[jjevanoorschot]

Unless you already have top of market compensation, I'd focus on interviewing for a higher paying job rather than do more work on the side.

Going by the ££ signs I'm assuming you can get a job in London, where you can make >£200k total compensation as a good software engineer.

[jinglejangley]

I'm already earning near that compensation, was just looking for something on the side as well :)

[buzbe_uk]

This may be unpopular here, but be really clear what you want out of your job.

If you're just talking side gigs be really clear this doesn't interfere with your own job performance. The first target you hit because of your "side gig" will be your downward spiral.

Now .. running your own business is another option. For me I encourage my staff to have "side gig" of their own business, but will not sign off on them contracting on the side.

One is a valuable option where you learn new skills - the other is...

[pc86]

> For me I encourage my staff to have "side gig" of their own business, but will not sign off on them contracting on the side.

Imagine believing that you have the right to "sign off" on what your employees do in their free time provided they're not directly competing with you.

[ISL]

Some employers proffer, and employees enter into, contracts of this type.

[ulrashida]

It's a simple legal ass cover. Should the manager / lead care if there's a side gig in play while all other needs are being met? No, of course not. However, what if the side gig becomes a bit more than planned and now your team member isn't delivering, gets sick more often, or is otherwise grinding themselves into the ground (and doesn't recognize the need to get out of that situation)?

You can care about your team member's welfare and support them 100%, but part of that support should be defining the rules of play so that all parties know what the agreement is.

[pc86]

I mean these are different answers, right?

If they stop delivering, you do what you do if they stop delivering. Coaching, performance discussions, reassignment/termination. Whether it's because of a side gig or not is irrelevant.

If they get sick more often, you...? What would you do normally? Hopefully the answer is "support them." If this is cover for "they're saying they are sick but I think they're just working on their side gig" then refer to #1 but you better be right about it.

> You can care about your team member's welfare and support them 100%, but part of that support should be defining the rules of play so that all parties know what the agreement is.

I agree with this 100%. The agreement is that they're paid a full-time salary for full-time work (whatever that means whether it's ass-in-seat for 40 hours, or WFH or whatever). Whatever they do outside of that time isn't the company's business unless they're directly competing with them.

[tremon]

It's not imaginary, it's called copyright. In many jurisdictions (including the US, FAFAIK) your employer retains the copyright of things you produce in your free time that fall within your job description (e.g. if you might have done the same thing on company time).

So if you have a side gig that matches your day job and your work output is covered by copyright: yes, you need your employer's sign-off.

[pc86]

The US is not a single jurisdiction, there are at least 50 with regards to employment law. I've worked in several and at no point has any employer held any copyright to things I product in my free time.

> if you have a side gig that matches your day job

Well this is competition, isn't it? That's completely different.

[freeone3000]

This is illegal in Washington State and California, explicitly, and is not the default by far. Certain employers (such as Facebook) demand this, but, it's certainly not the default state of affairs!

[swamp40]

> For me I encourage my staff to have "side gig" of their own business, but will not sign off on them contracting on the side.

I'm not clear on how that works. Could you provide an example?

[ygjb]

I will provide a concrete example, even though I am not the parent commenter. I work for a FAANG company in a reasonably senior role. I have carveouts in my employment contract that I negotiated when I started a few months ago, because in addition to my day job, I co-own a coworking space with my wife (and she owns other businesses that I do some light tech work for - site maintenance, office network, etc).

My day job is very demanding, but my leadership team are aware, and the HR folks at my employer have documentation that supports me having a side business, and so if I say things like "I have to go the bank/lawyer stuff for my business", no one bats an eye as long as I am hitting my targets for the day job.

The expectation is that I will largely be available and focused on my day job during the 9-5, and where needed, provide support on escalations/on-call.

If I started taking on consulting contracts or was regularly juggling contracting or side-job related tasks against my day job, then it wouldn't be a good fit for delivering on that 9-5.

[mywittyname]

You're chasing pennies with a side-gig. If you're already at the top of market in terms of pay, it's unlikely a side-gig is going bring in enough to satisfy your ambitions.

Why not start your own business? The upside is much better. Yeah, it might fail, but you can decide to start another one what you learned.

[jinglejangley]

Yeah, it seems like I had an idealistic view of what a side gig would be, whereas it's a lot more work than I wish to spend on it.

I'm happy in my day job; it's secure, I'm paid well and I get a lot of time with my family. Starting my own business would put family time in jeopardy which isn't an option, especially as I'd have to give up my main income.

