[jaysinn_420]

I quit my FAANG job yesterday to join a fully remote company. I took a >50% pay cut but I think it is a 100% life saver. I remember spending 3-4 hours/day commuting and I am just not willing to do that any more. I've cut back on expenses and simplified my life, built up some savings so I can make do with less. My retirement savings will slow down dramatically, but if I don't hate my work life then those savings will be less of an all-consuming goal.

Thank you senior leadership for your wisdom, "If you don't like it, find another place to work". The first good advice I've heard from them in 5 years.

[typeofhuman]

I did the same and for around 50% cut. Working from home allows me to spend more time with my kids (I get to have lunch with them and hear them play in the background), no toxic rush hour commute, and I get the comfort of my own space. I know there's a down side of not being able to collaborate as well with my team. But I put my wellbeing over that.

And to be honest, the pay cut - while significant - made no change in my daily life. But the peace of mind and serenity I have retained by WFH is invaluable.

[lolinder]

> And to be honest, the pay cut - while significant - made no change in my daily life.

Yep. Speaking for myself, beyond a certain income threshold there has been no substantial quality of life improvement. My last promotion made it even easier to save for an even earlier retirement, and that's about it.

Early retirement is nice, and earlier retirement is even nicer, but given a choice between retiring when my kid is 20 and being home with him every day throughout his whole childhood, there's no contest. I'll happily delay retirement if that's the trade-off that's needed in order to be there while he's growing up.

[insane_dreamer]

This is a critical point. There seems to be an obsession with “making money so you can retire early” and then what? Your children are grown and left home, you’ve often sacrificed them as well as your own physical and mental health, you don’t have the energy you had in your youth, for what? So you can play golf with other retirees? Or maybe you saved up enough that you can invest in a new startup. Okay fine but that’s not retirement, in fact it may be more work.

[rachofsunshine]

It's odd to me that people think the value in excess wealth is just living on a beach somewhere.

The value in excess wealth is what you can do with it. You can find a person in need and hand them a thousand dollars for fun. You can fund some program your town needs. You can build a "third space" for your community. There's so much you can do with wealth that isn't just hoarding it!

Personally, my goal is to have enough money to buy a giant mansion on the edge of some town and be the weird rich lady you can go to with your problems. If I get richer than that, great! It'll be a bigger mansion and a bigger town. But if you gave me a billion dollars tomorrow, I'd just use it to be a bigger weird rich lady you can go to with your problems.

[insane_dreamer]

You're not considering the opportunity cost to get that wealth. Sometimes you may be lucky enough that there is very little opportunity cost. But most of the time it's considerable.

> be the weird rich lady you can go to with your problems

that's great; but unfortunately in society at large, the people with wealth and the people who you can approach with your problems make a Venn diagram with little overlap

I've found that in most cases, people tend to become more selfish as they get more money, not less selfish. (Not talking about you, just commenting on society.)

[rachofsunshine]

I agree completely. But I feel like saying "if I ever get any wealth or power I'll just be as bad as the people who already have it" is just throwing in the towel. You might as well try!

[hnthrowaway6543]

As with every other person who has wealth, you'd quickly find that the people who go to you with their problems are the ones whose problems would be magically solved if you only gave them a small investment of $10k, maybe $100k if they're bold and daring, but don't worry, they'll pay you back with interest after their business takes off.

Outside of people who crave the fame and/or flaunt their wealth to promote themselves (e.g. Michael Bloomberg), wealthy people do not advertise that they are wealthy, because doing so invites a lot of unwanted attention.

[thanksgiving]

> The value in excess wealth is what you can do with it. You can find a person in need and hand them a thousand dollars for fun. You can fund some program your town needs. You can build a "third space" for your community. There's so much you can do with wealth that isn't just hoarding it!

Thank you for your kindness. However, you can't become and definitely won't stay a billionaire if you give away your money.

In practical terms, you don't want strangers in your home. There are some bad people in this world. https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/24vo34/whats_the...

[lazyasciiart]

Yea. The world is full of people who have spare money and bedrooms and won’t use it to help others. Those are the bad people.

[toomuchtodo]

Wealth is a tool. To stay wealthy is an inefficient use of capital considering time value. The only people who want to stay billionaires are those who crave the power and status it brings.

See: MacKenzie Scott

https://www.library.hbs.edu/working-knowledge/mackenzie-scot...

[fragmede]

Who wants to stay a billionaire? You can't take it with you, and that's an unfathomable amount of money for a single person to have. At a flat 5 percent interest per year, that's $50 million a year, or just under a million per week, or $137k/day. per day! You could fund a third space for quite a while on that and still never run out of money after your ordinary life expenses were paid. Ballooning life costs can still add up as jets and yachts get expensive, but that's still an insane amount of money.

On 50 million a year, you could give out 49,000 homeless people to give $1,000 to every year, and still have a million dollars to spend, without touching your principle. Could you even find 134 homeless people every day to give $1,000 to?

The goal is to Die with Zero, as written by Bill Perkins, and while you may not want to literally do that, it's still a good book to read to get you thinking about how to spend your money.

[rachofsunshine]

> However, you can't become and definitely won't stay a billionaire if you give away your money.

It's very possible that I won't, no. But I also don't think I'm naive.

I run a company. I founded it without funding from venture capitalists, so that no one will ever be able to tell me to sell anyone out. One of the first things I wrote down was that I would never lie, mislead, or otherwise tell anything less than the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And right now, my company is functioning and profitable, while doing - at least as far as I can tell - no harm to anyone.

Yeah, being a horrible human being means you're free to do everything to your game-theoretic advantage. But you can choose not to do that. You can win without choosing to do that. You just have to know, crystal clear, from day one, that you'd rather make one million dollars ethically than two million dollars unethically.

Similarly, will people sometimes abuse your kindness? Yeah, sure. But you can give your kindness knowing that that's part of the cost of doing business - especially if you're successful enough that you can afford the loss.

You ever read Les Miserables? There's a scene where Jean Valjean, who has been taken in briefly by a kindly bishop, steals some of his valuables out of desperation. He's caught by the police, who arrest him and bring him back:

  “Ah! here you are!” [the Bishop] exclaimed, looking at Jean Valjean. “I am glad
  to see you. Well, but how is this? I gave you the candlesticks too,
  which are of silver like the rest, and for which you can certainly get
  two hundred francs. Why did you not carry them away with your forks and
  spoons?”

  Jean Valjean opened his eyes wide, and stared at the venerable Bishop
  with an expression which no human tongue can render any account of.

  “Monseigneur,” said the brigadier of gendarmes, “so what this man said
  is true, then? We came across him. He was walking like a man who is
  running away. We stopped him to look into the matter. He had this
  silver—”

  “And he told you,” interposed the Bishop with a smile, “that it had
  been given to him by a kind old fellow of a priest with whom he had
  passed the night? I see how the matter stands. And you have brought him
  back here? It is a mistake.”

  “In that case,” replied the brigadier, “we can let him go?”

