No one is denying a baseline. Its just _much_ lower than most think, and certainly doesn't include anyone who is a software engineer.

I think the point is about working out when you have enough.

No matter how much you have, there is always the opportunity to be envious of others who have more. Acquiring more will not stop the envy or satiate that need.

But you can decide that you have enough right now. Or you can set a goal and say "that is enough for me". That goal might be really high, or it might be really simple, that doesn't matter. The part that matters is deciding that you have enough at some point.

I've been homeless, and having a warm safe place to sleep was enough. Now my sights are somewhat higher, but comparing myself to a friend who exited a few years ago is a constant source of misery. I have to keep reminding myself that I have enough at the moment, and to be grateful and enjoy what I have.

I think the baseline becomes irrelevant at around 50k, maybe up to 100k-150k in some areas, but in those areas it's not hard to make 150k as a software engineer.

I make 75k and save almost half my income while having all the material items that I want. Granted I don't want a lot, but I actually believe quite strongly that not having that constant desire for more and nicer material items makes me much happier than those who are stuck in that cycle.

Not to sound douchy but I think that kind of materialism that is so extremely common across all levels of society seems to me like such an enormous and obvious problem that most people fall into for some reason regardless of how smart they are, and they would almost all be significantly happier just not caring about such sh*t. It's a crutch and prevents people from finding real meaning and happiness and for most it lasts their whole life or at least until they are too old to change.

I know this isn't a novel idea, any slightly rebellious teenager can and will point out the obvious harm of this kind of mindset, but that only makes people disregard it even more. It's such an obvious problem, and most people even agree when you point it out, but then those same people live out the rest of their lives without doing anything about it.

I blame social pressure and peoples tendency to not wander to far from the norm, combined with some conditioning and of course the addiction-mimicking dopamine effects

You're completely correct, diminishing returns of income on happiness is well established, and I would be surprised if people here were not aware.

This community skews very hard towards high earners though, so people here probably view that as something that goes without saying, but that isn't within the purview of this particular discussion about the rat race in tech.

Among this community, it's probably true that a significant raise wouldn't significantly change their day to day lives, although obviously that is less and less true as their baseline income goes down.

Diminishing returns of absolute income on happiness, or of income relative to some cohort?

I think 350k is a safe "lower end" baseline from which to build a rainy day fund, though.

Is this a joke? $350k annual income puts you in the top 1% of earners in the US. Surely you don't believe less than 1% of people in the US can live comfortably and have a safety net, do you?

Going through the realization right now that I need to go “FANG” or get out of the Bay Area right now. Just got engaged and I have been looking at costs. I thought I could make a small family work here on $170k. That’s dead wrong. I would need at least $300k to make a family of 4 comfortable here. My wife and I both want her to stay at home and focus on the kids and she makes non tech money anyway. Even at this amount we are looking at a an uninspiring life thats most about paying interest on a way too expensive house and not having enough for retirement or sending the kids to college.

Startups in tech aren’t paying close to family raising salaries in the Bay. FANG does albeit reliant on stock continuing to grow like it did last decade. I am personally studying math/algos/leetcode and getting good at interviews. Its sad because it takes up all of my free time that I could spend building. It sucks to make $170k and feel like you can’t make it somewhere.

I finally had a breakthrough with my fiance last night and we are talking about moving to Salt Lake City! My current job would allow me to go remote and there does seem to be a scene there. $170k is more than enough.

>That’s dead wrong. I would need at least $300k to make a family of 4 comfortable here.

The Bay Area has a combined population of over 7 million, with a mean household income of $137k. It sounds like you have unreasonable expectations if you need at least $300k to live comfortably.

https://sf.curbed.com/2019/2/25/18239828/report-middle-class...

https://smartasset.com/retirement/average-salary-in-san-fran...

https://www.sfgate.com/expensive-san-francisco/article/SF-ho...

A lot of these people got into the housing market before the explosion in prices over the last 15 years. Also, that stat also doesn't tell you if people on those incomes can afford their houses or how soon they can retire.

It sounds like you either don't live in the Bay Area or you make about what I make and haven't realized if you don't make $300k and your options aren't very pleasant.

I don't know if you came from an extremely privileged background, but I find it ridiculous that your minimum standard of a comfortable living starts at over double the median household income for that area.

I grew up in the Rust Belt in rural PA. Mean salary where I am from is about $22k. You either haven’t lived in the Bay Area or can’t do math if you think what I am saying is crazy. Anyway check this out https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/09/11/you...

