Hacker News Reader

Comment by TeMPOraL | Hacker News Reader

> But there’s this super prevalent idea that keeps getting pumped around the blogosphere that it’s absolutely impossible to not work at a terrible huge company and therefore you cannot possibly escape, and I quote, “going home and despairing”.

Behind all such writing is an unspoken piece of context: those terrible huge companies pay software devs better than small ones. It's not that they can't work at a smaller company - it's just that it means taking a hit to your take-home pay, so it's Not An Option.

View on HN

You're saying if you can't maximize your pay, it's not an option?

I cannot wrap my head around it. Being happy with your life is not a one-to-one correlation with income. You can make less money than "maximum" and still have a great life.

It's not necessarily maximizing money, but maintaining lifestyle. It's extremely common for people to increase their standard of living as their means increase, and reducing that requires significant effort in some cases (e.g., people tend to buy as much house as they can afford, so any significant salary reduction could necessitate selling the house and uprooting your family). It's a minimal sacrifice in the face of having to work a job you hate, IMO, but it's still a powerful barrier for many.

Right.

> extremely common for people to increase their standard of living

That was a choice. But the opposite is "not a choice"? You choose to spend so much money that you are forced into work you may despise to support the spending choices you make, so there's no option to... not make those spending choices?

Choices aren't made equal. Some are easier to make, even unconsciously, than others. For example, choosing immediate pleasure is easier than immediate discomfort. A series of small, incremental choices over time is easier than one large step. Etc.

What is your point? It’s still a choice. It’s easier to spend more money than less money, great insight.

It's also easier to spend the same money than to spend less money. Given two easy things, most people won't chose the hard thing most of the time.

I'm unsure why you've quoted "not a choice", as I never said any such thing. I said it's difficult for many to decide to change their lifestyle to afford a less lucrative but more enjoyable job.

You've also got the cause and effect backward. You do the work you can be employed to do with the promise of (in your opinion, and relative to your skill and responsibility) competitive compensation. Years go by, you get used to living with that salary (plus yearly raises), and then you realize your job sucks. Now what do you do? Soldier on at BigCo1, switch companies to an effectively isomorphic position at BigCo2, or spend low 5 figures moving to and outfitting a new house for a 20% pay cut and a job you love? All three are choices, but #3 has the highest barrier to decision.

> I'm unsure why you've quoted "not a choice", as I never said any such thing.

TeMPORaL did, though, in the parent chain. That's why neogodless is quoting it. (This isn't a one-on-one conversation here...)

>You can make less money than "maximum" and still have a great life.

I think the bigger assumption here is "all companies are bad, so even if I change I'm simply choosing another poison".

What alternatives do you have in mind? trying to join a startup? That means having the money/idea for yourself and pitching to investors or being experienced enough that other founders want you on the ground floor with them (i.e. going back to spending 10+ years at "not an option" BigCo).

Agree! In fact, while you wrote this I made an edit (last sentence) to address that. It was supposed to be my core point but I had somehow left it implicit.

Also work life balance is usually better in big corp you actually can clock that 9:5 and go home.

All of my friends at FB/G work way more hours than me and miss family activities. Same as when I was at MS.

FAANG are megacorps pretending to be startups to young developers, and treat them accordingly. There are other megacorps doing tech that behave like proper megacorps, and pay accordingly.

Those companies tend to attract type As, and it’s similarly easy for non type As to feel implicit peer pressure. You don’t have to work a ton to succeed.

If you prefer to maintain a 9-5 schedule at these companies, it's extremely possible as long as you:

1) genuinely stick to a 9-5 work routine (some individuals I saw struggling were actually working something like 11-4).

2) are comfortable with the possibility of not experiencing rapid career advancement, potentially reaching a plateau at the first terminal level.

The people who tend to work extra hours are the ones who choose to in my experience. If you don't work extra hours now you won't after switching to one of those companies either. You might witness folks who do, but you can usually tell they are more self motivated than they are forced into it.

Depends on the company. My stints with BigCorp life were full of 6-7PM meeting times and expectations to keep up with Slack and email even during vacations and holidays.

I have friends at Amazon who have started to miss our Saturday events because they’re feverishly working to avoid being caught in the next round of layoffs.

I also have friends at some FAANG companies who seem like they’re barely working (their own admission) so it varies wildly. Can’t really generalize.

Bezos is a known taskmaster.

I think it depends how you look at it. For me, it's a pretty small price to pay to look at Slack here and there, whether over the weekend or on vacation, to get paid significantly more. Rarely do I have to actually put in more than an hour or two during these times, and I can very easily take that time off during the work week.

Unless you’re talking about big tech that’s not true. A random bank or insurance company or whatever will pay worse than well funded startups

Reply on news.ycombinator.com