Hacker News Reader

Comment by intopieces | Hacker News Reader

The obsession with money in this town boggles my mind. My parter makes ~$100k <1 year out of college working for a very big company. He likes what he does, has no commute and practically sets his own hours. He's already feeling antsy about the pay: Is it enough? Could I be making more?

The way I see it, he's already better off than a vast majority of people. Good pay, interesting work, professional validation. Why he's willing to risk it for a job he might hate for more money I can't figure out.

View on HN

We all complain when NBA players strike over salary concerns.

But it's always relative. If someone who does the same thing as you at a similar competence level, and they make 2-3X what you make, naturally you're going to feel agitated.

>> better off than a vast majority of people

Fallacy of relative privation. If you can be making more, by all means move, and make more. This is healthy process in the industry where it's not uncommon to see 20-30% net margins. This cow has plenty of milk in it.

The cow has plenty of milk, but how everyone gets it isn't equal. I understand the sentiment, I just can't relate. I'd rather enjoy my work for just "adequate" pay than constantly move from place to place. Money is just not important to me.

You seem to perceive it as an either/or proposition. It is possible to have a kickass, satisfying job which also pays really well. Money is important, at least in the US where you're responsible for funding your own retirement.

>It is possible to have a kickass, satisfying job which also pays really well.

And it's possible to leave a kickass, satisfying job that pays well and end up at a job that pays better but isn't as satisfying, or has unforeseen tradeoffs. My point isn't that it's an either/or proposition -- it's that there are other things to consider besides money, and the culture around here doesn't seem to value that. Leaving one job for the next one is a calculated risk. The more times you do it, the more chances you end up in a place that doesn't hit all the sweet spots.

The more times you do it, the _lower_ is the chance that you end up in a crappy job. If the job doesn't meet your needs, move. I'm not saying money is everything and it should be the only thing to optimize for. I'm just saying there's no shame in demanding more money if you can. As a bonus, awesomeness of "individual contributor" type jobs is well correlated with how much you get paid. Companies are typically interested in putting expensive folks on the meatiest problems.

>If the job doesn't meet your needs, move.

Absolutely. But you've changed the premise to fit your argument. Recall:

>He likes what he does, has no commute and practically sets his own hours.

In this case, a move after <1 year at BigCo is optimizing only for money. I'm starting to get the impression that there's something in Silicon Valley's fog that suppresses risk aversion -- or maybe it causes FOMO?

If you ever want to buy a house around here, the difference between 100k and up is still significant, regardless of how it relates to the rest of the country.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com