Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> I don't care about the products we build for someone else (why should I?)

I mean, this obviously depends on the kind of product - is it some biotech to make someone's life better, or is it a gambling website tuned to suck the most out of whales? As engineers we're much better placed than most people to do something meaningful with our work, and sticking with a job where you don't see that value is a pity. But if you just don't care about building something for someone else... maybe you should change that? As you say, there's little choice in whether you have to do it (unless you win the lottery or something), why not make a goal out of it and get some enjoyment out.




> As you say, there's little choice in whether you have to do it (unless you win the lottery or something)

With some frugality and smart money management, you can retire in 5-10 years if you're on a dev salary.


Frugality is an understatement on that timeline. To retire in 10 years you're going to have to be able to live comfortably on something like 1/3rd of your take home pay.

No employer is going to pay you 3x what your nearest peer is willing to live on.


It's relatively easy for software devs to live comfortably on $50k and make $150k+.


Can confirm. Have done this for the last several years. Wife stopped working a few years back due to an injury (but no disability or other income for better or worse), so I've been the sole breadwinner the last few years. I've typically been bringing in between $150k and $220k (gross), and we've spent most of the last ... 7-8 years not doing or buying much. Min obligations each month are now around $3000/month (mortgage, utilities, food, insurance), so there's been a bunch of savings.

I can't retire and never have to work again, but I'm slowing down a bit, and spending more time not earning money (gym, reading, travel, etc).

On second though, if I absolutely needed to, we could probably 'retire' tomorrow, and do a bit more belt-tightening - savings/investments would last probably another 10-12 years without any major changes to lifestyle, then could collect social security. But that's... not something I want to do. I like doing most of what I'm doing, and am just being a bit choosier about what I do now.

EDIT: no kids, semi-rural southern US.

EDIT 2: Moderately high, but irregular, income from consulting/contract dev/tech work. Not W2.


$150k and $220k (gross) + semi-rural southern US. Impressive!


Selling time (hourly), I can't keep it up forever, and 10 years ago it was more like $100-$120k. I already see this year slowing down some, but it might be back to more like $120k, but on a part time effort, which will be nice in its own way. I was regularly putting in 50+ hours/week, and it's just not something I could maintain long term.


Maybe in the US. Maybe.

Here in the UK, after tax, $50K/yr doesn't even cover my mortgage, and I live in a house that over 100 years ago, according to the 1911 census, supported a family of 5 on a carriage drivers single income.

I earn a top 1% salary as a dev and retirement will still be 20-25 years away for me under ideal conditions - i.e. a 40% savings rate.


My condolences, outside the US is definitely harder. At least you can still invest in the S&P 500.


I'm guessing a bus driver in 1911 was kind of a high skill job, sort of like software development is now. How many people could drive a car back then, let alone a bus?


Carriage as in the horse drawn variety


Omnibus (i.e. carriage) driver.


What's a top 1% salary in the UK?


This will give you an idea.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/percentile-points-f...

In US terms somewhere around $240K USD, before tax.


Sounds like you have a really expensive lifestyle man.

Even most US devs don’t make $240k USD.


He said he's in the UK. So his net income is somewhere around 120k USD. It's big money, but not that much.


When I calculate the post-tax income for $240k USD in SF it comes out to $155k: https://smartasset.com/taxes/california-tax-calculator#SLKSX....

$120k is also an underestimate given that the top tax bracket in the UK is only 45%. If you apply that, you get $132k (Still an underestimate). $132k is roughly in the same ballpark as $155k.

It's not like the difference between the same income in the US and UK is 50%, and even if you were on $120k USD net that's the same as the median gross income of a SWE in the US.

I don't understand where "not that much" is coming from.


It's coming from housing prices in London and SF. Also energy prices in the UK the last few years grew considerably. I agree it's a lot of money, but given how much it costs to buy a house or an apartment in London and SF I'd say it's not that much if you want to retire early. I used London and SF in these examples because it's hard to find jobs with that much compensation outside them. And this is all without considering kids. You'll probably want them to have a good education and not struggle all their life from student loan debt so you better save some of your income for them.


All I hear is "I earn a 1% income and want to live a 1% lifestyle". Yes, if that is what you do with your income of course it's "not that much".

Nice house in London/SF = $$$

Kids = $$$

"good education" (I.e. nice schools) = $$$

No student debt for your kids = $$$

Retire early = $$$

This seems like a classic "3 options, pick 2" kind of scenario. You can never have it all at the max level (Except maybe if you're a billionaire).


