> Read the article. It's about people that will retire.
Yes, and the point that everyone is trying to explain to you, which you refuse to acknowledge, is that in general, software developers in the US are doing fine. They don't need to "grind all the leetcode" and work for a BigCo. It's a choice not a financial mandate. Software developers, even outside of BigCos, are in the upper income brackets in the US.
I'm not saying that everyone in the US is doing fine as far as retirement is concerned, but the idea that software developers have to work for BigCos is absurd. I've never worked for a BigCo, and I'm doing fine.
Well now you're moving the goalpost. Your original comment mentioned hundreds of millions of Americans so it can't be only about software developers. That's why the focus changed to everyone.
Anyways, yes you have the choice of not working on big corps. My point is that it's not a real choice unless you want to accept all of the consequences of leaving all that money on the table. You have to accept the risk that you might be a few emergencies away from bankruptcy.
> yes you have the choice of not working on big corps.
Finally admitting the truth.
> You have to accept the risk that you might be a few emergencies away from bankruptcy.
Working for a BigCo doesn't magically protect you from emergencies. Accumulating $millions might protect you, but you don't just walk in the door of a BigCo and pick up your treasure chest. You have to work there for many years. In the meantime, you're subject to the same risks as everyone else. For example, lot of BigCos have been doing layoffs recently, which would put a big dent in the "for many years" plan. Also, if you suffer some kind of disability that prevents you from continuing to work, then you're screwed regardless.
Anyway, what makes you think you would be BigCo material? Not everyone is. The number of jobs is limited, and the competition is fierce. You might be able to get in the door by grinding leetcode, but once you're in the door you still need to make management happy in order to keep your job and win pay raises. The grind doesn't end.
God the amount of unnecessary hostility coming from you is absurd. From my original comment:
> So I agree with some other comments here. No it's not really a choice.
From the very beginning I said it's not really a choice, but I always acknowledged it. Whatever, your pedantry wins.
> Anyway, what makes you think you would be BigCo material?
I can't really know since I'm automatically excluded from it simply because of I don't live there (and I would never work with a visa, having a corporation ruling over my life). But it's very possible I wouldn't make the cut, or if I did I'd likely be another one writing blog posts like this one - assuming reality is how they portray it.
Technically I know I can hold my own, but that's not really what work is all about in my experience (barring few exceptions). Connections, ivy leagues, kissing ass, leetcode and other aspects that shouldn't matter are valued more than actually getting shit done.
But I'd sure as hell try because even though it's not a guarantee of protection, it's as close as we can get to it in a capitalist society. Money is, unfortunately, crucial.
Yes, and the point that everyone is trying to explain to you, which you refuse to acknowledge, is that in general, software developers in the US are doing fine. They don't need to "grind all the leetcode" and work for a BigCo. It's a choice not a financial mandate. Software developers, even outside of BigCos, are in the upper income brackets in the US.
I'm not saying that everyone in the US is doing fine as far as retirement is concerned, but the idea that software developers have to work for BigCos is absurd. I've never worked for a BigCo, and I'm doing fine.