Hacker News Reader

Comment by paulpauper | Hacker News Reader

A $28,000 MIT stipend and PHD does not seem that great..it's not that much money. The odds of producing ground-breaking research are slim even for someone brilliant, as the author evidently is. The $85k Microsoft offer would probably be just enough to cover rent and other expenses, although there is room for promotion. Its not like these are huge sums of money. Then again, I am assuming Seattle living expenses.

View on HN

85K in 2004 would cover more than "just rent and other expenses" or I'd eat my hat. It was a different time, with different costs, and a much less inflated market. The author even calls it "about as much as you could possibly earn right out of college."

MIT is obviously about the prestige and academic opportunities more than the money.

If you're saying these aren't great options for a college senior in 2004 you need to talk to a lot of college seniors to get some perspective. Your comment sounds like "this college student hasn't made millions of dollars or groundbreaking research, I don't know why you think he's any different than the average kid."

People in their 20s don't remember before the banking coup. They think it has to be like this.

Shit, 85K as a college grad TODAY still puts you solidly into the upper ranges of your demographic.

If you think that's "just cover rent and expenses" money, how do you think the people you buy coffee, food, or anything else from live??

The author also doesn't seem to discuss what he did the 8 following years, which seems baffling.

> I didn’t know which traits I ultimately wanted in my career, but I appreciated that MIT would offer me more options for the career capital I generated.

So which traits did you build?! Tell me up front why I should listen to you if I wanted to build a career (it's not cause you had two nice offers coming out of college - that's why I'd listen to you if I was a high school senior).

Assuming Seattle living expenses which are higher than national average

Back then, Seattle/Redmond was much, much more affordable. In 2004, the Case-Shiller Index for Seattle was 125, while the national index was 140 (!). Today Seattle has a 250 index while the national index is 195.

In other words, Seattle housing went from pretty well below-average to wildly more than average in ~15 years.

So $85k in Seattle in 2004 then would be roughly like $160k in Columbus today.

A single person in Seattle can comfortably live(not own a home, mind you) on 85k assuming they don't have any massive debt obligations- not to mention we're talking about Seattle in 2004.

It's interesting that you said.. "that's why I'd listen to you if I were a High School Senior".

That's exactly who his intended audience was...

http://calnewport.com/books/straight-a-student/

https://cognitomentoring.org/blog/a-summary-and-broad-points...

> If you think that's "just cover rent and expenses" money, how do you think the people you buy coffee, food, or anything else from live??

Since 2000, mostly through consumer debt. Wages have been stagnant in the face of increased cost of living; you can get financing for literally anything these days. Walmart dropped their layaway program in favor of pushing credit cards. Aaron's will rent you furniture for low monthly payments that add up to 5x the retail price. You can even take out a loan specifically to go on vacation.

$85k was worth a lot more in 2004 than it is now. It's still a king's ransom in rural/middle America but it doesn't get you far on either coast anymore if urban proximity is a requirement.

Conversely, us people in our 40's look at a comment that calls 2004 "a different time" and get profoundly, if temporarily, confused.

"Huge sums of money" isn't well defined so I can't comment on that. But the idea that $85K is only enough to cover rent and other expenses is wrong.

I'm assuming Seattle living expenses, which are higher than national average. Also it's not like he keeps all the $85k. Taxes take a chunk of that . I keep reading stories of how hard it is to live in Bay Area on low six figures, so I assume that $85k in 2004 in Seattle would also be somewhat hard.

$85k adjusted for CPI is something like $113k today. Microsoft is in Redmond not Seattle. Hard is certainly relative but living in the suburbs of Seattle, fresh out of college making $113k is nearly objectively not hard.

Don't know about 2004, but Redmond housing is now more expensive than Seattle!

No, I easily supported a family of 3 on that in 2016 in the Seattle area. For a single guy, he'd be living well.

You can find a decent room in a share for $1500 in any city in the USA, and significantly less than that in most. When you're 22, that's pretty much 100% of your mandatory expenses, beyond maybe $200/mo in food and $100/mo for an unlimited transit pass or $10/mo to own/operate a bike.

Everything on top of that is gravy, especially when you're working at a tech company that pays for your healthcare and a lot of your food and coffee and maybe your commute.

Yeah tell that to my buddy working the night shift at a Chrysler plant, or 99% of working America for that matter.

I'm assuming Seattle living expenses. which are higher than national average

It takes one minute to find that you can live alone in a basic apartment in the hottest part of Seattle for $1150/mo: https://seattle.craigslist.org/see/apa/d/capitol-hill-studio...

You can walk to the Microsoft Shuttle, which covers the cost of your commute, and walk or take transit or a bike or a cab to the rest of Seattle, for maybe $100/mo in transportation expenses.

Eating well can be a couple hundred a month if you know how to cook for yourself, $1000/mo if you're spending $30/day on food.

None of these numbers come close to hitting $85k, especially when you pay $0 state income tax.

Obviously things are different as a sole provider for a family, but most 22 year olds aren't that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com