Hacker News Reader

Comment by buscoquadnary | Hacker News Reader

I've had several chances to switch positions for considerably more than I make now (40-50% on my current six figures), each time I've turned them down.

I am happy and content where I am at, the job has good work life balance, it is for a good cause, and I make enough to provide comfortably for me and my family, this employer is also very stable so I don't have to worry about economic uncertainty.

All in all I could make more money but I have found a level of contment and peace and it has allowed me to persue other hobbies outside of tech and serve in my local community.

So maybe I am stupid and leaving money on the table, but I have found peace for now. For those who feel they need to make more I tell them congratulations that is awesome for you. But for now I am happy.

View on HN

As a 60+ geezer who is back to doing what made me happy in this business before career climbing and salary chasing took me into a bad place or two, let me commend you on realizing that contentment is what life is really all about. I truly wish I had understood this at 30 rather than finally and fully realizing it at 60.

Perhaps you can strike a balance between the 2 options of the spectrum?

I would not imagine still working in the company where I started as a Junior (and only receiving a 5% raise per year). In the same time, after jumping a few times, my salary increased 7x and I found a place where I felt really happy working, too. (before starting my own business)

To be fair, if someone stays a junior for enough time that their hypothetical alternate universe self is able to increase comp by 7x, the problem isn't merely a matter of job hopping vs not job hopping.

In fact, it seems most of these comp growth discussions tend to fall into black-and-white thinking, when in reality there are several factors that can hugely impact comp, e.g. from retention promos and diagonal internal transfers, to company tiers (see Gergely Orosz on trimodal distribution), to international remote or full blown migration.

The thing about happiness vs job hopping risks is also a false dichotomy. You can be one of those 500k+/yr staff eng at FAANGs and do 9-5 days working on interesting problems. You could be miserable in that exact same position. The spectrum is wide and how different people feel about things varies a lot too.

> my salary increased 7x

That's simply not an option in most areas of the world.

I agree that a balance between the extremes is healthy, but I don't think that you're a case in point.

> That's simply not an option in most areas of the world.

That is an option in 2nd-3rd world countries, even to a greater extent than in the US (because the market is global and local jobs usually don't pay well).

E.g. my compensation (I'm from an ex-USSR country) increased by a factor of 13 after two job changes (for the same amount of work).

Lots of European countries have very compressed salary scales throughout the society. As a consequence 2x is common, 3x perhaps still achievable, but 4x already very hard and not possible for most people.

Couldn't you start an internship at 20K euros, and work your way up to 140K Euros after 7-8 years or so with a few job changes?

Theoretically, except 20k would be low for an internship (I had 30k trainee position in about 2007), and 140k is squarely in CTO territory if you're not in FAANG or somesuch top tier place.

My assumption was 40k start/80k senior/120k exceptional/160k moonshot.

As always, as a disclaimer Europe is a big place. I had Central-Northern parts in mind.

My first salary as developer in a Central European country, while still in college, was 400 Euro. Now, 15 years later I’m making 8k, a 20-fold increase. Of course my country underwent significant economic development during that period

I don't think student jobs really count.

Perhaps in Europe, but not in the USA.

My current salary is 10x my first salary as a computer programmer. That said, it has been 30 years.

Sure, I just contributed about (parts of) Europe.

Inflation makes up a portion of that nominal increase. I started my career in 1993. From USD inflation alone, my salary would have more than doubled to now just to stay at purchasing power parity.

If I’d have been paid in INR over my career, a 7x multiple over that time would leave me less than 2% better off than when I started.

Perhaps not 7x, but even in the US after jumping a few times from the first junior role one can probably double or maybe even triple the salary.

Depends on how low you start.

I’ve done 7x in Japan, and I think 4x is possible in the Netherlands (minimum wage is higher, and maximum lower).

Most software devs start at 2.5k in NL unless you're severely lowballing yourself. You're lucky to get 6k before becoming a principal SE or architect. 10k is a salary you're more likely to hit self-employed.

4x is possible, but in that short of a timeframe, you're more likely moving from a Dutch company to an international one and becoming employable across the entire globe. Which given US salaries would give the ability to 5-10x anyway.

Seriously 2.5k? Like the equivalent of 2500 US dollars (since Euros are at near 1:1 parity right now)? I looked it up and apparently the average salary in the Netherlands is 36.5k Euros. How is a principal SE making 20% of the average salary in the Netherlands?

I know some countries use decimals like commas are used in the US, so maybe that's actually 25000 and 60000, which would make more sense.

