No amount of money would make the stress of 3 jobs worth it to me. To constantly be letting down people around me would be depressing, don't care if I'm making 500k/yr.

A single Stripe E3 role (senior eng) can pay over $500k/yr.

How much of that $500K is liquid?

this is a $500K question

Looks like on average an L3 SWE at Stripe gets paid 215k stock, 218k stock, 34k bonus. So ~53% of pay is liquid (cash), the rest equity in a private company.

Source: https://www.levels.fyi/?compare=Stripe&track=Software%20Engi...

The equity vesting is a $$ amount though, not a number of shares, so it's less volatile than typical RSUs.

And that's why they're having layoffs today

They don't care about you. Don't make the error of caring about them.

It's not about caring about the employer, it's about living my own life. Your work life is most of what you do for several decades of life. I don't want to suffer, barely squeaking by, stressed and at the brink of being fired by multiple employers for decades. I make a fraction of what some people here make and I still make more than I need. Money beyond a certain amount doesn't make you happier, in fact I'm pretty convinced it makes it harder to be happy.

You may not believe it, but people are fickle. It’s that old Eddie Murphy bit about “What have you done for me lately”. Believe it or not, you have pleased and disappointed your company over and over, back and forth, based on things you did, and they only look at the last thing you did.

> It is far better to be a massive underperformer at three jobs than be a good employee at one

Can you explain this? Do you mean working three jobs at once?

Yes. Find three remote jobs. It is what I do.

You contribute to anti-remote work sentiment by doing this.

That's not their fault. If they're doing the job well enough at all 3, they've satisfied the requirements for employment. Who cares what others think about their "remote sentiment"?

> It is far better to be a massive underperformer

In what world do you read this and think "doing the job well enough at all 3"?

They are the same. You want to be a 30th percentile employee. Bad enough to do little work and never be trusted with anything important or with hard deadlines, but just good enough not to fire.

He is saying that if I am not getting fired, I am good enough to continue working there.

I am familiar enough with the concepts of OE.

There is a difference between being good and efficient enough to handle number roles, and the borderline scam of "get a remote job and try to stay under the radar and drag it out before they fire you".

I'm honestly not 100% sure which of those you are advocating for.

I'm just confused. Why can't people have second tech jobs?

Cashiers can have second jobs working in a different store. Factory workers can work in other factories (it's hard on your body but overall okay).

No one would similarly complain if an Google software engineer was also 'forced' to make ends meet by working in an Apple retail store.

Yes, it's hard on your body and mind to work more than 1 job, but if you need the money then what choice do you have?

Because they haven't been let go? They're paid for the time they're there, not the time they are not.

This smacks of "not their fault, they are just making an economically rational decision" justification to me.

If they signed a contract to the effect they would work exclusively for one company, their choice to lie is unethical. It might be profitable as well, but "not their fault because it's profitable and they can get away with it" shamelessness, writ large, is making everything worse.

> This smacks of "not their fault, they are just making an economically rational decision" justification to me.

This is exactly the point.

The if's don't matter because they weren't addressed. You can't assume that person is breaking contract law. You have no idea.

Or maybe intentionally screwing people (coworkers, your employer) over is an unethical thing to do even if we lean into the extreme credulity you profess here and say, "hey, we don't know if this poster signed one of those special 'FYI I will be screwing you over' contracts, it is not for us to make assumptions, we haven't reviewed the contract."

Couple of things:

Nobody owes their employer any more than the minimum that is guaranteed by the employment contract. Sucks, but that's life.

If you feel like the quality of your coworkers that give minimum effort is screwing you over, talk to your employer.

If an employer can be picky enough that they require you to only have them as your only employer, they would need to specify that in an employment contract (it's not enforceable, you have a right to privacy from your employer).

If you want to be "ethical" (ie, servile to your employer) to the detriment of your economic survival, that's fine. That's your choice. Everyone else is going to play the game to the rules.

In a tragedy of the commons, one should race to exploit the commons.

What makes you feel that way?

probably game theory

LOL, *you* are the only tragedy here. 3 jobs, i doubt you even have time for friends.

That’s so sad… do you see a bright future for the human race?

For some. Mostly those who beat others.

So you can burn out in 1/3 of the time.

You're screwing over your colleagues, not just your employer. We just fired someone like you.

I want to interview him just to confirm I'm correctly screening out people like this guy