Hacker News Reader

Comment by michaelt | Hacker News Reader

> If any UKites have made it to this thread, is be curious to hear why so few people leave for countries with a stronger and higher paying tech sector?

First of all, working in tech in the UK you can make $130,000 which is 3-4x the median annual salary. Very few Brits would describe that is "extremely low".

That's enough money to have a few kids, a wife who doesn't work, and a pretty decent lifestyle.

Why move a 10-hour flight away from all my friends and family, just because I could earn enough to drive a Lamborghini instead of a Lotus Elise?

View on HN

> First of all, working in tech in the UK you can make $130,000 which is 3-4x the median annual salary.

That's not a common compensation at all. I think USA gives way more choices, at the very least finance, big tech and start-ups (that actually offer noticeable equity, unlike UK).

I've been outside the UK for a few years, but when I was there £80k for a senior in London was fairly standard, and I had recruiters emailing me for £100k roles. That's the pre-tax salary; getting some extra compensation or perks would be somewhat expected, but not at US levels.

Outside London it varies a lot though... I'm from the South West and £50k would be a good salary there. But that's no different from some places in the US. If you live in a small town, of course there is less opportunity.

But most people who know their worth become contractors. I've had to work with people on £500/day who I wouldn't even trust to run the tests properly. Selling yourself as a "senior <insert hot language of the day> developer" you can easily command a few hundred more. And then there's fintech which goes even higher.

In the UK there isn't that much difference in security from being an employee vs a contractor (you still have state health insurance at the end of the day). Even without the higher rates, the tax benefits alone make it very beneficial, which is why IR35 regulations have been brought in. I know someone who has a company car (Porsche Taycan) which they use to drive to the company yatch...

> That's the pre-tax salary

For anyone watching, £100k ($136k) pre tax is £67k ($91k) post income related taxes.

That's about the same tax rate as someone in California according to https://us.icalculator.info/tax-calculator/annual.html

Can you supplement your post with some evidence? Because what I see on the market is all at the ~80k mark - 100k+ is an edge-case outside of FAANG.

In comparison, in the US 150k+ seems common, and while you could argue costs of living and healthcare offset that, if you're purely betting on the short-term and are relatively young (so unlikely to need much healthcare) you can save up a ton of cash with that compared to in UK.

How much do people think folks who work for FAANGs are paying for health care? My out of pocket max for a year is $3000. And I pay $25 a month. If I had a family it'd be something like $60 a month and an out of packet max of $7500. And that's the expensive plan, out of pocket max wise (for a lower monthly payment). I haven't come across anyone who was out of network my entire time here. Granted that's more than 0, but if you're making $200k a year, it's trivial.

Healthcare in the US is a real problem for folks on the margins or low wage jobs. But for people working white collar jobs, it's usually pretty good. There's a reason why when Obamacare passed, people freaked out! The status quo bias comes from the fact that most people are happy.

The biggest issue I had with the US healthcare system was how confusing it is. And how much you seem to have to know upfront what you’ll need, where to go, etc vs trusting experts in the system to guide you. Even with top tier insurance from my employer. A lasting memory of that was in our prenatal class when they wanted the expecting mother’s to do a blood test to check for various risks. Queue much frantic checking by all of the other white collar employees of Bay Area companies to see if the pathology in this hospital was in network or not.

I don’t live in either country any more, but if I had to choose I’d take the UK system.

Saying this at the risk of being downvoted but don't really care as I feel I have to let it out.

The U.K. healthcare system is the lowest level of medical service possible being made available with tax payers' contribution. The highest tax rate contributors as a result are getting the worst possible service. And most of such high rate tax payers either get some kind of medical insurance from their employer OR they end up buying their own in addition.

And unless one is prepared to go to Harley Street neighbourhood and pay close to around £500 per consultation, even with the additional so called private medical cover, one is still under the aegis of the N.H.S. Go there and you will see what appear to be "clientele" mostly from the Middle East as they probably can afford that sort of fee.

The overall benefit is really for the people who are contributing the least to the state. I understand there may surely be people who genuinely are unable to contribute to the state but then there are people who know and are for sure gaming the system (and this cuts across N.H.S and into other social services)

The results are dire in some cases for e.g. the Slough Borough Council very recently went bankrupt and this is within ten years of some alleged millions of pounds pumped into the community to help it grow.