[yolo3000]

I did this last year. I work full time for ~100/hr, and someone I've worked with before, recommended me to an early stage startup in the US. They paid me ~130/hr just to be part of the meetings with their EU based dev team. Monthly I was making 2-3k extra but the context switching, startup rollercoaster, dev team not performing turned out to be stressful. In the end they secured funding and assembled an in house dev team, so they didn't need me anymore. I suggest you try it, but not for the extra money because the extra stress is not sustainable long term, do it for the learning experience and maybe that will help you in the future.

[synergy20]

tried both full time and contractor years back, too stressful, can't deal with both with kids, I since focus on one of them, not both at the same time, for the sake of my own health.

[yolo3000]

By full time with 100/hr I meant that I'm a contractor working for a company for 40hrs a week. Since we started to work remote I picked up a second assignment of a few hours extra a week. But all in all it becomes more stressful.

[ghaff]

I think you're probably right. Every now and then I've had something fall in my lap from someone I knew. I've done a few focus groups (though those are during the day.) And so forth.

But, perhaps not unsurprisingly, there really isn't a general source for short side gigs paying a few hundred dollars an hour--especially for asynchronous tasks you can do nights or weekends.

[gassiss]

Specially if you factor in the marginal tax you'll pay on the side gig, it's almost never worth it imo. I know that was a turn off for me at least, so starting a business if you have the energy will have way more upside

[kjellsbells]

I often get pings for research consulting interviews, that pay very well, and take an hour or so. Maybe thats something to look at.

That said, be cautious about conflicts. If you work for a mega corp like a hyperscaler it is going to be very hard to avoid the appearance of conflict.

[gtfoutttt]

Or buy real estate.

[ChrisRR]

How much more money do you need if you're on 200K? That's already like 3-4x the salary of a dev in the UK

[varispeed]

This is my pet peeve - why so many people here in the UK strive for mediocrity? Do we really got rid ourselves of any ambitions? When you admit to earning more than £35k you are supposed to feel sorry and apologise for trying and if you are over £80k people look at you as a privileged money pinata, that ideally should be taxed at 100% and keep head down in shame.

For instance, I have been working on a product in my spare time and I don't want to finance it through loans or giving up equity. Having £200k job (only £9,500 net per month) would get me closer to get the required tools, inventory, securing a rent for the workshop and storage, but that still not really too much money for that kind of endeavour. Unfortunately I am coming from a poor working class and I don't have a rich daddy to fund my start up, yet when people learn how much I earn they think I am rich, but reality is that kind of money is not enough to make anything sensible with it (you still have to save for years and live modestly), but people think it's the level of private jets and heated pool in a large back garden of a mansion.

[sirsinsalot]

Making a value judgement on someones financial ambition is a little ... weak.

Does it really matter? I'm on £200k gross in the UK, outside London ... but i'm not done climbing that mountain. Of course £200k is "enough" for anyone, but that doesn't mean you can't aim higher.

Ambition should be celebrated

[giantg2]

"Ambition should be celebrated"

I might agree with this depending on what the specific goal is. But why should ambition be generally celebrated?

There is certainly ambition that has brought about improvement in life. There has also been ambition applied to the wrong ends or failing that has brought suffering. I'm not sold on the idea that the goal of continually increasing comp above an already luxurious level is meaningful or worth a third party celebrating. I especially feel this way about our industry where comp seems detached from the contributions are not easily attributed/calculated.

[nerdponx]

It is perfectly valid to believe that OP is probably overpaid in their day job, and also to believe that they are entitled to seek a side gig if they prefer.

[giantg2]

Ok... that has nothing to do with my comment. Of course they're entitled to want a side gig. But why is ambition something to be celebrated, especially in the context of this example?

[sokoloff]

From 168 hours that we all start with in a week, if someone wants to spend 20 of them making their and their family's lives better, why wouldn't we generally encourage that? I certainly wouldn't discourage it and I could be neutral on it, but if I think about, I'd rather they work on a side gig than watch Netflix, doom-scroll, or watch TikToks.

[giantg2]

I think the part we're disconnected on is "better". Will a couple extra grand a year make their family's life better beyond the amount they already have? Perhaps physical exercise or relaxing provides more benefit. Of course we probably can't answer this as it's specific to each individual.

I suppose I'm in the camp that finds it skeptical that it would be much benefit at that level. I might also view it as a negative to society as that gig could go to someone who needs it more. Granted we would then be admiring the ambition of the lower earner, which brings me back to me saying that the specifics matter more than generally celebrating ambition.

[yojo]

In theory (and in a well functioning system), ambition in a populace leads to GDP growth as ambitious people seek ways to make more money by doing higher value work. This in turn leads to a higher standard of living, possibly for everyone if you redistribute some of the surplus via taxation schemes.

