However, he kept trying again before job hunting or returning to big tech. This tells me the monetary factor was smaller than something else.
You mention the underrated educational experience in your last sentence, but there's so much more than that. He was probably never worried about his autonomy, being laid off, working with (or for) people he didn't want to work with, corporate politics, or anything else corporate bureaucracy introduces. This likely freed up his brain to be more creative and actually be used to 100% of its capacity.
I believe the obsession with TC in tech is highly problematic and there are a lot of talented folks optimizing for promotions via internal politics, rather than solving real problems for real people.
I also wish healthcare wasn't tied to employment, but that's a post for another time.
I was paying <~$300/mo on that plan. I now pay over $700 on a directly-acquired plan. So that's problem one.
The bigger problem, IMHO, is that quitting means changing your insurance, which isn't just a financial change. It can also end up requiring you to change medical providers, which is no small deal!
This adds massive friction and stress to the act of quitting/changing jobs, a major source of leverage on the employer's side.
And that's to say nothing of the fact that it's effectively an overly burdensome tax on new entrepreneurs. It's a reinforcement of the concept, "you have to have money to make money".
JMHO on the topic; for reference, I'm a new entrepreneur very early in the process. I'm just lucky enough to be able to risk the attempt.
This is relatively small pickles. Your employer paying a few hundred, maybe a thousand dollars on your behalf if you are old, per month. You can buy the same on healthcare.gov
They only things that I expect to change are total premium, deductible, out of pocket expense, copays, and network. Otherwise, the coverage itself is dictated by the same law.
I can see right now that the BCBS gold HSA premium from my employer (total, including employer portion) is the same as the BCBS gold HSA available on healthcare.gov.
I used a hospital for a new baby birth. Because my plan was on-market, the provider doing delievery didn't accept it (Despite it being on the in-network list). So I got to be stuck with a ~13k bill. Was super cool.
This was back ~8 years ago, so perhaps it's all been sorted.. but I have such a bitter taste in my mouth after having to pay this out of pocket, I won't touch on-market plans with a 100 foot pole.
- get health insurance from your employer
- get covered by insurance of your spouse
- buy insurance from your own pocket
- don't buy insurance and risk loosing a lot of money in case of health emergency
It is expensive, but not insanely so. Family of four, living in Oregon, non-smoking, our premium is ~$1k/month. Granted it’s a high deductible ($12k), but it protects us from the kind of catastrophic emergency that could wipe out our savings. We are fortunate to not have expensive, ongoing conditions.
Granted, $12k/year is a lot for less affluent families, but government subsidies can bring the premium down considerably if your income is low enough.
And while the coverage is far inferior to my old FAANG luxury health plans, it still works well enough.
Family of two, living in the EU, non-smoking, our premium is ~€0/month. Granted it's a €0 deductible, but it protects us from the kind of catastrophic emergency that could wipe out our savings.
That being said, the average professor salary in Germany is around 84,000 Euro, so it's closer to $560 a month.
You also ignore that after the high deductible is paid in the US you're still paying co-insurance and co-pays. (I love how US health insurers describe these as "your contribution" to your healthcare costs, as if you weren't already paying premiums and deductibles, but the magical insurance fairy is...).
Now you can argue that health care costs less on a per basis, or even per productive taxpayer basis, but that's a different matter. Maybe the US could recreate your healthcare COST system, but it doesn't have to also take on your payment system (tax instead of direct)
Also, turns out there is a deductible if you don't want to pay a fortune for self-insurance.
Well, at least there is in Germany. And the premium ends up being ~$1k/month.
US health insurance is crappy in many ways, but EU health insurance isn't a magic fairy unicorn either.
In the next-door Czech Republic, it's even mandatory to buy health insurance if you're unemployed, unless you go and register with the 'Ministry of Labour' (which requires you to spend inordinate amounts of time jumping through insane bureaucratic hoops, and is ultimately time limited). Consider for a moment the effect of these laws on people with mental health issues, the homeless, and itinerant minorities like the Roma.
Had a tough year out on the streets, but now getting back up on your feet? Congratulations, here's your back-debt for the 'public' health insurance you failed to purchase, you criminal. Want to take a few months off between jobs? Gotta go down, in person, to your local health insurance office to purchase yourself some public health insurance. Want to start a new business, but haven't made a profit yet? No worries, here's your 'minimum rate' of mandatory health insurance - prepare to shell out several thousand euros a year and spend time every quarter filing paperwork with the government health insurance bureau.
