I don't make 100K but I did recently have what you might call a religious epiphany about my job, my finances, and freedom. Luckily for me, I have little debt and actually like my job a lot so I'm not the hole some folks are, God bless them all.
I just hope most of us aren't Bukowski's age when we realize we were building useless bullshit for useless people in order to buy useless plastic garbage. I know some of us are doing important work, but many of us are not.
Jeez, guys, we get one chance at this. Most people are destined to live anonymous lives so at the very least try to enjoy it.
No one holds a gun to the consumer's head, they just convince themselves they need thing. Then they whine when they haven't saved more than 300k for retirement at age 50 and social security is looking rocky.
Probably though I just need to quit Facebook again.
I think that we in the tech industry are... different here. In other industries, there is a /lot/ of pressure to look the part (well, to look an /expensive/ part.) Have you ever seen a real-estate agent in a car worth less than thirty grand? Hell, I've met a few sales folks and managers who wear watches they claim are worth at least half that.
Engineering is a little different in that we can dress down, and nobody is going to seriously give us shit for driving a piece of junk car. One can reasonably be a six-figure computer nerd and be a frugal person. A six figure salesman would be... well, he would be breaking a lot of expectations if he lived frugally.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/08/how-americ...
Also, spend lavishly on the best clothes, eat lavishly, but drive a very modest car and live in a modest home. People don't know what to make of that.
Really? huh. My experience has been that even foreign workers demand $10+ per hour, which is enough for a shitty car in a low cost of living area in the US. Good English is a reasonable multiplier.
You are not perceived as eccentric geniuses, not by anyone. Never, ever. They might say that to keep you on the treadmill but the the truth is that (especially by VCs) you are perceived as cannon fodder with a personal hygiene problem. You are kept around as long as you are useful and don't bitch too much. The minute that stops you are out on your ear. Welcome to the real world.
My point was just that if you are in management or sales, it seems that having expensive clothing and an expensive car are part of that 'being useful' - Appearance is a huge part of those jobs that are primarily human interaction. Appearance is a hugely important when dealing with other humans. I mean, I'm not saying that social skills and appearance don't matter for the technical individual contributor; they do, but it is not everything (like it is for management and sales.) It is possible to be technically good enough that people are willing to employ you in spite of your poor social skills. Obviously, that isn't the case for sales and management (as those jobs are, in a very real sense, social skills in and of themselves.)
Also note: If you are dealing directly with VC, you are more sales/management than an individual contributor.
Also, might want to work with that resentment problem of yours.
If you're talking about dressing cleanly, not betraying only passing acquaintance with showers by one's smell and being able to appear in public without shocking small children into tears - yes, sure. But that costs next to no money. Beyond that - nobody could care less which car you're driving and which house you're living in, unless you're a bank president or some other C level executive or business owner, where your conspicuous consumption skills may imply the success of your business. If you, however, are a professional, there's no problem with living simply, should you wish so, if that doesn't imply looking like a dervish or living literally in a cave.
Yeah, this is what I was talking about with our industry being different. This is... common for programmers. You don't even have to be uncommonly good, just useful.
But I think this is dramatically harder in other industries; to the point where I've never met, say, a real-estate agent like that, or a lawyer.
I've not only seen such an agent, I've engaged hers & his (they're a couple) services to buy my house. And it was just fine. Of course, I don't know the exact price tag on their car, but it was a moderately old suv, nothing flashy, probably nowhere near 30K. Actually, I'd be more vary of an agent with a really expensive car - if he's already so rich, would he care about getting my money enough?
They want to stay near their close family & friends, because they love them and want to see them and want their kids to grow up around them. Which means spending X per month on a house.
They want to have a car that doesn't embarrass them when they drive into work or round their friends, because owning a BMW has been a secret dream and it's a totally reasonable price, and a smooth ride and great acceleration.
They value different things than you and that all costs money.
I'm actually somewhere between the 'norm' and your view, but at least I'm realistic enough to realise that my priorities are different to most people's. I understand why they buy what they buy.
Most people aren't massive over-consumers.
