[vostok]

> Are you really willing to tell me that that the average engineer in 3-6 years can pull in $250k?

I just sent you a link saying that the average engineer makes $100k.

I am claiming that (1) the average developer is awful and (2) you can make that much and more if you're not awful.

> So if these people all just work 3-6 years should I expect a bunch of multimillionaires?

You're not going to be a multimillionaire if you make $250k for 6 years.

[the_cyber_pass]

The average developer is average, not awful. You can make more if you are better than average and know the right people and speak the right language. I know people who are making $350k, but they are very much an exception and we both know and understand this. Much of how much you get paid is based around who you know, your location and your cultural fit. Most people do not live in the bay area for various reasons and salaries like that are extremely uncommon outside of there and the upper echelons of the NY finance market.

I was exaggerating, but if you save your money while making 250k you can easily live off 30k and pocket the rest. It's not hard to become a millionaire off of that salary in a very short amount of time.

[vostok]

> Most people do not live in the bay area for various reasons and salaries like that are extremely uncommon outside of there and the upper echelons of the NY finance market.

As someone who has actual experience with this, it's easier to get a high paying job in those areas because that's where the hard problems are being solved.

Hard problems are usually solved in high cost of living areas because you need to pay your employees a lot of money and those employees usually prefer to live in high cost of living areas. I actually have personal experience with this.

Yes, the cost of living argument applies if your salary is at the low end of the scale.

If you're solving hard problems at a company that values that kind of stuff, then you can makes just as much anywhere else. I actually have personal experience with this too.

No, the cost of living argument does not apply at the high end of the scale. Cost of living starts to become irrelevant as you make more money.

Sure, rent in NY is $60k per year vs $24k per year in Oklahoma, but it's just not that important if you're making $1m+ year.

[the_cyber_pass]

Ok so first off, rent in Tulsa is 12k at most for a full house.

Second off a lot of the high cost of living has nothing to do with solving hard problems, if it did the civil engineers would have solved the hard problem of fixing the housing market in SF. What you are essentially arguing is Tom Cruise 2.0 makes 6 million a film after a few years in the industry so therefor everyone else sucks which you can tell because they don't make 6 million. Being generous I would claim it's a survivorship bias.

[vostok]

> Second off a lot of the high cost of living has nothing to do with solving hard problems

Actually, it's directly related. People who solve hard problems at companies that value that sort of thing make a lot of money. Generally, people who make a lot of money want to live in nice areas. Nice areas become expensive as housing gets bid up by high earners.

[the_cyber_pass]

Nice is relative. People who make a lot of money want things relative to their interests. Areas become more expensive due to poor planning from civil servants more than Google salaries. NYC, DC, Boston, Atlanta, Austin, London, Brussels and Berlin are all cities which are also working on "solving hard problems" but they don't have nearly the cost of living problems that SF has.

[JimboOmega]

Also, people who make a lot of money, especially in a given field (like tech) tend to want to live with each other, which really exacerbates the problem in markets that resist change (like SF).

Of course, allowing huge office towers to go up but refusing residential development doesn't help.