The N.H.S. needs reform or else the way I see it, it will implode under its own weight.

People call out the U.S. health services being astronomically expensive. The fact of the matter is that medical services are expensive. Someone has to pay. An ambulance manned with two or three para-medics and life saving equipment doesn't come free, the fuel for the ambulance is not free, the paramedics were not trained for free. This is true whether it is in the U.S. or U.K. .In U.S. it is blatantly apparent as it is not a welfare state. In the U.K. it appears to be free to whom the service was provided in that moment but it is costing someone some very serious amount of money (i.e. the tax payer)

Move over from para-medics to doctors and I think U.K. medical schools are no less expensive than U.S. medical schools. It will still take an aspirant upwards of ten years to become a doctor be it U.S. or U.K. . And to an extent I think doctors on both sides earn pretty much the same and have very similar lifestyles after they gain specialisation or super-specialisation. Where is that money coming from ? Don't get me wrong.. I am not saying there is anything wrong with doctors making money.. they deserve it as they work REALLY HARD for it.

I have not heard from anyone in my close circle even being offered prenatal classes maybe it is available as a paid service under some expensive medical insurance plan but not via N.H.S. All N.H.S offer is access to a mid-wife and if one is unlucky (like I was in the case of my first born) it is not impossible that one won't get to see a real doctor during the delivery ! In case even a minor surgical procedure is required, and one is unlucky enough to be assigned to a Birth Centre rather than a maternity ward, be prepared to wait for hours.

In my experience, like I said, someone needs to take a serious look at N.H.S and it's workings and shake it down.

I mean if N.H.S is the world's best healthcare system (as it is touted to be, correct me if I am wrong) why for heavens sake does the Prime Minister has to go on national television and beg to people to "Save the N.H.S" during the initial phases of Covid. (This could lead the discussion in an entirely different direction but this was the same Prime Minister who was going to save 350 million Euros a week and pump them into the N.H.S)

The U.S. didn't do any better but then no one was anyways saying U.S. healthcare system was good to begin with.

Rant over.

UK doctors earn way less than US doctors, same as engineers

The NHS isn’t even close to the best health system in the world. There are multiple other bizarre conceptions in tour rant but I would have to take 15 min that I don’t have.

The reason for basically all of the problems you have described is over a decade of systematic under funding by the current government.

Continually forcing trusts to make cuts and costs savings result in them running with no slack at all - which leaves no room to make improvements, thus perpetuating the downward spiral.

Not just the current government, UK health care funding (regardless of source) has been about £1k a year per capita lower than France, Germany, Netherlands etc for 40 years (and about £8k a year lower than the US).

In 2016, UK governemnt/compulsory funding was $3175 per person. Germany $4781. The US was $8080.

Compare for yourself.

https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm

> The U.K. healthcare system is the lowest level of medical service possible being made available with tax payers' contribution.

Rubbish. International studies stick the UK health system high up, and typically far higher than the US system. On top of that if you're that bothered you can pay for private health care, which typically costs less than £1k a year.

> People call out the U.S. health services being astronomically expensive. The fact of the matter is that medical services are expensive. Someone has to pay.

The US spends three times as much on healthcare than the UK, over twice as much as western european countries like Germany, Brelgium, France etc.

> I have not heard from anyone in my close circle even being offered prenatal classes maybe it is available as a paid service under some expensive medical insurance plan but not via N.H.S.

For our first child we had prenatal classes, they were free. Didn't bother for the second, but they were available. Plenty of standard hospital checkups.

> why for heavens sake does the Prime Minister has to go on national television and beg to people to "Save the N.H.S"

Because people like the NHS, but don't like the prime minister. I believe it's called "stolen valor" in the US

> The U.K. healthcare system is the lowest level of medical service possible being made available with tax payers' contribution. > >Rubbish.

Nice way to start :)

>> International studies stick the UK health system high up, and typically far higher than the US system. On top of that if you're that bothered you can pay for private health care, which typically costs less than £1k a year.

Totally understand and aware that I can spend more money on top of the taxes I pay towards the N.H.S.. What made you think I didn't have the faculties to grasp that fact ?

If you read well, then read again... The U.K. healthcare system is the lowest level of medical service possible being made available (to the people in U.K.)