Personally (and more selfishly), I tried to raise my salary to be able to afford not working for extended periods of time.

[giantg2]

That makes sense. I'm wondering more about net benefit. Is it really a benefit if our GDP rose if we spend increasing amounts on stuff like healthcare and have shorter lives due to the constant grind of work? I'm not sure we can answer these questions, but I agree with you that as long as the ambition is properly placed and the system works well that it would be good.

[sirsinsalot]

Personally, I enjoy doing any activity that makes my bank balance increase. I see it as a puzzle. I enjoy puzzles.

[Joeboy]

I'm just genuinely intrigued as to why someone on £200k would want to work more. maybe there's a good reason, like they're an "earn to give" person, or some actual ambition the money will help fulfill, or some expensive health need etc. Maybe they'd like to spend less time with their family. Just wanting to exchange more of your life for more money seems weird to me, if you're already in a position to be able to live in luxury.

[returningfory2]

In the neighborhood of New York City I live in, buying a 2 bedroom apartment requires you to have a higher yearly income than $250k (~= £200k). The simple desires of (a) wanting space for family and (b) wanting to live in a specific place, can push you to want to earn higher salaries.

[Joeboy]

Yeah you're right actually, glancing at Rightmove (UK property site), and going by the standard 4.5x mortgage test, you're probably not going to get a decent family home in Central-ish London on £200k. Shit's fucked up.

Edit: To be clear the repayments on a £1m mortgage would "only" be like £60k a year, you only need £>200k to initially buy the place.

[aaaaaaaaata]

Two viable possibilities:

1. It's about the money, because you never know when you may have a 5-10 year underproductive period due to health/other unforeseen emergency.

2. It's not about the money, it's about the experience/knowledge gained/distraction/self-worth of accomplishing more.

[Joeboy]

> it's about the experience/knowledge gained/distraction/self-worth of accomplishing more

To me, a side gig means accomplishing more of what someone else wants, with the trade-off of being less able to accomplish (or learn about, or distract yourself with) what you want. Which seems like an odd thing to want unless you need the money. I suppose for some people having a £200k income and not needing the money seem less synonymous than they do to me.

[castlecrasher2]

>I'm just genuinely intrigued as to why someone on £200k would want to work more.

The money outcome isn't a zero-sum game. If someone works more, they can put that towards their children's education fund, retirement or other investments, or anything else at all.

[goodpoint]

> Ambition should be celebrated

Only if you mean skill growth and self improvement.

But pure greed - no, we have more than enough of that.

[HeyLaughingBoy]

I want to work hard at my axe throwing skills so I can hit targets more accurately.

That will help me become a better axe murderer since people are less likely to see me. Still wanna celebrate my skill growth?

[goodpoint]

You are confusing skills vs intentions. They are, obviously, two completely different things.

[porker]

Share the secret of "£200k gross in the UK, outside London" please because I've never found that outside London and I hate that city :)

[sirsinsalot]

Be a contractor charging high day rates in a niche nobody else wants to work in.

[xwdv]

Ambition is the enemy of consistency.

[sokoloff]

10s of thousands of years of integrated ambition have helped ensure that we are not consistently living outdoors.

[HeyLaughingBoy]

So?

[rhn_mk1]

I can get behind celebrating ambition, but only if it doesn't as a side effect involve widening wage inequality in the society.

[CrazyPyroLinux]

I'm reminded of Margaret Thatcher's response to this: "He'd rather the poor were poorer, as long as the rich were less rich."[1]

Every ethical dollar earned is a byproduct of value creation. Maybe you meant something more like "as long as he's not ripping off his customers," but otherwise that's an odd thing to say in response to someone who makes good money but is still looking for side jobs.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdR7WW3XR9c&t=48s

[tdehnel]

Oh stop it. Every time we make progress there will be some unequal effect. Some people will benefit and others will lose out. We should do our best to balance the trade offs, but to say someone shouldn’t be ambitious if there is some unequal effect is preposterous and pessimistic.

[impossiblefork]

Why does wage inequality matter? Inequality isn't strongly driven by wages, but is by capital income.

Personally, the way I see it, the more money goes to wages, the better, and if that's because some guy is earning millions a year, I still think it's good.

Income from people starting new companies, that's fine too. What's bad is rent extraction, ossification, monopolies and private institutions that have power over people.

[giantg2]

Some people have unique needs and wants. There's also the whole fish growing to fill its aquarium thing. So it's reasonable for them to feel that way, just as it's reasonable for you to feel the other.

