[pascalxus]

>>> "“They’re saying it’s ‘Hunger Games’ meets ‘Lord of the Flies,’ where everyone is trying to prove their worth to management.”

It sounds like people are really insecure about themselves financially or egoistically. You don't want to put yourself in a position where you have to have your job or you can't go without one for a few a years. and if you're ego can't handle being laid off or fired, you may want to do something about that because jobs these days don't last much longer than 2-4 years at most places: just look at people's resumes on linkedIn.

[klodolph]

Realistically speaking, it’s hard for many adults to get into a position where they can go without a job for a few years, even if you are at a high-paying company like Meta. A lot of Meta employees are at places with high cost of living, and you can try to live frugally, but frugality doesn’t solve your problems instantly.

I think we can be sympathetic to the insecurity these people have without considering whether they put themselves in that position. There is a combination of internal (psychological) and external (environmental) factors at play here.

[pascalxus]

are you really telling me, that after humanity somewhat x100 times productivity improvement over the last 10,000 years, in one of the "richest" countries in the world, the richest 1-4% within that rich country (top 0.1-0.4% in the world, very roughly) can't take a couple years off from work because they can't afford it?

What's wrong with this picture?

[klodolph]

Most of these people aren’t in the top 1% for sure, absolutely sure. Top 1% richest in the US have a net worth of >$10M, and you need >$1M to get into the 90th percentile. Let’s say that you’re fresh out of college and land an IC3 data scientist role at Meta. Your total compensation is probably below $200k and your base salary is closer to $140, maybe $130.

From that, you can run projections on how long it would take you to get to the 90th percentile of household wealth in the US, assuming you stay in the same role. You can try running different scenarios—suppose your rent is free (you’re living with your parents to save money), suppose that you’re paying $1,500 for your share of an apartment with roommates, or suppose that you’re paying $2,500 for a tolerable studio or 1BR in a high-COL area like SF or NYC.

By my math, our IC3 data scientist with a $140k salary has a take-home around $8,800 a month after federal taxes, and if you subtract say $2,250 in living expenses for living with roommates ($1,500 rent + $750 other expenses). It would take this person 12.7 years to save $1M—you can accelerate the timeline when you look at RSU grants, but this is still a lot of work for a “high-paid” worker to get into the 90th percentile of wealth. RSU grants are also tied to employment, so if you are assuming that people are vesting their RSU grants, you’re assuming that people manage to stick it out at places like Meta even when there are morale problems and layoffs. It may be fair to assume promotions, but not everyone gets those promotions and we should hope that the people who don’t get promoted are still able to live their lives.

[toast0]

> you’re assuming that people manage to stick it out at places like Meta even when there are morale problems and layoffs. It may be fair to assume promotions, but not everyone gets those promotions and we should hope that the people who don’t get promoted are still able to live their lives.

Facebook has up or out; I don't remember the timelines, but if our IC3 data scientist doesn't get promoted to IC4 and then IC5, they're not going to be there in 12.7 years, so we may as well go ahead and assume they will be promoted, since the analysis only applies if they are.

[klodolph]

I do think you should account for the “out”, and not just the “up”.

[toast0]

Well, if you go out, then you're in the didn't make it for 12.7 years bucket.

[BeetleB]

> Top 1% richest in the US have a net worth of >$10M, and you need >$1M to get into the 90th percentile.

To be in the top 5% of income (not wealth), you need to earn about $350K per year. Many Meta employees make it to that level. Especially if married to someone earning a good amount as well.

As for the apartment: Check if it has a buy-out clause (e.g. pay one month's rent to break the lease).

If one insists on living in a HCOL area even after being laid off, they should at least own the fact that they're voluntarily gambling.

[marcosdumay]

You can make your mind about what's wrong by yourself. What everybody is telling you is that it's real.

[greatpostman]

Was thinking the same thing. Something very wrong with the cost of living in this country

[pascalxus]

There's nothing wrong with sympathy. I have all the sympathy in the world for anyone who works at a software company. Those FANGs can be especially toxic.

The fact is, how you spend your money, it's a choice, especially if you're single. For singles, no excuses. In my twenties, i rented a room, slept on a surfboard and ate oatmeal. If you combine that with a Meta salary, you could retire in 5-10 years.

[klodolph]

> If you combine that with a Meta salary, you could retire in 5-10 years.

Could you elaborate on this? Do you think that other people SHOULD do this? Because I think we should be sympathetic to people who don’t live like ascetic monks, and it seems unkind to tell people that they could have retired if they lived like an ascetic monk.

[greatpostman]

No you can’t retire. Only if you don’t have a family, and even then you just get ten years of not working. And good luck attracting a good woman to have kids with while you sleep in a dump

[JohnMakin]

yea that comment is so out of touch. What % of US adults have enough savings to live 2-4 years on their current lifestyle? I'd bet it's very low. Maybe not as low as the subset making a FAANG income, but probably still low.