>The US spends three times as much on healthcare than the UK, over twice as much as western european countries like Germany, Brelgium, France etc What is the point here ? U.K. should start spending even more ? Oh well more taxes are coming anyways now that Covid is here.

>For our first child we had prenatal classes, they were free. Didn't bother for the second, but they were available. Plenty of standard hospital checkups. Maybe you live in area which has less population density. My personal experience with the N.H.S is unforgettable (in a bad way)

> In my experience, like I said, someone needs to take a serious look at N.H.S and it's workings and shake it down.

Sounds to me like you've fallen for Tory propaganda about the NHS. The reason the service it provides is worse than in other countries is simply that it has less funding. Annual per capita spending on healthcare, in PPP pounds sterling:

UK £2989 = 1x

France £3737 = 1.3x

Germany £4432 = 1.5x

United States £7736 = 2.6x

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthan...

£100K+ ($135k) is common enough in fintech, and lately smaller tech startups have been offering that kind of salary.

I don't know where those aggregation sites get their data, but it doesn't match my experience. Those same sites will say the average in SF is well below what anyone I know is earning also.

I would note salaries are not very transparent in the UK, and most higher end job adverts don't even indicate a range - but based on the constant messages on LinkedIn and my experience hiring, the market is a lot hotter than those aggregation sites would suggest.

FAANG'll pay $300k (£220k) (all-in) in SF, so £100K is low, even if it's much higher than the local average.

FAANG in London will pay a lot more than £100k too, but parent specifically asked for outside of FAANG.

Also there are a lot of fintechs (or pure finance) that will pay more than that. I'd say after about £160k you're going to struggle without moving into some kind of management type of position, though, if you're not at a FAANG or extremely well funded startup.

Also bay area COL is substantially higher than London. I live in a 4 bed house a 30 min cycle from the City (where I work), and pay around £1500/month.

> after about £160k you're going to struggle without moving into some kind of management type of position

Or being a fairly experienced / niche contractor who can get £600+ a day - although that obviously forfeits the job security and benefits (but then is an actual £160k+, not £N+ with intangibles to bring it up.)

If you want a high salary with minimum fuss (i.e. no management, no clawing your way up a corporate ladder), this is way to do it. I've been contracting in London for 5 years. Rates are in the range of £500-£700 per day, never had a problem getting work, post-tax salary equivalent to £200k PAYE. You can often take several months off over the summer too, if you like that sort of thing.

Would you mind expanding on the maths of contracting @ £500-£700 per day working out as equivalent to £200k PAYE?

Sure. I just did a 12 month stint at £650/day. Assume 220 working days/year = £143K. Now you have a silly dance to minimise your tax.

- Pay yourself minimum wage (0pct rate) ~£9K/year. - You can probably write off around £10K against tax (lunch, transport) - Pay 19% corporation tax on the rest - Pay yourself a dividend up to upper rate, end up paying around 7.5% tax on that - ...probably some other tricks

Leads to a total tax rate of around 20-25% as long as you can survive on £50K a year. So net income something like £115K after tax. Say £9.5K/month, would require a gross salary of £194K [0].

This is why the government is trying to clamp down on IR35 abuse, but still plenty of contracts outside, at the moment.

[0] https://www.thesalarycalculator.co.uk/lifestyle.php

> Now you have a silly dance to minimise your tax.

Although there is a risk here that HMRC will come after you at some future point when this has been ruled an invalid scheme. Personally I don't think it's worth it and don't tax dodge/minimise/optimise (also a moral stance.)

FAANG in London also pays £220k+ and closer to £400k+ total yearly comp for management roles. Once you have one FAANG on the CV you are going to have no problem getting £250k+ total comp packages from mid-tier fintechs and similar outfits in the city and 300-400 is available if you have some management experience. This may be an anomaly, but it is a sellers market right now in the UK tech scene -- lots of big funding rounds closing as the market remains frothy and capital frantically hunts around for something to invest in, so a lot of companies are competing for a smaller pool of talent.

Remember that depending on your immigration situation and amount you saved you may have to pay a pretty large exit tax in the US.

To weigh in with an alternative viewpoint, as a pretty average not-even-ftse250-never-mind-faang developer, I've seen typical .net dev salaries hover around £40k/£50k for the past 10 years now even around London.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com