  “Certainly,” replied the Bishop.

  The gendarmes released Jean Valjean, who recoiled.

  “Is it true that I am to be released?” he said, in an almost
  inarticulate voice, and as though he were talking in his sleep.

  “Yes, thou art released; dost thou not understand?” said one of the
  gendarmes.

  “My friend,” resumed the Bishop, “before you go, here are your
  candlesticks. Take them.”

  He stepped to the chimney-piece, took the two silver candlesticks, and
  brought them to Jean Valjean. The two women looked on without uttering
  a word, without a gesture, without a look which could disconcert the
  Bishop.

  Jean Valjean was trembling in every limb. He took the two candlesticks
  mechanically, and with a bewildered air.

  “Now,” said the Bishop, “go in peace. By the way, when you return, my
  friend, it is not necessary to pass through the garden. You can always
  enter and depart through the street door. It is never fastened with
  anything but a latch, either by day or by night.”

  Then, turning to the gendarmes:—

  “You may retire, gentlemen.”

  The gendarmes retired.

  Jean Valjean was like a man on the point of fainting.

  The Bishop drew near to him, and said in a low voice:—

  “Do not forget, never forget, that you have promised to use this money
  in becoming an honest man.”

  Jean Valjean, who had no recollection of ever having promised anything,
  remained speechless. The Bishop had emphasized the words when he
  uttered them. He resumed with solemnity:—

  “Jean Valjean, my brother, you no longer belong to evil, but to good.
  It is your soul that I buy from you; I withdraw it from black thoughts
  and the spirit of perdition, and I give it to God.”

[grogenaut]

The "then what" is important to figure out and maybe figure out earlier rather than later. Some people don't have an "then what" other than working, they find fulfilment that way, that's fine.

I'm 47 and I'm teasing out what retirement would look like after seeing many people talk about their issues in retiring early and being bored as hell (and knowing many older folks with those problems).

I have a model in my mother who put my dad through law school and then he put her through MBA school, which she didn't actually use. She raised us until my dad passed young leaving her retirement level funds, She then did volunteer jobs like running part of the gift shop at the botanical garden (which had the great side benefit of taking lunch / strolling the botanical garden 4 days a week) and the tougher but much more rewarding Court Appointed Special Advocate work she did where you are essentially stand in legal guardian for children. She had 3 families of children she was working with. Very rewarding and very heart breaking work. Don't get me wrong she also took vacations, bridge, movie club, scuba, painting, sung in choir (I have several official photos of her standing right behind the pope in rome singing which my catholic friends love [my episcopal mom has spent more time with the pope than you have]). Worked her butt off (literally) to be able to handle Machu Pichu for her 70th. Definitely lived a full interesting life, not just on the beach. At her remembrance relatives and friends were a bit shocked at all of the photos I had on the slide show of the things she'd done / places she'd been.

Golf with friends is definitely fun and relaxing and can be done well into your later years, don't knock it but it's not the only thing you'll do. Getting drunk on the beach all the time also becomes harder and not as fun as you get older for many people. But your friends likely don't have all that free time.

One interesting thing I've found recently is some volunteer work in the BLS realm (basic life saving / rescue). Ski Patrol / SAR is an interesting combination of weekend outdoor hobby with goals. And seems to have roles as you age (usually in organizing) though that means you have to deal with older bureaucratic know it alls. But they also organize everything you just show up and do. Folks being pretty active well into their 80s (could be survivor bias).

[insane_dreamer]

All fair points.

There's a lot you can do, especially to use your resources to help others, as your mother did, while also enjoying life.

I wasn't saying early retirement is bad; I'd love to do it myself. But rather the question is, what am I willing to give up to achieve that goal. What is the opportunity cost. Maybe you're lucky and there's hardly any. But often it's your children who pay the price (as in the comment I was replying to). Or you yourself pay the price with suffering from significant stress, anxiety and unhappiness.

Why not enjoy life earlier, and especially with your children, and then just work longer.

I've turned down more money because I knew that it came with strings attached of more work and stress, and I didn't want that for myself or my family whom it would most certainly impact. So, I'll have less money for retirement and I'll have to work a few years longer. But I want to be happy _now_ not just when I'm old.

[grogenaut]

I guess I've been lucky in that the more money didn't cause more stress, about the same actually. And my kid is out of college now tho living with us. So I have loads of free time. Was talking with a former coworker this week who has 6 and 8 year old and is currently taking a work break. We realized that I have about as much free time as he does. So yes I'm talking from a place of privilege. And fair on the tradeoffs.

My point was more about prompting people to start thinking about what they'd want to do in retirement if they even retired. I know quite a few people who don't know what they'd do, so it defintitely seems like a thing you need to figure out. Not a pool to jump into all at once one day.

For me I think it also helps me de-stress the idea of retirement, easing. into it.

[bdangubic]

early retirement is all about being happy now-ish vs. when you are old!

but if price to pay for early retirement is stress/anxiety/unhappiness and ESPECIALLY less time with your children (especially before puberty) no early retirement is worth it

[bdangubic]

retiring early is not a goal only if you define your life through work. there are MILLION other things to do besides “playing golf with other retirees” (though that’s definitely more fun that working in a cubicle.

if your work defines you - great, keep on trucking. but having financial means to not have to work at early age (while you are still youngish and healthy) is probably one of the biggest goals any human on Earth can achieve

[nuancebydefault]

> having financial means to not have to work at early age (while you are still youngish and healthy) is probably one of the biggest goals any human on Earth can achieve

I'd rather just do a job i like to do until i am not able to do it anymore.

I know people who are old and do charity work, who i envy. They could as well be doing half time paid work, but for them work is work, it's not so much about money or early retirement. It's about the contentment of doing something useful together with others.

[bdangubic]

sounds like your work is invaluable part of your life - absolutely nothing wrong with that. as bumpersticker say “I’d rather be fishing/golfing/boating/…”

[anonzzzies]

Exactly; it's why I worked hard during and after uni so I could retire young. That was 25 years ago; I am working more than ever now. But only on whatever I want / like to do. That happens to make money as people want to buy it.

[chr1]

Another possible solution to the situation you describe is when grandparents are taking care of children and young people work as much as they can. There is a theory that people evolved to live past reproductive years, because it allowed to raise more children.

[Muromec]

>but given a choice between retiring when my kid is 20 and being home with him every day throughout his whole childhood, there's no contest

This. So much this. I don’t want to start catching up on life after I’m 70 or 60 something and hate every minute before I retire.

Once I got my mortage, there is no more reasons to care about exact numbers that much.

[georgeecollins]

I heard a financial planner say once that many of his clients don't know how to retire. My Dad worked until he was ninety making money he will never spend. If you enjoy your job and have control over your time and projects, you may also want to keep working.

Retirement sounds very appealing when you aren't spending enough time with your friends and family, or when you aren't getting enough relaxation. But there will come a time when your kids won't really want to spend that much time with you. And a hobby you spend all your time on could become an unpaid job.

