Top Paying Tech Companies by SWE Level • Hacker News Board

Re: Top Paying Tech Companies by SWE Level

#611

Post by kudokatz » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 2:09 AM UTC

burntoutfire wrote: post #439

villahousut wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a bit incorrect. Returns from a typical investment portfolio have been over 4% for the last 10-20 years, so that's the amount you can withdraw without depleting any principal. If you're looking to consume your whole principal by the time you die you can go way ahead of 4%, easily double that.

> Returns from a typical investment portfolio have been over 4% for the last 10-20 years, so that's the amount you can withdraw without depleting any principal. Past results do not guarantee future performance. People in the FIRE community generally look at market performance since the final decades of the XIX century. For many, even these numbers do not guarantee anything, as the growth during these days reflected U…

> even these numbers do not guarantee anything

at this point a reasonable response is "there are no guarantees". If the 4% rule was back-tested through the great depression and generally came out fine, it's probably in the right ballpark.

As another FIRE blogger puts it, "3% or less is a near sure bet as anything in this life can be"

https://jlcollinsnh.com/2012/12/07/stocks-part-xiii-withdraw...

Re: Top Paying Tech Companies by SWE Level

#612

Post by kudokatz » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 2:17 AM UTC

tristor wrote: post #426

esoterica wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So? Not everyone is brainwashed by their banal suburban upbringing into thinking that home ownership is the highest state of enlightenment a human can achieve. I can afford to buy a place outright in cash but I still rent because I like the flexibility and have no interest in betting a large fraction of my net worth on the direction of real estate prices.

Home ownership is the strongest correlating factor with financial independence and overall net worth. Even in the Bay Area, owning a home and the equity in it is generally the most critical asset financially independent people have. I'm not going to claim renting is universally bad, as it has some upsides (mainly flexibility), but it's definitely financially less savvy than buying, and is generally something you woul…

> strongest correlating factor with financial independence and overall net worth

If the only way people save is "force saving" by diving headfirst into something that sucks all of their other assets in, sure.

How could we make housing a terrible investment?

* It should be illiquid. We’ll make it something that takes weeks, no – wait – even better, months of time and effort to buy or sell.

* It should be something that locks its owner in one geographical area. That’ll limit their options and keep ’em docile for their employers!

* It should be leveraged! Oh, oh this one is great! This is how we’ll get people to swallow those low returns!

(copied from amusing thought experiment for another perspective: https://jlcollinsnh.com/2013/05/29/why-your-house-is-a-terri...)

That said, I bought a place to live anyways.

Re: Top Paying Tech Companies by SWE Level

#613

Post by thraxil » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 2:13 PM UTC

excursionist wrote: post #589

tikiman163 wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlimited PTO is bs because when you give unlimited time off people usually request less time off, and companies don't have to pay you for unused time off when you leave. The potential to punish for taking time off isn't a thing anywhere I worked that had the unlimited deal, but the result was typically that the average employee would rarely ask for more than 8 days a year because they didn't feel like they had anyth…

If the company says you get unlimited pto, and actually delivers on it's promise, why couldn't you just take off for like 6 months every year? If you actually need to get approval for time off, then it's not 'unlimited', because they are literally 'limiting' your pto. Is there anything to these 'unlimited pto' offers, besides being an obvious scam?

I don't think they're usually a scam. Typically, small startup (which may have quickly grown into a larger one) with idealistic founders who fancy themselves as being forward thinking and pro work/life balance and think that an unlimited PTO policy will allow employees to take care of themselves. Likely they at some point worked somewhere with a very strict policy and saw bad things happen to people who had medical problems, family emergencies, etc. and don't want to subject their employees to that. The reality of course being that nothing is truly "unlimited" and instead there's an unspoken limit that you don't want to cross (because it will affect your performance reviews whether it's mentioned or not) and the fear of accidentally doing so means that people take less time than they otherwise might. Then of course, because people look at how much time their coworkers take off to figure out what the "norm" is and stay on the safe side of that, the "norm" edges even further down over time and eventually no one ever takes time off unless it's a true emergency. So generally, I think their heart is in the right place; they just didn't fully think through the systemic effects. Or who knows, maybe by now some truly unscrupulous execs have figured it out and are actually doing it on purpose...

Re: Top Paying Tech Companies by SWE Level

#614

Post by mav3rick » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 4:50 PM UTC

anthonypasq wrote: post #329

SirHound wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also we don't get free heathcare, we pay for it through taxation. I believe this is morally right, but that's beside the point: These well-paid American employees are also probably getting a great healthcare package as part of their contract, so they don't even have to pay for it.

All employer provided healthcare is subsidized not free.

It is free are G. There is a 1000 deductible and people get 1000 in their HSA at the start of the year. Nothing gets cut monthly from your pay check..