It's crazy he could put his son through training for years, yet cannot bother to read the book over a weekend?!

80k* %50 = 40k vs. 160k * %35 = 56k

Bay area in a nutshell. You can have higher savings rates too, I do around %40 and I could save even more. Working at a startup does make it harder, usually it's better to work at FANG. You also learn a lot and realize the difference between 'facebook does this dev practice because it's huge so it has to vs. it's the better practice'

Pre or post-tax, and at what standard of living? Weather aside, you can get significantly better housing/schools/daycare/whatever for that 80k elsewhere than you can for 160k in the Bay Area. If you're young and single this is probably a non-factor, but for people >30 it can be significant.

If you're young and single or dual income, no kids, the bay area is a fantastic place to make high income and save tons of money. Lots of people in r/financialindependence are tech workers in the valley.

If you're starting your own company and want VC investment, I can think of no better place to be than silicon valley, assuming you make use of the social events, meetups, attend YC demo days, rainbow mansion, etc. The personal networking will lead to more and better deals.

But if you have kids, a spouse that doesn't pull in the astronomical salaries, or are trying to bootstrap a company, stay far, far away.

Very true on the having kids part. But you typically have 7 years of your life before you reach 30.

Probably contributes to the logan's run effect you see in SV tech companies ;)

What I've seen from colleagues with kids is the spouse also works some sort of 6 figure job and they either commute a lot or bought a house before it got extra crazy. Like one who bought a $600-700k TIC around the Haight ~4 years ago. Or they sacrifice their living standard somehow. The current family set you see today bought when it was more affordable.

Good points on how families in the Bay Area are setup today or established themselves a few years ago. To be fair, though, you have 37 years of employment after you reach 30... It's kind of scary to think about the Bay Area being a good place to establish yourself for only 15% of your career. Logan's Run effect indeed.

Good developers can make way, way more than 160k total comp without much effort in the Bay Area. Not at startups, so if you want to earn lots of money, don’t join a startup.

You have to be good, and work hard, but I know lots and lots and lots of tech workers who are single earners with kids and a house they didn’t buy before the boom.

I agree, but people would of started coming out of the woodwork and giving me even more exceptions to the rule and how it's unrealistic, so I did the startup lower bound.

The pay in San Francisco isn't double what it is other places. Closer to 40% higher(according to Robert Half). Also lots of people are saying that San Francisco has better tech talent. Which mean the actual number is less than 40% because an average San Francisco dev would be only get paid above average in a smaller market.

And the difference is smaller compared to other large markets like Chicago, Houston, and L.A.

>Bay area in a nutshell. You can have higher savings rates too

Your example is a higher savings amount, not rate.

In your example, I may still prefer the 80K one. Why?

Assume taxes are a third of your salary in both places.

In the 80K job, you save 40K, and your living expenses are 13.3K

In the 160K job, you save 56K and your living expenses are 50.7K

In Nowhereville, you are saving 3 times your annual cost of living. In SV, you are saving just a little more than 1x.

The result? Even though you save more in SV, you will not be able to retire quicker.

(My claim of 1/3 in taxes in both places is likely inaccurate, but the essence of the calculation doesn't change).

A higher saving amount does not mean earlier retirement (unless you move to a cheap city to retire).

You'll still need to retire in a cheap city in Nowhereville. Why not live in SV when you're young and retire to Nowhereville, vs living in Nowhereville all your life?

Alternatively, if you can get a remote job, live in Cambodia or the Phillipines or somewhere else with an extremely low cost of living while getting paid 0.5x SV salary, and end up with 95% savings. Then you can retire anywhere.

0.5 salary (generous for someone remote working in a different timezone without a large personal network, imho) with 95% savings is the same as 48% savings with 1x salary, not to mention greater growth potential. You're example doesn't seem all that different from working in the valley a few years, then cashing out to retire in SE Asia.

>Why not live in SV when you're young and retire to Nowhereville, vs living in Nowhereville all your life?

Depends on your preferences. I don't want to move to a new place when I retire. I'd like to retire in the same place where I have friends, know the city, system, etc.

FANG?

Probably Facebook, Amazon and Google

Maybe Netflix as well.

Also apple. They pay less initially but start matching after a few years.

Facebook, Amazon, N*, Google

Netflix?

Or you know, you don't have to be average and can do 300k * 60% consulting or doing some other slightly more ambitious method while still not living in the bay area.

Outside of a few very highly specialized fields, I don't know anyone who does that successfully who didn't first get their start and build their network in the valley.

EDIT: To be clear, I do know people that have "done their time" then left and pulled in really nice consulting rates working remotely from rural / flyover america or overseas, albeit often with a lot of travel to customer sites.

By argument above, you'd still expect to make significantly more in the Bay Area.

So what is up and coming compared to ML?

