Hacker News Reader

Comment by rockyj | Hacker News Reader

It is not so easy. Changing jobs cannot be always the answer. In Europe there are not many "remote friendly" companies and also it's not that you will get a 20% pay rise every time you switch. On top, it is extremely hard to find software development jobs that pay around or above 100K. Most jobs are around 60-80K.

A job change can also mean - inheriting someone else's problematic code base, new office politics and colleagues who may not get along with you. Hardly 0-5% of pay rise really does not justify all this. All in all, one cannot switch jobs easily when the options and benefits of switching are not so good.

View on HN

> In Europe there are not many "remote friendly" companies

This is not true. There are many such opportunities if you ask, especially now.

> it's not that you will get a 20% pay rise every time you switch

If you work in IT (generous, but it is HN...), this should be your experience unless you switch more than once every two years. Then everyone will mistrust you, but you can still do it as a contractor.

> On top, it is extremely hard to find software development jobs that pay around or above 100K. Most jobs are around 60-80K.

Making around or above 100K in the EU is indeed very unusual. Of course, such numbers mostly make sense in the US because it is (socially, in terms of security) a desert hellscape. The lower top salary in the EU comes with the benefit of knowing that if you go blind you won't have to die shitting yourself in some crackhouse.

> such numbers mostly make sense in the US because it is (socially, in terms of security) a desert hellscape.

Tough but fair.

Social...security...what does it mean?

>This is not true. There are many such opportunities if you ask, especially now.

Your statement definitely does not apply where I currently live (Austria). No tech company I've interviewed here is 100% remote as of now. They always expect more or less around 30-50% in office presence for new hires. They almost always have some staff at near 100% remote but those are usually tenured employees that management does not want to lose, so they get extra privileges as a bonus.

>Of course, such numbers mostly make sense in the US because it is (socially, in terms of security) a desert hellscape.

That's also not true. American tech workers don't have higher salaries because they get less social safety, but they have higher salaries because a lot more investment money, by orders of magnitude, gets poured into their tech sector compared to Europe where most goes into real estate instead, while the US also has a smaller supply of devs due to their expensive higher education and tougher immigration laws than Europe, meaning that the high demand of devs in the US can't be met by their low supply of workers, so their salaries naturally rise accordingly. It's that simple, basic supply and demand, nothing to do with the presence or lack of social safety from the government, as US taxes aren't that much lower than in Europe.

> as US taxes aren't that much lower than in Europe.

US taxes being similar to Europe (which in my experience is true) certainly does not equate to an equivalent safety net.

It's exactly what I said.

I just interviewed yesterday with an Austrian company from here on HN, that was 100% remote... I guess it depends on your region/vertical ?

Would you mind sharing a name please. If privacy is concerned my email is in my profile. Thanks.

Hmm - it was QuestDB, but maybe I didn't see it on HN (can't find it now..) Anyway here is the job link:

https://questdb.io/careers/senior-cloud-engineer/

Hmm - it appears I was mistaken: "regional offices in London, Berlin and San Francisco." But the gentleman that interviewed me was in Austria. They are remote first, and have people all over from our conversation.

Cool, thanks for sharing

> it is (socially, in terms of security) a desert hellscape

>Of course, such numbers mostly make sense in the US because it is (socially, in terms of security) a desert hellscape. The lower top salary in the EU comes with the benefit of knowing that if you go blind you won't have to die shitting yourself in some crackhouse.

Can you elaborate?

I assume the canonical source for information about the US is American TV, but I really can't imagine what you watch that makes you think there is no safety net, even for people making $100K.

Is there a safety net? (Honest question from a European)

There’s a patchwork of federal, state, and local safety nets with a lot of holes to fall through. Generally speaking, you have to be just fortunate enough (esp. with regard to mental health, social support, and having a mailing address) to have the wherewithal to secure the benefits, but not so fortunate that you don’t qualify. People with everything stacked against them tend to become homeless, and there are few people going out into the field to rescue them.