It's amusing to watch you bash around numbers and percentages and yet not understand cost of living differences especially with the energy crisis currently in the UK


I don't get what you mean. SF CoL is definitely higher than UK CoL (Even London).

At that kind of income CoL also doesn't mean that much unless your lifestyle matches your income (I.e. lifestyle inflation). The energy crisis should not significantly affect people with top 1% income.


If they have their mortgage already paid off, yes, very much so.


> To retire in 10 years you're going to have to be able to live comfortably on something like 1/3rd of your take home pay.

That's very easy if you don't have kids - just don't get on a hedonic threadmill (and, if you're already on it, start gradually getting off). I'm not a parent myself, so won't speak about the "with kids" situation.


Rent isnt a "hedonic treadmill". Neither is food or energy. These are the 3 areas seeing the most inflation right now. Rents in London are up 20% in a year, food almost the same, and energy ...well, everyone knows what has happened to energy.

The average Londoner is paying almost 40% of their take home pay on rent, so saving 2/3rds is already impossible.

Even as one of the lucky ones earning a top 1% salary, I _still_ pay 40% of my take home pay on a mortgage with a 33 year mortgage term!

Your idea of getting off the treadmill must be living in the countryside and taking a 80% pay cut, I suppose?

Before coming to London I was doing an equally demanding role on 20% of my current pay.

Or how about raising a family in a 1 bedroom flat? - i see loads of people doing that these days. My old neighbours both had full time well paid jobs and were still in a 1 bed with a newborn.

There's no real escape. The economy is a dog, and we are all underpaid.


Wife is from UK, but we're in the US now. She's got some friends/family there, and we keep up with some news/sports/TV from the UK regularly. Have watched some recent reports about how dire some things have gotten over the last year or two. Things are 'bad' all over, but the UK seems to have been hit doubly/triply hard compared to some neighbors, esp with energy prices. Unsure how much brexit is a root cause, but between brexit/covid/ukraine, UK seems to be in a bad spot. Sorry you're dealing with so much that's beyond your control. I completely get this is well beyond "don't eat out as much" territory.


The problem isn’t as much the pay - I’d pay increases then so will rent (or housing costs)

The problem in the U.K and especially london is that demand for housing outstrips supply. This denies opportunities to most of the country as the only way for young green people to live in london is to live rent free with parents who paid two years worth of wages for a 3 bed semi 40 years ago, for a house now 10 times wage


Yeah. London is great when young and going out to do things all the time, sucks later on though. In London I definitely felt like I was living paycheck to paycheck, but moving to a European city with better services (but probably less culture), rent for our 3br flat in the city center was cheaper than our 1 bed in zone 6 - and taxes are much lower.

Now 9% of my takehome goes on rent, and I have no idea how I could ever go back to the UK. The energy bills alone are mind boggling, and every time I visit it just feels like it slips further and further behind the times.


Where did you move? Just curious.


You do have to live somewhere with a housing policy that doesn't suck. But that's doable. Believe it or not it's possible to find jobs that aren't in London that pay more than 20% of a London salary. (If you don't want to deal with moving internationally, often the easiest way is a remote job for a company based in London). UK planning laws are awful and are crippling the country. That's a fact about UK politics, not a law of nature.


> There's no real escape.

I agree. Living in London is for people who don't mind to work till they're old. I lived there for nearly a year and concluded that, while it's obviously an awesome city, it's not worth spending an extra decade (or more) working just to pay off mortgage to live there. I chose to live in an less awesome city, and thus am already retired at 42 years old.


You can rewrite as:

The average ${global_alpha_city_dweller} is paying almost 40% of their take home pay on rent

There is nothing particular about London in this context. What about New York City or Sydney or Hongkong or Singapore? Pretty much the same. (Tokyo is an odd duck.)

Also, this:

    Even as one of the lucky ones earning a top 1% salary, I _still_ pay 40% of my take home pay on a mortgage
Frankly, you overborrowed. It's too much.


The alternative to "overborrowing" was paying the same amount, or more for a similar property, in rent, or for both me and my partner to commute in from much further out. The latter would still not comd off any better due to the ludicrous cost of public commuter transport.


This means delaying starting a family, and those previous years 10 years is vital for fertility as well, which discriminates against women.


men making a choice to save money and retire after a short career necessarily would create employment opportunities for women


Depends on where you are and where you work. FAANG devs in a big city, sure, but not a dev working on payroll software in Podunkus, Idaho.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: