Slashdot Mirror
Scraping By On Six Figures? Tech Workers Feel Poor in Silicon Valley's Wealth Bubble (theguardian.com)
Big tech companies pay some of the country's best salaries. But workers claim the high cost of living in the Bay Area has them feeling financially strained, reports The Guardian. One Twitter employee cited in the story, who earns a base salary of $160,000 a year, said his earnings are "pretty bad", adding that he pays $3000 rent for a two-bedroom house in San Francisco. From the article: Silicon Valley's latest tech boom has caused rents to soar over the last five years. The city's rents, by one measure, are now the highest in the world. The prohibitive costs have displaced teachers, city workers, firefighters and other members of the middle class, not to mention low-income residents. Now techies, many of whom are among the highest 1 percent of earners, are complaining that they, too, are being priced out. The Twitter employee said he hit a low point in early 2014 when the company changed its payroll schedule, leaving him with a hole in his budget. "I had to borrow money to make it through the month." He was one of several tech workers, earning between $100,000 and $700,000 a year, who vented to the Guardian about their financial situation.
If getting paid slightly late forces you to take out a loan, you're a dumbass who doesn't know how to manage his money. This is true regardless of how much or how little money you make. Rule #1 of personal finance is "live below your means."
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
"$160,000 a year, said his earnings are "pretty bad", adding that he pays $3000 rent for a two-bedroom house in San Francisco"
Okay, let's take out the difference if he only had to pay $1000 a month for rent like in most areas.
2000 * 12 = 24,000.
160,000 - 24,000 = 136,000.
He's only making 136,000 a year! So poor!
Now sure, it's not enough when it comes to buying a house there, but that's a market that you had to have bought into beforehand. That doesn't make him poor though. He's making plenty of money and should have enough to outright buy a house in another city when he's had his fill of Silicon Valley.
Rent is usually the biggest expense of a budget. So that's $36K for rent, leaving $124K for every other expenses. Saying it's "pretty bad" to have $10333 left to live after paying rent every month is why people around the world hate Americans. You fuckers are rich and you're still complaining.
#DeleteFacebook
You chose to live and work out there. Meanwhile, here in metro Atlanta (which has a pretty decent tech scene itself, although it's not my field), I own a house and have 2 paid off cars on a combined income of 90k between me and my wife. This even includes paying off student loans every month and putting money away into savings. My wife's sister's family makes it on my brother-in-law's $80-90k a year salary at Redstone with 3 kids. You can get by just fine on less than 100k in NC near the research triangle as well (and Charlotte is big with banking if working in the financial sector is your thing). There's more to the country than just SF/SV and NYC
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
He makes 160k, with bonuses I make 80k. He pays $3k in rent, my Mortgage is $1500 a month. I'm not broke, somehow this guy is?
Lol maybe the lack of a Big wife is your saving grace.
If someone makes $100k and spends $50k on the cost of living, then someone who earns $200k and spends $150k on the cost of living, you are both in the same boat.
You're getting a lot better living for the $150k, you're definitely not in the same boat. That's like the people who say, "Oh, my BMW payments are so high, they're forcing me to cut back on my quality of life." And even in the Bay Area, you can buy a nice house for $150k a year.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Citation needed, as well as your definition of "a nice house"
I was wondering this too.
160k, takes home about 10k/month.
after rent that leaves 7k for all other expenses? Unless everything else scales incredibly high (higher than the rent, which I doubt), that's a pretty comfortable life, even with some student debt.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Let's round it up and say you are paying $40K/year for housing and say $40K for taxes. If you are burning through $80K a year on food, clothing, transport and entertainment, then you are doing something very wrong.
Stop eating at restaurants for every meal.
Stop buying expensive coffee.
Stop using uber for everything.
Stop subscribing to every stupid service.
Stop spending real money to buy fake money in video games.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
You're not getting the point, which is: don't live in the bay area unless you can afford it.
It really is that simple. You just have to tolerate a 2–3 hour commute from Elk Grove. The question is this: How much is your time worth?
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
... and new housing is blocked, don't forget that one.
That's really what it comes down to. You have to make a decision on employment not just based on the size of your paycheck. Quality of life, proximity to activities/transportation, cost of housing, general cost of living all play into the equation.
It's as if nobody every taught these kids any sort of financial management or business skills, or even analytical thinking to work out the finances themselves. This is not, as they say, rocket science.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
San Francisco is full of crappy little houses that sell for $1 million because there is so much demand for so little supply. The obvious thing to do in such a situation, of course, is to let people build higher. The owner of this house is selling for $1 million, but they would much prefer to build a 10-unit tower on the spot and sell each of the units for $500k. They would make an extra $4 million minus building costs, and the buyers would get the same footage for half the price. Since much of San Francisco is walking distance to a rail line, this wouldn't create unsolvable parking problems. It would be a win-win situation for everyone.
But because San Francisco (and the whole Bay Area) think that everyone should have a veto on what everyone else does with their property, rebuilding doesn't happen, demand continues to rise, and the city becomes affordable only by the rich.
Re-read the article that you cite: "The minimum income to be in the top 1 percent was $389,436".
The $1.15m number you quote is the average income of the top 1%, not the minimum amount required to make it into that bracket.
You have never been to a 'red zones' area. People in the majority of the country, red or blue, could care less about your bedroom habits. What they may care about is that you bring your "accept my status" message out in public. As amazing as it may sound, people in Texas are not out having "hetero pride parades", because it's not anyone's business what they do in the bedroom either. Prior to the communist takeover of the "Left" in the US, the motto "live and let live" was normal in the democratic party. Today, it is "we are going to shove our minority status down everyone's throat!". Hopefully you see why the Dems have lost massive amounts of support from their base.
If you are worried about people whispering behind your back because of bedroom habits, that happens in SF just like everywhere else. If you don't hear it, that is because you choose not to listen. As a straight living in SF I hear the same exact talk here as anywhere else in the country. It happens to be mostly "I wish those people would keep their sexual activities to themselves.
No - it's an example of why raising minimum wage doesn't help.
Everything goes up based on the wealth and money available in an area.
I hear people trash Texas because of our low wages but they always leave out the low cost of living here.
my theory is the VC firms have bought up the property around these tech hubs and recoup their money easily via rent.
Wrong.
I'm sure plenty of software engineers realize this, and have realized this for a very long time now.
The problem is that it's not up to them. It's up to managers and executives, who don't like remote workers. From what I've seen, telecommuting is becoming more and more rare; it was more common 10 years ago. Now the managers all want everyone on-site, and they want them working in noisy open-plan offices, sitting at open tables with no partitions whatsoever.
Comparing raising minimum wages ($10/hr) to a tech worker complaining when he makes $80/hr is a bit of a stretch.
His rent isn't high because the burger flipper at McDonald's and his barista is getting paid $10/hr instead of $8/hr.
I am thinking what a pack of whiny shallow pricks. The taxes they pay are more than the wages of those on minimum wage and those fucking whiny arseholes do not give one fuck about how people on minimum wage are meant to live. They just demand those minimum wage workers serve their every single whiny demand. I wander how many of those ass hats support raising the minimum wage or demand it be reduced or eliminated because they can not afford to be served sufficiently by the 'not real job and hence do not deserve real pay, pay them even less class' on a wage of $150,000 per year.
From the corporate view point of course there is a shift, how to attract tech workers whilst paying them less. Obviously make it easier and more enjoyable for them to live near the point of employment, offering better lifestyle and living conditions, with relocation and home establishment support services, coupled with easier access to immigration services.
If it does not make a difference where you company is located is terms of production, distributions and sales, obviously it should be located to suit staffing requirements. So can the wage of those whiny pricks (they deserve that because many of them do not give one fuck about people on minimum wage and even go so far as to claim those minimum wage earners should be paid less to promote more employment), be effectively halved, so instead of $150,000 they are paid say $60,000 but they are offered a far better access to accommodation and lifestyle, for them and their families, even future citizenship in a more 'quality of life', focused country, as well as assurances of extended employment ie not fired the first second you are not required (problem in that part, who they fuck would believe future employment claims from any modern psychopathic styled corporation).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Not when they're (a) optional and (b) used to obscure the point, they're not! It is goddamn dishonest to pretend that Silicon Valley tech-worker take-home pay, with gold-plated health care, a maxed out 401k (and maybe exercised stock options), and a metric ass-ton of other fringe benefits is in any way comparable to normal-person take-home pay that includes taxes, basically zero retirement savings (outside of social security) and fuck-all else.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Three times annual gross pay for the price of a house, has been the standard for people who don't live wastefully for at least 60 years and probably much longer. This is merely prudent behavior, so that money can be set aside for emergencies and opportunities, etc..
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
The problem is that it's not up to them. It's up to managers and executives, who don't like remote workers. From what I've seen, telecommuting is becoming more and more rare; it was more common 10 years ago. Now the managers all want everyone on-site, and they want them working in noisy open-plan offices, sitting at open tables with no partitions whatsoever.
Yup. This trend is getting harder to escape, even in areas on the east coast with low cost of living. I work at a shop in central Florida where this is the case; the executive in charge wanted the place to feel like a trendy startup, so they tore out all the walls on the floor and built this space (at great expense) last year. We each get 60" of personal space along what amounts to a cafeteria table, with noise and distractions out the wazoo. Few of the developers like it, and productivity suffers. We get one day a week at home and it's generally the most productive.