They meant per month. In NL we tend to discuss salaries per month. This excludes the mandatory "vacantion bonus", which is about a months salary. 2500 * 13 makes 32500 a year. So not far off from your figures.

That still seems incredibly low for a software dev salary, or indeed any salary (the minimum wage in Australia is not far off the equivalent of 15€ an hour, which is pretty close to 2500€ a month isn't it? Accepted the cost of living is higher here but I don't remember things being that cheap in that part of the world when I was there a few years back).

Ah okay. Didn't occur to me it could be a monthly figure. Thanks for the clarification.

GP is talking monthly salary.

>Perhaps you can strike a balance between the 2 options of the spectrum?

Exactly. This doesn't have to be one extreme or the other. I believe you can have a good job and a good wage.

Do you ever think back and wonder if maybe you did make the right decision?

After factoring in ~10x 15-20% jumps over 25 years, compounding interest and more maybe that translates to being 100% financially secure 10 years sooner. I didn't do the math but you get the idea. Basically is a temporary bad place or 2 for a year worth gaining 10 years of not having to work unless you wanted to?

I wrote this a few weeks ago, but the answer is always "what are you optimizing for?"

If you hate work for whatever reason and you want out of the system faster? Yes, stack dollars and exit. That may require sacrifice and "bad gigs" but that could enable the exit.

If you find your work engaging and rewarding? Why would you optimize to exit? (Queue the lawyers/doctors/etc that work into their 80s for the love of it.) Tech has brutal ageism but the point still stands -- figure out what you are optimizing for, and your answer will be clear.

(OP sounds like they have found the secret that money isn't everything, and happiness is rewarding and they are optimizing for that.)

> If you find your work engaging and rewarding? Why would you optimize to exit?

To mitigate the risk of losing the ability to earn income. You can always choose not to work or work a lower paying job after you attain financial security.

I feel like the risks are especially high of losing ability to earn sufficient income between ages 50 to 65 such that you are able to afford healthcare expenses to carry you until you qualify for Medicare (at age 65). So my goal is to earn everything I need to before then.

I think to the OP's point, if you are truly engaged in your work (and assuming your work carries healthcare benefits), it becomes a somewhat moot point to optimize for healthcare costs at some future age. I think your point on losing healthcare is predicated on the idea that you want to work less in the future (presumably in some job that doesn't carry those benefits).

I think part of the issue is that society in general (and tech in particular) are extremely productivity-focused which trains you to be future-biased in your thinking. Everything becomes about preparing for the next milestone rather than, as the OP advocated, optimizing for the present period of time.

> your point on losing healthcare is predicated on the idea that you want to work less in the future

No, it is predicated on the increasing probabilities of illness and injuries as one ages, as well as age discrimination resulting in more difficulty obtaining a job with sufficient pay and health insurance benefits.

To the OP's point, if you've optimized for engaging work and if you don't want to work less, you're already in a job that you want to continue working in. Your point is that you want to job-hop to get more money to pay for benefits...that you already have?

I've shared this elsewhere, but it's like the story from Oliver Burkeman's book about the NYC businessman chastising a Mexican fisherman for spending too much time on the beach drinking wine with friends instead of growing his fishing business. When the fisherman asked, "And once I have all that money from growing my business, then what should I do?" and the businessman said, "Well, then you can spend your time drinking wine on the beach with your friends."

> Your point is that you want to job-hop to get more money to pay for benefits...that you already have?

No. The goal is to be able to secure desired resources without needing a job, i.e. having enough wealth to not have to work in the event that I am unable or unwilling to work.

What am I supposed to do if my wife or I get hit with a cancer diagnosis in mid 50s?

The fisherman and NYC businessman story is missing the volatility component of life. Hence the utility of markets for futures trading, etc.

Fair enough, amend my first response to say it’s predicated on the desire for the option to work less in the future. The same concept applies, though. You’re optimizing for some future event while the OP was optimizing for something different. That is somewhat different than your post about the goal being "sufficient pay and health insurance benefits." Those you'd most likely already have without job hopping, even if your spouse gets sick.

There's probably something to be said about the systemic causes that create an environment where even tech workers are so financial insecure as to foster that mindset, but that’s a digression.

It is called liquidity preference and it is insatiable.

The older I get the more aware I become of the risk that I can't possibly assume the ability to make a living the way I currently do will stay around indefinitely. I could become disabled at any time, or the world or industry could change.