This is really pushing it. Anybody buying a BMW on $100k in Silicon Valley while paying SV-level rents is a pretty big over-consumer. If you have a family on top of that, well... you won't be retiring any time soon.
I also find it odd that you jump immediately from "a car that doesn't embarrass them" to BMW. There's no in between? You have to go all the way to a luxury BMW to not be embarrassed by your car?
By all means, if you really value owning a BMW then get one, but unless you're making considerably north of $100k you don't have a strong case for not being an over-consumer.
You know how much $100k was when the term "six figure salary" started being used in the early 60s? Let me put it this way. The rich Donald Draper on Mad Men made $45k. $100k would have been more like $800k today. That was a CEO's salary. A "six figure salary" today is nothing like what it was when that term was coined.
Exhibit A is whenever a story about public employees makes the front page of HN (for example, the Detroit bankruptcy or the BART strike) and people start freaking out about train operators making $100K: "They don't even have college degrees, for godsakes!"
The car retains the majority of its value, they enjoy the car, they're not actually spending massive amounts of money like you seem to think they are. It's essentially a hobby item that they enjoy driving.
And it's only a proportion of my friends, some just get other cars that are a lot cheaper to run.
I remember checking how leasing a Porsche for 3 years would cost me less than half of the value the car would lose in that time.
In general, though, the best way to combat the depreciation of a car's value is to take out a long-term 0% interest loan, provided of course that you can get it. This works because (1) inflation reduces your effective net expenditure on the car; (2) you can take the cash you would have spent on the car and invest it instead; if you even conservatively get 3% returns a year, you've still come out far ahead.
Regarding (2), if you can't afford the car in cash, then you can't afford the car. That's always been my motto. Financing is a choice; it should never be something you are forced to do, unless this is your first car straight out of school and you just have no money yet.
Got married to someone who thinks like I do wrt to retirement and with one child we are on track to 'retire' when we want to. Barring us doing something dumb or global financial meltdowns - by mid 50s or so. I put retire in quotes because who believe in retirement where one site on their ass all day and says I'm so glad I don't have to work any more? I don't. Retirement means we will be able to give meaningful time to .org's that need it. But this will still be 'work'. I can't imagine a worse hell than retirement where I have no meaningful work to do.
Note: with two or more children much of what I can still do would need to be re-evaluated.
The cost is over a $1,000,000 (with a Dr. Evil pinky). If you look at the costs online, then you will see something between $200K to $400K depending on how good of parent are you. However, this doesn't bring in the opportunity cost of investing. If you just take the 18 year time span, then the first year is insanely expensive. Now, imagine it expanding 30, 40, 50 years out.
I'd write more but, as you say, we only get one chance at this and we're living in the best time ever.
Martin expresses concern for Bukowski's "image" when he buys a new BMW. Volkswagon Beetle is relegated to the garage.
Water view, but it's of the harbor, which is mainly shipping. Kind of like the difference of a bay view from Oakland, CA and the SF Peninsula, Tacoma/West Seattle and Magnolia, or Newark and Manhattan.
Am I lucky to make a good salary that allows me to pay these things down? Absolutely. However, I'm also responsible for the choices I make. Many people make more than I do and don't save as much, many More people make less and drive cars that are twice as expensive as mine.
Debt is leverage. Leverage, applied correctly, is an excellent means for accelerating the furtherance of a goal. Is having debt on a house a bad thing? Certainly not in a rising market, or in a market where rents tend to exceed mortgage payments. Additionally, equity gained in that house can be leveraged when times get rough in the future, or a new opportunity arises. Most people do not have the capital power to buy a home outright, even after many years of saving -- if you're spending on rent, you likely cannot save enough for an entire home in one lump sum. Most notably, you'd have to have a very smart growth strategy on that saving to beat both inflation and the rising prices of homes in the area you want to live over the course of the 15-20 years you'd have to employ that strategy. Therefore, for those with the wherewithal to manage their leverage correctly and effectively, a loan makes a lot of sense - they don't have to pay the rents, and they've gambled, successfully or otherwise TBD, against the future price of that home. They can as well make a decision to take gains early, long before ever having had to lay out the entire capital should their local market rise. In the case of 20% down on a $100k house that increases to $200k in value over 3 years with a total of $24k spent in payments over that time = $100k in returns for $44k invested, or a profit of $56k, with no additional rent charges during that time.
