Hacker News Reader

Comment by tdrdt | Hacker News Reader

The author was lucky to earn a huge amount of money.

99% of the people can't do anything with this advice because they don't have any savings to begin with.

I wonder if the author even understands how lucky he is.

I think the real luck is getting on the ladder in the first place, where you have a prestigious job that is a natural step to even more prestigious jobs, ie you are always a likely candidate for the job above. Most hedge funds and FAANG employers get a lot of resumes that will never even be read.

Also you really don't know what you're actually applying for when you're a graduate. You think you know but only those who are fortunate are able to get it right. Plenty of people get a job thinking it leads somewhere. For instance, I've interviewed a lot of financial ops people who think they're on the ladder to becoming a trader. It does happen, but not that often.

But good on him, it still takes work and dedication to do something like this.

> For instance, I've interviewed a lot of financial ops people who think they're on the ladder to becoming a trader

I think it is definitely possible to know. My college friends with parents in tech certainly knew.

When I was in college, I looked over H1B data to get a sense of what was really going on. The conclusion: finance, consulting, law, all vastly overrated in compensation unless you are doing quantitative finance or have a very rare job.

Medicine and tech, appropriately rated for comp.

True in my experience. The path is set long before you think it is. Yes, you can jump on the prestige track later on (in my field, this means joining Apple after 5-10 years of working), but a Stanford grad naturally walks into these jobs. My spouse and I have the same degree and background, aside from alma mater, but they joined a FAANG, in a design role, out of school because that’s where everyone in their Stanford circle was going. I joined a tier 2 company in QA because that’s where my school was feeding people. 6 years later, my spouse is a multi-millionare* and I’m around 1 with 4 more years of experience.

I’ve been trying for years to jump to a FAANG and correct my initial career mistake, but it’s extremely difficult and I’ve only seen the top 10% of my company, in the right positions (not QA), do it. I need to do two jumps: QA to design, then tier 2 to tier 1. As a result, I’ve actually decided to throw in the towel and “reroll” as a software dev.

* For the purposes of retirement we track our net worths separately

[Edit] I also would like to mention that the article says as much

Absolutely. What's incredibly frustrating is that as I've moved up the employer prestige ladder, the level of talent definitely goes up, but so much of it is just a rise in credentials (e.g., better schools, better past jobs). Levels of motivation/effort don't seem too different: there are still the same groups of lazy people that put in the bare minimum and others that do a great job.

Each hop up takes a good mix of hard work and luck but it always results in a massive jump in pay

Changing career tracks like that is so hard. You almost need to hide your experience in interviews. I’ve had so many interviews get derailed because the interviewer finds out that I’m looking to switch away from a field I don’t enjoy and realizes that they have another opening there they’d rather fill.

This is why people don’t want to talk about money

There is little point in discussing money and using yourself as an example when you are extremely well off.

Congrats to OP for having a lot of money in the bank, but there is nothing special or unique about their advice. It's the usual invest your money, don't spend too much, try to get into a top company, etc.

Even for someone in a similar situation, there is very little here that I haven't seen repeated elsewhere countless times.

I highly doubt this is just about quality of his advice. Look at all these comments, and the salt.

Remove a zero from his salaries, and the response would have been very different.

The comments on this post in general, I completely agree. The top level comment in this thread doesn't seem salty though.

Remove a zero and the story becomes fiction. That's the point of pointing out the luck and privilege of their position.

People can still follow some of his advice, maybe end up with less money, but there's still some good advice.

> The author was lucky to earn a huge amount of money.

He's not earning "huge" amounts of money for jobs in that field. (Additionally, it's a field that most intelligent people can enter with 1-3 years of study.)

https://twitter.com/danluu/status/1447997574556880902

The author is solidly in the top 1% of income for the US. The implication that 99% of working Americans are stupid or lazy is frankly insulting.

What proportion of SWEs make the kind of money that Dan Luu and the author are talking about?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com