There will be times in your life when you have to be all in on your job. But when its not those times, try to have a balanced life now.

[ghaff]

I "retired." Still go to some events that are particularly interesting, usually in areas that I enjoy spending some extra time--though I did my best when I had a wage. Doing some of what I used to do anyway but on my own terms. I realize doing that is somewhat privileged but it works for me.

[griomnib]

I know somebody who worked, planned, and saved to spend their retirement traveling the world. It was their life ambition.

A few years after retirement they got early onset Alzheimer’s.

[dmje]

I’m 52. I’ve run a micro tech consultancy with my wife for 15 years. We live by the sea in Cornwall and we’ve chosen every step along the way to deliberately not grow our company by taking on staff, instead using freelancers. We’re comfortable but very far from rich, financially. Instead, we’re rich - honestly, I’d say billionaires! - as a family unit. My eldest has left home now to go to uni and the younger one will go next year. My wife and I have been around for them every step of the way, and it’s been the most beautiful and fulfilling journey - my life’s work!

I’ll easily still be working until retirement, probably beyond. I’ll be old and tired and probably pretty useless at tech. But I wouldn’t change a single thing about the last 20 years. It’s been amazing.

Everyone’s gotta do what they want to do - but not seizing life and putting your family at the middle of it - that, in my humble opinion, is batshit. We ain’t here long, and the only legacy is our kids and (maybe one day!) our kids kids. Make it count, which in my book doesn’t = “make loads of cash and as a consequence don’t ever see your loved ones”…

[Muromec]

"Clearly not North America"

[dmje]

Um, yes, and I’m completely uninformed about living and working in the US but doesn’t the ethic play the same wherever you are? Be interested to hear why you feel this kind of approach wouldn’t work.

[vundercind]

Those charts that show remaining time you’ll be around someone at a given age are sobering.

Even if you live 30 years after your kids are out of the house, odds are only something like 5-10% of your total time with them will be in that 30 years.

Similar figures for your own parents and grandparents. Those hours with them are few, especially at ages when they can still do much.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

I am starting to wonder if the management wants to ensure people in general do not make that connection ( and just want to have, ideally, serfs barely making ends meet ).

Covid was a big moment for me in a lot of ways, because I was very pro-corporate for a long time. Having seen some of the bs up close and personal, it made me realize how broken our current system really is ( I still remember 'we are in this together' lip service and 'driving is your zen time' ). Having a kid ( and seeing it grow up ) can be such a radicalizing moment.

[grecy]

> I am starting to wonder if the management wants to ensure people in general do not make that connection ( and just want to have, ideally, serfs barely making ends meet)

Why do you think healthcare is tied to employment in the US?

Why do you think minimum wage in the US has not gone up in decades?

Why do you think 2 weeks leave is normal in the US?

Why don’t more Americans travel overseas?

At this point you have to be willfully ignorant not to make the connection.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

There is no reason to make too snarky. The reality is the propaganda machine in US is really well oiled.

[nuancebydefault]

For me, everything i read and hear about the US is so weirdly confusing.

Here on HN I often read that there are a lot of problems with healthcare, poverty, minimum wages, too big cars, overweight, pollution, racism, big companies and rich people having too much power...

... and then i see the result of the election and the only argument is: this guy will fix our too high taxes.

[_dp9d]

Americans have been convinced to vote against their own best interests by decades of lobbying and propaganda.

As just one example, they deeply believe Socialism is evil, never mind the very vast majority of their daily services are dependant on it.

[Ray20]

> Why do you think healthcare is tied to employment in the US?

Because if you would take THIS money from the people directly, they will be very unhappy.

> Why do you think minimum wage in the US has not gone up in decades?

Minimum wage is eaten up by an ever-increasing amount of regulations

> Why do you think 2 weeks leave is normal in the US?

Otherwise, the minimum wage would have to be lowered

> Why don’t more Americans travel overseas?

It seems like because they already live in the best country

[rwyinuse]

If Americans truly lived in the best country, they could afford enough vacation to just travel for fun.

America is indeed the best country for rich, highly successful people. The minimum wage is not eaten by regulations, but the corporate profits which make those few so rich. Ordinary workers are better off in many EU countries, and they naturally make the majority of the population. I think the best country is one which provides the best quality of life for the average and median citizen, not just the elite.

[insane_dreamer]

Pretty much wrong on all counts.

[rachofsunshine]

Honestly, if you're not a radical in the year 2024, you haven't been paying attention.

I travel around a lot (a thing I can do because I work remotely). From SF to Seattle to Tampa to Salt Lake to the small-town corners of the Carolinas, everyone is struggling. You can feel it in the air, find people identifying with it in every conversation, see the slow decay of every place you know. The dead mall in your hometown, your phone forcing a prompt to take your data to train some AI, the favelas that are now the norm in every major city (regardless of local policy), the fact that you now get a prompt for what is effectively a payday loan when you try to order a pizza.

I think people underestimate how poisonous that is to a culture and to a body politic. When you don't believe in reform, you either shrug and let things burn, or you start setting the fires yourself. Neither bodes well.

[nuancebydefault]

Weird, i totally cannot relate. I don't see decay around me. The decay is mostly the geopolitical situation in several places in the world, together with climate change. If it were not in the news, i wouldn't even know.

[rachofsunshine]

Out of curiosity, where do you live?

[hezralig]

Where do you live mate?

[insane_dreamer]

100%. In the past 40 years we've experienced the largest wealth transfer in history, from workers to shareholders. And you don't even need to have read Piketty to see it (though it helps).

[Muromec]

Management wants replaceable units which are cheap to source, maintain and replace and utilize to the maximum. That’s all it was ever about

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

It does ring true and I am not sure I can refute it ( management wants easily replaceable cogs for the machine ). But my overall thought is that humans are a lot of things, but among those things they are also horrible biological machines if seen only through that prism. Our whole value to the system is that we can adjust to the unknown.

Still, maybe more importantly, we are not all even the same cogs, but management tries to lazily put us in the same category. I am not sure we can even really call it management. That is actually a mismanagement of human resources..

I think I mentioned this pet theory before here, but it is no longer 1950, but the management has not evolved since that period in US. Maybe it is time to force that evolution.

[pwg]

> I am starting to wonder if the management wants to ensure people in general do not make that connection ( and just want to have, ideally, serfs barely making ends meet ).

One big reason is they are very worried about their stock grants due to the stock value nosedive that will occur once they finally have to write off all those office space leases as actual losses and report the loss on their SEC forms.

If they can force RTO then all the money being spent for office space leases remains in the "business expense" category and the stock price does not tank as a result.

[dasil003]

This narrative has been repeated ad nauseam, but I'm not fully buying it. What is the average S&P 500 exposure to real estate for their stock price? In a handful of cases sure, but en masse it seems much more likely driven by more direct management beliefs about productivity and/or calculation to drive a "silent layoff" through voluntary attrition.

