a software engineer if you live reasonably frugally you can own a decent family home outright in under 7 years.
Sure, and that's attractive. But by contrast, after 7 years here with a progressing career trajectory, I'd have enough money to buy a home in cash almost anywhere in the world. Given that we haven't decided where we want to settle down yet (I'm rather partial to Barcelona...) that cash is more valuable to me than a paid-off home in eg. Salt Lake.
To repeat a theme that I think we can all agree on: these decisions are highly personal and include a lot of tradeoffs, and will naturally look different to different people even in nominally similar situations.
Agreed.
> In SLC as a software engineer if you live reasonably frugally you can own a decent family home outright in under 7 years.
Sure, and that's attractive. But by contrast, after 7 years here with a progressing career trajectory, I'd have enough money to buy a home in cash almost anywhere in the world. Given that we haven't decided where we want to settle down yet (I'm rather partial to Barcelona...) that cash is more valuable to me than a paid-off home in eg. Salt Lake.
To repeat a theme that I think we can all agree on: these decisions are highly personal and include a lot of tradeoffs, and will naturally look different to different people even in nominally similar situations.
The problem with the analysis is 'similar lifestyle' when compound interest is your friend. Living in a much nicer apartment in SLC has minimal extra costs as the gap from a large 1BR to 2BR in SLC might only be ~250$/month.
SF is a great place with dual income no kids. Less so 1 income and an infant. But, much worse when you have young kids. So, in just 3 years and possibly another kid, when it's going to be much harder to swing that tiny 1BR in SF without feeling really cramped.
SF is a great place with dual income no kids. Less so 1 income and an infant. But, much worse when you have young kids. So, in just 3 years and possibly another kid, when it's going to be much harder to swing that tiny 1BR in SF without feeling really cramped.
Beyond actual savings amounts, one thing that was pointed out to me recently is that travel costs the same for everyone.
So if you like to travel, living in a high-cost/high-salary area can provide a major advantage for your endeavors.
So if you like to travel, living in a high-cost/high-salary area can provide a major advantage for your endeavors.
[deleted]
How much are your housing costs? Except for people who got in with rent control, I see very few apartments that cost less than $2500, and that's for a single bedroom.
> ...our actual consumption for my family of 3..
> I don't plan on living in the Bay Area long-term...
Just my initial observations. I think these are incongruent
> I don't plan on living in the Bay Area long-term...
Just my initial observations. I think these are incongruent
[deleted]
[deleted]
The problem with straight-across cost-of-living adjustments is that they're only relevant when you're talking about a more-or-less zero savings rate.
Assuming you can save 10% of your annual salary a year, you're better off living in higher cost-of-living areas, assuming all other things being equal. Then you are growing wealth (retirement funds, etc.) instead of just getting a more expensive lease for your car or apartment.
So what you really want to measure is something closer to "savings rate" or "disposable income" or something like that.
I'm open to thoughts on how to practically do this math. It's very relevant when considering job offers in other cities.
Assuming you can save 10% of your annual salary a year, you're better off living in higher cost-of-living areas, assuming all other things being equal. Then you are growing wealth (retirement funds, etc.) instead of just getting a more expensive lease for your car or apartment.
So what you really want to measure is something closer to "savings rate" or "disposable income" or something like that.
I'm open to thoughts on how to practically do this math. It's very relevant when considering job offers in other cities.
That's a good point. It's also worth pointing out that percentages may not matter as much as absolute numbers.
As a contrived example: it's worse to spend 50% of your income on rent than 30%. But if you earn 200k a year and spend 50% of your income on rent, you still have $100k left over. If you earn 100K and spend 30% on rent, you have 70k left over.
Bummer to lose that much to rent, but if you can keep other costs down, you may still accumulate more money by living in the Bay Area.
As a contrived example: it's worse to spend 50% of your income on rent than 30%. But if you earn 200k a year and spend 50% of your income on rent, you still have $100k left over. If you earn 100K and spend 30% on rent, you have 70k left over.
Bummer to lose that much to rent, but if you can keep other costs down, you may still accumulate more money by living in the Bay Area.
Definitely this. Saving 50% of a SF salary will beat saving 50% of a Toronto salary by a ridiculous margin. This was a huge part of why I decided to try to find a new job in SF instead of taking the first Toronto offer I had lined up after graduation.
I'd also like to see a comparison of the 90th and 10th percentiles of salaries to get a sense of the salary ceilings and floors in each region.
I'd also like to see a comparison of the 90th and 10th percentiles of salaries to get a sense of the salary ceilings and floors in each region.
I think the biggest problem with COL is the fact that COL is a very personal matter.
Here in NYC, most college graduates (programmers or not) share an apartment with flatmates. If you're a programmer, as long as at least one person in the apartment has a non-minimum wage "office" job ($40-50k+), you can live quite comfortably and save a lot unless you decide to live in a penthouse. An average apartment in many areas of Brooklyn split among 2-3 employed people is very affordable.
Even if you want to live alone it's not so bad, but my point is that before someone can decide if NYC is too expensive for them or someone else they should ask more than just their salary.
Here in NYC, most college graduates (programmers or not) share an apartment with flatmates. If you're a programmer, as long as at least one person in the apartment has a non-minimum wage "office" job ($40-50k+), you can live quite comfortably and save a lot unless you decide to live in a penthouse. An average apartment in many areas of Brooklyn split among 2-3 employed people is very affordable.
Even if you want to live alone it's not so bad, but my point is that before someone can decide if NYC is too expensive for them or someone else they should ask more than just their salary.
I've noticed this as well, but the flip side is that cities price out families and people with disabilities pretty quickly.
The problem is that for the same city, same job, same gross income, people's savings rates can vary wildly. On one extreme you have the Google employee living out of his car in a parking lot. On the other extreme you have another Google employee who's living paycheck-to-paycheck because he spends just about all he makes. I don't know what the total distribution would look like for tech (or even tech in each city) so I'd be skeptical of any reports just using the mean or median. If it turns out it's all a nice bell curve (or some other nice distribution), then it could be helpful to see which cities have a tendency for saving and what you could expect your savings would be in total if you lived approximately like most others in the area. Otherwise you need to see the whole distribution for what's possible (I hear LA makes it hard to live out of your car), how it's done, and whether you think you could do it too.
>I'm open to thoughts on how to practically do this math. It's very relevant when considering job offers in other cities.
As another reply noted, it's really about the absolute numbers. The number you probably want is after tax take-home after deducting some amount for retirement and other savings and any significant debts and do the comparison based on that number. Yeah, so pretty much your disposable income.
As another reply noted, it's really about the absolute numbers. The number you probably want is after tax take-home after deducting some amount for retirement and other savings and any significant debts and do the comparison based on that number. Yeah, so pretty much your disposable income.
I meant I have a hard time guessing what that number would be for a programmer in Denver at various income levels.
