True, but the total compensation here is at or above 250K annually. Most places in the US won't break 100K with 2 years of experience, and the cost of living is less than 2.5x as much. In other words, you still come out well ahead.

Maybe. But checkout Austin cost of living https://www.nerdwallet.com/cost-of-living-calculator/compare... and stack overflow careers https://stackoverflow.com/jobs?sort=i&l=Austin%2C+TX%2C+Unit....

That's essentially a parallel move if you consider nerdwallet doesn't consider local tax rates (very high in SFO vs 0% in Texas).

Again though, I don't know anyone 2 years in making 134K (the Austin-equivalent of 250K in SF) in Austin. I know more than one person 2 years in making that much in SF.

And you're also ignoring that CoL calculators bias against high CoL areas in a few important ways.

When I had 2 years exp, I was offered 125k at a company in Austin. Not 134k, but I imagine that figure isn’t impossible

At my BigCo, I am working maybe slightly more than 40 hours/week on average, and mainly due to unfortunate circumstances. Otherwise it’s pretty relaxed - I did mostly 5-6 hour days last week for example, and that includes meetings where I had to take company shuttles to get around to a different building.

Also for comp, keep in mind that he is getting that sort of comp with two years of experience - I have met people with even less experience getting similar numbers (I know one with less experience with non-technical degree making even more). If you have the right experience/background, you can get such compensation. Just imagine what the comp is like when these people get experience under their belt at the big companies.

According to that site, I'd need to make over $200k to meet my same standard of living, but I still think someone with two years experience can't come close to my knowledge of software development. There are inherent limitations. Of course if the job is to write code without any comment about the big picture and without complaint about hours, then maybe it is competitive. And that signing bonus? That just doesn't translate to the Midwest at all.

We just bought a 5 bedroom, 3-1/2 bathroom house with a nice size separate office in the northern suburbs of Atlanta with about 2800 square feet. Brand new build for $335,000 with all of the niceties. I've looked on Zillow, the same square footage, much older home, would be around 2-4 million at least in San Francisco.

Yup, this is the major difference. The COL numbers can be explained away, but if you want space now and a retirement later then you can get by with much less work outside SF.

In Chicago, it's fairly common to take a regional 50 to 75 minute train ride into the city from a distant suburb. Is there anything like that for Silicon Valley? Can you get an hour away by train and lower housing costs?

I can only speak for Atlanta, but the state of public transportation is abysmal from the burbs. True the train system is great to get to certain parts of Atlanta - and I use the park and ride any time I'm going to the airport or going downtown, but people in the burbs fight tooth and nail against an easy transfer system that will allow "them" to come up here.

And don't let me get started ranting about why the majority of white collar workers even need to come in to work as often as we do just for appearances.

Sure. Live in the Eaat Bay and BART in.

How about that. Clean 1br for around $1500/month and 10 minutes from BART station. That's pricey, but workable.

That's actually cheap, depending on the BART station (not all are created equal), the size of the place, whether it's gated, and whether you mean 10 minutes walking or driving.

All else being equal 32 years experience will count against, you though --- and this is quite rational...

These companies want to hire for trajectory. If someone's gotten to a great level of skills 2 years out of university, that says good things about where they'll be in 5 or 10 years.

By your logic, all they say is "in 5 or 10 years you'll be a has-been".

Don't worry their tune will change when they are the one turning 40.

> And there are some other downsides, you work very long hours in a company of 70%+ men

Why is it a downside for someone who has no bias against men? Would you call a downside working for example as a registered nurse just because there are too many women?

Or working in a coal mine with over 90% men?

Is working in a company with 70%+ men really a bad thing, or are you just leaning on existing cultural biases?

Having a work culture that matches societal norms is just a healthy practice. It makes us all better people.

Whoa...such bias. Like working in a company of 70%+ males is a bad thing. Stop this madness please. The americans are known for working hard that's not a mystery.