There are excellent public health care systems out there (e.g. Australia, and probably the Nordic countries) but much of continental Europe has truly terrible ones. And that's before you even discuss the difficulty of securing a doctor, or the actual quality of medical care received.
What makes the issue so terribly entrenched, apart from our peculiar association between health insurance and employment, is how utterly opaque everything about healthcare costs are. Both systemically, in that it’s much more difficult to craft policy, as well as practically, in that for many (most?) individuals it can be impossible to know in advance how much any given course of treatment might cost, and no opportunities for “shopping around” or price comparisons.
For most Americans, and companies, I think our healthcare system is essentially a very short-sighted and inefficient tax. For others—people in situations such as mine, and very probably for a meaningful portion of the ~30M-50M Americans still uninsured/underinsured—it’s an unreasonably high burden that accounts for so much more than just the money spent, and a constant specter clouding their lives in uncertainty and risks. For the self-employed and entrepreneurs, it’s a crucial consideration that defies simple calculations, and just by the averages will have prevented a significant number of potential endeavors from ever leaving the initial planning stage and/or denied startups access to otherwise valuable talent. We should be pursuing bigger picture policies, and while I’m not arguing that the federal government is a good answer to everything, it’s clearly the answer to this kind of management of universal needs with clear societal benefits.
Sorry for the lengthy comment, my hamster brain was apparently restless. For anyone who did, thanks for taking the time to read.
It’s a tragedy that universal healthcare and tougher regulation against unhealthy food is still not achieved.
If you don’t mind me asking, what advice would you share to deal with such diagnosis and making it through?
In other words, buy it on the market, like the GP said.
With ACA subsidies, you'll never have to pay more than 8.5% of your income in premiums for a mid-range plan. And that's in the worst case -- it'll typically be less (if you make less, you'll qualify for larger subsidies or free healthcare, and if you make more, the proportional cost of insurance premiums will be lower).
I now pay $120 for me and my wife for a plan that is better than the $1000 plan through the ACA in Oregon because I'm no longer self employed.
That's almost a 10x difference.
After working for myself for 12 years, hustling consulting and contracting gigs, I'm way happier working for a company that pays well, has great benefits, and I always know I have a paycheck coming.
Look at box 12 code DD on your W-2. That is the total amount you are paying for your health insurance (it’s just that your employer is paying it directly). It’s still counted in the cost of employing you though, obviously.
Assuming you have a silver or gold level plan, total cost to insure you and your wife is the same on healthcare.gov or if your employer buys it.
The only broad savings are if your employer is self insuring and their risk pool (employees and their families) are disproportionately low risk (young and single).
Health insurance has a 2% profit margin, and premiums are tightly regulated by state insurance commissioners. So a wildly different premium indicates a change in coverage, or a change in the underlying risk pool.
For an annual out of pocket maximum of $10k to $18k and age rating factors capping age 64 premiums to 3x age 21, the minimum bronze/silver monthly premium should be somewhere in the ~$400 to $1,200 depending on age. For example, see NJ’s premiums here:
https://www.nj.gov/dobi/division_insurance/ihcseh/ihcrates20...
Where did you get that 2% profit thing? I've been googling for that too and insurance profits and all I can find is that ACA only allows 20% admin costs. Non ACA plans indicate that their profit is ~15-20% of their revenue.
These are all publicly listed health insurers, so all their financials are public. It is not a very profitable business, as pretty much all insurance business.
"More freedom" sounds amazing right up until the point you remember that you aren't getting a salary every month but still need to pay rent and buy food and stuff...
“…it’s where I buy my food, and most of my stuff.” ~ Ron Swanson
Some people like the FIRE approach
> should have stayed at Google
You should feel privileged that you've never been "stuck" at a job that you don't find personally interesting and stimulating. Wasting your life to see the number in your bank account increase.
welcome to the world of capital gains and QSBS!
There is a very high probability he gets offered a CEO position at some company that is looking for an exit path. That type of thing will usually come with a nice salary and a minimum 7 figure payout on exit.
As of this specific date, his bank account might be slightly lower than had he stayed at Google. 5 years from now it will almost certainly be significantly higher, and if it is not, it is more likely because he chose a path that he preferred.
