Never getting a raise because that's not built into their budget and there's not a system around it. Having to beg for vacation time and getting maybe a week a year. And after a few years or a few ventures, your friends at big corps are already starting to talk about retirement and pensions, and you realize that's an extra million you gave up. But hey, you can wear shorts!
I work for fortune 300 non tech company (despite their NASDAQ listing). Our pension program has been frozen - no new employees can join and years of service no longer accrue additional benefit. There has not been a 401k match in four years, the continuing education program ended with the merger 10 years ago. And the healthcare is marginally better than Obamacare. And raises. Last year they were 0.75%.
I'm guessing when most people [on HN] are comparing big companies to startups they're thinking of tech companies. What you describe may not be unusual for large non-tech companies - but it's pretty horrible compared to large tech ones.
If it's feasible you may want to consider looking for a new job. [And FWIW some great advice I got when starting out as a developer was never work where software is a cost-center].
This cost-center point is key. I work for one of the big international electronics corps as an enterprise web dev, but they have no interest in the quality of our work. They don't understand it, they have no belief in codebase maintainability (everything is new development or bugfix, basically as soon as an app is written it becomes frozen legacy code that will sit for 5+ years until a rewrite is finally budgeted).
A lot of the superiors they hire really affect the architectural policies of the company. For example, we can use Spring & jQuery but little else. Now they are trying to write apps with heavier front-end & getting into trouble cuz its a mess of jQuery callbacks with no real js framework. Why? The main architect has never heard of React, Angular, backbone, etc. (not to mention the fact that I'm one of like 2 devs who can actually write js, and unfortunately the other does not possess the equally rare skill: "uses proper design patterns"). You'd think I was joking until you met a bunch of corporate consultant programmers.
Basically, these companies try to boil web development into an old-school "IT" process but the level of intellect is astonishingly low. I've been lookin for a new gig at a tech company for quite a while but it was tough to make a change cuz this is my first gig out of grad school, had to prove myself a bit & build resume.
The only relief is that the corp "cost-center" IT kindof job I have is such a mess that its a good place to study & relax, pace of work is veeeeery slow.
> I've been lookin for a new gig at a tech company for quite a while but it was tough to make a change cuz this is my first gig out of grad school, had to prove myself a bit & build resume.
Why not try to apply for some jobs now? You don't know how good your resume is until you try it
heh thanks for the words of encouragement. i'm going to try now, yes. but basically.... to be fair i'm getting paid a pretty good wage so i really just need some experience to avoid looking like a dabbler. I'm looking at senior level positions now & they seem to want to see that you're really committed to a certain type of code.
I went from research Matlab / dabbling in C# at a dayjob, to RoR, to javascript, to now pretty hardcore backend Java (EE, Spring, high concurrency for last 2 yrs), trying to move into Clojure a bit more. Most well-funded companies don't seem to like polyglots from what I can tell... But yeah I will be looking for the ones that do, plus I am studying C++ to make a bit of a more lateral move into audio digital signal processing / data-mining / machine learning.
I don't know... companies tell me I'm too expensive for the level of experience I have, yet all the high-paid seniors I work with are awful so I don't want to lower my salary expectations unless I can find a company thats actually worth sacrificing for.
I work at a startup and I am 25. I have saved up some money and seriously considering retirement by the time I am 30.
Not that I have a lot of money saved up. I just have a couple of thousand bucks. Nothing fancy. But to me it is a seed money to try out new things, at an age where making huge mistakes wouldn't result in me being 70 and penniless. There will still be enough time to return back to IT once (if) I fail miserably. And it will also be an extended break in the worst case.
I want to explore the world, jobs, hobbies, people. I have realized the 8 hours everyday I spend on my desk is the best time to be out and about. The sunshine is literally gone by the time I get off work. If this is what hundreds of years of progress and planning has led to, I think we have failed.
So yes, I support people who think about retiring early, and actually living their lives when they are still young. If youth is the best time of one's life, it shouldn't be wasted on the desk.