In addition, the same can run true for a vehicle. If a person needs a vehicle for transportation, they can apply leverage, especially if they do so wisely, to purchase a vehicle better suited to their needs than their normal cash flow allows. I, for example, could be fine with a 20-year old vehicle that needs regular maintenance. I can do that maintenance myself. Someone else may rightly say a 5-6% interest rate over three years is less costly to them than monthly visits to their mechanic.
So, this "debt is bad," thing is mostly stated by people who get leveraged beyond their means, or don't understand how to successfully apply the right amount of leverage at the right time. No debt can be as bad for one's fortunes as too much debt.
Very few Americans (or otherwise) could consider the idea of owning a house and a car outright at 45 without ever having taken on debt.
Debt isn't bad, debt is great - provided a) your time machine use doesn't cost too much and b) you really will have this money in the future (or, in other words, can keep up with the payments). Most problems with debt stem from misunderstanding the concept that it doesn't produce money, only shifts money around in time, and does not produce, but rather consume money - and of course from failure, deliberate or out of ignorance, to predict one's future amount of money. People also tend to double-count future money - once they debt-shifted it to present, they still consider it being there in the future, available for another debt-shift. This is where the trouble starts.
Having to wear a nice suit is also a failure. I would never consider working anywhere where I have to wear a suit.
Edit: My overarching point being that attitudes are changing. The 'American dream' doesn't really apply anymore, and especially not everywhere.
Having to wear a nice suit is not failure either. Both cars and suits are just tools. It's what you use a tool for that matters. Also I'll note if you resent wearing a suit, you have never actually worn a nice one...
Regarding my suit comment, it's about looking into the mirror in the morning and thinking whether the person you see is really who you once aspired to be.
Some people like to wear suits. One of my friend's greatest days was when just off high school he got straight into finance and finally could wear a suit 24/7. It genuinely makes him happy, it's an extension of his personality. He wants to be the big-shot-80s-New-York-cocaine-snorting-penthouse-owner-investment-banker type of guy.
But for me and I guess many others, to walk the earth in a suit would be, I don't know...perhaps the antithesis of existence. I think most people never think about it and even enjoy the office culture in a perverse way. Perhaps it's some form of a groupthink empathy, a we're-all-in-this-together style of getting a kick out of this masked suffering. I remember being a small kid and swearing I'd never be like an office manager or the bankers I saw, all wearing the same suits and becoming an empty shell that just assumes whatever of a corporate idenitity, becoming an embodiment of a foreign entity. Really just a zombie or a host for a parasite until it chews you out.
Because it does chew you out exactly as stated in this Bukowski letter, you're not really getting out. All the prices, the whole economy is set upon this 40-hour workweek, wage slave reality. All value is derived from this standard. I saw this very clearly 20+ years ago without even knowing the proper vocabulary to understand it. It's surprising how simple and clear it is, yet it's collectively decided that we don't want to look at it, we don't want to face it. You want out? The only way is to become the embodiment of the hope of getting out - a well-known star that can sell us the dream. And we'll gladly pay for it!
But you're right, the binge-drinking, fixed-bike urbano hipster thing is also a joke. We're all a joke in the end. But at least we could maybe strive to be funnier than we are because the joke is getting old.
For some reason, we see long-term travel to faraway
lands as a recurring dream or an exotic temptation, but
not something that applies to the here and now. Instead
— out of our insane duty to fear, fashion, and monthly
payments on things we don't really need — we quarantine
our travels to short, frenzied bursts. In this way, as
we throw our wealth at an abstract notion called
"lifestyle," travel becomes just another accessory — a
smooth-edged, encapsulated experience that we purchase
the same way we buy clothing and furniture.
You just can't believe it because you believe in a magical hierarchy with the free ones on top -- but so do the ones way up there. My god, if you're even able to leave a comment, you're already better off than 99% of people alive today!
