On the other hand, America's friendliness to capital has lead to funding companies that end up competing for software engineers. This is part of the reason why developer jobs in the US tend to pay twice as well as those in Europe.
I'd rather live in a place where everyone is comfortable than a place where only people like me are, even if I'd be somewhat wealthy.
Now this is a really unpopular opinion on here... I think the real issue is centralization of high capital tech work, and really the density of people in general. The cost of living in places like NYC, northern VA, and Silicon Valley are all hugely above the median. It's like a vicious cycle of groupthink instead of evenly distributing those jobs (companies) throughout cheaper, less populous areas. I'd love to see someone from a depressed area start a big name company in that area to help being jobs and prosperity to their neighbors. Perhaps that's just my deluded fantasy.
1. Inflation - Though I will not expound here because I’m not an expert.
2. Salaries in the US have been stagnant since the 70s which correlates to the start of the weakening of Big Labor by corporate and government interests.
Left-leaning source:
https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/
Right leaning source:
https://www.aei.org/articles/have-wages-stagnated-for-decade...
Brookings Institute coverage of both left and right sources:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2019/09/10/are-wages...
This is happening all the time. A hundred years ago the Santa Clara (Silicon) Valley was orchards. Detroit was getting rich on the latest tech wave.
A hundred years before that, the North of England was making fortunes in the Industrial Revolution.
In our lifetimes China has changed incredibly. Foxconn is now a big name company that employs over a million people and moved a lot of money into the places they operate.
Problem is getting money to a place like that. Investors hate travel if its not to the same 3 cities
They’ve been slowly expanding operations and bringing new tech jobs and opportunities to a pretty bleak area. Very cool and inspiring to see.
The same works in the other direction, and it kind of sucks for companies in areas where income isn't as high having to compete for talent against others with much deeper pockets. It's been interesting to say the least.
Unfortunately, I've seen the govt operating against unions... looking at the railway and airlines and think they're really on the wrong side of this, as much as I don't want to be more inconvenienced from strikes, they should be able to do so. I feel the govt does more harm than good in the US and would prefer a little less picking winners and losers in the mix. On the same note, I don't think they're playing their hands well at all to establish domestic production and security fia application of tariffs and FDA requirements.
I feel like this is the opposite of what’s happened here in the UK and the timescales are not that long but the collective amnesia is staggering. Even just as far back at the mid 00’s seems to have fallen out of the memory of a large proportion of the population.
Isn't that what the complaints about NIMBYism are all about? Yeah, I'm all for having other people solving the problems of the poor workers. I don't have to do anything until they do. While we're at it, lets have the software developers clothe and house them as well. They can clearly afford it. It's only fair. Am I a good person now?
Talk is cheap. Do something first before complaining about what others aren't doing.
If there were a stronger social safety net and everyone had to pay a bit more in tax, then that would actually impact something.
Go and give $20k each to 5 people making minimum wage. That would have a huge impact.
You're just looking for an excuse to invalidate their beliefs, so you can excuse yours. Not a healthy debate.
Redistributing your own income is putting your money (literally) where your mouth is.
It's effectively a bunch of people who want a crowd funding campaign for a product to exist, and everyone else saying "if you want to throw your money away, here's a trash can". That's entirely missing the point and completely unhelpful. The goal is to make a collective investment and get something in return.
If we're being real, this group, myself included, is only one step removed from a NIMBY, but it is what it is. If you want to suggest I abandon the little leverage I have to put towards creating a better society for myself and the people around me, I would say: you first. Oh, not interested? Welcome to the club. Now let's work together to make this place we live better.
Highly paid tech workers are still workers, albeit ones that tend to lack class consciousness because they think they're on top (until they get fired en masse to save profits).
Management earning wildly disproportionate salaries should share first. Management is worthless without labor, yet is responsible for choking workers from their fair share.
Americans might be selfish but they’re not irrational. Much of my family immigrated to Australia and Canada. My mom just got back from a long trip there, and was complaining about how small and close together the houses are, and how doctors can’t really get rich there. If you care more about the square footage of your house or the number of cars you have (and Americans do, and continually import immigrants who have similar values) than about health care for poor people, then the specific trade-offs made in America economic policy are totally rational.