If you look across different professions in different countries across different times, you see that a profession that is very lucrative in one time period often isn't anymore in a subsequent one, or in another nearby society. These things come and go. There was a time when becoming an airline pilot or factory worker were lucrative options in the USA.

There are a lot of good reasons to guess that the good times will continue for the time being, but you're kidding yourself if you think it's a certainty.

>To mitigate the risk of losing the ability to earn income.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EKd6WURBqOY

This is a very serious thought. If I was _totally_ happy in my position and you told me you could increase my salary 50%, there is no way I would stay, simply based on the "wait up, this means in the long run this salary increase will take X years off my time waiting for retirement".

There is no substitute for "I can retire at 60 instead of 70".

Of course, OP said he was making 6 figures (an insane amount of money away from my position) so perhaps they are already planning to retire at 55...

> "I can retire at 60 instead of 70"

It depends, what was my life like for those 60 years vs the 70?

I'd love to be financially independent, but I don't want to spend 60yrs working on projects I hate always chasing the next promotion with only the promise of retiring early. It really depends on whether that increase comes at the expense of my work life balance or not

work/life balance and work satisfaction! I find a lot of the best compensation is bundled with unhealthy organizations with dysfunctional internal relationships. I’ve worked enough on projects and tasks I don’t believe in (or flat-out disagree with) that I know it’s not worth the stress and dissatisfaction.

Of course, if you don’t find dysfunction stressful, or you don’t really enjoy working in your industry regardless, it’s worth it to max the comp. But I’m happiest with a balance of flexible work, passionate coworkers, little bureaucracy, and slightly less money than I could otherwise make.

> It really depends on whether that increase comes at the expense of my work life balance or not

Right, but the point is that apples to apples comparison you'll make a lot more money switching. There's no cost to work life balance or interesting projects or anything. It's 20%+ of your salary every year in exchange for dealing with interviewing and switching companies. It's a pretty fantastic deal.

What about "retirement" makes you think it's the better state? All the "free time to do whatever you want?" A lot of retirees I've known ended up getting bored and going back to work, even if only part-time.

I don't see retirement as not doing anything. I see it a synonym to being financially secure. It's being able to choose to do whatever you want.

Also, a lot of people who spend their lives working very hard seem to die as soon as they stop.

What if you could spend your retirement travelling the world? How would you ever get bored. Same goes for people eh get rich and go insane.

I already travel the world and I'm not retired.

Six figures isn't that insane for engineers in the US. Especially not for Silicon Valley. And $100k doesn't really go as far as it used to in the US, especially if you have a modest home, car, two dogs, a significant other, and you live somewhat near a city with tech jobs.

I'm making a decent amount over $100k, my wife also makes good money, and yet we're way, way behind on where we're supposed to be in savings for a comfortable retirement at 67 (which is apparently 3x your annual salary at the age of 40), despite me boiling the frog in increasing how much we save for it the past few years (around 20% of my paycheck now, up from 8% a few years ago).

> There is no substitute for "I can retire at 60 instead of 70".

Would you choose 30 bad work years over 40 good work years?

I think the idea is to squeeze as much as you can now,... so that you can also leave something to your kids and possibly have a decent lifestyle when you're old.

They are all valid points, unfortunately.

Let's just remember some people have really bad really underpaid 40 years of work.

> Let's just remember some people have really bad really underpaid 40 years of work.

Good point.

> I think the idea is to squeeze as much as you can now,...

I really, really don't think that's healthy. Be unhappy now so you can be happy later is misguided, because you need to work on being happy now to be happy later: putting it off is self-destructive. I recommend "The Power of Having Fun" by Dave Crenshaw.

Jobs that pay more generally are worse than jobs that pay less? Given similar positions and industry, i.e. not jumping from being an engineer to sales. I've had better bosses and more respect at places that paid more.

Take this with a grain of salt: Retirement is a scam.

I, for one, plan to stay away from it as long as I possibly can. My body will retire its own self when it's done.

Why stop there though? Every one of us can look back at an ill-timed home purchase/sale, and ill-timed stock purchase/sale.

Stressing about would-have-beens is unfortunately easy to do, the ability to appreciate the present is much more difficult.

For me it is a balance. I had opportunities to earn significantly more (~3x) but it was work I despised and I'm not sure I would be happy right now if I was retired but my life's work felt like a net negative. On the flip side, I had opportunities to work in organizations doing fascinating and world-changing work for low salary (~1/4x) and I've learned that I am not happy when money is a constant source of stress.