That said, I would suggest that at that level of comp, maybe just use the extra time for your own enjoyment - hobby, relaxing, FOSS personal project, etc.

[kjellsbells]

Cant speak for the UK, but all it takes is a disabled child or other complex life situation and the numbers suddenly arent so rosy. I refrain from asking anyone "why do you need more money?" - its their business alone.

[rrwo]

If you are already earning near that, then unless you have a pressing need to earn more money, I'd do something else with your free time.

[geocrasher]

Why, though? If you're making that much money, it's unlikely you need more. Fill your time with things that will make you happy, not things that will make you wealthier. You're filling the wrong tank.

[rswskg]

Are you a contractor?

[jinglejangley]

I am not.

[rswskg]

Damm. What industry are you in?

[MrPatan]

FANGs? startups? contracts? It's been a while since I looked, is 200k the norm now? Asking for a friend...

[jjevanoorschot]

I mentioned £200k because it's near the top end for a senior engineer in London (although not the very top). FAANG, some Unicorns, trading firms will pay this to a senior engineer. Bear in mind this is total compensation, so part of that will be in stock or options.

For engineers based in the UK that are shocked by this number I'd recommend reading this [0] article. It's about compensation in the Netherlands but the same principle holds for the UK.

[0] https://blog.pragmaticengineer.com/software-engineering-sala...

[eclat]

This was a great read, thanks.

[nerdponx]

In Boston and NYC I am seeing $150-200k at well-funded startups for "experienced IC" roles. If you have several years of experience, and you're actually a good engineer, and aren't at least above 150k in a market like this, you need to start interviewing, because your current employer is taking advantage of you.

[PainfullyNormal]

> If you have several years of experience, and you're actually a good interviewer

FTFY.

[politelemon]

It most certainly isn't the norm now, with exceptions of course. FAANG and some large banks can pay a lot, but most do not.

[dominotw]

Yea 200-250k is starting base of seniors now. Options, RSUs, bonus on top of it.

[jcadam]

Depends where in the US. 200k is not typical for anyone working outside of a FAANG in SV. I've got almost 17 years exp and not making $200k base, and recruiters who contact me balk when I ask for something in that range - to include someone who contacted me on this very site and put me through a multi-week interview process only to offer me considerably less than 200 (or even my current pay).

And considering the way the economy is going (at least in the West), it's probably smart to work a side gig and make as much money as you can, while you can, because work is going to dry up soon.

[justinlloyd]

I am not working for FAANG. I am not in SV. I am based in the US. Working for an early stage start-up. Earning quite a bit North of $200K. My compensation is based on the value I provide, not where I live. Any recruiter or hiring manager who tries to tell me different is promptly ignored.

[dominotw]

> I've got almost 17 years exp and not making $200k base

I am surprised by this. You can check levels.fyi to target the right companies. I guarantee you 100% that you can easily make > 230k base outside FANG for a remote position.

[jcadam]

> I am surprised by this

Really? I don't personally know anyone making that much. My mother is a software engineer with an additional 20 years of experience on me and has never made that much (currently makes less than me, in fact).

[mrelectric]

Why do you think work is going to dry up soon?

[jjevanoorschot]

This isn't the case in London (which is what the parent comment is referring to). In London you can probably half that base.

[sedeki]

How would I go about making that kind of money? I'm planning on moving to London next year. My professional background is as a web dev.

[Cthulhu_]

Probably not as a web dev; senior / lead Java developer, Oracle DBA, managerial level at big companies like banks and insurance might get you closer to that. But to be blunt, you're probably not worth 200K as a web developer.

[sedeki]

Thank you, I appreciate the honest feedback. My academic background is technical (math), but not CS.

Been wanting to transition into another role. Not sure what exactly but within software development.

Can I send you an email?

[aregsar]

Try transitioning from full stack web dev to back end architect working with microservices and cloud infrastructure

[dominotw]

> I'm planning on moving to London next year.

I found it really hard to find jobs that pay anywhere close to US salaries in EU. Unless things are very different now, I would plan to move to US to make 'that kind of money'.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

I was going to say. Unless you have things lined up, I would hesitate to move to UK without a plan. I am saying this as my sister is attempting this very thing ( and me trying to discourage her since its a business pie in the sky kind of dream ). The days easily obtainable jobs ( especially the low level ones ) for other EU members are over. She did not seem to get that memo. On the high end of the spectrum, banking lost some jobs as a result of Brexit. Dunno about insurance.

US has its benefits, but I would consider age as a factor ( if you are younger, you may be able to worry less about insurance and whatnot ).

[criveros]

I code strictly frontend Typescript/React and have a total comp of about 400k with a base of 210k.