As someone who's gone through hired's process last year with a close friend, I feel this does a disservice. Primarily because COL is never 1:1 in spite of the very best analysis available and I feel like this becomes a credible source those in hiring positions. The train of thought goes something like this, seemingly from anecdotal evidence from my close friend: "Oh you're making $70K in Atlanta as a PHP developer? That's like $150K in SF!" (the SF value was plucked out of thin air because I don't quite know the calculation). When the reality is in Atlanta that's well below market rate for a seasoned developer. This is also the state of their data compiled from last year but I suspect more than most will treat it as a projection or try to run the increase/decrease as one.
My understanding may be seriously flawed because I view salary negotiations as nowhere close to a zero sum game it should at least attempt to aspire to be. From the get go, everything is entirely skewed in the employer's favor and this just feels like more ammunition.
My close friend and I shared the train of thought that if a company based in SF has $x for developers, while they can likely get more remote developers for the total at their COL decrease, splitting some of the difference with those employees would go quite a long way. Employees likely wouldn't see that total compensation range anywhere else in their current location and that difference becomes its own motivator, at least for someone like me who has struggled to reach market rate. It becomes a double edged sword when that offer is vastly above market rate as finding another job in that range would be increasingly difficult. Employees would likely be way more tempted to stay well after burn out sets in because what should be closer to the norm becomes more of a golden ticket.
My understanding may be seriously flawed because I view salary negotiations as nowhere close to a zero sum game it should at least attempt to aspire to be. From the get go, everything is entirely skewed in the employer's favor and this just feels like more ammunition.
My close friend and I shared the train of thought that if a company based in SF has $x for developers, while they can likely get more remote developers for the total at their COL decrease, splitting some of the difference with those employees would go quite a long way. Employees likely wouldn't see that total compensation range anywhere else in their current location and that difference becomes its own motivator, at least for someone like me who has struggled to reach market rate. It becomes a double edged sword when that offer is vastly above market rate as finding another job in that range would be increasingly difficult. Employees would likely be way more tempted to stay well after burn out sets in because what should be closer to the norm becomes more of a golden ticket.
> I view salary negotiations as nowhere close to a zero sum game
I think you mean "level playing field" or something. "zero sum" implies that the employer wins when the employee loses.
But I agree with you on the above. I think the dirty little secret is that most employers have very little clue about how much a particular skill set (let alone a particular dev) is worth. So they tend to use previous salary as an anchor point to make sure they're not more than 20% more crazy than the last overpaying employer.
Cost of living adjustments is likewise a hack to help pick a number out of the air. I really doubt employers think "hey, you can't raise a family on $130k in downtown DC, so we'll have higher turnover when college hires reach 5-10 years of experience".
I think you mean "level playing field" or something. "zero sum" implies that the employer wins when the employee loses.
But I agree with you on the above. I think the dirty little secret is that most employers have very little clue about how much a particular skill set (let alone a particular dev) is worth. So they tend to use previous salary as an anchor point to make sure they're not more than 20% more crazy than the last overpaying employer.
Cost of living adjustments is likewise a hack to help pick a number out of the air. I really doubt employers think "hey, you can't raise a family on $130k in downtown DC, so we'll have higher turnover when college hires reach 5-10 years of experience".
> I think you mean "level playing field" or something. "zero sum" implies that the employer wins when the employee loses.
I struggled with the right way to word it in a concise manner so "level playing field" seems more correct.
In being privy to hiring decisions for other developers, I believe your assessment is correct. I feel like everything becomes a stab in the dark to some degree. That my assessment of my worth and their assessment of what they're looking for rarely match up as developers by and large seem to never quite fit inside the job description box. I see that as a good thing but the pattern of seemingly properly understanding your worth as you're walking out the door becomes tiresome the third or seventh time it happens.
I struggled with the right way to word it in a concise manner so "level playing field" seems more correct.
In being privy to hiring decisions for other developers, I believe your assessment is correct. I feel like everything becomes a stab in the dark to some degree. That my assessment of my worth and their assessment of what they're looking for rarely match up as developers by and large seem to never quite fit inside the job description box. I see that as a good thing but the pattern of seemingly properly understanding your worth as you're walking out the door becomes tiresome the third or seventh time it happens.
A lot of the cost of living calculations are wrong. I had moved from LA paying 1400$ a month rent to Austin and paid nearly the same rent in Austin for a one bedroom. The plus is no income tax in Washington and Texas but food costs are more and property taxes are double in Texas when compared to California.
On the other hand, Austin is on average more expensive than Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, etc. So using Austin as representative of the whole state understates the cost of living adjustment.
Austin city is increasingly expensive to live in. Fortunately, the city is in the middle of land that is open on all sides for a considerable range, and there are very affordable options just outside the city. If planned properly, this can result in relatively easy commutes for little cost of living. The property tax lessens considerably in neighboring cities and counties, as well. The lack of state income tax is also a huge boon. I also disagree that food costs are higher in Austin.
you could say the same about SF and LA. but how far are you willing to go? problem is for austin these areas are included in cost living considerations.
That's true. You just don't have to go as far out in Austin or adjacent cities. Certainly housing is affordable to buy in Austin city and surrounding, on even one modest tech salary. I don't think the same is true in SF/bay area or LA. Austin is very expensive in a small central core, but drops off considerably only a small number of miles away.
Property tax is lower in seattle. %1.2-1.5 effective vs %1 effective. If youve had a big price gain only then is California 'cheaper'
For cost of home ownership, Austin beats LA hands down.
[deleted]
[deleted]
SFBA is great for (at least) the following types of people:
1. Those who are completely happy with small apartments or long commutes. Typically coming from populous city in a developing country, SFBA traffic was an improvement (if not for duration, then at least for discipline and stress levels). Also, apartments are decent sized compared to what one is used to back home. Cheap cars are still good enough compared to what you had back home. And savings are HUGE, especially if you carry on the frugal lifestyle.
2. Those who are frugal. Because if you can save a higher percentage of your salary, then SFBA savings would outpace salaries in (most) other regions even accounting for high COL
3. Those who seek tech opportunities to make big money - eg. getting within top 10-15% engineers in GooSoftFaceFlix, who can easily earn >400K per year including Salary, Bonus and RSUs. If you are decently smart (no need of Turing Award smarts), work hard and position yourself right for growth, its not rocket science to get promoted into top 10-15% ranks within 6-8 years. Such opportunities in tech are relatively fewer in (most) other places.
Source: been in all 3 buckets at various points in my life; observed tons of my friends who were in similar boats.
Edit: clarified wording
1. Those who are completely happy with small apartments or long commutes. Typically coming from populous city in a developing country, SFBA traffic was an improvement (if not for duration, then at least for discipline and stress levels). Also, apartments are decent sized compared to what one is used to back home. Cheap cars are still good enough compared to what you had back home. And savings are HUGE, especially if you carry on the frugal lifestyle.
2. Those who are frugal. Because if you can save a higher percentage of your salary, then SFBA savings would outpace salaries in (most) other regions even accounting for high COL
3. Those who seek tech opportunities to make big money - eg. getting within top 10-15% engineers in GooSoftFaceFlix, who can easily earn >400K per year including Salary, Bonus and RSUs. If you are decently smart (no need of Turing Award smarts), work hard and position yourself right for growth, its not rocket science to get promoted into top 10-15% ranks within 6-8 years. Such opportunities in tech are relatively fewer in (most) other places.