You have to take a week off or spend 4-5 weekend days in training, making driving on Uber a lot less attractive as a part time extra while your already employed.

Sure. I agree it's less attractive. I'm saying it's not prohibitive.

Firefox 55 doesn't have any of the (massive) improvements from 57 and Project Quantum which are being discussed here. Give Beta, Developer Edition, or Nightly a spin.

I've found out that many google products (web pages) have bad performance outside of Chrome[0]. But I've used Netscape/Mozilla my whole life, and I will not change from it, specially now that its performance is measurably rising (again).

[0] which is of course something google devs should consider and fix the sites, but hey... why do that when you're the market leader?

Canada has training requirements for other low income jobs, and the kids take them even if your just going to work part time.

For example, you usually need to take a 1 day foodsafe course to work somewhere like mcdonalds: http://www.foodsafe.ca/courses.html

It's part of an overall trend. For example the gatekeeper security settings ux has slowly been removing options to run unsigned binaries bit by bit.

In 10.12 there is no obvious way on how to run unsigned binaries now. When you double click on an app multiple times, it refuses to run. If you go to security settings you cannot run the unsigned binary from there. You have to right click on the app and press open to get the old dialog that would allow you to run an unsigned binary like it's some sort of easter egg. In older versions you didn't have these restrictions.

Right-click an app and select Open is always how you've been able to bypass Gatekeeper to run unsigned binaries. That hasn't changed.

AFAIK the only thing that's changed since Gatekeeper was introduced was the Security preferences lost the option to allow unsigned apps.

I've run several unsigned apps on Sierra and previous versions with Gatekeeper, and not once have I right-clicked an app to do it.

Did you ever configure Gatekeeper in Security settings to allow for unsigned apps? It's plausible that updating to Sierra would preserve that setting, though I haven't tried (as I never configured my system that way).

Unique tit-for-tat regulations of Chinese companies of what is shown in practice?

"Our companies don't have freedoms X,Y,Z vs Chinese corps in china, so Chinese corps and investors will get the same special treatment in our country too".

On an ethical level, you're hurting people (e.g. Chinese workers) who had no part in the objectionable actions that prompted this. On a practical level, are there any cases in history where this has ever produced beneficial results?

But like you said, something more probably has to be done. Or else consider the case where the authoritarian model is perceived to have "won" and gets exported. That's also part of the ethical consideration.

Taking a measure such as gp's suggestion, which is at least fair and on face justifiable, may be the most just move.

And given the particularity of this case, history probably doesn't have a huge sample size. New contexts emerge, such as technological development. It's much more conceivable now than before that a small group of people could indefinitely hold power over the overwhelming majority.

China's is also hurting people with their behavior towards foreign companies in China in similar ways. Not to mention all the abuse china afflicts on it's own people with their power politics.

When someone is abusing you don't roll over, you create boundaries and walk away if they are violated.

And what is good about this practice is china has the power to stop this by treating everyone equally. Your not forcing things on china and you say you will stop when they stop.

It's also useful for cheaper & faster cross border remittances for the common person. For the common person paypal's %3+ currency exchange fees is more expensive than the equivalent %0.5-%1 in fees you get from a 2 bitcoin exchanges. And it's far faster since everything moves at the speed of local deposits & withdraws.

Transferwise is pretty friendly and uses real exchange rate + reasonable fees Usually around 1% or less. With Bitcoin, I can send the same transfer for 0.03% - which puts Transferwise to shame and makes PayPal look like an absurd joke. Granted there's much more involved with current volatility of bitcoin but once that gets more stable all of the other options will be a total joke. People who cant't understand the future of bitcoin as remittence are in for a rude awakening.

This is based on the assumption that bitcoin will stabilize.

I think bitcoin is a flawed first mover. The winner (and future stable cryptocurrency) likely hasn't been invented yet.

But I imagine it's mathematic properties will allows for a sustainable transaction rate (i.e.: thousands per second), short (as in sub 2-3 second) final confirmation times, and the ability to execute Ethereum like smart contracts without major security flaws and naive language implementation choices.

Bitcoin has Lightning with non-Turing complete smart contracts which offer better security

Ethereum has plasma and raiden with touring complete smart contracts

Pick one and build on it - there is no need to rip out the underlying blockchain to achieve what you’re outlining - it exists today

You assume that current remittance providers can't lower their fees. That seems dubious.

If you had traded BTC cross border at the wrong time last week, you could have lost 5-15% in value based on the prevailing market price during the time it took the transfer to settle and the coins to move onto an exchange and sell.

BTC is in practice a speculative security. Not a currency.

Now if your goal was simply to circumvent overseas capital transfer limits and legal limitations, that fee might be "worth it."

Most ad blocking is about intercepting specific urls, which can work at a layer below javascript.

They can also do server side ads and make the url indistinguishable from another image asset. They haven't, so it isn't 'dire' enough yet.