Get ahead by not shooting yourself in the foot
piszek.com
piszek.com
It's scary how real this is, but it's easy to say "don't do that", when all the inhibitions about leaving your current job rotate around some seriously bottom levels of Maslow's hierarchy of needs - you literally could be without home and (in the US) healthcare if you do this precipitously or without somewhere to jump to, or if you make a poor choice in jumping.
Not saying it's good to sit pat until things get so bad you can't, but there's real scary things behind folk's decisions to stay and weather the horseshit at a place.
Or are you saying if you see signs of things going downhill but things are currently good?
As an engineer you also might decide to join a SV based company and make $200k+ or you can become self-employed and deposit $56k into your 401k.
In reality anyone making $100k+ plus and living in M-LCOL area can become quite rich when comparing to other places in the world. That is if you are not buying/leasing new cars all the time and living humbly.
It's the same as setting up wish lists and checking on them periodically. You're much more likely to get a good deal if you keep tabs on the thing you want over a long period of time than just hoping you get a deal the moment you have the impulse to buy the thing.
Over time I've realized that I'm not going to be happy in any 9-5 position, so I might as well save as much money as I can until I can afford to do something else.
My only requirement is that I do what I feel like doing!
There's lots of talk of 4-day work weeks or starting a business. Or like you say -- to just exit out completely.
Add your spouse having other constraints, and it becomes a mess to navigate sometimes.
It's articles like this that make me realize how fortunate I am to work in Tech, which has a really low unemployment rate. It's pretty easy to get a job that pays the bills (if your bills are reasonable) - it's more difficult to get one which is higher than your last one.
I haven't found any, my work history is littered with terribly managed companies where nepotism is more important than competence, business people run tech departments with no tech experience, had a CEO go to jail for bribery which shut the company down, another company my entire team was let go 6 months after I started. Recruiters and companies who ghost you during applications with out even a polite no thanks email.
I was raised by boomers who taught me if you just work hard and do the right thing your company will reward you but that has not even remotely miniscuely been my experience in the tech world.
Heard even a FAANG can be a nightmare if on the wrong team.
So how to identify a safe landing spot?
Some bottom-of-the-barrel firehouses will absolutely disqualify themselves through their signaling in interview loops. But I think the reality is that at most places the dysfunction just won't become evident until you've been working there for a bit and the cracks start showing.
Which brings us back to another huge advantage of tech -- I think the "safest" landing spot (assuming your personal non-negotiables are satisfied) is the spot that gives you the most financial security to leave when you've seen enough. Assuming you have a good handle on your standards/costs of living and risk tolerance, after a certain breakpoint, more money saved means more time and less time-pressure to find the signals you care about. I don't think a "dream job" exists for me, but a better one always does.
This has been my experience too.
Companies rigorously test candidates for the right fit.
But I have not yet found how to accurately test for a company with a sane healthy working environment.
Interviewing has risks of course, but with interviewing a person can usually continue their current job and only quit when they have a better offer.
With contract-to-hire they have to quit their current job first, then have high uncertainty about whether they have a new long term job or a short contract leading to nothing..
Yeah, I kind of forgot to caveat it all with how unreasonably good I have it as a programmer, and that story refers to my programmer friends, who like to marinate a little too long in bad jobs that they could have easily changed
I moved to the US a decade ago, and (I knew this before) the mindset seems to be that renting is only a temporary situation, until you finally settle down buying "your" house to raise your family in. People talk about their "first house" or "starter home", terms that aren't really common in Germany at all. Buying property isn't totally uncommon there, but often happens much later in life, and many people are happy never doing so at all.
I always felt that differing mindset has been doing me a service, as I feel zero compulsion to buy property until the conditions are really fully satisfactory. I am aware that any rent I pay is "gone", while the mortgage ultimately pays into a principal, but so far the overall equation taking everything into account (also including those aspects without a directly gaugeable monetary value that the article mentions) did not tip over towards owning yet.
Meanwhile, as we continue to not build housing (a trend over the last ~50 years), the price of renting continues to increase and the value of a house that you had previously bought also increases.
I would rather avoid buying a house for flexibility reasons, but it just seems like such a waste when I compare against my peers who have bought property. Hopefully things change, but these are some of the reasons why it's such a good deal in Germany vs the US to rent. (granted I don't know much about the German side)
Yeah, that of course would be the major incentive to buy a house. But on the other hand, living in the Bay Area, buying into this market feels a bit like gambling to me. Do I really believe property prices will come crashing down? Not really. Am I certain enough to lock myself into a suboptimal situation at a gargantuan price? Also no...