Source: been in all 3 buckets at various points in my life; observed tons of my friends who were in similar boats.
Edit: clarified wording
...and Vancouver, BC doesn't even show up on the radar because our average is roughly $53,000 USD / year.
Might wanna consider outsourcing here. Same time zone as SV, similar culture, speaks English, tight job market means loyal workers.
source: https://www.glassdoor.ca/Salaries/vancouver-software-develop...
USD/CAD as of today: 1.31
Might wanna consider outsourcing here. Same time zone as SV, similar culture, speaks English, tight job market means loyal workers.
source: https://www.glassdoor.ca/Salaries/vancouver-software-develop...
USD/CAD as of today: 1.31
There's a lot of upside for an engineer to work for a US based company from Toronto. Or for a US based company to hire someone from Toronto. Same with Vancouver.
I'd seriously consider that, but nowadays there's a significant risk that an abrupt anti-outsourcing executive order might put you out of work.
There are some good devs there too - maybe that is what made it an attractive choice for companies like Facebook before.
As brilliantcode mentioned, Facebook, Microsoft et al are using Vancouver as a visa staging ground for people outside of North America. Most Canadian software engineers can work in the US on the TN (which doesn't have a cap like the H-1B) so they don't have visa issues. They bring them over to Vancouver, basically training them there, and once they've worked there for a year, they're eligible to use the L-1 visa, because it's considered an intra-company transfer, so they can move them into the US.
The Vancouver offices are not an investment in the Canadian tech industry; they're just taking advantage of our more lenient immigration laws and the convenience of the city being geographically close to San Francisco. Waterloo and Toronto seem to be taken much more seriously as remote engineering offices for American companies (possibly because of the universities and amount of tech talent in the region).
It's kind of a shame though. Vancouver is a beautiful city, conveniently located, and there's no good reason why it couldn't be Silicon Valley of the north. If they could just figure out how to make it more economical to live there for software engineers (i.e. cheaper housing and higher salaries), it could quickly become a booming tech hub.
The Vancouver offices are not an investment in the Canadian tech industry; they're just taking advantage of our more lenient immigration laws and the convenience of the city being geographically close to San Francisco. Waterloo and Toronto seem to be taken much more seriously as remote engineering offices for American companies (possibly because of the universities and amount of tech talent in the region).
It's kind of a shame though. Vancouver is a beautiful city, conveniently located, and there's no good reason why it couldn't be Silicon Valley of the north. If they could just figure out how to make it more economical to live there for software engineers (i.e. cheaper housing and higher salaries), it could quickly become a booming tech hub.
Facebook did it to get around visa issue to attract non-Canadians from Europe and abroad. Microsoft does it too.
I work in the same building as Microsoft in downtown Vangcouver and I always hear a lot of foreign languages being spoken on the way up-Russian, Mandarin etc. I don't think they've been in an English speaking country for very long which makes me suspect they are doing the same thing as Facebook.
I work in the same building as Microsoft in downtown Vangcouver and I always hear a lot of foreign languages being spoken on the way up-Russian, Mandarin etc. I don't think they've been in an English speaking country for very long which makes me suspect they are doing the same thing as Facebook.
As a Vancouver-based software engineer that graduated about a year ago, I really wish I hadn't looked at this post...
The fact that they didn't even bother listing Vancouver, BC speaks for itself.
I don't like the situation but how can we possibly have a sustainable tech scene when rent/housing cost is rising while our wages have stagnated since the early 2000s...
I don't like the situation but how can we possibly have a sustainable tech scene when rent/housing cost is rising while our wages have stagnated since the early 2000s...
I think there data on Cost of Living is outdated, specifically as it regards Seattle, which has recently seen a significant increase in COL. According to their calculations Seattle is cheaper than DC, however the data I can find online suggests the opposite.
http://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/seattle-wa/washingt...
http://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/seattle-wa/washingt...
I don't see taxes listed as a line item in the comparison, which is a huge factor. WA State does not have income tax.
They are using this data for Cost of Living according to the Hired article this article is summarizing.
hired article: https://hired.com/state-of-salaries-2017
cost of living data comes from here: https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/
hired article: https://hired.com/state-of-salaries-2017
cost of living data comes from here: https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/
That helps explain it, thank you. It looks like the root problem is they are using the (excl rent) number, and the recent increase in COL is Seattle has been driven by real estate, so the problem isn't there data, it's how they are applying it.
I have a much different cost of living equation supporting my decision to live in the bay.
The big expense is obviously rent, which I'm sure they have represented... The average 1 bedroom in Austin around $1,000 and in SF let's say $3,300. Difference of $2,300 * 12 = $27,600. After that, that other $40,000 cost of living difference seems a bit of a stretch.
In SF, my company buys breakfast, lunch, dinner and my transportation to/from work (like many others in this area) so I don't have to factor that into my cost of living. The difference between cost of living adjusted salary tilts toward the SF bay, especially with bay area equity options over what is competitive in Austin (I have no insight into that, I think that would be an interesting study though).
The big expense is obviously rent, which I'm sure they have represented... The average 1 bedroom in Austin around $1,000 and in SF let's say $3,300. Difference of $2,300 * 12 = $27,600. After that, that other $40,000 cost of living difference seems a bit of a stretch.
In SF, my company buys breakfast, lunch, dinner and my transportation to/from work (like many others in this area) so I don't have to factor that into my cost of living. The difference between cost of living adjusted salary tilts toward the SF bay, especially with bay area equity options over what is competitive in Austin (I have no insight into that, I think that would be an interesting study though).
> breakfast, lunch, dinner
That's great if you're young, but there does come a time in many people's lives when they like to spend at least 2 of those meals with spouses and kids.
That's great if you're young, but there does come a time in many people's lives when they like to spend at least 2 of those meals with spouses and kids.
Not only that, but when the company buys meals, the employees often spend that time at work, with their coworkers, talking about work, and maybe even eating at their desks while working. It's not a "free" meal by any means. The company wins out big time when that happens.
Instead of such a "free" meal, I'd rather just get paid more and then pay for my meal myself, by myself or with a friend outside of work, or just take the hour off to run errands or do whatever else I want/need to do.
Instead of such a "free" meal, I'd rather just get paid more and then pay for my meal myself, by myself or with a friend outside of work, or just take the hour off to run errands or do whatever else I want/need to do.
To further this point, housing always swallows everything else in these comparisons, because they do a sort of all-things-being-equal comparison.
But all things are rarely equal.
When I moved from a low-COL city to a high-COL city, I chose to live in a much smaller and crappier apartment. Other people might choose to live with roommates. I never had any intention of looking for accommodations equivalent to what's normal in my hometown.
Housing costs are the easiest thing to compare. It's everything else that's less clear.
But all things are rarely equal.