I'm saying that governmental policies have allied the poor and the ultra wealthy to the detriment of the middle class. GP was saying American dev salaries are too high, when really they are not the issue compared to how many tax breaks 10MM+ individuals have gotten.
Investors have bought up 40% of the real estate in some counties in the US. That's ridiculous.
When the government allows for predatory behavior by companies and the ultra wealthy that lowers their responsibility to society that is not a burden for the middle class to bear.
And besides if you think that's an economically feasible zero-sum calculus, I don't even know what to tell you.
But if you really think you earn too much, you can donate 40-50% of your salary and truly transform another person's life or make an astonishing impact in a charity of your choice. I hope you are being coherent with your words and are already doing this.
How do you feel about people who say to protestors, "if you don't like it here, move"?
You're peddling the same logical fallacy that conservative billionaires have convinced the lower-middle class of for a century.
OP proposes a trade: their high salary for a society that prioritizes the wellbeing of everyone over the wellbeing of the luckiest few. In response, you suggest that OP should give away half their salary to another individual, and they've solved their problem.
The fallacy here is that you assume assume OP's goal is to be purely selfless; that is not the case. OP very selfishly wants to live in a healthier, more sustainable society than they currently do. In response, you disingenuously suggest that they take all of the negatives of their the trade with none of the positives.
Hopefully you see why that's not helpful to anyone.
One thing I'd add is that, even if I were able to give away enough of my income to make a difference in my community, everyone in the community would benefit, but I would be the only one paying for it. I find this intensely unfair and distasteful.
This is similar to how I felt during the height of the bay area mask mandates when most people were masked and one or two families were not. Those folks were reaping all the benefits of widespread vaccinations and masking, yet bearing none of the burden. I despised those people probably more than was healthy.
I'm not sure 'even' is the right word here. The gap between developer and median salaries goes down the richer the country is. e.g. in many Eastern European countries the average salary for a software developer can be up to 2x or more higher than the national average.
I was on a wedding in NYC last summer. One of the guests I talked to was a junior dev. He was making 120k/y. He had to flat share. With 120k?
With 60k/y you do not have to flat share in Berlin.
And this goes the other way around too. When I worked for a multinational in Berlin a few years ago we had lots of Ukrainians that we hired at externals through a subcontracting company in that country.
Quite a few of the better developers applied directly and we happily took them on. The main reason was that they would make twice as much in Berlin.
But that was on paper. After paying taxes in Germany their net salary was less than what they had made net in Ukraine. Most of them went back.
Just saying.
For one, every city with a lot of career options for young professionals is actively hostile towards housing development, except maybe Seattle.
$120k should be enough to live in apartment anywhere in the US though. However, with how high rents are, it makes much more sense to spend that somewhere else like an early retirement in a much cheaper city.
After paying taxes in Germany their net salary was less than what they had made net in Ukraine. Most of them went back.
Income tax in Ukraine is about 20%. I used to live in Hongkong. Max tax rate was about 15%. Overall quality of life was terrible compared to advanced economies with 2x/3x tax rates. Sure, you might be "rich" on paper, but you pay a lot for privitised versions of these quality of life services. I always say: "If you pay little [in taxes], you get little [in gov't services]."
Another way to think about it: Look at countries that are not corrupt but it is very hard to get rich. Usually, those countries have excellent quality of life.
And maybe they went back for cultural reasons (food, family, education, etc.). I have observed that pattern many times.
Reality is SW engineering barely 2x median income in Germany untill you're talking like senior/lead roles. Meanwhile in the US grads start 2x.
Ok well the problem there is he's living in the most expensive place he possibly could. Live in the suburbs and you won't have to share a flat on $120k.
Assuming you pay $200/month in healthcare, ~$1800 a month to max out your 401k, your take home pay is about $5,000 after taxes. In Manhattan and the expensive parts of Brooklyn, your own place is realistically a minimum of $2,500, possibly as much as $3,000. Outside of those places, still $2,000.
Source: I literally just went through this process, as a new grad, making slightly above $120k about 3 months ago.
Plus with junior devs the salary increase is pretty steep in the first few years.
I think the argument “he has to live in a share flat otherwise would need to compromise on maxing out with 401k” isn’t as convincing an argument as the OP thinks.
What about the cheaper parts of Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx or Staten Island...? Not even to mention Jersey City.