Maximizing happiness for me means finding the right balance between having a positive impact and making enough money. (I'm not sure I've struck the right balance, but that is my mental model.)

Is 10x 20% jumps actually remotely reasonable? After you've swapped enough times it starts to look worrisome on resumes since people see no single role for more than 2 years. And the most effective jumps are when you also get title increases, but that stops working quite quickly and companies tend to prefer promoting to leadership positions rather than external hires leveling up.

1.2^10 is also a 620% pay increase. From my starting comp this would put me at like 1.5M, which is an extremely unusual pay level.

Not very many people start with a 250k starting comp. Typically about 1/5th to 1/3rd of that.

But this is a critical observation. The thing that increases pay is not switching jobs, but working at companies that pay in different tiers.

I didn't gather that from your first comment, only that you didn't believe the distribution could increase by 620%. Which, when you start in the top ~7% of individual income in the US, is probably true for income (wealth as a whole is another matter).[0]

[0] https://www.investopedia.com/personal-finance/how-much-incom...

The key thing I'm trying to get across here is that it isn't the hopping that brings this sort of increase, it is simply working at one of the very high paying companies in a high paying region. Zero hops, one hop, and seven hops can all get you there. Telling people to focus on the seven hops is misleading, IMO.

There's diminishing returns for sure.

My experience is it was way worth it at the start of my career, so by now I've brought my compensation "anchor" up with those bumps. Now I prioritize other things.

I think it depends on market conditions. If we do see a recession/depression over the next few years I'm curious to see how many of these "you're leaving money on the table" threads keep popping up on HN...

Well, that is obvious. But after the downturn, it remains to be seen if there will be yet another boom period that resembles the past decade for tech, or the dot-com bubble before it. Software is here to stay, and it will take more transformations to bring down the demand for software engineers.

We should recognize that there are universal needs for geezers and kids: we want some form of personal security. For a lot, that means home ownership.

Let’s look at data: If the geezer is 60 and paid off their loan today, they got it 30 years ago (in 1992). The median price of single family freestanding homes in LA county in 1992 was 221k. Today it’s 860k. In 1992 the median household income was 32k and in 2020 (last available data point) it’s 76k.

I understand that “the geezers” have something to teach us with a perspective of a lifetime and the needs all humans share.

At the same time, we have to acknowledge and account for the economics having totally changed.

As a side comment to this I always think that a lot of developers are very lucky that we can ride the balance of making good money AND have a comfortable life. But a lot of the time the promise of even more money makes us make choices that unbalance this and we end up working for companies we don't like, building things we don't support, living in cities we don't care about. In a way not reaping the real rewards of our luck. I guess it's related to the hedonic treadmill (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill)?

There's something unique about being in a position where you could exchange that extra money for other great comforts and STILL have plenty to do alright.

I've know folks who leave, have a change of heart, and return to the same company (for more money).

I've worked at multiple companies that independently developed jokey sayings along the lines of "The quickest way to get promoted is to work somewhere else for a few years and come back"

with the exception of gaining experience working elsewhere, i just don't understand the reason why a company doesn't promote internally and pay higher, over hiring anew (even if such hires turned out to be an ex-employee).

But it's true for all anecdotal evidence and circumstances i can see. It just boggles the mind why such simple inefficiencies don't get fixed up.

In practice, it is very easy to justify a bigger salary for a new hire and very difficult to get upper management acceptance for consistent/real salary raises for internal people.

It makes no sense at all, but that’s what I experience being a somewhat new manager in a tech company.

This is exactly right, when I left my manager was pretty clear about this with me. I think he valued me as much as any potential external offer, but he has to sit in front of a compensation committee whose very goal is to regress everybody to the mean.

> compensation committee whose very goal is to regress everybody to the mean

DEIA is also being used as the reason for a lot of this push. Instead of raising salaries to equitable levels, they want to bring people down.

What makes you say that?

I think it's because they feel it's a choice between doing it once for the new hire or N times for all the existing employees. The latter is very difficult to do.

Sure, but at the same time, I don't think the maths make sense, given hiring costs, training and morale costs. It makes me really sad to conclude that it boils down to the fact that these are usually different cost centres and managers from one side won't bother generating costs to the other cost centres.

But yeah, it is a waste of time trying to find sense in the management folks.

It's the exact reason, and a natural one. Why hurt yourself with increasing wage of existing, content employees rather than using it to expand the workforce with newer, (assuming) more powerful candidates?