When I moved from a low-COL city to a high-COL city, I chose to live in a much smaller and crappier apartment. Other people might choose to live with roommates. I never had any intention of looking for accommodations equivalent to what's normal in my hometown.
Housing costs are the easiest thing to compare. It's everything else that's less clear.
Austin also has no income tax. I'm sure a large bay salary incurs a large CA income tax payment. I'd factor that in right on the top, too. Certainly a consideration I have as a Texas resident.
> After that, that other $40,000 cost of living difference seems a bit of a stretch.
Admittedly doesn't apply to everyone, but childcare varies a lot with cost of living, especially since if all the grandparents are priced out of the city and all your friends are in tiny apartments, it's more likely that you'll need to pay big money for babysitting and such.
Admittedly doesn't apply to everyone, but childcare varies a lot with cost of living, especially since if all the grandparents are priced out of the city and all your friends are in tiny apartments, it's more likely that you'll need to pay big money for babysitting and such.
At some stage the IRS is going start start taxing these benefits in kind (its easy money going begging) odd that they don't already as its easier to collect than going after dual nationals overseas
I could see Trump ordering this as retaliation
I could see Trump ordering this as retaliation
It's been on the radar for a while. It slips under AFAIK because it's considered "a benefit to the employer." There are plenty of good reasons for employers to offer various food/drink benefits. As it approaches three premium meals a day as an advertised perk though, it's not hard to see it slipping into the crosshairs though.
HMRC went after just free tea and coffee at British telecom back in the .
SF is bad but not "average $3300 for a 1BR" bad.
it's actually worse, sitting at ~$3,500 right now: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/San-Francisco-rent-cos...
It is that bad. But there's huge variance - renting a 1BR in the mission is far cheaper than south beach.
You don't have to spend the "average".
You don't have to spend the "average".
Lived in Tokyo and realized it wasn't worth it after some time considering the amount of money to be made in the states. In the states, higher salary, lower cost of living, larger homes, more room. I miss Japan, but I don't want to work forever and living and working there just meant I was delaying the point at which I could stop working.
London. The city with the highest cost of living in Europe [citation needed].
Look anywhere else in the UK and it's more like £25000-£35000.
Look anywhere else in the UK and it's more like £25000-£35000.
I think that's too pessimistic. With less than 5 years experience, and having made some less-than-optimal career decisions, I've got about £45,000 total compensation. (Central Belt, Scotland)
Do you work in finance perchance? Most dev salaries in Scotland are not that good with just 5y experience, but finance sector jobs seem to generally come with higher salaries. I have 15y experience, working in Aberdeen (which has a much higher CoL than the central belt) and am on 55k - which is pretty much the top end
After 10 years XP I am on 65K per year, also central belt of Scotland. It is possible to make a decent living outside London for sure.
True - but then that's the general issue with London vs the rest of the country. Compared to other careers, dev salaries in London make the city pretty liveable. I'm certainly not struggling to service a mortgage in Zone 2, and many devs I know are similarly comfortable.
You, or you and a partner? Do you work in finance?
I'm having trouble with my idea of average dev salaries and zone 2 prices equalling comfortable (i.e. nice amount of savings and disposable income after mortgage payment). If non-finance, I must be really out of touch with London salaries. I had an email today offering "up to £50k" for a devops position at a web agency...risible.
I'm having trouble with my idea of average dev salaries and zone 2 prices equalling comfortable (i.e. nice amount of savings and disposable income after mortgage payment). If non-finance, I must be really out of touch with London salaries. I had an email today offering "up to £50k" for a devops position at a web agency...risible.
Risible indeed. Lemme give you more perspective of London salaries. Good you are in DevOps because I got that keyword on my resume too.
These are all the LinkedIn messages with a salary range I got since the beginning of February. Mostly from recruiters. (target: typical 20-30 years old, nothing special).
* DevOps Engineer - Cloud Managed Service - Aldgate east (London) - £50k - £65k
* DevOps Engineer - a global digital market agency - Canary Wharf - £60k - £70k
* DevOps Engineer - Kings Cross - £65k - £75k
* SysAdmin (DevOps) - £50k
* Senior Site Reliability Engineer - market leading eCommerce client based in London - £70,000 + 20% bonus and competitive benefits.
* Consultant on <specific tech I worked on before> + DevOps - "The day rate is around the £800 mark."
* world’s largest peer to peer lending services - up to £75K + benefits.
* London’s leading Cloud and Automation Consultancies (within financial services). - up to £60K + benefits..
Of course, it's only the 9th right now. The month just begins :D
These are all the LinkedIn messages with a salary range I got since the beginning of February. Mostly from recruiters. (target: typical 20-30 years old, nothing special).
* DevOps Engineer - Cloud Managed Service - Aldgate east (London) - £50k - £65k
* DevOps Engineer - a global digital market agency - Canary Wharf - £60k - £70k
* DevOps Engineer - Kings Cross - £65k - £75k
* SysAdmin (DevOps) - £50k
* Senior Site Reliability Engineer - market leading eCommerce client based in London - £70,000 + 20% bonus and competitive benefits.
* Consultant on <specific tech I worked on before> + DevOps - "The day rate is around the £800 mark."
* world’s largest peer to peer lending services - up to £75K + benefits.
* London’s leading Cloud and Automation Consultancies (within financial services). - up to £60K + benefits..
Of course, it's only the 9th right now. The month just begins :D
Myself and a partner, and no I'm not in finance, and don't plan to be any time soon. Also, it's the very edge of zone 2, so that helps.
the problem I that marketing and publishing don't treat the techies with respect "contempt" was how my last but one boss put it and he was a director at a subsidiary of relex
[deleted]
What is interesting is looking at the actual growth rate of salaries in software engineering. For all the talk about not being able to find qualified people, the salary growth seems stagnant.
I wonder what India would be like - not as high wages, but the most expensive apartments in bangalore are like $700 a month.
In first world rents are around 7-8% annually of the price of property. In India it is just ~2% pa. I think there is already high pressure on IT salaries in India so there would not be much upward trend there.
I also hoped to see other location than London and Paris as well. Asia, East Europe etc.
I'm wondering why the entire southeast of the US was left out of the analysis? I'd have imagined ATL or Miami would have enough data to add to the report and cost of living is fairly low even in comparison to many of these other cities.
I went through a round with hired.com and I'm based in Atlanta. While you can specify that you're not willing to relocate the selection of potential employers looking for someone here was seemingly low. It wouldn't surprise me if there was very little to no matches for whatever reason. I feel like Atlanta is a tech hub but some days it doesn't want to act like it. I would think Miami is somewhat similar with Nashville coming close behind but there aren't any concrete explanations. All I can really do is speculate from anecdotal evidence.
Anecdotally, Atlanta has a great tech scene. I'm earning SF salary and comp, and my cost of living is extremely cheap. The culture here feels much more heterogenous, too.
Atlanta has a lot of fintech and medical tech companies, and it sports a cottage startup scene at Georgia Tech and the ATDC. We've seen a number of local startups do really well: Airwatch, MailChimp, etc.