[heelix]

I live about six miles or so from the office. I'm so much more productive (and end up working far longer) at home than in the cattle car hotel configuration. I dislike the idea that they might try to pitch things as 'pay less' if I'm more productive. If I'm in the office, I've lost the day. WFH should not be a reason to make less - it should be considered a benefit like a gym membership. If folks use it, the company comes out ahead in the end.

[lolinder]

Pure WFH will naturally tend to translate to making less if you're currently living in a high CoL area, because there are lots of us living in low CoL areas for whom 75% of a Bay Area salary would be a huge raise.

If a remote-first company can give someone in a nearby time zone with the same language and cultural background and the same skillset a tempting offer while saving themselves 25% of their salary band, they're going to do it. It's not because they think you're less productive, it's because they're now looking in a wider job market with more competition from people who need less money to live.

The converse is also true: if you're living in a low CoL area, WFH can actually bring you a huge pay increase, because salaries balance out somewhere in the middle.

(I'll add that I strongly believe that where you live should not impact your income if you're in a remote company, for the reasons you list: if you're in the same country as everyone else, your location of residency has no impact on your value to the company.)

[jjav]

> Early retirement is nice, and earlier retirement is even nicer, but given a choice between retiring when my kid is 20 and being home with him every day throughout his whole childhood, there's no contest.

Agreed. I took 3 years off to be with my child every day in elementary school, priceless! It certainly did delay my retirement by a lot more than 3 years but totally worth it.

[bluGill]

Don't orget the body wears out as it ages. Already at 50 I find things I cannot do. I don't know how aging will hit you but you really should plan for the day when work isn't possible.

[lolinder]

Right, but I'm talking about the difference between retiring at 60 and retiring at 50 or even younger.

You don't need a FAANG salary to retire at (what use to be) the normal age or somewhat early, but you do need one to retire very early. I'm saying that I won't choose to chase a very early retirement if doing so compromises the time I can spend with my kids while they're young.

[saghm]

> Speaking for myself, beyond a certain income threshold there has been no substantial quality of life improvement.

I strongly agree with this mindset, and I'd argue that it's pretty well-supported as a phenomenon for most people, if not all. Money is a huge deal up to the point where you can live comfortably and without worrying about the future; beyond that, it doesn't really seem to make anyone happier. That being said, it's still a luxury that isn't at all common for most people, but it doesn't require being a millionaire (at least, not with the current level of inflation).

[jfengel]

Beyond a certain point, you have as much money as you wish to spend. Some people don't seem to have a top limit, but for many, those lucky enough to earn more will just put it away.

The difference in your lifestyle isn't now, but in a few decades. It's hard to know when you have enough for the rest of your life. There are formulas, though I don't really know how meaningful they are.

Meantime you're clearly leading a better life now, and may well not mind having a few additional years of it (compared to a bit less time with a lot more aggravation).

So, congratulations. It sounds like you made a well-founded choice.

[ghaff]

I probably saved more than I had to do and probably shouldn't be as (relatively) frugal as I am. COVID definitely pushed out a significantly earlier (semi-)retirement.

[bradlys]

> I did the same and for around 50% cut.

How did you and poster above manage this? A 50% paycut would mean having to move to a much more remote area for most people without a lot of NW already.

Homes being $1-3m in most of the places that FAANG resides just makes it implausible to take a cut from $400k+/yr to maybe $200k/yr. You can't afford a mortgage at $200k/yr for a $1m home with 20% down.

Is everyone here who is taking these paycuts just have a partner who makes bank or are you already rich thanks to having bought/inherited property long ago?

This advice just seems implausible to most anyone who cares about being in a good school district, in a relatively populous area, and hasn't inherited millions through buying real estate, inheritance, or stock appreciation.

[typeofhuman]

I live in the Florida. My employer at the time changed to RTO and offered to pay for relocation. I was making just shy of $400k. I resigned. I now make a little over $200k still WFH. My mortgage is $2k a month. Good size house with a pool and yard in a really nice gated community. I have no car payments, no student loans, and no credit card debt. My partner's income isn't even in six figures.

We live in a top-rated school district, although our kids are homeschooled, and will likely go private for high school. We live well-below our means.

I think it's just location, location, location.

[bradlys]

Didn’t think $400k/yr jobs were even an option in Florida. Maybe one of the few companies that moved to Miami over Covid I guess?

Makes more sense. You weren’t near any of the traditional tech cities. So, cost of living was always going to be low. Your mortgage is less than what it costs for a studio apartment in most tech centers.

[typeofhuman]

Let me clarify, my 400k job was HQ'ed in California. I worked remotely in Florida. But they changed to a RTO policy and offered relocation assistance. I refused to move to Cali so I resigned.

The company I work for now is HQ'ed in Atlanta, GA. But I still WFH.

[bradlys]

That makes more sense. You never had the HCOL to begin with and so you never really had to suffer a serious setback in lifestyle due to taking a 50% cut.

For me and most others I know, I’m only living in these expensive areas - so taking that kind of pay cut requires something extraordinary to sustain a decent quality of life.

[ndriscoll]

200k/yr for an 800k loan should be fine. You'd have a 60-65k/yr mortgage. Your DTI would be under 36% so lenders would be okay with it, and you might have like 100k in total living expenses so plenty of savings buffer.

1M can buy a house in a very nice suburb in an excellent school district.

[bradlys]

It can’t in Silicon Valley. Maybe in Tacoma or the very outer burbs of nyc. I don’t get the point living that far out though. You’re just in suburban hell at that point and stuck with working remote or a megacommute.

Either way, over half your net income is going to housing and that’s on the lower bound of what I gave. You probably won’t have a nice house. Maybe a starter home. May as well move to rural Indiana at that point.

[ndriscoll]

In a good area of "suburban hell" you can find things like clean streets with lots of greenery, a 2% poverty rate, public schools with an average SAT score at the 91 percentile and 71% AP enrollment, over 80% of households with married couples and almost 50% with kids. $1M can buy you a 4000 sq ft house on 1 acre.

Working remote is the point. You can live somewhere nice for families instead of a big city. Just don't live in places like California.

[bdangubic]

where would this area be located on a map?

[insane_dreamer]

huh? just because you're not in SF or Seattle or Boston doesn't mean you're in a "much more remote area"

You can absolutely buy a decent house in a nice city for $750K on a total household income under $150K. Without having inherited anything.

Source: me. 2 young kids. Not living in SF, obviously.

[jumping_frog]

I don't understand why isn't WFH made mandatory since it helps with climate change.

[Muromec]

Because mandate giving authority doesn’t care about climate change. That’s pretty obvious explanation

[griomnib]

Hey now, the morons somehow managed to remain organized enough to choose these authorities. And now we’ll all burn together.

Don’t let your fellow citizen off the hook.

[Muromec]

Yep, crime is always orginized and your fellow citizen, especially during the good times, aren't

[bdangubic]

data to support this claim? you are (incorrectly) assuming that since employees are not commuting to work they are just home and cars are just collecting dust in a garage… but of course you go to the store and mall and park and … in the middle of the day and you see a whole other story :)

[jumping_frog]

One off excursions are totally different than a 5 day back and forth. I don't have data but one can guess.