You often can't decorate much. Can't fit better windows, and windows where I've rented have usually been poor quality. Can't replace the washing machine even if it's not working properly. Can't put up shelves.
Can't fit solar panels or better insulation, or replace carpets. Sometimes you can't even paint the walls.
In the town where I live nearly all rental properties are "furnished", to the point that there aren't many unfurnished properties to choose from. This means you can't change the furniture - couches, tables, curtains (drapes), beds, wardrobes etc. Often there is an old TV you would never choose for yourself. Of course you do make some choices when you decide where to move into, but there may not be anything particularly to your own taste, and what you want will change over time anyway.
Aside from the lack of self-determination while in there, there is a constant threat of "no reason" evictions which landlords exercise from time to time. Because no reason is given, it doesn't take much. I've seen it done sometimes by rental property agents just so they can advertise a large rent increase on the open market which would not seem reasonable applied to the existing tenant - that time, the landlord didn't particularly want the tenant out, but the agent saw a chance to get their new-tenancy fees and advised the landlord to evict.
Long term stability in a rental property is a luxury in some areas, and finding another property nearby may not be possible. Got a child in school? Don't assume they will be able to stay in the same school.
I have encountered rental situations where it is required to pay 12 months rent up front every year during the tenancy (on top of 1.5 months deposit) - but only if you're not well off enough to qualify for monthly rental payment. This sucks if the reason you are moving is because of a no-reason eviction from a previous place, so you quickly need to find another property as well as 13.5 months worth of rent at short notice. Naturally, you can't use the deposit from the previous place in that scenario as you won't get it in time, and you won't get all of it.
Speaking of 12 months, in the town where I live and I gather in many others, 12 month tenancies are the maximum you can get. Technically every year there's a new tenancy, usually with new contract fees to pay, and the possibility they might decide not to renew it. If you're really unlucky there might be a new credit and income check each renewal, which you will fail if you fell on hard times, such as between jobs. This duration is because UK law has additional tenant protections with tenancies longer than 12 months. So of course landlords don't offer them.
> You often can't decorate much.
No issue unless you fix it back up when you move out.
> Can't fit better windows, and windows where I've rented have usually been poor quality.
There must be laws in Germany, because I don't remember living in an apartment where the windows weren't top notch. That's also very necessary with temperatures sometimes going below -10°C.
> Can't replace the washing machine even if it's not working properly.
Like all appliances, furniture, anything, it's "bring your own" in Germany (unless you have a common laundry area... not super common I think).
> Can't put up shelves.
Same as before, as long as you fix up the holes when you move out, not an issue.
> Can't fit solar panels or better insulation,
Don't know about solar panels. Like windows, never lived in an apartment without proper insulation in Germany (in the US on the other hand...).
> or replace carpets.
You can put in whatever floor you like as far as I know, and I've done so.
> Sometimes you can't even paint the walls.
Definitely not an issue in Germany.
This confirms my impression that renting in the UK is indeed very different from renting in Germany. It seems like the UK also treats renting as more of a short term arrangement, while in Germany people may spend decades or their entire life in their rental apartment, so it's their space to create.
You can be completely prohibited from "damaging" things, including painting, in many jurisdictions. You also may have to match whatever grade of paint the landlord used. Some will use very expensive paints, or totally inappropriate paints, knowing it will lead to large deposit forfeiture, or the ability to collect excessive monies from the tenant.
> There must be laws in Germany, because I don't remember living in an apartment where the windows weren't top notch. That's also very necessary with temperatures sometimes going below -10°C.
In many apartments, especially illegal suites, you might not even get a window. The heating is your problem if the windows suck, and while in some jurisdictions there might be necessary temperature ranges the landlord must maintain, that's only if it's a "utilities included" apartment. Your heating bill could bankrupt you.
> Like all appliances, furniture, anything, it's "bring your own" in Germany (unless you have a common laundry area... not super common I think).
Often not the case, and is often a "feature". Again, it targets poor people, who then have a lower quality of life, and higher revolving costs. It's expensive to be poor.
> Same as before, as long as you fix up the holes when you move out, not an issue.
As before, you may be flatly prohibited from doing any damage to a wall.
> Don't know about solar panels. Like windows, never lived in an apartment without proper insulation in Germany (in the US on the other hand...).
