I've more or less followed this advice, and it's worked out for me. For the most part, I used my salary to pay for expenses and stock compensation to build up wealth.
The tricky part is that a lot of this advice is situation-dependent. Should you switch to a riskier company that offers a higher compensation? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Should you work late to accomplish goals hoping to get a promotion? It depends.
So how are we supposed to know what to do?
The answer, in my opinion, is people. You have to trust people who are trustworthy and avoid people who are not. As an employee, your success depends on the people who hired you--they are the ones who can promote you or cheat you. The best leaders are the ones who realize that helping you advance is going to help them advance. Help your boss accomplish their corporate goals and they will promote you--not as a reward, but as a bet that you will help them on the next goal.
Bad leaders are either too selfish (fail to promote you) or too incompetent (unable to rise, even with your help). You need to learn to avoid them.
Therefore, my advice is this: Look at the leaders in your company--people who could plausibly hire you. Which ones are the best bets? Which ones have both the talent and the integrity to succeed? If you're lucky there's more than one and you can work to get on their team. If you're unlucky, there are none and you need to find a different company.
Warren Buffet also made the point that investing in a company (this applies whether its your capital or your time as an employer) that it was the calibre of the people that determined whether the investment was worthwhile, or not.
And that's why interviews, as a potential employee are so important, you want to know who you will be working for/ with, so you should be asking questions that determine what sort of people you are getting involved with.
Problem with this is that this can get you to 1-5 million in net worth (declining fast, someone joining a FANG now certainly won't make it as a single contributor to 5 million, unless they're truly exceptional) (of course 5 million effectively pays you a relatively high level FANG salary just from 4% safe investments ...)
Maybe you can get to 50 million with a reasonable management career.
But let's say you're on this path and you have 3 million or so, at 35/40 years ... then what? Management at all costs? No reasonable job at a FANG will get you to even just double what you have at that point.
If you have $5 million USD wealth you're in the top 5% of the US (and top 0.5% of the world).
If you cannot have a happy life on that, well...
But I get it--if your goal is to accumulate more wealth (no judgement--that's a legit goal) then it gets harder. When I was at Microsoft, partner-level engineers were making $1 million per year; now it's probably $2 million. Staff-engineer at FAANG is probably similar, I bet, to say nothing of the AI labs. I bet you could reach $25 million after 10 years with the right investment strategy. And $25 million throws off at least $1.25 million per year if you invest right.
Beyond that, you probably do need a startup or some other significant ownership stake.
I know these are just spit-balled numbers but getting to $25M in 10 years even with $2M annual comp would require pretty risky investment I think. Assuming you spent $300K per year and paid US taxes you’d have about $900K left over. 7% average returns would mean you’d have about $13M saved after 10 years. Getting more than 7% on the whole portfolio is going to require significant risk.
Hindsight is perfect in stock markets,but with 100k in initial investment in 2010 in VUG, and a 40k/mo recurring investment until now (little more than half the savings), it would be worth 33M+ now.
Obviously this means one has to be earning that much for 15+ years.
Fair enough--I didn't do the math. Looks like you'd hit $25M after 15 years or so. And I grant that 7% is aggressive.
Still, if you reach staff-level at 40 years old, you could have $25M at 55. That's pretty amazing. But that requires lots of luck. Most people never make it to staff-level. I never did.
Yup! Depends on the company and the person, of course.
Another thing: People at FAANGs usually ride the stock up and get way more than 7% per year. I'm embarrassed to say that I sold a lot of MSFT stock at $30 in 2011. Today (~15 years later) it is trading at $530.
Never be embarrassed about diversification. In 2012 Microsoft could have been found to be cooking the books and $30 would be a lot. Or they could have hit a hard patch, lost stock value and laid you off and you'd be out income and savings.
Most helpful way I know to think about this is: if you’d been given that stock as cash would you have bought the stock. Breaks the cognitive bias of already holding the stock.
Sustaining 15 years at staff level is near-impossible and will extract a heavy toll for the vast majority of people. Plus at 55? Not saying you'll be dinged purely for your age but it's not like it has no influence ...
> When I was at Microsoft, partner-level engineers were making $1 million per year; now it's probably $2 million.
This seems...high. The levels.fyi data for 68/69 shows them maybe crossing 1M, and the highest available data point at a bit under 1.5 mil. Staff engineers at FAANG are not making 1M a year except in cases of significant stock growth. 700-800K is more reasonable. The AI labs pay a significant premium, yes (2-3x!).
My math on it was basically "I can work for 10-15 more years and retire meeting my financial goals, or work until my 4 year grant at an AI lab finishes and meet all the same goals, with more interesting work".
I don't think your math is mathing. To end up with $5,000,000 after 12 years at, let's say, a constant 5% annual interest rate, you will need to invest over $25K per month over that time, or $300K per year of disposable income, after taxes, living expenses and so on. You would have to be very high level even in a FAANG to be able to do that.
I know, I know, everyone on HN says entry level FAANG makes $600K/year and drives a brand new Porsche, but it's not reality.
Heh, it's much easier to drive a brand new Porsche than make 600K or save 5M bucks from a 9-to-5.
It was much much easier ten years ago, too.
That's one of the clearest examples of the difference between income-vs-wealth and the difference between "high cost of living" and "every expense is higher." If your higher salary offsets your higher cost of essentials of SV plus goes beyond that, a Porsche is much more relatively affordable to you than someome making the "inflation adjusted" amount in Ohio. (Or if you're looking to retire earlier, you can put more away for that too.)
In the last few decades the part you're missing in your math is that the trick is NOT to take 5% gains. Instead, keep it in the company. The wealth people have gotten from working BigTech hasn't been higher base comp or even TC, it's been specifically stock in BigTech.