[brantonb]

I have data for myself. My annual driving dropped from roughly 9,000 miles to 5,000 miles when I switched to WFH. In addition to avoiding the daily back and forth, I’d often make a detour on my evening commute to get groceries for the next couple of days. Now I plan things out better and make fewer shopping trips, as well.

I wonder if I could negotiate cheaper car insurance rates. I’m driving far less and on safer streets, rarely getting on a major highway.

[bdangubic]

lets say you are good representative of a general population… how much of a climate change “dent” do you think we made?

[bdangubic]

there are many positives of WFH but climate change is not one of them

[bdangubic]

you don’t write policies based on guesses…

[insane_dreamer]

We have data from COVID when most people were working from home.

[bdangubic]

COVID is an outlier mate… it wasn’t just that most people were working from home, it was that everything stopped. if that was sustainable long-term that we are all on lockdown globally sure - we’d get traction in climate change and fast. unfortunately though…

[insane_dreamer]

Yeah, during the initial lockdown period everything stopped but afterwards things resumed a bit more normally as businesses opened, etc., while a large number of people were still working from home.

[mrweasel]

My pay cut was only around 15%, but I also wasn't working for a large company, and was apparently underpaid by around 20%. This will come of a spoiled and privileged, but I honestly have no idea how we'd make our day to day life work if I didn't work from home, with incredibly flexible hours. Getting children ready for school and pick them up at a reasonable hour, without stress just isn't possible. You have to drop off your children in some kind of care before their even fully awake, and you need to pick them up almost before you get out of the office.

Obviously people make it work, but I have no idea what kind of hours other people work, because doing a pick up at 16:30 would mean that my child would be the last one in the day care. In any case I don't see the point in tolerating the stress of traffic, school/day care, or just regular difficulties getting your daily tasks to fit in with a 8-16 job at an office. I have a family member that works at a hospital, she can't get her car service for four weeks because there's no available time to drop of the car and pick it up afterwards, which also fits with the mechanic. I can normally get appointments for mechanics, doctors, dentists, contractors, everything, with a few days notice because I can be incredibly flexible with my time.

[rachofsunshine]

This is pretty close to the average value engineers place on a remote job.

In our data set, the on-paper gap is about 18% (~37k on ~200k) if you just compare remote to non-remote, but given that the remote candidates often live in lower-COL areas, some of that probably comes from COL and not purely value placed on remote work.

The real driver is that ~half of engineers only want remote work, and the vast majority of the remainder aren't in whatever city you're hiring in.

[mrweasel]

I get that businesses are about profit and not much more, but I do find it interesting that it doesn't really register that people, given that option, choose to live in very diverse locations.

Some companies don't have the choice. If you need people to come in and operate machines, do manufacturing, care for others and similar, then you often need your employees to commute. If you don't need that, why wouldn't you hire the best qualified person, even if that person prefers to live in the Mojave desert?

[rachofsunshine]

Well, I do, that's why my company is remote.

But if I were to play devil's advocate?

- Because you think the apparently qualified person in the Mojave desert might be a fraudulent person who doesn't exist.

- Because you think the apparently qualified person in the Mojave desert might be interviewing for jobs they intend to quietly outsource, possibly to people worse than themselves and definitely in ways that create security risks.

- Because you think the random overheard conversations and water-cooler factor of in-office work has enough benefits to compensate for nominally lower qualifications.

- Because you think you're not perfect at detecting low-quality work and think remote employees might take the opportunity to slack off in ways they wouldn't in an office.

- Because you think it creates additional security risks by removing the implicit air-gapping of having to physically be in an office to handle sensitive information.

- Because you and your current employees actually like being in-office and having that cultural cohesion, and you don't think you can get it remotely.

...or any number of other reasons.

Like, I get that people like remote work. I do too. But the moralizing of RTO is...just incorrect, I think? There are practical arguments against it (I literally wrote a few thousand words to that effect not long ago - see my most recent HN submission), but that's an entirely different class of objection than the idea that it's just about middle managers wanting to breathe down your neck.

[pllbnk]

I get these worries; I have them too when hiring potential future colleagues while being a remote employee.

Most people are not fraudsters. Probably you will find them from time to time but it's something that's been disproportionately blown-up by the RTO crowd. There were many people like that in the office - they were forced to show up to work but their productivity has always been non-existent. Signing flexible contracts and allowing the company to fire more easily should prevent vast majority of such hires.

There's another weird point about not being able to detect low-quality work. I fail to see a difference between low-quality work in the office versus remotely. If the employer fails to detect it and pays salary, it's the employer's problem either way.

[mrweasel]

Just to be clear, I'm in an area of the world where there never was much work from home. During COVID, sure, everyone was home, but most have been back at the office for a long time. The question of trust also isn't as much of an issue, given that I'm in a country where trust is pretty much implicit. So I don't really buy into many of the especially American takes on return to office. It's not about a "return" for me, that is long gone. People returned to the office years ago.

For me it's missed opportunities for business, it's about a better work life balance, reducing stress, improving health, about reducing traffic and the associated pollution and it's about decentralization. As you rightly point out, there will be situations where you absolutely need people to go to an office, or where it will make a difference. These jobs could benefit from less traffic, better service at the edges of working hours, because the work from home people can use the time slots in middle of the day. For those jobs where it makes no difference if you are in an office or would be an improvement not to be, I don't get why more companies aren't just going for it.

[dgfitz]

So, you need control. Your proposing that employees cannot be managed efficiently if they’re not inside your panopticon?

[bwanab]

Only two ways that I know of that can make it work: 1) one parent needs to stay at home, or 2) hire a nanny. Both of those come with considerable costs.

[mrweasel]

While I apparently where underpaid, my boss and I had a pretty good relationship, but he didn't think a 50+% pay raise, so my wife could stay at home, was realistic, but I did ask.

My wife's boss recommended getting an au pair, she pointed out that he's aware of how much she makes, and that it was a stupid suggestion that he know that we wouldn't be able to afford that.

[james_marks]

Also other families that are in the same boat and trade pickup days, etc.

This is also how you build community, so has many benefits beyond cost.

[bwanab]

Good point!

[ghaff]

Historically, you had grandparents or other extended family (which was the case when I was growing up with two working parents). But that's far less common in the US today.

[lorax]

When I was doing this, I went in a bit later and dropped the kids off and my spouse went in a bit earlier and picked them up. They were neither the first ones in nor the last ones out. My commute was worst case 20 minutes, that also helped. It worked fine (except when spouse was traveling), but WFH Is much easier.

[vundercind]

Relatives, or illegal daycares. Or relatives who run illegal daycares.

I think that’s how folks make it work.

[klooney]

There's a huge class divide in affordability. Unlicensed childcare, home remodeling, etc., is wildly cheaper.

[vundercind]

Yeah, you don’t send your preschoolers to the Montessori school with five acres of woods for $300-600/wk, you send them to your cousin’s friend’s row house with a couple Wal-mart play structures in the chain link fenced back yard for like $120/wk. Places folks with software jobs never even hear of.