I agree. I'll only retire when my body gives out. I decided what kind of old man I want to be and I won't be one of those hunched and shriveled guys. I intend on making it to 140. People who retire die.
Ahh, to be 25 and single again. Trust me by the time you're 35 and have kids you'll have a different sense of what's important. Your kids will be your sunshine but also your responsibility. Early retirement, living on a couple thousand dollars a year, will seem like the dumbest idea ever.
>Ahh, to be 25 and single again. Trust me by the time you're 35 and have kids you'll have a different sense of what's important. Your kids will be your sunshine but also your responsibility. Early retirement, living on a couple thousand dollars a year, will seem like the dumbest idea ever.
That's a choice that a 25 year old need not make.
For those of us who have hit or are even beyond 35, and chose not to have kids, things look very different. Particularly if you work in North American IT, you're able to funnel all of that extra disposable income into things like early retirement, as well as improving your day-to-day quality of life (that could be vacations, gadgets, whatever you'd like...).
Yes, don't get me wrong, I think it's great to have early retirement as a goal, and maybe even try it out for a while (it was my goal from an early age and I tried it out for three years in my late 20's / early 30's). It's excellent motivation to save money when you're starting out.
And I was in the same boat; when backpacking through Thailand I thought, "Thailand is cheap, I'll just raise a family here". Well sure, for backpackers it's easy to live on 3K per year. But with a couple kids, you'll likely want a safe car (stupidly expensive there), decent schools (again), something nicer than a backpacker hostel, etc. Heck, flights home to visit family will run close to 10K per year alone.
Retiring at 30 = being a boring person for your 40s, 50s, etc.
I think a better situation is to be financially secure by your 30s (be completely out of debt, pay off a mortgage, have money for children, etc.) and then have the ability to start companies or work freelance for the rest of your life rather than being a slave to the 9-to-5 grind.
I do like the concept of getting rich slowly and learning slowly. I would love to peruse multiple degrees (I already have two) just out of the love of learning and also meeting other lovers of knowledge.
I think you simply value the work environment much more than anyone that "retires" at 30, much similar to people that continue to work after winning a large lottery. And that's ok. For most people that want extremely early retirement, though, it is time to spend with family: Time to learn: time to experience. Not a lot of people acheive this, but that's the dream.
My wife and I might retire in our mid-30s, in the US but not in an expensive area, and be completely comfortable with well under $1 million in assets. Because we live a laid back, low cost lifestyle -- with the house paid off (as of this week) our burn rate is dropping to under $20k per year.
You might need considerably more money to maintain your desired lifestyle. There's nothing wrong with that -- but recognize that not everyone is you.
raise the kids. Make indie games, with the understanding that it doesn't matter if they never make significant revenue. Write. Read. Study. The key point here is really "not needing to earn more money" rather than "not doing anything".
> If this is what hundreds of years of progress and planning has led to, I think we have failed.
You're saying this after complaining spending eight hours a day (presumably five days a week) at your desk. That leaves far more leisure time than most [working class] people had "hundreds of years" ago.
While this comparison is true for 100-200 year ago industrial jobs, and farming in subsistence conditions, the original hunter gatherers had plenty of free time, and that's what we're evolved for.
Main problem is, there's to many of us for hunting and gathering to be sustainable...
He is 25, and he plans to retire at 30, in 5 years he may save another couple thousands more.
Let's put on the lower part of the "couple" spectrum and say he have 200.000, in 5 years he will have 400.000 USD. This money is enough to retire early with the 4% rule http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/05/29/how-much-do-i-need...
Maybe you are assuming that he want to live in the states, with the interest of this money he could live easily in Spain, Thailand, Argentina, etc...
It can be [1]. Instead of saving 10-15% of your income, suppose you cut your expenses drastically and started saving 80% of your income. The math works out that you will be financially independent within 5-7 years and no longer have a requirement to work for money.