Atlanta has a lot of fintech and medical tech companies, and it sports a cottage startup scene at Georgia Tech and the ATDC. We've seen a number of local startups do really well: Airwatch, MailChimp, etc.
I'd like to know too. I make 65k with a $600 rent. Beginning to wonder if I'm missing out because happiness could be better
I'm legitimately interested to see how much software engineers make if they're not White or Asian. Given the lack of women and minorities I'd say minorities are better off being an MD than a SE. In addition, I'm skeptical that an average SE can get offers at places that give them this kind of compensation.
---
Take Google for an example. [1]
The earning "likelihood" (whether this is cultural, sociopolitical, socioeconomic, etc. is irrelevant. This is just observable fact, given Google's data) of Blacks is 1/17s of Whites and 1/5s of Asians (Google numbers scaled for Black representation in the US).
What I am getting with this? In this model I'm describing, you either work at Google, making $100 or you're unemployed, making 0. This means Whites and Asians will continue to make much more as Software Engineers, because the average wage as White or Asian person as a software engineer is higher, because of the higher rates of them being software engineers to begin with. This results in the average reported wage for software engineering being closer to $100 (the ceiling) even though it's more like $20 if you're a woman or minority.
Therefore, for an article like this to be useful for minorities and women, it would have to illustrate companies that have high (where high is equal to US demographics) rates of employment for software engineers. Otherwise, this might as well just read: "2017 State of Global Millionaires"
[1]
- http://time.com/4391031/google-diversity-statistics-2016/
- https://www.google.com/diversity/
---
Take Google for an example. [1]
The earning "likelihood" (whether this is cultural, sociopolitical, socioeconomic, etc. is irrelevant. This is just observable fact, given Google's data) of Blacks is 1/17s of Whites and 1/5s of Asians (Google numbers scaled for Black representation in the US).
What I am getting with this? In this model I'm describing, you either work at Google, making $100 or you're unemployed, making 0. This means Whites and Asians will continue to make much more as Software Engineers, because the average wage as White or Asian person as a software engineer is higher, because of the higher rates of them being software engineers to begin with. This results in the average reported wage for software engineering being closer to $100 (the ceiling) even though it's more like $20 if you're a woman or minority.
Therefore, for an article like this to be useful for minorities and women, it would have to illustrate companies that have high (where high is equal to US demographics) rates of employment for software engineers. Otherwise, this might as well just read: "2017 State of Global Millionaires"
[1]
- http://time.com/4391031/google-diversity-statistics-2016/
- https://www.google.com/diversity/
I think you're skipping an important step in your model.
The probability of being black given that you work at Google is low. That doesn't imply that the probability of being hired at Google given that you're a black software engineer is low. (There may be a relatively low number of black software engineers in the industry. In fact, I believe that there are.)
(In the short term,) Google can't conjure up black software engineers if none exist.
If we steer talented minorities who might be able to choose between being an MD or an SWE into medicine because of a perception that they won't be hired as SWEs, we will perpetuate the lack of minority SWEs. (NB: The percentage of practicing doctors who are black is around 4% from a quick Google search. That doesn't mean we should discourage black college students from medicine, either!)
[1] = https://consumer.healthday.com/general-health-information-16...
The probability of being black given that you work at Google is low. That doesn't imply that the probability of being hired at Google given that you're a black software engineer is low. (There may be a relatively low number of black software engineers in the industry. In fact, I believe that there are.)
(In the short term,) Google can't conjure up black software engineers if none exist.
If we steer talented minorities who might be able to choose between being an MD or an SWE into medicine because of a perception that they won't be hired as SWEs, we will perpetuate the lack of minority SWEs. (NB: The percentage of practicing doctors who are black is around 4% from a quick Google search. That doesn't mean we should discourage black college students from medicine, either!)
[1] = https://consumer.healthday.com/general-health-information-16...
Interestingly enough, 12% of Computer and Information Science degrees in the US are awarded to Blacks [1][2]. That is in contrast to 9% that are awarded to Asians. But also, 13% of the population is Black, and 5% of the population is Asian [3]. So, it would be expected that more Asians than Blacks are employed at Tech companies. However, the high ratio of Asians (vs. Whites, Blacks, and Latinos) employed at Bay Area tech companies shows some discrepancies. But, it may only be that Asians are more willing to relocate.
[1]: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d11/tables/dt11_301.asp
[2]: I could only find 2010 data, but I expect it's generally consistent.
[3]: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045216/00
[1]: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d11/tables/dt11_301.asp
[2]: I could only find 2010 data, but I expect it's generally consistent.
[3]: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045216/00
Sorry, but unfortunately your conclusions are wrong. More Asian people in absolute numbers and in percentage get "computer and information science" degrees. In fact, the trend has been negative for blacks.[1]
[1] https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/dt16_322.30.a...
[1] https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/dt16_322.30.a...
While I struggle generally to discern what you're trying to say, I'm particularly befuddled by what "MD" refers to here.
My point is basically this: the average is being extremely skewed by survivorship bias, namely, White and Asians who attended elite schools. I assert that getting the salaries noted in the article is especially unlikely if you're on the other end of the spectrum: Women and minorities from non-elite schools.
MD means medical doctor. Wages among doctors are far more predictable.
MD means medical doctor. Wages among doctors are far more predictable.
Nothing is keeping women and minorities out of tech, they're just choosing different careers.
The pipeline for tech oriented careers opens up around the 6th grade, and starts to become harder to enter around the 11th. I know from personal experience that kids at those ages rarely have any idea about what career they'll actually be in at age 30. So the parents that have high expectations--and push their kids to achieve academically--fill up that pipeline early.
My own high school had roughly equal numbers of black and white students (40% white, 40% black, 20% others). But all my classes were overwhelmingly whites, Jews, Chinese, and Indians, and their parents were mostly doctors, lawyers, tenured professors (or even university presidents), and business owners. Most of the boys were all in the same scout troop (50). Few played a sport; if they did, it was tennis or cross-country running. Most played a musical instrument.
I don't even know where all the black people went after elementary school. They were still there at school, they just weren't in most of my classes (except for the 2 that were in all of them--they had high-expectations parents). Then, once I went off to college, most of the ladies vanished, too. They were in my chem and psych classes. They were in the band. They were certainly there. But they didn't take the CompSci classes.
And in the workplace, well, they show up from time to time at different jobs, but most places look just like all the boys from my 6th grade accelerated math class, 30 years later.
I don't think you can entirely blame the hiring companies for this one.
My own high school had roughly equal numbers of black and white students (40% white, 40% black, 20% others). But all my classes were overwhelmingly whites, Jews, Chinese, and Indians, and their parents were mostly doctors, lawyers, tenured professors (or even university presidents), and business owners. Most of the boys were all in the same scout troop (50). Few played a sport; if they did, it was tennis or cross-country running. Most played a musical instrument.
I don't even know where all the black people went after elementary school. They were still there at school, they just weren't in most of my classes (except for the 2 that were in all of them--they had high-expectations parents). Then, once I went off to college, most of the ladies vanished, too. They were in my chem and psych classes. They were in the band. They were certainly there. But they didn't take the CompSci classes.