[klooney]

I watched cartoons on a dirty floor in a random house before school, I basically came out fine.

[insane_dreamer]

Not to mention that you’re putting your corporate boss’ well being above that of your children who have to cope with those circumstances. I’m willing to deal with the commute. I’m not willing to let my kids take the hit.

[nkrisc]

> This will come of a spoiled and privileged, but I honestly have no idea how we'd make our day to day life work if I didn't work from home, with incredibly flexible hours.

I don't think it's spoiled, I think you're spot on. Yeah, it's hard. And yes, you (and me and probably many others reading here) are privileged.

> Obviously people make it work

And yeah, they usually make it work, and it sucks. Or if they can't make it work then maybe a spouse or partner has to quit their job to handle that stuff and take care of the kids and then they have to get by with even less income.

[anal_reactor]

When I was looking for a job I was offered peanuts for a position requiring very specific knowledge. When I pointed this out, they said "well, if you want to earn a lot of money, go to company X".

I did. Now I'm exploring the limits of slacking off while getting a nice paycheck. I could aim higher, but I doubt my new place would allow me to slack off as much as this place does. After all, I have only one life, so I'd rather spend it doing things other than working, and I know that modern work is unlikely to bring deeper life satisfaction.

[7thpower]

And this is why we can’t have nice things.

[1over137]

Admitting to slacking off and leeching your paycheque... this is why the bosses want back to office.

[anal_reactor]

At home at some point I get so bored I start actually working. In the office I mostly just gossip with my coworkers, which means that I'm not only wasting my own time, but also other people's. Having me at home is just better for everyone all around.

[dgfitz]

Which part of the post made you think they weren’t in the office every day?

[christhecaribou]

Any data for that, or just your gut vibes, jabroni?

[taeric]

3-4 hours a day commuting? I confess I used to bike to the office and that could take about 3 hours/day, but I could cut it down to a 2 hour/day by switching to an ebike. I also like biking. On my "work from home" days I would aim for an hour and a half ride every morning.

I can't imagine being in a longer commute that I didn't like.

[plasticchris]

Sf Bay Area can easily exceed 2 hours each way if you aren’t willing to pay insane money on housing. It honestly made me wonder how low income people exist there at all. I did more than 2 hours each way for many years there but only by riding the train with a hot spot.

[leptons]

I used to commute 3 hours a day. Then one day I added it up and I was shocked to know that an entire month of my life was wasted in traffic. My year was essentially 11 months long. I quickly decided to change that and told my boss I wasn't coming in to the office anymore in 2 weeks, and he said I could work from home. This was in the mid-late-1990s, when 56k modems were the fastest available. I hated driving so much at that point, that I let the city tow away my shitty car because it had not been driven in 6 months, they thought it was abandoned. Good riddance! I haven't owned a car since the 90s. Currently I work for a totally remote company, we had a big remote workforce before the pandemic so it wasn't a problem for me to move away and keep working for them. There's no way I ever want to commute, or go to work inside an office ever again.

[majormajor]

Some of the comments in here are all in on "I'm going to take half the money to work remote and not have a commute" but were apparently not on board with "I'm going to spend more of that double-salary to live close" which is a contradiction I find interesting.

(Obviously not everyone could choose to live closer without driving up the prices even more in the short-term, but the value of money-vs-commute compared to money-vs-remote doesn't seem directly comparable to many people.)

[taeric]

Agreed on that odd trade-off. I'm assuming an implicit love of extra space? Definitely not really rationally compared.

Even odder are the insistence on public transit or similar. I share the preference, but if time is valuable, a personal car or small car pool would almost certainly cut time.

Again, I used to bike about 3 hours a day. I can't really blame that on the job, though.

[jmspring]

When I graduated college, the drive from Santa Cruz to 85 and Shoreline was about 35min at 730am. These days that is 90-120 minutes at that same time (think google/microsoft campuses). Many can’t afford to live close to those areas any more.

[AlotOfReading]

Low income people exist by either living with family or commuting insane distances from lower cost areas. I've met quite a few people who would commute from Tracy or Stockton to SF/Mountain View to work as janitors or food service workers at tech offices. It's brutal, especially when they're expected to show up in time to serve breakfast or open the doors.

[taeric]

That sounds insane to me. Again, I had a long commute by bike. Could have easily shed most of it by getting a car. Would have to shift off rush hour, but that isn't too hard to do?

Would love to see more data on this. Quick googling shows average commutes well below an hour. I'm assuming average is just not a good stat for this?

[stefandesu]

How do you like biking 3 hours a day? I'm starting a new job next year that requires me to be at the office most days. It's 40-50 minutes each way by bus or about an hour (if you're fast or with an e-bike) by bicycle, and I'm already considering getting an e-bike for the summer months for this. (It would be only 20-25 minutes by car, but I'm not willing to commute daily by car I think. I also just don't want to own a car in the first place.)

[christhecaribou]

FAANG is just Big Blue 2.0 nowadays. Not a place for smart people, a place for Jassholes.

[qwerpy]

I'm grateful for my FAANG job because, despite my lack of intelligence, I'm able to make enough money to provide a comfortable life for my family and save up for early retirement.

[christhecaribou]

Then goose step to the beat of the RTO drum and hush.

[goostavos]

Weirdly aggressive.

[azemetre]

Does jasshole mean something else than what I see on urban dictionary?

[dghlsakjg]

I assume it has to do with Andrew Jassy, CEO of Amazon

[mbb70]

Presumably a reference to Amazon CEO Andy Jassy

[drivebyhooting]

Andy Jessy?

[dbish]

Don’t paper over everyone with the new Day 2 Amazon. There are still great things happening at Meta for example where the founder is still driving culture. They’re some of the biggest players in open source AI and you better believe Meta AI has very smart people

[drivebyhooting]

Meta culture is not exactly friendly. I can’t speak to meta ai. But much of the company has 8 layers deep of VP and directors.

[dbish]

I wouldn’t say it’s friendly, but that’s not really the point. The commenter was saying smart people didn’t work there which is really hard to say when talking about the AI groups. I would say you can get a lot done if you’re not in a few particularly slow moving heavily layered orgs. They’re also pushing hard to flatten as they should

[drivebyhooting]

How can you flatten without also removing a bunch of leaf nodes? Otherwise you’d have one M2 with 50 reports.

[dbish]

I mean, yeah, that’s the answer. More reports. More senior folks don’t need a million 1:1s and a bunch of micromanaging.

Plus if you’ve ever looked at the org chart at Meta before flattening started there were quite a few M2s/Directors/VPs with < 6 reports, that’s insane unless you’re spending a bunch of time on IC work.

[tokinonagare]

I did a radical change recently too, save for the fact my job (full remote) wasn't very well paid to begin with. The additional 700€/month I got for working in comparison to the unemployment benefit is absolutely not worth working 150h a month, since I still can pay for whatever small or medium things I want, and it don't make a real change to what I can't (buy a house).

