[HockeyPlayer]

Don't be silly. She wrote that her friend, "could easily bring in a low six-figure income"

If you save wisely, you can retire just fine after a career at a tech company making 2-3x the US median salary. And most companies have good health coverage for the cancer.

She is talking about the pressure to make $10M or more through a startup, not getting the money to retire comfortably.

[kscaldef]

> And most companies have good health coverage for the cancer.

Well... kinda. One of the dirty little secrets of employer-provided group health care is that when you have one person whose health care costs vastly exceed the average, there's enormous pressure to get that person out of the "group". I've know companies where someone got cancer and the premiums for the whole company doubled the next year.

[jimbokun]

This is a good economic explanation for why national health care systems should outperform employer based (or any other) systems. You can't get a larger pool of people to spread risk around, under a single legal framework, than an entire nation state.

[kscaldef]

It's not really about the overall performance or cost of coverage. The advantage, in this case, of national health care is that you can't be kicked out of the "group" (i.e. fired because you're raising the insurance premiums for the whole company), and there's no concept of "uninsurable".

[yummyfajitas]

Once you look at the numbers, you realize that beyond a certain size it doesn't matter much.

The standard deviation of health care costs for a company scales like 1/sqrt(# employees). Once (sigma cost) / sqrt(# of employees) << (mean cost), there is little advantage to having a bigger pool.

[orangecat]

Geez. I never thought about that scenario, but it makes perfect sense. So much for the one possible advantage of employer-based health insurance.

[nerfhammer]

Here's a disturbing tale of this scenario playing out: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/7/751100/-How-I-los...

[timr]

"If you save wisely, you can retire just fine after a career at a tech company making 2-3x the US median salary."

This is a theory at this point...and it's not a well-tested theory. I don't know many people who have actually retired from a lifetime (i.e. 30+ year) career in tech. Considering that the software industry (as we know it) is only about 30 years old, it's hard to draw long-term conclusions.

[boucher]

The specific career is not relevant. Any person who has retired after making 3x the median US salary is evidence in this scenario.

[timr]

If the median programmer leaves the industry after 10 years, career choice matters a great deal; making 3 times as much for 1/4th the time isn't a net win.

[btilly]

...the software industry (as we know it) is only about 30 years old...

Uh, what? The software industry is a lot older than that. The largest companies today by revenue are listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_global_soft... and it is instructive to go down the list. Of the 10 listed, 2 have been selling software since the 50s (in the case of Accenture admittedly as part of another company), 1 in the 60s, and 3 in the 70s. So over half are over 30 years old.

Wikipedia claims that the first company founded to provide software products and services was Computer Usage Company in 1955. The software industry expanded in the 1960s. Since then it seems to me to have been growing exponentially since. By the early 70s there was already enough accumulated experience for veterans to write classics like The Mythical Man-Month and The Psychology of Computer Programming.

Incidentally I know multiple people who have retired from a lifetime career in tech. They seem to be in a similar position to other retired professionals.

[timr]

"Uh, what? The software industry is a lot older than that. The largest companies today by revenue....of the 10 listed, 2 have been selling software since the 50s (in the case of Accenture admittedly as part of another company), 1 in the 60s, and 3 in the 70s. So over half are over 30 years old."

No, it isn't. A lot of companies that sell software now sold other things before they sold software. And of the companies listed on that wikipedia, page, only IBM, EDS, Lockheed Martin, CSC, Capgemini and SAP existed before the 1980s. Nearly all of those did other things before entering software.

In any case, the exception makes the rule: virtually nobody was a professional coder before the early 1980s. Of the few who were, many retired rich and young after two of the largest technology booms in world history. They don't make good examples of career longevity, for what should be obvious reasons.

[btilly]

No, it isn't. A lot of companies that sell software now sold other things before they sold software.

Many companies move into software, but of the companies listed on that Wikipedia page, only IBM, HP, Lockheed Martin and arguably Accenture did something else before going into the software business. (Accenture was spun out from an accounting firm, so in some sense they did accounting first, and in some sense they existed long before they actually were a company.)

And of the companies listed on that wikipedia, page, only IBM, EDS, Lockheed Martin, CSC, Capgemini and SAP existed before the 1980s.

Check again. Microsoft was founded in 1975. Oracle in 1977. And while Accenture did not exist as a separate company before 1989, it started as a department at Arthur Andersen that had been selling software consulting since 1953.

Nearly all of those did other things before entering software.

What exactly did EDS, Computer Sciences Corporation, Capgemini and SAP do before entering software? As far as I can tell, nothing.

In any case, the exception makes the rule: virtually nobody was a professional coder before the early 1980s. Of the few who were, many retired rich and young after two of the largest technology booms in world history. They don't make good examples of career longevity, for what should be obvious reasons.

Again false. There were a lot of professional coders before the early 1980s. Most worked in the mainframe world. Much of their code is still running today. And very, very few of them retired rich and young. (Certainly the ones that I know didn't.)

[timr]

"Check again. Microsoft was founded in 1975. Oracle in 1977."

Fine. The software industry is 35 years old. You're picking nits.

"What exactly did EDS, Computer Sciences Corporation, Capgemini and SAP do before entering software? As far as I can tell, nothing."

The same thing as that Arthur Andersen group that you're classifying as part of the "software" industry. Mainframe hardware sales and consulting:

"GE asked Arthur Andersen to automate payroll processing and manufacturing at GE's Appliance Park facility near Louisville, Kentucky. Arthur Andersen recommended installation of a UNIVAC I computer and printer, which resulted in the first commercially owned computer installation in the United States in 1954."

I never said that there weren't any software developers before 1980 -- I said that there wasn't a software industry, as we know it. That mainframes were first sold in the 1950s is not evidence to the contrary.

[btilly]

I'm very emphatically not picking nits here. See http://www.softwarehistory.org/history/ec.html for an overview of the history. From there you can dive into the early history of the software industry, with names, companies, and more. (They have less detail than I'd like.) For example if you read http://www.softwarehistory.org/history/csc.html you'll find that Computer Sciences Corporation started with $100 and a contract from Honeywell to write a programming language called FACT. They were NEVER in the mainframe hardware sales business. As for consulting, guilty as charged. There was no idea of a market in software, so if your company wanted to get paid for writing software then consulting was your only chance. But that still happens in the software industry.

However despite there not being a recognized market, software that was produced for one client could and did get sold to others. And as the 60s progressed there came to be enough of these pieces of software out there that the first regular catalog of software products for sale got going early in 1967. By the end of the 60s there were hundreds of software packages for sale, and IBM declared that it would get into that business starting January 1, 1970 by unbundling some of its software from its hardware.

By that point there is no question that there was such a thing as a software industry. Small? Yes. But definitely present at a surprisingly early point.

[iron_ball]

You're still going to be hired for tech jobs at 50? Not from what I hear.

[pvdm]

Wait. What tech company would hire you if you already have cancer ? Just ask Brian Reid.

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/08/google_age_discr...