And in the workplace, well, they show up from time to time at different jobs, but most places look just like all the boys from my 6th grade accelerated math class, 30 years later.
I don't think you can entirely blame the hiring companies for this one.
I'd love to see your evidence for this. Namely, you'd need to prove that for a given educational level, geographical location and familial history, they're more likely to choose something other than tech than white males.
Given the fact that every college in the country enacts affirmative action, it's apparent that non-whites and women would have no problem getting into the IT field. And given the fact that over 60 percent of people graduating college today are women, that tells me that it's just not a field they're interested in. I don't see why that's a problem.
You don't understand why lack of diversity in an industry is a problem? A complaint that I often hear is that SV is full of start ups focused on "Uber for catnip" and other unimaginative useless things. Wouldn't diversity address this alleged homogeny of services(think Bevel)?
I see no merit in forced diversity. If they have the opportunity and incentive to choose this field, yet go elsewhere, that's fine by me.
You've yet to prove that they've had "the opportunity and incentive to choose this field, yet go elsewhere."
Affirmative action means women and minorities get preferential treatment during hiring. Given the fact that women and minorities are underrepresented in tech, it should be obvious that they would have an incentive to join the industry because they would have very little trouble getting hired wherever they want. And given the fact that over 60 percent of graduates are women, it's clear that lack of opportunity isn't a factor for women at least.
So you basically have no evidence to back up meaningless, unsubstantiated claims. You don't even support your statement: "affirmative action means women and minorities get preferential treatment during hiring." Guess the discussion is over since you refuse to provide any evidence to back up your ridiculous claims.
It's really easy to plug your ears and scream that an opponent's argument is "ridiculous" (what you are doing). It's more difficult to actually make a counterargument yourself (what you are not doing). Try harder, maybe.
> You don't even support your statement: "affirmative action means women and minorities get preferential treatment during hiring."
Are you saying this is untrue? If I am wrong, then what is affirmative action?
Are you saying this is untrue? If I am wrong, then what is affirmative action?
Look at college freshmen, see what portion of women/minorities are studying something tech related? Or am I misunderstanding something?
Huh, okay.
MD=medical doctor
[deleted]
Medical doctor.
I think some of the data you'd want to gather for this is
- what initial job offers look like, by demographic class, and what they get negotiated to
- offers revoked after attempted negotiation (yes, this is a thing that happens)
- long-term job prospects (negotiations for internal raises and promotions, layoffs / retention, etc.)
Hired has visibility into the first two, but I doubt they have much visibility into the last one, and I think that's the most relevant one for the effect of leaving the industry that you're interested in.
- what initial job offers look like, by demographic class, and what they get negotiated to
- offers revoked after attempted negotiation (yes, this is a thing that happens)
- long-term job prospects (negotiations for internal raises and promotions, layoffs / retention, etc.)
Hired has visibility into the first two, but I doubt they have much visibility into the last one, and I think that's the most relevant one for the effect of leaving the industry that you're interested in.
It's crazy how much more you get paid in America than elsewhere. On the other hand, I can cycle to work, get actual holidays and actually work leave work at 5pm.
You can do these in San Francisco, though I prefer keeping the mornings and working the evenings. Wasting daytime sunshine is a terrible idea.
Really though? I thought you only something like get 10-15 holidays (including sick days?), are expected to work really long hours, and I can't imagine the rent within cycling distance of downtown San Francisco... Actually I don't need to - it's pretty insane - easily triple London prices which are already very high:
https://www.zumper.com/blog/uploads/2016/03/SanFrancisco_Mon...
https://www.zumper.com/blog/uploads/2016/03/SanFrancisco_Mon...
I actually live in London right now so I can tell you that San Francisco can be much cheaper. I had a one bedroom for $1400 there for the last three years.
Anywhere inside the city is cyclable. And because the weather is great you can go do things in the daytime.
The vacation time thing is a problem for the rest of America. I had unlimited vacation and took seven weeks off last year in San Francisco.
Everyone in SF wants to live at the NEMA. The NEMA costs like a NEMA would. Don't live at the NEMA if you're price sensitive.
EDIT: Ah ha, I see. I lived in the Excelsior. On your map, I was right by the border with Glen Park. 8 mins to BART, which is 12 mins to Montgomery St.. And BART doesn't get anywhere near as packed as the Jubilee line does. You have to see that SF is not very much larger than Zone 1 in London is.
Anywhere inside the city is cyclable. And because the weather is great you can go do things in the daytime.
The vacation time thing is a problem for the rest of America. I had unlimited vacation and took seven weeks off last year in San Francisco.
Everyone in SF wants to live at the NEMA. The NEMA costs like a NEMA would. Don't live at the NEMA if you're price sensitive.
EDIT: Ah ha, I see. I lived in the Excelsior. On your map, I was right by the border with Glen Park. 8 mins to BART, which is 12 mins to Montgomery St.. And BART doesn't get anywhere near as packed as the Jubilee line does. You have to see that SF is not very much larger than Zone 1 in London is.
As a black software engineer this is disturbing. What could be the cause of the major discrepancies between black and white SWE salaries?
There could be a million things that would cause these discrepancies, like differences in education and/or family background of the relevant populations. It could even be something "positive" like if there's a perceived lack of black engineers relative to the number of high-skilled black engineers that are out there, companies may be more likely to hire marginal candidates or retrain promising candidates from other fields (IT, security) - this would skew the average salary down because they "padded" the distribution of black engineers by hiring outside their normal candidate pool.
This line supports your point.
> When we look at our two largest markets on Hired’s platform, San Francisco and New York, the average African-American candidate on the Hired platform is 49 percent more likely to get hired than the average white person.
> When we look at our two largest markets on Hired’s platform, San Francisco and New York, the average African-American candidate on the Hired platform is 49 percent more likely to get hired than the average white person.
To be fair, you'd also observe the exact same thing if black engineer salaries were artificially depressed relative to their skill level, since if you can get equivalent quality for less money, why not?
I'm white and I get paid 28k. But I'm fucking up.
And here I am making $72,000 in New Hampshire...45 minutes from Boston. I have a B.S. in computer engineering and now have 4-5 years of professional experience in software (specializing in DevOps). Am I severely underpaid?
These are the actual averages (not adjusted for SF cost of living): https://hired.com/assets/reports/state_of_salaries/img1@2x-2...
IMO if you're happy where you are, and the cost of living is really low (e.g. you can buy a decent house pretty easily for under 200k), no need to be worried. Otherwise I'd probably leave and work in a big but not overly expensive city. I've seen plenty of job listings in Chicago looking for people with like 2-4 years experience paying 100k+, and the good parts of Chicago are pretty damn nice plus it's a cheap city to live in for its size (e.g. Toronto is always compared to Chicago, but rent is much more affordable in Chicago and you get paid more)
EDIT: Just realized the 74k on Toronto is USD - these numbers seem pretty weird. I know plenty of people making starting salaries in the ballpark of $134k in SF, but you'd be hard pressed (maybe even impossible) to find somebody in Toronto who'd pay you 97k for you first job out of school. I don't know how SF salaries work though - maybe they start out higher, but they still have the same glass ceiling where very, very few people are making >200k as a developer?
