But no one is going to pay $330k to a 17 year old with no experience

Well, they did, right? So that doesn't seem true.

This is the usual salary vs. contractor thing.

You can almost always make more as a contractor because you're shifting risk from the company onto your LLC. They pay for a la carte results instead of paying for an employee who could hypothetically deliver results.

They did because he found a niche where you get paid for results, and there's no pre-vetting.

There's basically no job like this. Any form of pre-vetting, even just a face-to-face, would have excluded him.

By "no one" crapbone meant no single employer. And no single employer paid Santiago the money. It was paid by a group of companies each paying bounties for different bugs.

And a pretty good income for 13/14 year old

The person in the article started at 16 and is now 19.

Even so, it's an amazingly good income for a teenager. Live with your parents, and you're a millionaire before you're 20. Live anywhere outside Silicon Valley, and it's still a fantastic income for anyone.

330K USD in San Francisco is much, much less than 300K USD in Buenos Aires

People don't even conceive the difference, in Buenos Aires you can rent a great house in a great neighborhood for 800 USD per month, in San Fran you get a shared room where other 3 people live for that much -IF even that-. In SF you spend at least 5 dollars going anywhere and going back using public transport, in Buenos aires $2 is more than enough to go the the opposite side of the city and back.

I know it is that way, but I don't understand it. It always seems to me like it just indicates that the exchange rate is wrong: clearly I can buy more stuff if I convert my money to pesos and spend them there, so the peso is just worth less than the amount we get per euro.

Could someone recommend some a website or blog post that explains this? (Or is it a simple enough explanation to fit in an HN comment without going hugely off topic?)

It's related to Purchasing Power Parity [1] and a good example of that is the Big Mac Index [2]. Basically, even if you adjust for exchange rate, the same amount of currency can buy 2 apples in one country and 4 in another. This should not be possible in a globalized market because of the Law Of One Price [3]. However, that only really applies in the long term, for buyers with perfect information (i.e. full knowledge of all price/quantity options), and for goods that are tradable. Land is not tradable internationally. You can't just move 1000 sq ft. from Argentina to US. Same with labor e.g. people who speak a specific language or perform a specific skill. Add to that local taxes, transportation, and energy costs and you can see why the same apple costs more in a different place.

Gas stations next to each other but divided by a state line in the US have different prices. Taco Bell sells the same burrito for different prices. The same factors apply internationally too, nothing to do with exchange rate.

Hope this was as ELI5 as necessary for HN-level discussion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Mac_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_one_price

> Gas stations next to each other but divided by a state line in the US have different prices

Hell, gas stations divided by a street have different prices. In one case I saw, the one you could see from the freeway was +$0.50 per gallon compared to the one you couldn't see from the freeway.

Interestingly enough, I have seen gas stations very close to each other with very different prices. This was close to an airport so I assume the idea is to rip off tourists who don't have time to search for cheapest fuel before returning the rented cars. At least that was the only explanation I could find that didn't involve conspiracy theories (Catania, Sicily, Italy).

So why haven't you done that, one of the times in the past you've thought this?

All the reasons you haven't are why everyone else doesn't either, so that's why it's the proper exchange rate.

What makes you attribute that to exchange rate when you can do the same thing with different parts of the US? $800 for a nice house in a nice part of town isn't that far off from prices where I live (Cleveland).

In the case of housing and transport, it's easy to see why prices can be very different in different parts of the world: cheaper housing basically just means that not as many people (relative to the number of houses available) are willing and able to spend a lot of money to live in that location; transport prices probably differ for a bunch of reasons, but the main point is that there's no reason they should converge, as transport within city X is not a possible substitute for transport within city y.

For other goods, you should be surprised if the price discrepancy is one that you really could exploit for significant profit (after accounting for shipping, import/export restrictions and taxes, and so on) -- but otherwise, I don't think it's a very strange phenomenon. Prices will always be set somewhere in the overlapping region between the cost of production (and distribution, and taxes, minus any subsidies, etc.) and the amount that customers are willing and able to pay. Both of those amounts can vary pretty dramatically from place to place.

Rental housing is a market and just like other markets it can be modelled using the economics described by the demand curve.

The demand curve maps the relationship between supply, demand and price.

It says that for high demand and low supply the price is high, for low demand and high supply the price is low and over time supply, demand and price will find an equilibrium.

So if you consider the housing market, on the supply side you are looking at a constrained resource (i.e. it is constrained by the land available to build).

The demand side will be driven by the numbers of people looking to rent and that will be driven by many other factors like work prospects, quality of life, crime rates etc etc.

So for places like SF there will be great demand for that limited housing which means the price (i.e. the rent) goes up.

you could probably still make that money working remotely with a sfba company tho

True, but consider that 70% of rentals in SF are rent controlled. It takes a couple emails from FB groups or Craigslist to find a good living situation for way below market rate.

Case in point: my friend that worked at Waymo paid $900/mo for a room in a house in Lower Haight...

900$/mo isn't necessarily below market rate. I lived by central park in manhattan for $1000/month, and I slept on the loft above my clotheshangers because it was basically a closet.

This is for sure below market...it’s been rent controlled for almost 10 years. Huge room in central Lower Haight. That place should go for at least $5500 between 3 people in a 3 bed/2ba.

From some Googling, seems like a typical software developer salary in Buenos Aires is around $10K USD/year. So this is dramatically more, ~30x that.

But you also have the freedom to live in lower cost of living areas, making the money go further.

SFBA income tax, state and federal, would leave about 55% of that, then, so, as usual, California is expensive.

Income taxes are more like 30% of that. It’s expensive, but not that expensive. Unless you’re counting rent in that, but even then I think half is pushing it.

Actually 39.04% according to this website. Still, 30% is closer to correct than 55%.

https://smartasset.com/taxes/income-taxes

$330k per annum?