My wife and I went through the exact same thing back in 2006 and I can tell you while fear of the unknown is real, it might have been the single best decision we ever made.

Also, Phoenix is pretty reasonable cost of living wise and they have a growing number of opportunities tech wise. June 15 - Oct 15 suck but you get used to it.

Thanks, I will check out Phoenix. Assuming you are a little older since you moved in 2006, do you feel like the top end of your career has been held back at all by not being in one of the major tech hubs? What does your role look like now.

Not at all. In fact there's quite a decent tech scene being built around ASU in Tempe; Amazon among others are there.

I was surprised to see that Amazon (Twitch) is in SLC as well. What sort of paycut would I be expecting. I think my current gig would probably make me go from $170-$150k if I went remote. I assume the top end wouldn't be what it is in the Bay Area but maintaining > $150k is reasonable with 10+ years of experience?

If you can find stable remote work that you enjoy that's surely something to consider. If you are flexible on where you can live you can really skew the relative compensation in your favor. I think for most situations you'll find the decrease in pay is more than compensated for by the decreased cost of living compared to the left coast.

San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA Metro Area:

https://censusreporter.org/profiles/31000US41860-san-francis...

Median household income: $108k

Owner-occupied dwellings: 55%

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/09/11/you... CNBC saying you need $350k a year for a middle class life in SF and NYC.

Now do people 25-35 that are buying in todays market. That might take you longer than 30 seconds though.

> Startups in tech aren’t paying close to family raising salaries in the Bay.

They are mostly hiring fresh grads anyway, who won't be raising a family anytime soon, so it's not a huge problem for them.

I'm including series D companies under the term startup. I agree with you about early stage companies. Jobs at non FANG that don't IPO are not that sustainable imo.

It's helpful to remember that the Bay Area is extremely expensive, and even more helpful to remember that some people have large families.

I could pretty comfortably raise a family of 6 on $100K in a midwestern city, or a family of 6 on $80K in the rural midwest/south. Without sufficient retirement savings, mind you, and my safety net would be non-exisent. I'd need at least another $30K-$50K on those numbers to build a strong safety net (remember, it's a safety net for 2 parents + 4 kids, not for one person...).

Doing the same in SFBA would probably require at least $250K. Maybe more.

> Surely you don't believe less than 1% of people in the US can live comfortably and have a safety net, do you?

The number is larger than 1%, but probably still smaller than you think.

The average American definitely doesn't have a sufficient safety net. IME, the average American raising more than 1 or 2 kids almost certainly doesn't have a sufficient safety net.

So, no, you don't need to be in the top 1% of earners in the US to have a safety net. But if you have a large family, you probably have to be in the top 10% to live comfortably and have a safety net and retirement.

> Doing the same in SFBA would probably require at least $250K. Maybe more.

Why? Each child might consume, generously, an extra 5k of food and 2.5k of clothes and other inputs per year. This is an increment of $30k on top of housing. For housing, you could add one or at most two bedrooms for four children. This does substantially raise housing costs, but there are still places in Sunnyvale for $1M or just above that that have three bedrooms. They may not be the nicest houses, but they would do.

So, before you have kids, save your downpayment. On a 250k salary, this would take one to three years if you're thoughtful about it. Then buy the house and start popping out babies. Times will be tight if you need to pay for childcare, but that's a defined and short period of the childrens' lives. You're not going to be taking lavish vacations, but if you wanted those, you wouldn't have four kids anyway.

Cheap homes in the Bay Area have terrible schools. You’ll need to factor in private school if you go that route. That’s $25k per kid per year.

Or, be involved with your school board, and raise up the schools you can afford to send your kids to?

Ego seems to be at play here, a bit. No one wants to admit that they're in the same boat as the people sending their kids to "those schools," but they are. The numbers don't lie. Looking on the bright side: admissions look at class rank. An outstanding student at a mediocre school has better odds than a mediocre student at a "good" school.

... And your kids at those 10/10 greatschools schools will be stressed like hell and end up with crazy self worth issues.

There are plenty of houses listed near $1M on Zillow that have acceptable school districts. They aren't the best in the Bay, but I'm not a buyer on the premise that you need a 10/10 school for your child to have a good opportunity at success and happiness.

What exactly is a "terrible school"?

My elementary and middle schools were 4/10 and 5/10 on "Greatschools" in North Carolina.

In the Bay area?

Judging by this subthread, it's a school where people who 'merely' make 170k/year send their children to.

You really don't want to get your kids mixed up with that kind of hoi polloi. /snark

Sounds like the Bay Area is a horrible place to live.