If you play any management games with employees you'll do it too, granted that the game doesn't have any employee happiness or resign when underpaid. But yeah, game and real world situation is not the same.

On what do you base that assumption of a new candidate being necessarily better? They could also be worse and, in most instances, will have a period of sub-productive time when they have to learn the ropes.

I just describing what higher managements are possibly thinking, and I guess I'm kinda on track for it since usually management prefer to hire new people than promoting existing employees.

In game though, usually better stats hiring are only appear mid-late game, or are expensive to hire early on that you can only get one mid-late game. Don't compare with real life though.

I've only managed about 50 people, and only in the UK, but in my experience it's extremely rare for someone to explicitly say to their manager that they want more money / a promotion.

I guess a lot of people are under the impression greed is something to be ashamed of, or feel it would be confrontational or ungrateful to ask for more money?

I've always been up front with money and/or promotions discussion. But, I've also always told my manager that I'm not a squeaky wheel. I treat it like a sports player, we talk once/year, agree, and then I'm good until next year (with some caveats like an offer doubling my salary showing up).

When I managed people in a big company, it was closer to your experience. When I was one of the owners in a small startup, people had no problem asking for more. I think it's a different type of person who works in bigco vs. small startup.

I have a backlog of nearly 1000 questions my manager literally doesn't have time to answer. Those 1000 are directly related to work tasks. I don't need the answers as I'm capable of working around the uncertainty -- also, half the questions wouldn't have concrete answers and would only provide different uncertainty

In that environment, choosing to spend my manager's time discussing my pay and not these work questions, would feel to me that I'm narcissistically putting myself ahead of my team and organization.

How in the hell am I supposed to balance my needs against the companies when we're all stressed the duck out and just trying to make it work well enough that we can have a relaxing dinner with our families.

Shouldn't it be obvious I would accept a pay raise? Another classic example of management demanding one behavior and rewarding another.

Every company that approached me with raises without my asking got A LOT more of my time than those who seemed to want me to open negotiations.

The company is looking out for itself, but it seems to me that you're not looking out for yourself. You're expecting the company, which is already over-extended, to look out for you as well.

In your situation (like many out there) it's a lot easier for you to get a new job with a much higher pay rate than to ask your current employer for that raise. They might be paying low on purpose, or they might just not realize the situation they've put themselves in. Either way, you're being undervalued and it's causing you stress which is not helping your productivity.

Sure, everyone would always accept a pay raise. But not everyone feels they deserve one at the moment, and the company can't know who feels that way until they're told.

Personally I like the people that ask, or point things out to me, because I’m a little bit dense, and I don’t resent anyone for taking initiative.

Because a lot of good people are comfortable and complacent and won't play this game, and continue to get underpaid.

And why wouldn't they? If you're happy with your work and your team and your boss, why gamble it away by going somewhere else? A bit more money is great, but may not be worth it if the new job sucks.

I think it is actually better for the company if you go somewhere else for a few years and come back.

You need exposure to many different environments before you can truly be good.

I worked a few years in banking. This wasn't said as a joke, it was simply true.

How many folks? Are they any good? Available now?

What about you?

Ha, you joke, but now that I think about it, I know at least 4 people who have done this.

One was quite exceptional.

I don't know about present availability of any of them.

I have left a company and worked there a few years later for more money. (However, I wasn't salaried, I was contract both times)

Thinking further, I also know two people who have left the company I worked for and had a change of heart - but were not able to be hired back.

When I first started in tech it was always money money money, didn't care who I worked for or the work environment was like, all I saw was dollar signs. I did this from the time I started my career about 5 years ago until I joined my current job.

With my current job I know I could go elsewhere and make $50k more, but at what cost? It really started to make me consider, how much is remote work worth to me, how much is a laid back environment worth to me. For now even though I could be making more, the value in having the control over my time like I do not is worth more than what companies have been offering.

your mindset would definitely be different when early in your career 50 might be a 50% pay bump but now it’s less than 10%

You're suggesting that with 5 years' experience, the person you're replying to is making over 500K/year?

yeah if “money money money” had been your plan for 5 years it’s totally feasible to land at a senior role at this stage. while the market definitely has shifted very drastically in the recent few months, at beginning of the year 500k for a senior that interviews well is not an uncommon offer.

It is absolutely uncommon. What percent of senior engineers do you think make 500k?!