IMO if you're happy where you are, and the cost of living is really low (e.g. you can buy a decent house pretty easily for under 200k), no need to be worried. Otherwise I'd probably leave and work in a big but not overly expensive city. I've seen plenty of job listings in Chicago looking for people with like 2-4 years experience paying 100k+, and the good parts of Chicago are pretty damn nice plus it's a cheap city to live in for its size (e.g. Toronto is always compared to Chicago, but rent is much more affordable in Chicago and you get paid more)
EDIT: Just realized the 74k on Toronto is USD - these numbers seem pretty weird. I know plenty of people making starting salaries in the ballpark of $134k in SF, but you'd be hard pressed (maybe even impossible) to find somebody in Toronto who'd pay you 97k for you first job out of school. I don't know how SF salaries work though - maybe they start out higher, but they still have the same glass ceiling where very, very few people are making >200k as a developer?
He does not need to move anywhere to make a lot more money.
Yep. I'm in Plano TX 30 minutes from Dallas. Now increase your salary number by 75%. I have no formal education, however I do have about 11 years of full spectrum full stack experience and am currently in the DevOps space. Forget Dallas and check out Plano/Frisco. It's exploding. Your mileage may vary though because housing prices here are getting ridiculous as well, the worst offender being Dallas.
If you're willing to work in Kendall Square (or lots of places inside Rt 128) and pay MA income tax, you can pretty readily make 33-50% more gross. Whether that's worth it or not is your call.
I mean, are you willing to commute to Boston? You could definitely make more money.
It's really hard to compare real world adjusted incomes because each government/country has varied outlooks on social benefits and safety nets. In the US salaries are high, but the government doesn't give you anything in terms of cheap educational, access to cheap healthcare etc.
I'd be curious to see if there's a way to factor in a global compensation number that includes all factors like stock, education cost and so on.
Completely anecdotal, but my experience with Hired wasn't great. Didn't have many good companies to choose from, the "hiring advocate" wasn't very helpful.
I'd be curious to see if there's a way to factor in a global compensation number that includes all factors like stock, education cost and so on.
Completely anecdotal, but my experience with Hired wasn't great. Didn't have many good companies to choose from, the "hiring advocate" wasn't very helpful.
I didn't want to comment on this but my friend and I went through a batch and we could pretty much say the exact same thing. I wouldn't say the advocate wasn't terribly helpful. I blame it on the selection. Though my friend and I had different advocates and I seemed to jump through more hoops likely because I set my asking salary higher.
Where's Detroit? We had a bit of an exodus back in 2008-2012 but finding people today is like pulling teeth. I'm sure it's a way better financial deal than the bay area.
I think the recent crime/safety reputation its gotten is keeping people (like me) away. I wouldn't move to Detroit even if they paid me $150k, I just don't feel like the risk is worth it.
I live in a Detroit suburb. Currently work there as well but know plenty of people that work downtown. Easy drive to downtown but there are plenty of jobs in very nice suburbs. The city is also nicer than you think. Still fairly rough but improving every day.
Can confirm. I moved from downtown Detroit to Austin. Austin is great but the core of Detroit is also pretty cool (except for the weather). A lot of the popular restaurants/venues have sort of an 'underground' vibe, and typically aren't as crowded as one might experience elsewhere. New, interesting businesses and groups are constantly popping up downtown. I think of Detroit when I see "keep Austin weird" signs, because Austin isn't weird, it's just gentrification and rich white people. Weird is plentiful and welcome in Detroit. Also, the city remains diverse, which doesn't seem to be the case in Austin. But yeah, still lots of dangerous areas outside of downtown Detroit.
I wonder how it compares to Oakland, another city with a very bad reputation, where a lot of techs in the Bay Area don't mind living because of how relatively cheap it is.
I wouldn't want to live in the City - shitty schools and bad neighborhoods. Wouldn't want to work in the city because then you pay an extra income tax (and the drive is too far for me). But the suburbs are actually very nice and millions of people live here quite happily and safely.
Ann Arbor seems like a great place to live. The major companies still in Detroit (for tax reasons, difficulty in relocating a giant corporation?) should build some rail options to increase talent moving to the area. :)
Hired is trying to present meaningful statistics while conveniently leaving out the sample size? (although I understand for business reasons they don't reveal it)
The salary in Sydney seems to be anemic relative to a CoL that approaches SF.
For fucks sake.
For fucks sake.
The article is misleading. The average software engineer salary in Toronto is not $197k CAD. It is closer to $80k, according to online sources like https://www.quora.com/Whats-a-reasonable-salary-for-a-softwa... .
Read the map title, the real salary according to their source is $74K (CAD$ 97K).
The adjustment for Cost of Living in SF is discussed in this thread, it might not be accurate.
The adjustment for Cost of Living in SF is discussed in this thread, it might not be accurate.
[deleted]
I'm unfairly critical of reports like these once I realise many y-axes don't start at zero in their charts.
What's the purpose of such a chart? Why not simply display a sorted table if they can't be bothered to take advantage of the visualisation?
Seattle average is 180k and Austin is 198k. That's insane. What companies are offering this crazy salaries?
That is salary adjusted for cost of living.
There are so many large tech companies in the Bay Area that all include stock-based compensation as a meaningful portion of your salary.
Everybody on HN fixates on startup employment in the bay area. Sure, there are plenty of "starving" engineers here working for $90k at a startup. But that's a choice. Every large tech company you can think of, and many you can't, have been hiring here non-stop for years. Within a 2 blocks of where I write this is Yelp, Salesforce and Zillow/Trulia. These are not even the large tech companies.
This place is not meant for everybody, but it really has not been hard to get ahead here if you're an engineer aiming to make money.
Everybody on HN fixates on startup employment in the bay area. Sure, there are plenty of "starving" engineers here working for $90k at a startup. But that's a choice. Every large tech company you can think of, and many you can't, have been hiring here non-stop for years. Within a 2 blocks of where I write this is Yelp, Salesforce and Zillow/Trulia. These are not even the large tech companies.
This place is not meant for everybody, but it really has not been hard to get ahead here if you're an engineer aiming to make money.
State of Global Tech Salaries
Canada = Toronto
We're getting screwed here in Canada.
How are we getting screwed? (and I agree that the salaries are pretty low compared to the other cities).
Also, the dollar being low doesn't help.
Also, the dollar being low doesn't help.
For the exact reason you said... our salaries are way lower. I should move to the states (although I wont because immigrants don't seem to be welcome there now).
Would like to see distributions of desired experience levels for jobs in each city. Unless they're fairly consistent, these numbers will all be skewed by the relative seniority of available roles. I'm not convinced they'd be vastly different but could imagine differences. For example, greater numbers of entry level positions in areas with higher concentrations of industry giants who can effectively train swarms of new grads.