The "rat race" is a subjective, elective construct and, by definition you cannot escape it a long as you subscribe to it. The people you think have escaped it, or control it, are also trappe by it, no matter how hard that is for you to believe. The only ones who have truly escaped are the ones who have had a fundamental shift in the way they conceptualize work, career, goals, desires and everything.
[1] They're only victims if they go too far, trigger civil unrest, and wind up on the losing side of the guillotine.
"I must Create a System, or be enslav'd by another Man's" -William Blake
We haven't yet found a way to fairly spread privilege in our societies, so we're stuck with the least worst system, but I would note that globalisation has actually raised living standards in many countries from India to China, in spite of, or perhaps because of its deleterious effects. People always want to hoard wealth (almost everyone does this, even those at the bottom), and it's hard to change that. It remains to be seen whether we can effectively temper human desires and spread that wealth and not end up in dystopia, but please don't try to blame things on a secret elite directing a carefully created system - it's a mirage and is not helpful. There are many contending forces vying for prominence in our societies, and in many ways corporations are more powerful than people or politicians (NB a corporation is not a CEO, it is a composite body).
The guillotine you mention was actually far worse for the ordinary people of France than for the aristocracy (many of whom simply fled) - terror and denunciation was used as a weapon on moderate politicians and everyday citizens, and even eventually the chief proponent of its use.
Aside: I wonder what effect increased lifespans will have on hoarding. We know the old horde, will they horde even more?
There have been, historically and presently, power and wealth grabs by the already powerful, and manipulation of political and social structures to suit their needs. To some extent this was easier historically, partly because there were fewer laws, but even now, with the legacy of hundreds of years of social and political reform, and a lot of it intended to liberate common people, there are still large distortions in our political systems that significantly mis-allocate power to the already powerful.
I would also take some umbrage with your statement that we "haven't yet found a way to fairly spread privilege in our societies" and your defence of the "least worst system" meme. Whilst there are aspects of the Western socio-political setup that are designed around the (reasonably) fair distribution of wealth, there remains constant pressure against legislation designed to develop the rights of common people in society. Indeed, those interested in reducing those rights are often able to gain popular support for their cause by positioning themselves as defenders of the wealth and power of those people whose wealth has recently increased - i.e. the middle classes, which now form a very significant political power base.
We do know of ways of more fairly distributing the rewards of labour (cooperatives come to mind, as a single example), but they are unpopular in a lot of the West, and if you look back to history you will see that that mentality was actively created to counter threats to vested interests. Ironically the system of laissez-faire capitalism that was adopted to counter these more de-centralised power structures ended up diluting the power base of the "old money" (and was eventually massively scaled back), though it persisted the fundamental inequality in wealth distribution.
I would, however, fully agree with your assertion that these problems are not (or at least very unlikely to be) the result of a direct conspiracy by some elite group. I don't think history supports that view, and I don't believe people are particularly capable of maintaining such a conspiracy for so long a period of time. It should be clear, however, that the "conspiracy" could itself be an emergent part of the system - a higher order structure that has managed to persist itself (thus far) without continuous direct human intervention, however that would make it not a conspiracy in the traditional sense of the word.
N.B. This is obviously a pretty broad sweep based on my interpretation of history - if anyone has any corrections or comments I'd appreciate hearing them.
Sure. But that does not conflict with "emergent structure": There's no need for a cabal at the top consciously arranging the structure of society. Just a bunch of people who are often trying to manipulate things in specific directions, and where a lot of them will have overlapping motivations. From the outside, that can look very much the same.
A lot of the time people are not necessarily even trying to steer things a certain way, but merely looking after their own interests.
E.g. a central idea in marxism is that the capitalist is not really at fault: He's "caught up" in the system just as much as the worker. He is exploiting people working for him, but he does not necessarily intentionally want to oppress. He is merely playing his role, protecting what he sees as his own interests, just like the workers.
