I would like others' salaries to go up. I'd rather not have mine come down. I mean, the median is $115k or so in the US. I make under that.
Now this is a really unpopular opinion on here... I think the real issue is centralization of high capital tech work, and really the density of people in general. The cost of living in places like NYC, northern VA, and Silicon Valley are all hugely above the median. It's like a vicious cycle of groupthink instead of evenly distributing those jobs (companies) throughout cheaper, less populous areas. I'd love to see someone from a depressed area start a big name company in that area to help being jobs and prosperity to their neighbors. Perhaps that's just my deluded fantasy.
1. Inflation - Though I will not expound here because I’m not an expert.
2. Salaries in the US have been stagnant since the 70s which correlates to the start of the weakening of Big Labor by corporate and government interests.
Locality has natural efficiencies, which is why cities and caches are so powerful. That can't really be fought head-on in the short term. But over a longer period the increasing costs of a white-hot locale will cause other places to be more appealing. And new tech can find a new natural place to land with costs as part of that.
This is happening all the time. A hundred years ago the Santa Clara (Silicon) Valley was orchards. Detroit was getting rich on the latest tech wave.
A hundred years before that, the North of England was making fortunes in the Industrial Revolution.
In our lifetimes China has changed incredibly. Foxconn is now a big name company that employs over a million people and moved a lot of money into the places they operate.
HCOL cities is a policy choice that is somewhat independent of city density, that seem to be the worst in english speaking countries, pointing to a potential flaw in the culture or shared legal systems. There are many high density cities that are more livable than the USA and significantly more affordable. Cities managed efficiently are the most economically and environmentally sustainable places to have humanity live in by far.
A quick google search shows varying numbers between 74k and 120k for median software developer salaries in the US. 54k seems quite low, where'd you see this?
I believe $54k is for salaries in general across all industries. Mercedes is not a tech company so no reason to assume the discussion is about software salaries
Sure, but if you take those $200k people and make them $100k people, then I assume I'll lose my job to them all day long. Employers will pay me lower because I comparatively suck.
Even then... for many companies the past couple years have opened up competition nation-wide. I'm able to compete for higher salaries with companies used to paying that along with what was only local talent before, while living in an area with comparatively lower cost of living and would like to move with that in mind (locked in until interest rates improve).
The same works in the other direction, and it kind of sucks for companies in areas where income isn't as high having to compete for talent against others with much deeper pockets. It's been interesting to say the least.
Unfortunately, I've seen the govt operating against unions... looking at the railway and airlines and think they're really on the wrong side of this, as much as I don't want to be more inconvenienced from strikes, they should be able to do so. I feel the govt does more harm than good in the US and would prefer a little less picking winners and losers in the mix. On the same note, I don't think they're playing their hands well at all to establish domestic production and security fia application of tariffs and FDA requirements.
I don’t understand why more people don’t think like this. Even from a selfish point of view - you get to live in a place with less violent crime, you get to experience living in a “happier” community, etc etc
I feel like this is the opposite of what’s happened here in the UK and the timescales are not that long but the collective amnesia is staggering. Even just as far back at the mid 00’s seems to have fallen out of the memory of a large proportion of the population.
Violent crime & affordability issues in cities is a choice set by policy makers to make some politically connected people richer, it is not an attribute of cities. Poverty stricken rural places are just as bad, or even worse in many cases.
Why are the people saying this not donating half of their 200k salaries? Is the only way to re-distribute your personal wealth by being compelled by market conditions or by the state?
Because they don't want to selflessly give away $100k for nothing. Rather they selfishly want to live in a healthier society. You're proposing they trade something for nothing, and that's misguided in the best case, or disingenuous in the worst.
I think the point being made is that it's trivially easy to make armchair moral/ethical arguments about spending money in other peoples wallets. And that the arguments would be taken more seriously if the person arguing has actually demonstrated that they have skin in the game, staked their own wallet.
Isn't that what the complaints about NIMBYism are all about? Yeah, I'm all for having other people solving the problems of the poor workers. I don't have to do anything until they do. While we're at it, lets have the software developers clothe and house them as well. They can clearly afford it. It's only fair. Am I a good person now?