On the other hand, I have now time and energy to focus on all the cool things: writing research papers and my thesis, learning accounting to set up my company, make contributions to the open-source and open-data projects I care about, taking time for friends and family. In a word: living.

[rectang]

I’ve done essentially the same thing for years, working for small remote companies at rates below what my resume would justify.

There are labor force bargains to be had for companies that offer workers flexibility.

[mooreds]

This comment, to me, is heartwarming. The free market works! You valued something more than $$$ and so made adjustments to your employment (aka selling your labor).

I think that in-office work is good for certain situations, which is why onsites still make sense. And for folks newer in their career, onsite time is really important, based on my experience.

But if remote is more attracitve, over time companies that offer it will win in the talent marketplace.

[rsanek]

You are kidding yourself if you think we have a free market in SWE employment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...

[mooreds]

I'll grant you it isn't a perfect market. From the employer side, there's what you shared, as well as the fact that SWEs, like most employees, are not fungible commodities.

From the employee side, there are definitely non-monetary factors that play into the sale of labor as well. And H1Bs (in the USA) or other legal restrictions also impact how labor is sold.

However, would you dispute that there is some level of free market for software engineers? I think there's some level because:

* people can switch jobs (except as legally restricted above)

* companies compete for talent (as indicated by the rise in salaries from 2020-2021 and the AI hiring frenzy now)

* you can have an oversupply of labor (as we're seeing in other areas of software in 2024)

Those all seem like aspects of a market, if not a perfect one.

[CooCooCaCha]

Except it doesn’t because so many companies are slowly bringing people back to office and finding a fully remote job is becoming more of a privilege. One anecdote does not validate your views.

[dbish]

But that’s exactly how it works. If you are willing to make the trade off for what you value more then go for it. Many do not want to make the pay or job tradeoff and come into office, and many others (myself included for many cases) think coming in to office is generally good.

Remote is not more attractive to everyone and everyone doesn’t have the same economics on the trade offs.

[CooCooCaCha]

That’s exactly why it doesn’t work. Leaving our rights to the market to decide does not work. It never has.

Why? Because for the vast majority of people, employers have almost all of the negotiating power. What this means is the market is slowly shaped by what employers want, not employees. Because we need a job more than they need our labor.

It’s naive to think the market is a level playing field and if employees want something they just vote with their labor and the market will adapt. That’s just not true. Most people don’t have the ability to change jobs on a whim to play the market with their livelihoods.

[selectodude]

I don’t understand - do you think it’s the government’s role to step in and mandate remote work?

[dbish]

It works fine for tech and most white collar jobs. You can indeed vote with your feet unless you make very poor financial decisions (or have too high of needs) for most of these careers.

[mooreds]

There were companies both hybrid and remote before covid (I worked for a few). Covid was a shock that shifted remote work (as well as a lot of other things).

I would not call remote work a privilege. Rather I would say remote work is a benefit. It falls into the same bucket as all the other benefits that employees can weigh in addition to salaries when they weigh job options.

I expect a reversion in terms of remote/hybrid, but not all the way back to where it was before hand. Looked for some stats, didn't find much. From the US BLS[0]:

> However, remote work participation was still higher than its 2019 level in all industries except agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting, which returned to its 2019 level.

The data only goes to 2022, but the publication is from 2024. If there are fresher stats, would love to see them, as I think things have changed in 2023 and 2024.

0: https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-13/remote-work-productiv...

[k4ch0w]

I don’t think this is true. This is a lagging indicator and takes time to show the meaningful data. You’ll not get your productivity gains as your top talent leaves and everyone else who is salty will coast doing the bare minimum while looking for a new job. https://youtu.be/4ec_yZCWOCY?si=RQs2bo3w_ATv9X6e

I think companies that won’t adapt and embrace remote/hybrid will slowly decay.

[majormajor]

I think hybrid is MUCH closer to in-person than remote. It requires you to be close to a base office.

I think hybrid-with-scheduled-days is almost always a clear win over 5-days in-office, but that full-remote is a huge productivity drain. The cost of alignment, decision making, and collaboration for any sort of creative work goes way up. So unless you know exactly what sorta widgets you need to make and it won't change much more than once a year or so, you're going to have trouble keeping up.

I went through 3 different remote-only startup jobs before finally finding another in-person one, and didn't stay long at any of them because the productivity was just too low. Too much time spent doing things that would be easier in-person or waiting-or-making-up-for async-induced issues.

[bbqfog]

Those companies will also feel the wrath of the free market. I'd never work for them and I'm quite a high end resource!

[shams93]

Depending upon where you wind up living to work remote you could well see an almost 50% cut in life expenses and taxes.

[dbish]

That only matters if you spend the majority of your income. For many high paying tech workers the amount you save matters more and doesn’t change enough comparatively if your rent doubles for example.

[bbqfog]

If you want to buy a house, it's going to be a lot more than double to live in the Bay Area vs say rural Arizona.

[plasticchris]

Absolutely this. A down payment in the valley is enough to buy outright in most of the USA.

[dbish]

Sure and that’s still not the majority of your income over a 10+ yr period if you’re getting paid good bay area wages as a senior+ engineer.

Not to mention that buying a house isn’t a requirement of living in a location (and isn’t the right financial choice for many places when comparing to rent).

[newspaper1]

A decent house in the Bay Area is >$2M. Why would I pay that when I can make the same money and buy a much better house for $500k, work from home, not have a commute (which is hideous in the BA) and not have some little micro manager breathing down my neck all day? It's a massive quality of life improvement all around.

[plasticchris]

Sure. But if you didn’t have to pay it (ie living there wasn’t a requirement)?

[ghaff]

Although I think most people in a major urban metro (broadly--not necessarily living in a city) probably don't really want to move to the mountains someplace. I'm well out of the city--where my job mostly never was anyway--but I like being able to drive in in 90 minutes or so and the other advantages that a major metro offers.

[insane_dreamer]

Depends greatly on whether you have kids and their ages.

[layer8]

> 3-4 hours/day commuting

I’d switch jobs then as well, or rather, I would never take such a job in the first place. Luckily my commute is only 20 minutes by bike. I don’t earn anywhere near FAANG level either, though.

[user-one1]

I'm happy that you found something that works for you. But wouldn't it have been cheaper to move to a place closer to the office of your previous employer?

[tomtom1337]

Rather than the snarky response, I’ll answer: closer is likely to be impossibly more expensive for the requirements OP needs (e.g. living area, number of bedrooms or similar).

[dghlsakjg]

To add in, they may have other obligations in life that prevent it as well. Taking care of elders, kids schools, spouses jobs, medical care needs. Frequently money is just not the answer

[JoeDaDude]

Maybe. But sign a new lease (or mortgage!), pay moving expenses, relocate away from friends/family/social network/what have you and then the job disappears after 18 months, leaving you to relocate again....