Maybe if you do some funny math with assumed stock option prices and price in value of PTO, etc you might get a few percent…

I'm certainly more in this camp of not looking to switch, but in the past I've moved jobs in the 2-3 year range. Right now, I feel that I'm well compensated, at a place that offers great work-life balance, is tackling interesting problems, and just lets me do my job. Part of the reason I'm not interested in leaving is that this is the first place that really has all four of those things, and given it took me 9-ish years to land at a place like this, there's going to have to be a significant jump in salary (like an extra 25-35%) to get me to move because of factors beyond my bottom line take home pay.

That being said, I've "hopped" jobs earlier in my career, but more in the 2-3 year window rather than 6-8 months. I can only imagine what I'd be making if I was still at the first two places I worked. It'd probably be 2/3rds of what I'm making now at best.

I don't think it's as clear as "always stay" or "always hop". At a certain point in your career, hopping may be looked at as a liability, and staying in a position that's a bad fit or doesn't advance your career doesn't make sense. Ultimately a job and your career is more about numbers, and you've got to optimize for more than just that. Understand when you are leaving money on the table, and when you've got something worth sticking around for.

You're not stupid for that, you've found contentment in your life that those who perpetually seek for more may never find. They may even pay for it later when the stress impacts their health and well-being.

I was in a similar place and changed jobs for 2x the pay. It has been a bit challenging and I do miss the culture/people/role at my previous place, but let’s see where this goes. I’m hopeful still! I feel I can always go back if it gets really bad.

Ultimately 2x pay, say from 200 to 400, makes a huge difference to me, mainly with the current house prices.

Your position doesn't seem stupid at all.

You clearly need to balance all of the benefits of a job - compensation is just one aspect.

If you're looking for work-life balance, it doesn't make much sense to jump ship for a 50% increase in comp if your work week goes from an easy 6 hours/4 days per week to 12 hours days and working on weekends.

It might make sense to make such a jump if you’re young and early in your career. Young people have fewer commitments and they also have more energy, so they can handle those types of workloads more easily. And due to the way compounding (interest) works, choosing to make more money earlier in life is not such a bad idea.

The other benefit is that early in one’s career, a high salary can be a good boost of self esteem, and set one up for even higher salaries later.

That's why I prefaced my comment with "If you're looking for work-life balance...."

If you have other goals (just money), then the trade-offs might be worth it.

I can relate. I have turned down many roles that would pay me more and in turn would have me taking on excess responsibilities (More than a single person can take on).

Any company that allows me to define my own WLB and pursue my passions outside of it brings me tranquility. I cannot imagine the stress is worth it. It eats at you faster than you think. Then you'll be looking for another job two years later.

I know the received wisdom is to always keep moving, and never accept counter-offers. You've found happiness in staying in place. I've done both at different times. I think everybody has to make judgments based on where they are and what they're looking for, and a general rule might not apply in every case.

To broadly generalize, when I was younger I think it made more sense to move up by switching companies, and I'm not sure I really valued a stable team with great coworkers as much as I should have. When you find a really good team, that's worth staying in place.

    I am happy and content where I am at
    ...
    I have found a level of contment and peace
    ...
    I have found peace for now
    ...
    But for now I am happy.

Tell us you're happy and have found contentment and peace one more time just so we know you really mean it.

Joking aside, there's nothing wrong with staying with a job you like if it doesn't quite pay market, but take care not to end up getting underpaid to the point you don't have a cushion. Curious if by "several chances to switch positions" you just mean recruiters have reached out to you though, because that's not quite the same thing.

Really healthy mindset imo, am happy for you :)

higher pay doesn't equate to less work life balance. This is major misconception that has no basis in reality.

It can even be the other way round. The cheapest company will try to extract as much work from you as possible, while the company with tons of money will hire more employees so you get better work-life balance.

In my experience, the companies that paid least were also the most stressful, and the ones who paid most were a mixed bag.

It is completely valid to optimize your life for metrics other than just income.

Do you already own a home?

It's not paid off, but ya I have a home in a small town that I love with my family.

This highlights really important factor in all discussions; employees can be in a very different life situation which naturally leads to different priorities. Congratulations on yours!

Give employees a decent worklife balance and guaranteed access to a home, most jobhopping would stop and the headhunter population would be an order of magnitude smaller.

That's really what's happening here, people job hopping to keep the status quo of the previous generation(s).

I'm curious about why this matter? As an european, owning is not a goal in my life. I would love to, but for now, I still want flexibility on my wereabouts.

Owning gives you a different kind of flexibility. Renting is usually pretty restrictive in the US, and if you want to put up a fence for your dog, grow a garden, paint your walls, or whatever you usually can't.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com