Canada would like to have a word regarding insulation. Same with Australia, Japan, the US, etc. You can't make structural changes to a rental, and that definitely includes solar panels. You can negotiate something with the landlord, but it doesn't stop them from evicting you after it's done. You'll need a lawyer.
> You can put in whatever floor you like as far as I know, and I've done so.
Nope. You might be able to negotiate it, but you'll need a lawyer.
---
When you rent, and you don't have a lot of money, it's fucking terrible. Low quality housing, low quality appliances, low quality life. It has higher revolving costs, and the absolute instability makes it untenable. Many of my family members bought and restored shitty in-bed campers as a safety net against eviction because it was constant and punishing.
This is advice for very high income, or already wealthy people.
But this was the mid-2000s, so things probably changed. Even with the exorbitant rent in Munich back then already, I wouldn't know with how it would work now with what the rents have become since.
I agree with the general caution about buying a property and the baggage it comes with. Unfortunately with kids there be dragons in renting as well: having to move when getting priced out.
(This is sarcasm, of course, although I suspect the author is serious about avoiding things that many people find meaningful.)
Houses have sizes, locations and whole spectrum of varieties that can be taken into account!
And the cost of moving with kids is much greater than moving alone or as a couple. You will need to find new schools, activities, etc. It constrains your search space and will inevitably take a toll on your time budget.
The areas with decent schools etc also tend to be more expensive. When you buy property in such an area you can at least lock in a flat rate on your rent for the next 10-20 years or so, until your kids have grown up and can leave the nest.
So it does make a lot of sense to buy when you have kids. Either way, those "risky career moves" are anyhow much less of a good idea when you need to provide for a family.
Even as a couple it can be a challenge to move because of your career — it's rare that both partners get a career bump out of a joint move.
At most games in life we are amateurs - buying cars, buying/renting houses, getting jobs since we don't do those things frequently enough to get good at them and learn all the tricks and traps. We can try to get a great deal on a car but that is near impossible - try and avoid the usual traps and you are doing good enough.
Buying "too much" house is one of those traps. Buying a house that needs too much work is another. Buying a house with an expensive amenity (e.g. swimming pool or too big of a garage or lawn) is another.
Depending on your timing and location, renting is way more of a shoot-yourself-in-the-foot decision than buying a house. I graduated from college in mid-2000s and after a few years finally saved up to buy a house in early 2010s. Plenty of my peers saw no real need to this and continued renting through the decade of 2010-2020 while seeing home prices rise to unaffordable levels. I acknowledge that I got lucky in my timing and location (bay area), but it's hard to imagine a scenario where buying doesn't make sense when you can afford to. If nothing else, a (fixed rate) mortgage at least guarantees your monthly housing payment won't increase, vs rent. The decision to rent (as in, not being forced to rent because you cannot afford to buy) seems way more footgun-ish.
On the jobs section, the way most people choose jobs is insane, not by choice but more because it really is that hard and luck-based choosing a job. Over my career, I got to the "choose a random company whose recruiter just happened to reach out" point and landed a job, twice, and these both happen to be jobs I loved and stayed for a long time. Notably, another time, I moved to a company because I had a lot of friends working there so I knew I'd enjoy the people there, it didn't work out after a year and a half for other reasons than the people. The point of this all is, it's just really difficult to know what really matters at a job and company, so it's really hard to call this a footgun decision.
- Getting kicked out when the landlord wants to sell or "move in their family"
- No pets
- No decorating (painting walls etc)
- Landlord taking up to 12 months to repair basic things, if at all ("well, you accepted the property when X was broken/in Y condition")
- Landlords trying to scam you out of deposits
- Poorly maintained properties
- Up to 25% annual increases in rent
- Moderate to extreme difficulty actually finding somewhere
- Mold. It's incredible how many rentals have mold problems (in my experience)
- Moving costs if you are forced to move frequently
I'll nit-pick on his point of buying experiences vs things.
Though I agree that instagrammable experiences don't have much meaningful value, I do value a lot experiences where I paid not an insignificant amount of money.
I'm assuming the author meant some balance but called something out based on his impression of an audience (maybe some projection on his part). But "paid experiences" can meaningfully lead to personal growth, perspective of other countries/peoples, deepening friendships.
That being said - you should have good long term finances to even make all that viable.
> Don’t loose your asset
Did you mean ... "Don't LOSE your asset"?
(sorry)
The reason employers have so much leverage is because their workers are living paycheck to paycheck. If workers could just leave at any time for months on end then they would be in a much better situation to negotiate for better pay.