Interesting, I thought Toronto would be much lower. Does anyone have any data on cost of living expenses compared to other major US cities?
- A Canadian who wants to go to the states but probably won't for the time being due to political/family/friends factors.
- A Canadian who wants to go to the states but probably won't for the time being due to political/family/friends factors.
Here's a comparison between SF and TO: https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?cou...
Is there any sense of how corporate benefits effect the real cost of living?
Meaning, companies which offer free food, transportation, even limited housing, the net effect of cost of living increases could be somewhat offset?
Meaning, companies which offer free food, transportation, even limited housing, the net effect of cost of living increases could be somewhat offset?
Housing would make a difference in high cost-of-living areas, such as SF, but the others are probably rounding errors with what is, after all, fairly high salaries.
I bet the percentage (and the distribution) of engineers using something like hired.com to find a job is way lower in the hyper-fast-paced Bay Area than anywhere else.
Out of curiosity, where does biotech, or specifically bioinformatics fall on a scale like this?
It would be interesting to compare this with fully remote position salaries
84k in London dam I am underpaid
The average salary is 73k£. 84k£ is adjusted to the cost of living in SF.
Actually I think it's only 56K in pounds - 73K is the dollar value. It's confusing because the order of those values is swapped between the two maps. On the first map they have $73K (£56K), i.e. the dollar value is first. On the second map (adjusted for cost of living) they have £84K ($104K), i.e. the pound value is first.
How do you know or decide how much you should get paid?
Hah, I'm actually somewhat disappointed. I read "making" as "creating" - as in what people are making app-wise around the world right now.
Free idea if anyone fancies it (I wish I had the time!) - a live update map that sources geo-tagged tweets with a specific hashtag (#ShowHN?)
Free idea if anyone fancies it (I wish I had the time!) - a live update map that sources geo-tagged tweets with a specific hashtag (#ShowHN?)
Would be more clear with "earning" instead of "making," wouldn't it?
Where are you from? I've always heard "how much do you make" when people talk about compensation. I'm from the US and have lived in California and Washington.
UK but it's context either way. Original title when I responded was "What software engineers are making around the world right now"
What the fuck @ the section "North America", and then right under all there is is a map of the US...
You must have missed this morning's Executive Order from the White House...
Toronto's on it...
fair enough. they do identify and locate Toronto on the map, so technically it does contain a bit of Canada.
It's utterly stupid that the link goes to TechCrunch instead of the actual study itself: https://hired.com/state-of-salaries-2017
The hired.com page gives a lot more information, including baseline numbers before cost of living adjustments, and doesn't have such a click bait title.
The hired.com page gives a lot more information, including baseline numbers before cost of living adjustments, and doesn't have such a click bait title.
> utterly stupid
We appreciate your concern for the quality of HN (and frustration at linkbait etc.) but please don't do this. The HN guidelines do say to post original sources, but also say not to call names in comments (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).
Users submit articles from various sources of varying quality. Moderators routinely change urls to better sources when we find them, and edit titles accordingly. No one would love it better than we if users would just follow the site guidelines and we didn't need to do those things, but to try to make it otherwise would be like Canute commanding the waves.
We changed the URL from https://techcrunch.com/2017/02/09/what-software-engineers-ar... to the original report it's cribbed from.
We appreciate your concern for the quality of HN (and frustration at linkbait etc.) but please don't do this. The HN guidelines do say to post original sources, but also say not to call names in comments (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).
Users submit articles from various sources of varying quality. Moderators routinely change urls to better sources when we find them, and edit titles accordingly. No one would love it better than we if users would just follow the site guidelines and we didn't need to do those things, but to try to make it otherwise would be like Canute commanding the waves.
We changed the URL from https://techcrunch.com/2017/02/09/what-software-engineers-ar... to the original report it's cribbed from.
...and the section on race is very interesting:
"When we look at our two largest markets on Hired’s platform, San Francisco and New York, the average African-American candidate on the Hired platform is 49 percent more likely to get hired than the average white person. [...] It's unclear if African American candidates are receiving more offers because of diversity initiatives, a lower preferred salary, or a combination of those and other factors."
"When we look at our two largest markets on Hired’s platform, San Francisco and New York, the average African-American candidate on the Hired platform is 49 percent more likely to get hired than the average white person. [...] It's unclear if African American candidates are receiving more offers because of diversity initiatives, a lower preferred salary, or a combination of those and other factors."
Money is a systematic lack of empathy.
Feel free to develop a flawless system to allocate resources among billions of organisms and implement it. I welcome your efforts.
Pain is just weakness leaving the body.
Austin and Seattle average salaries of $190K for developers?
And yet SF and NYC are still stuck around $130K, which is only 20% higher than what it was 10 years ago, and these cities are far more expensive to live in?
What's the draw, why don't more developers move to Austin or Seattle?
And yet SF and NYC are still stuck around $130K, which is only 20% higher than what it was 10 years ago, and these cities are far more expensive to live in?
What's the draw, why don't more developers move to Austin or Seattle?
It clearly says adjusted to the cost of living in San Francisco. This article does not say anything about the cost of living model. It does say that Seattle's average is $126K vs San Francisco's $134k (Seattle becomes $180k when adjusted to its cost of living relative to San Francisco). The referenced article has an average of $110K unadjusted for Austin developers.
Real estate is the obvious example. If you want to own a house Seattle's market is still really high relative to the rest of the country (this is probably where Austin makes up a lot of ground), but Seattle is much cheaper than San Francisco.
Real estate is the obvious example. If you want to own a house Seattle's market is still really high relative to the rest of the country (this is probably where Austin makes up a lot of ground), but Seattle is much cheaper than San Francisco.
This isn't the raw numbers. It's based on cost of living adjustment to give what the equivalent would be in SF (at least that's what I understood from the article).
It would have been useful to show the raw numbers next to the adjusted numbers in the image.
It would have been useful to show the raw numbers next to the adjusted numbers in the image.
Yeah it makes it hard to compare how you personally are doing.
"According to her analysis, the $110,000 that an Austin engineer makes is the rough equivalent of being paid $198,000 in the Bay Area"
[deleted]
The subtitle mentions "adjusted to the cost of living in SF"
It's unfortunate that they don't specify what those adjustments are.
Yeah, those would be just as interesting. If not more so.
Those numbers are adjusted to the cost of living in San Francisco, so the comparison is not quite as bad as you think.
But it means that one should really love the Bay Area in order to sacrifice $60K/year of effective income just to live there. I lived in the Bay Area and when faced with this very issue I moved (cost of living being only one factor). It's a special place -- but not that special (for me). That said, for the first 10 years I was there I too was smitten by the place, and assumed I would never want to live anywhere else. Reality caught up with me, which is really a good thing.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Second is, you can't just scale up salaries by the COL adjustment when the comp is this high. If you do that, you'll think the following are equally good:
Not all expenses scale linearly with COL, and in particular, one of the most important imputed expenses, savings, doesn't scale that way, unless you plan to retire with the exact same lifestyle.