And so you get "nice" capitalists, who try to do better, but they can still largely only act within the confines of their role: The only way the capitalist can top oppressing, is by ceasing to be a capitalist. But that is not in his interest, and it is unreasonable to expect the capitalist to willingly do so - he will find every excuse for not giving up his privilege (and many might be good; e.g. it is perfectly possible an individual capitalist might be doing more net good with his profit than it would have if he shared everything equally with his workers). Ultimately, marxism is cynical about human nature: We are all looking out for our own interests; to the extent we do not, it is because we lack awareness of our real interests or position.
Further: "I don't think history supports that view, and I don't believe people are particularly capable of maintaining such a conspiracy for so long a period of time. It should be clear, however, that the "conspiracy" could itself be an emergent part of the system - a higher order structure that has managed to persist itself (thus far) without continuous direct human intervention, however that would make it not a conspiracy in the traditional sense of the word."
I will also reiterate that just because there isn't a genuine conspiracy does not mean, as some (not you, here) conclude, that "the system" is as good as uncorrupted and can't be improved.
I'm not enough of a scholar of Marxism to disagree with your reading of it, but for my own part I would say that people are (obviously in my view) capable of acting in more than their own self interest, unless one insists on almost ridiculous contortions of their motives. This capability for action in the wider good can and should be harnessed by society, and my preference would be for this to take place in step with a broader decentralisation of power (and wealth).
Finally, I think a tiresome strand to this debate (not brought by you) is the idea that any kind of social improvement inevitably leads to some kind of totalitarianism. I know this view is a little passé, but I really see this as part of a set of propaganda disseminated by the powerful intended to counter challenges to their power. This certainly has historical precedent, and it is pretty clear that similar things happen today, often through support to favourable political parties, which comes with an influence over those parties' message. Of course, lots of other people buy into the propaganda, because it also serves their own (much smaller) interests.
I didn't claim our current system is perfect or uncorrupted (the phrase least worst system clearly points out that our current systems are flawed). I don't think social improvement (however you define that) inevitably leads to some kind of totalitarianism, but I do think people claiming to have all the answers to creating a fairer society have turned out to be tyrannical more often than not (e.g. Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin etc), and I prefer the gradual, consensual move to socialism we have in Western Europe (a form of capitalism tempered by social justice and redistribution, far more equitable than in Marx's time for example). Blaming, dehumanising and scapegoating minority groups (the 1%, bankers, etc) to expiate our sins does nothing to help our society become more fair, quite the reverse.
The last century under moderated capitalism has seen much progress in conditions of work in the western world, and even recently in the developing world, and this in spite of the selfishness inherent in capitalism which you would think would tend to ever-increasing centralisation of power and wealth if left unchecked - I find that an interesting contradiction.
If people want to debate redistribution, what fair means, how to moderate capitalism or replace it and how to make our societies more fair that's (in my view) a useful debate, but diatribes about a shadowy conspiracy of a 1% elite spanning centuries are not productive, because they're not going to make people face with sober senses their real conditions of life, and their relations with others in society.
I wasn't referring to you when I indicated that some conclude that the system is "as good as uncorrupted and can't be improved", nor was I suggesting that you subscribe to "the idea that any kind of social improvement inevitably leads to some kind of totalitarianism". In both cases I was speaking about the opinions I encounter in this debate more generally.
As to the point you make in your second paragraph; it strikes me that the improvement in living standards is more to do with improvements in technology and political freedom than it is to do with the way our economy is organised. The idea that we owe these improvements to the economic structure is, however, prevalent; sometimes the idea is modified to say that the technological advancement we have enjoyed would have been impossible without the economic system we have.
Both forms of this idea fail to recognise that there have been numerous burst of technological and social advancement that haven't relied upon capitalism (e.g. the Romans, but also basically every civilisation in history), unless of course you broaden the definition of capitalism so much to include almost any commercial system, and both fail to offer evidence that capitalism was causal of, rather than merely temporally correlated with, the improvements in living standards. The negative evidence available, about systems which have historically been anti-correlated with progress (like the ones you mentioned), only covers a narrow range of possibilities, and are difficult to generalise from.
I should note that I'm strongly inclined to believe that there was a causal link between capitalism and the success of the industrial revolution and the things that followed (i.e. it was sufficient), but I am far less convinced that the form of capitalism used, which strongly concentrated power, was necessary, and I think that it is deleterious to broader society.