Also 100% sure that his next business will be many times more successful than Tiny Pilot.
Each month of vesting you can absolutely move shares out of GOOG (minor restrictions on insider trading, but regardless of your level you can set up automated strategies), and most employees probably should given the correlated risk between Google taking a nosedive and employees losing their jobs.
The vesting is unrelated. With no promotions or raises the 4yr bump is uninteresting. With those, they match your TC, but they happen _during_ those interesting career events. They describe some subset of your compensation for the next 4yrs. You can still invest them however you choose. You can still leave at any time (unless you believe that in your personal case the promotion train is better than the job-hopping train). You could have just as easily job-hopped and invested the surplus in GOOG.
I suppose if he can parlay this outcome into an L7 role at Google, E.G, then in another 6 years he would break even (compared to staying at L5)
Everything has non-monetary costs associated with it. Chasing L7 means more politicking and less actually making things if I understand it correctly. Maybe that's invigorating to some people (am convinced people get off on fighting over artificially scarce resources), but I don't understand them one bit.
According to Levels.fyi - and my personal contacts - https://www.levels.fyi/t/software-engineer/locations/san-fra... Median TC - something just-south of $300k TC (not salary) is more likely.
Furthermore, the higher you go, a greater proportion comes as RSUs, not cash - even if it was $400k TC, a good chunk of that is money you literally can't spend for a couple of years.
But you're right that the TC of the average Google (or even FAANG) job has become somewhat mythical on the internet lately. I'm in a Slack where people have been asking about offers and TC for a long time. There are a lot of disappointed people who think they're walking into $500-600K job offers only to realize that they're "only" getting $300K from multiple companies.
Honestly quite frustrating, given that $300K with excellent benefits is an incredible job offer, but these people have been primed for disappointment due to unrealistic expectations.
I get being disappointed about $300k. Many companies are offering that for non-seniors (Google L4 equivalent) now. I distinctly recall TikTok offering well north of $300k cash for just 2 YoE a few years ago, and Meta offers have risen similarly.
I'd also be pretty sad if I interviewed elsewhere as an L5 and got offered less than what I made as a 2 YoE L4 (and many years ago, prior to inflation at that.)
$500k for senior (L5) is kind of the expected offer these days. If you are interviewing at FAANG you are doing a huge disservice by using Levels and settling for $300k when you can pretty easily get $500k.
I joined a FAANG a couple years ago at $550k TC or so at 4 YoE for senior. It's grown to about $950k due to stock growth. I'm not sure what you mean by "I can't touch the money for a few years," I get a portion of it every few months.
Vesting cadence is typically quarterly or monthly.
Refreshers only being you up to the "standard" target TC (as defined by the company). So after their initial grant fully vests, most engineers will see their comp drop by a couple hundred k, even with refreshers.
This is a huge contributing factor to the low retention at big tech - it's why most people leave by the time their initial grant runs out.
...I never knew I could feel so insecure about my career.
May I contact you directly for some advice and questions?
That’s the hint you aren’t comparing like kinds.
It also appears you haven’t met anyone truly wealthy, because I can tell you they don’t share your point of view
I actually thought it was a big W for him when I saw this post. But I guess, if you consider the opportunity cost of Google employment, it's a financial L.
He learned and experienced so much more than he could have at Google. He actually built and sold a profitable company.
What’s life if we reduce it to how much money we could have earned?
Your numbers come out to $250K/year at Google and $230K/year as an entrepreneur. That's a small price to pay for this kind of real-world education.
There's no guarantee his next business will be successful -- but there's no guarantee that those kinds of Google positions are going to keep existing, either.
On the other hand, there's also the chance that his next business could be massively more successful because of lessons learned, and open the way to much higher amounts than he could have been earning at Google were he still there.
Overall, I think it was a massive win for him. And it may have been more beneficial to society than the work he was doing at Google.
Seems he exited the Google grind about 6 years ago. I guess salaries were between $180-250K during that time frame.
Google grinder for 6 years: $1,080,000-$1,500,000
Entrepreneur: “$920k over four years (with sale)”, but doesn’t include the 2 bombs he had prior to successful exit.
(None of these figures taken into account taxes or benefits)
Seems like he took an L, but in the end at least he didn’t end up in the salt mines. The education of learning as you go is truly underrated though.