[mrweasel]

So not parent, but no. I lived as close as we could afford, roughly 20km away. Outside rush hour you can to the trip in 15 minutes, during rush hour it's 35 minutes, assuming no accidents (and this is a highly accident prone area where traffic would block up completely every other week).

Taking a 15% cut, which allowed us to move further away severely reducing our cost of living, bring us closer to family which can help out if needed. It has reduce stress, ensures that our child doesn't need to be in the care of after school programs longer than she needs. The reduced cost of living, reduction in stress and the flexibility that we're able to offer my wife's employer was made a huge, positive, difference in our lives, well worth the 15%.

[exe34]

> But wouldn't it have been cheaper to move to a place closer to the office of your previous employer

it might not be the sort of place they want to live. it also negates a lot of the higher salary argument if a lot more of it is going into paying rent or mortgage.

[insane_dreamer]

It’s not just that it’s more expensive COL but if you’re buying then you’re taking a 30 y mortgage that may not be so easy to divest when the next round of cuts come and you find yourself let go anyway.

[steveBK123]

Not really in VHCOL areas. You can get by on less, if you are planning your life around your job, for sure.

But for example if your office is Midtown Manhattan, the equivalent lifestyle to own a home for your family in walkable Manhattan vs long subway commute Brooklyn vs longer commuter rail suburbs vs extreme commute exurbs is staggering.

You can buy an entire exurban home for the incremental cost to upgrade from Manhattan 2bed/1.5bath to 3bed/2.5 bath.

My parents & in-laws each have 3bed/2.5 bath homes outside of Manhattan commute range, but within tolerably unpleasant driving commute to Stamford/Greenwich. That is - they are in commuter range of where commuters live / satellite office are located.

The combined values of those 2 homes might buy a single family sized apartment in Stamford, an ok 1 bedroom apartment in yuppie Brooklyn, or a kind of dumpy studio in Manhattan.

A lot of these answers seem to boil down to "I would simply have more money".

[poniko]

Sounds like a correct action .. good on you, enjoy the extra time in your life, it's the real value.

[argentinian]

Money can't buy time.

[switch007]

What do you think about private jets, passes to skip theme park queues, world class life saving medical treatment etc?

[argentinian]

Yes, good point. In those cases it can be said it allows you to extend your lifespan, or reduce the time spent in an undesirable situation.

So I'll reformulate what I wanted to express before: The time that somebody chooses to spend in a 80 hour workweek can't be recovered. So you'd better be sure that spending so much time in a job is what you really want to do.

Also, there's an interesting article about the topic: "Top 5 regrets people have when they die, says ex-hospice care worker" https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/07/phrases-that-are-often-peopl...

[cess11]

I'd never work for a "FAANG" style corporation, but otherwise made a similar choice when my first kid was born, back in early 2019.

I'll surely lose out on some currency in the long run but I'm not so sure whatever value it's going to have in the coming fifties outweighs the time with my family I've gained. On a global scale a lot of things are going to shit and I'd rather my kids think of me as someone who didn't bail on them under such circumstances.

[6c696e7578]

Did you take a pay cut? If you include your commute hours in your hourly pay rate, maybe you didn't have such a pay cut after all.

[xyst]

That’s what I’m thinking. 8 hr grind + 4 hr commute for regular salary. Vs whatever 5-8 hr work plus no commute at normal salary * 0.5.

It’s a trade off in this case that I think is worth it.

[karaterobot]

Hey, congrats. I did a similar thing... in December 2019. Poor timing, but a good decision nonetheless.

Even years later, I am still not making as much money as I was making back then. I could not care less about that. I'm making plenty of money, and am more than twice as happy—this is harder to measure than salary, but it sure feels true.

[assimpleaspossi]

I spend 40 minutes a day commuting. Would I take a 50% pay cut for that? You know the answer.

Depending on how one is, working from home not only isolates you, but if you have kids, dealing with them on a daily basis while trying to work is not what you think it will be after months and years of doing so.

Yes, your life will change and be totally different.

[jemmyw]

You sound pretty negative about it. I know plenty of people who work from home and deal with their kids and enjoy doing so. And some who just seem to dislike their kids regardless of the work situation.

So when folks say they work at home to spend more time with family I take that at face value. I've certainly enjoyed being with mine - not every moment for sure. But I didn't have kids as an obligation, it was a choice and any relationship also requires work, being home with them helps that.

[theshackleford]

> working from home not only isolates you

I’m less isolated than ever WFH as I now have the time and energy to have a social life after work.

Additionally, I can be more involved with my local community because instead of commuting to some CBD and filling the pockets of business there, I support and have relationships with the small businesses in my local community.

Equally though, I see how if you were a parent, or are incapable of going outside unless forced, it could be more isolating for some.

[AdrianB1]

At least you have a much better chance to (live to) eventually retire. I am glad to see this kind of change is not just possible, but really happening.

[hammock]

I’ll get downvoted for this but so many people taking 15-50% paycuts without a moments thought, or trading 50% of pay for 3-4 hours back out of a 11-12hr workday (including commute) sort of implies that there are a lot of overpaid people right now.

[kurikuri]

A better hypothesis would be that there are diminishing returns for the hours in a day a person has. Getting back 4 hours when you are currently working 12 hours has a ton more impact than getting back 4 hours when you only work eight.

[jumping_frog]

The defining metric of progress in a society is that all of us have to work less for maintaining same or higher quality of life. Leaving aside the supply demand aspects, who is going to pocket the savings if people aren't overpaid and why should they be the appropriate recipients of that savings.

[nacs]

Overpaid? Doubt it.

Just people who make more than they need to survive and can afford to cut back on income for a happier life.

[AdrianB1]

Not overpaid. Even if you are paid below the market, but you are highly skilled in a job where you deliver a lot of value for the employer and you make a lot more than the average worker, you can take a pay cut. For example, average pay in US is around $50k/year. If you are very good in tech or an MD and you make $250k, are you overpaid? Probably not. If you take a $50k cut, with the remaining $200k you are still fine in many places. There is no reason to reach the conclusion you are overpaid.

[listenallyall]

The fact that you have to take a pay cut, rather than find another employer at the current level, is evidence that the original salary was well above-market

[AdrianB1]

I am not able to understand the logic of your conclusion.

[christhecaribou]

No, it isn’t? There is more to life than salary.

[xyst]

Is it really a pay cut if half your day is spent commuting (unpaid)? Just a thought.

[brantonb]

From a pure numbers perspective, if you work 40 hours/week and commute 3.5 unpaid hours/day, then dropping the commute and taking a 50% pay cut results in only a 28% hourly pay cut and an extra 17.5 hours in your week.

And let’s not forget the gas and car maintenance savings. I reduced my annual driving by about 4,000 miles. My car will also not have to be replaced as soon. I’m also eating cheaper because I’m more likely to make my own lunch rather than eating out. I’m sure there are more expenses like this that add up.

If I could make the finances work, I think I’d take that deal. (I’d be unlikely to sign up for that commute in the first place.)

[wordofx]

Yup makes it easier than firing you. We don’t want less productive people.