I, like you, "prefer the gradual, consensual move to socialism we have in Western Europe". This is a sentiment I agree with wholeheartedly, and I find these ideas of conspiracy very boring, but I'm still wary of the notion that we should pretend that no one has an interest in concentrating power and wealth, and maintain the status quo. My reading of history, and the present, is that people do have such interests, and that they use both their power and their wealth to secure their positions. I fail to see why this is particularly controversial, except that it suggests moral culpability for actions that have, for a long time, been lauded.
I can see that you are not arguing to maintain the status quo, but I hope you recognise that the greater social justice in modern capitalism, which is constantly under attack from the right, was fought for over long periods. The rights we enjoy today were not given to us by the benevolence of our leaders.
Sorry for the long post! ;-)
That referred to the post which started this thread.
In both cases I was speaking about the opinions I encounter in this debate more generally.
Ok, I'm not sure there's much point in debating general opinion; it makes it very confusing if you attempt to debate interlocutors of your own invention.
I'm still wary of the notion that we should pretend that no one has an interest in concentrating power and wealth, and maintain the status quo. My reading of history, and the present, is that people do have such interests
Everyone has this interest, whether they have power and wealth presently or not, and whether they admit it or not, and I don't see it as culpable, merely something to be managed. It can even be healthy in small doses, in encouraging competition rather than resignation. I'm not sure many would claim that all progress comes via capitalism, but recent globalisation has resulted in a shift in wealth to countries which are developing due to trade, and I do find the question of how much regulated capitalism has contributed to global levelling an interesting one.
Anyway, it seems to me that we largely agree on the appropriate means to desirable ends - nothing too dramatic.
Thanks for the discussion!
I do love me some Marx on a Friday afternoon!
The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.
If you think about wealth in this abstracted sense, a notch away from money, then you can see how basic trading dynamics might apply.
Yakovenko modelled the trading dynamics in a perfect game of chance (coin flips determine winners and losers). Something interesting emerged.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/12/7/075032
What it shows is that if everyone starts with the same amount of money, after a bit of random trading, their wealth is normally distributed (this is obvious if you are familiar with the binomial distribution). A few people are doing well, a few are doing badly, and most people are around where they started. As the trading continues though, it turns into a power curve where most people are doing badly and a few are taking everything. Its the same thing that happens when a rich man sits down at a poor man's poker table. He can keep putting him all in on every good hand and he only needs to be right maybe 1 in ten times and he wins everything. There's a runaeay effect after you hit a certain point.
Of course, things are a lot messier at this higher level interpretation of wealth since its harder to attach numbers to wealth in the form of political power, good health, and other factors which have a compounding effect (good health and political power help you make more money, but they cost money, so there's a feedback loop, but you xan equate them for simplicity). This is why people complain about a shrinking middle class.
The good news is that human life is messy we often allow our relationships to balance things out. The bad news is that we have gotten better and better at sterilizing our social and physical environments so the past might not predict what's coming next.
"I IPO'd for ten million dollars! Life is awesome!" quickly transitions to "Frank IPO'd for 5x what I did! That's not fair!"
It is not healthy to constantly compare yourself with people who are worse off. Sure, it induces a sense of gratitude to know that you have clean drinking water and no threat of being killed by a warlord today (unlike many people in Africa, for instance), however if we settled for that, there would never be any incentive to improve our situation further. Imagine what would've happened if every inventor and scientist in the history of mankind had that attitude.
Also, not everyone on this board lives in Silicon Valley and works for a startup that spoils him stupid with catered lunches, scheduled massages and a 150K/yr salary. A lot of us are just normal middle class people living in economies that aren't that prosperous and the prospect of losing a job can really threaten our financial security. Also, if you work for a shit company that takes advantage of that, you can be in for a pretty miserable experience. So get off your high horse already.
I never thought "keeping up with the Joneses" is part of my human nature. Or even my culture.
The 'societal overlords' from previous posts you have now ascribed to human nature (??) are really 'society', perhaps influenced by some ultra-elite cadre, sure.