So there is obviously no bottom-most robust safety net, as plainly evidenced by the homeless situation. But there are a bunch of safety nets that do sustain millions of people. Welfare, subsidized housing, social security (retirement, and disability), medicare, Medicaid, to name the big ones.

> there are few people going out into the field to rescue them

>So there is obviously no bottom-most robust safety net, as plainly evidenced by the homeless situation

What is your perspective on schizophrenia?

In severe cases, they fall into the unable to secure benefits / care for themselves category. In the absence of consistent policy, they're at the mercy of individual psychiatrists who have sole discretion to place them in long term care, or turn them out on the street. In America, life is like a box of chocolates.

> I really can't imagine what you watch that makes you think there is no safety net

Every single US citizen I've ever spoken to has made this clear (sometimes only after a while) without fail.

Can you list off the top of your head five laws, programs, or benefits that your American buddies making six figures told you don't count as part of a safety net?

Apart from anything mentioned in this thread.

I have american colleagues who are undergoing various treatments and they know they can't lose their job because their health insurance would end and they cannot afford to pay for it without a job. Yes some kind of medicaid or other would eventually kick in, but it would still mean potentially months of going without cancer treatment because you lost your job.

In (most) European states it's just not a concern that anyone ever has - if you are getting treatment under national health service then it has nothing to do with your employment status and any treatment would just continue. If you need time off due to ilness it has to be paid for as well(employer only pays for a while, then the state takes over).

Have your American colleagues ever mentioned any US programs, laws, or benefits instituted after 1965?

Maybe, how would I know?

You might not, but I would.

>It is not so easy. Changing jobs cannot be always the answer.

This. Everything you said is true about most of Europe, and even more so outside of major tech hubs.

Companies call the shots and employees have to follow if they want to stay employed, because there are no good alternatives to go to, when all companies just act the same and pay the same. And most companies here don't give a damn about what their employees actually want and presume they can bait you with a +10% salary increase but exact same inflexibility, toxic environment and management practices. Good luck with that.

Plus, interviewing and changing jobs in the tech world is a monumental effort, taking both time and a mental toll after several rounds of interviews with several companies, on top of your regular job, time that could have went into hobbies, dating, socializing, travelling, cooking, etc., so there's a lost opportunities cost associated with the job hunt.

I've been interviewing around for about 4 months so far, to hopefully change to a better , less stressful tech job, and I'm already completely exhausted from all the "complete our 20-questions, 6 page HR online form about yourself, before you can submit your application, because our time is more valuable than yours", "solve this week long take home test, and when you're done, we'll let you know that unfortunately this position has already been filled", "there will be several rounds of interviews after wich we'll just ghost you, because f*ck you", "you didn't sound passionate enough about our company's products in your cover letter", etc. And, apparently there's a labor shortage. Yeah ... right.

God, I'm so exhausted from all this, some days I just can't get out of bed anymore and sit there wishing I get hit by lightning, or die in my sleep and end my misery.

So, going with the Mexican dog analogy: the pain of working from the office is still less than the other scenario.

If I had two offers, and one was 20% less compensation plus WFH and the other +20% but working from office ONCE a day, I'd go for the WFH one.

Of course everybody's factors are different.

> Of course everybody's factors are different.

I'm glad you acknowledge it; with rising cost of living, housing prices, and (in my case) medical expenses (the part not covered by insurance, like physical therapy; we're still trying to get a diagnosis so it will be covered), I can't afford a 20% pay cut.

Even pre-pandemic, I rejected an offer from a company literally across the street from where I live, because their offer was >30% lower than what I was earning at the time. I just flat out told them I wouldn't be able to afford to live there - and I live in some of the cheapest houses in this area.

Yeah, there is a 'just change jobs' crowd who pop up in every conversation about working conditions.

There are switching costs which mean the employee often takes a hit on attempting to move. It's like buying a car, car doesn't work as advertised so someone says, "well stop whining and sell it, you're in market." Like yes, but also nope.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com