Talk is cheap. Do something first before complaining about what others aren't doing.
Again, the goal is not selflessness, it's selfishness. The selfish want to form a more perfect union. No one is saying they want to give away half their salary for nothing, no one is expecting anyone else to do so either.
It's effectively a bunch of people who want a crowd funding campaign for a product to exist, and everyone else saying "if you want to throw your money away, here's a trash can". That's entirely missing the point and completely unhelpful. The goal is to make a collective investment and get something in return.
If we're being real, this group, myself included, is only one step removed from a NIMBY, but it is what it is. If you want to suggest I abandon the little leverage I have to put towards creating a better society for myself and the people around me, I would say: you first. Oh, not interested? Welcome to the club. Now let's work together to make this place we live better.
I agree with the general idea but disagree strongly with the execution.
Highly paid tech workers are still workers, albeit ones that tend to lack class consciousness because they think they're on top (until they get fired en masse to save profits).
Management earning wildly disproportionate salaries should share first. Management is worthless without labor, yet is responsible for choking workers from their fair share.
It’s not “ridiculous.” The median American simply has more money under the American system. The OECD collects detailed data on this: https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-disposable-income.htm. Look at the dataset “gross incl. social transfers in kind” which looks at disposable income accounting for universal healthcare, etc. America is head and shoulders ahead of EU countries like Germany.
Americans might be selfish but they’re not irrational. Much of my family immigrated to Australia and Canada. My mom just got back from a long trip there, and was complaining about how small and close together the houses are, and how doctors can’t really get rich there. If you care more about the square footage of your house or the number of cars you have (and Americans do, and continually import immigrants who have similar values) than about health care for poor people, then the specific trade-offs made in America economic policy are totally rational.
I'm saying that governmental policies have allied the poor and the ultra wealthy to the detriment of the middle class. GP was saying American dev salaries are too high, when really they are not the issue compared to how many tax breaks 10MM+ individuals have gotten.
Investors have bought up 40% of the real estate in some counties in the US. That's ridiculous.
When the government allows for predatory behavior by companies and the ultra wealthy that lowers their responsibility to society that is not a burden for the middle class to bear.
In Europe, even in the wealthiest countries, average programmer salaries are about 10% higher than the national salary at best. This would mean probably cutting your salary in half, instead of talking about it. It would be interesting to see you face that reality. Words are cheap.
And besides if you think that's an economically feasible zero-sum calculus, I don't even know what to tell you.
But if you really think you earn too much, you can donate 40-50% of your salary and truly transform another person's life or make an astonishing impact in a charity of your choice. I hope you are being coherent with your words and are already doing this.
> I hope you are being coherent with your words and are already doing this.
How do you feel about people who say to protestors, "if you don't like it here, move"?
You're peddling the same logical fallacy that conservative billionaires have convinced the lower-middle class of for a century.
OP proposes a trade: their high salary for a society that prioritizes the wellbeing of everyone over the wellbeing of the luckiest few. In response, you suggest that OP should give away half their salary to another individual, and they've solved their problem.
The fallacy here is that you assume assume OP's goal is to be purely selfless; that is not the case. OP very selfishly wants to live in a healthier, more sustainable society than they currently do. In response, you disingenuously suggest that they take all of the negatives of their the trade with none of the positives.
Hopefully you see why that's not helpful to anyone.
This is very well put, you said it better than I ever have myself.
One thing I'd add is that, even if I were able to give away enough of my income to make a difference in my community, everyone in the community would benefit, but I would be the only one paying for it. I find this intensely unfair and distasteful.
This is similar to how I felt during the height of the bay area mask mandates when most people were masked and one or two families were not. Those folks were reaping all the benefits of widespread vaccinations and masking, yet bearing none of the burden. I despised those people probably more than was healthy.
> even in the wealthiest countries, average programmer salaries are about 10% higher than the national salary at best
I'm not sure 'even' is the right word here. The gap between developer and median salaries goes down the richer the country is. e.g. in many Eastern European countries the average salary for a software developer can be up to 2x or more higher than the national average.
I'd rather live in a place where everyone is comfortable than a place where only people like me are, even if I'd be somewhat wealthy.