In the last 15 years there have been several significant Big Tech valuation-jumps that have helped people save $$$$ too, but won't necessarily help the next round of folks. Amazon, Google, Meta are both up 10x since 2014. Apple is 20x+. So if you started then with an equity package worth 500k... 2022 was also a great time to start at Meta, and a decent (2x+) one at Amazon. 2020 even was a great time to start at Apple, up 6x since then. And before then, 2002-2014 was also a wildly good time to be at Amazon or Meta or Apple or Google. Better, even, for some of them!
So that's a good 25-years of wild gains. The "regular" employees who benefited from that timing are somewhat-understandably now saying just everyone can do that and have great results. I'm not sure if I'd make that bet myself in 2026 with the changes to things from AI. Though none of them are pure-SAAS that's easy to duplicate, so... maybe still go for it!
I think I'd be way too bored, though. Last time I considered a job offer from one of them, I just decided to throw a bunch into stock in the company instead and took a startup offer. It worked out ok as a hedge, if not AS good as taking the offer would've been.
I'm not sure that's quite feasible. 2-2.5M in 10 years is about the best I've seen excluding getting reasonably lucky with major stock jumps. You could juice that a bit further with really aggressive savings, but for most people, you're looking at 4-5M in income pre tax over that 10-12 year period (maybe a bit higher), weighted mostly toward the end, so without a ton of time for market gains to help.
You don’t need a FAANG salary, that just makes it easier. My net worth is nearing $1M after saving for 8 years, making less than $100,000 a year. If I exclude the ESOP equity I have, it’s still over $500,000 and that’s just maxing out 401K and Roth each year for 8 years with the market return.
When i saw this is immediately wondered if FAANG now is heading to Microsoft territory, once it was a sue fire way to become wealthy, then it was a good strong income, now it's a thing of the past.
200k is very high L4 at Google, medium L5, not out of the question for L6, and 300k is definitely L6 level (2% or so are your odds of getting there)
Also different tax rates for investment vs income: 200k taxed at 30% is easily L6 level compensation. And if you're comparing to L6 anywhere outside of US it's easily L7.
Also: these amounts are declining. Except perhaps in AI.
I put half in a basket of tech stock (QQQ, etc.) the other half in buying a house. I am not an expert, so don't take my investment advice--do your own research.
Disclaimer: I am not qualified to give investment advice, I’m just an average tech worker who spent some amount of time on bogleheads forums.
I personally don’t invest more in tech than I need to via broad index funds (and I certainly never keep my RSUs in the company stock, I always sell immediately). Otherwise, if there is a sector-wide downturn, I’d be triple exposed - my paycheck, my tech investments, and my company stock. That seems like a lot of risk to take on.
A. Guaranteed $1,000 each month
B. Every month, flip a coin. Heads gains $5,000, tails you lose $1,000.
Obviously B has greater expected return, but losing $1,000 hurts. What if you can't pay the rent that month?
To me, that's SPY vs. QQQ. Tech in general has higher expected return, but more volatility. If you can handle the volatility, then QQQ is better. If not, then not.
Ultimately, I'm taking a bet on tech because I believe tech has the greatest chance of improving the economy/world.
What's weird about this article is none of it is technically wrong: "Become a cheetah(super at ___)", "Aspire and engage to be better", "Build 6 types of capital". They are not bad things to do, if you can: and that is what it misses, if you can.
But don't feel bad if you have not been able to do any of them, e.g. Most People with kids can often do very little than job and take care of kids and that's it. What is more important is to not beat yourself up about it, give yourself grace and do one or two things that make you and your near and dear people/pets happy.
To be honest, I'm really surprised this blog post of nothing but platitudes is on the front page of HN. Yes, you want to do well in school so you can get a good first job, make yourself excellent at something, don't inflate your lifestyle. I mean, yeah, duh.
The much more valuable and harder advice is what to do in a particular situation or when things go awry. For example, most career paths where you really end up at higher earnings require that you eventually manage large groups or many teams. The thing is, a lot of people hate managing people, and setting them up for a career path where they have to move into management is a recipe for misery. Much more valuable for these folks is to know what a good IC path looks like, and which careers can be particularly lucrative even if you don't need to manage people.
Again, its less work for people who can. Consider 3 something billion people in China and India. A conservative estimate is that at least 1/2 of them are living hand to mouth — could be tech workers, other service jobs, manufacturing jobs, farm jobs but all of these 1/2 are living paycheck to paycheck.
Most of these people cannot do most of these things, but it's not they can't or don't want to. The key IMHO is psychological/cognitive load to get past the day. A good example that OECD country readers can relate to is homeless people - an extreme but relatable example because you can see it. When you become homeless the first thing to go are dignity, self-confidence and in short order mind's ability to think beyond the short term(next 3 hours and today). And Living hand to mouth(just beyond the edge) is the same proverbial frog(the mind) in boiling water(circumstances), just slower and acceptable to one to not completely break one but deform the mind enough that it's not always possible to recover.
Except India and China are places where the 'american dream' are taking place in droves today.
> When you become homeless the first thing to go are dignity, self-confidence and in short order
The data on American homelessness are actually exceptionally good and the support network means that the vast majority of people who avail themselves of help are back in a home in a year or so.
I skipped most of the stuff described in the article and just invested most of my salary into index ETFs. Mostly because I hate work much more than I like buying stuff.
It's a prerequisite to having an investable level of wealth though. If you're working minimum wage and you can only invest $10/week, compound interest won't get you anywhere. (Which is one reason why gambling with shitcoins promising 1000x returns is/was so popular.)
every minimum wage job is looking for managers who make middle class incomes and then you'll have something. You end up tying yourself to the job, sometimes that means you have to move to a different part of the city or even a different city. But if you go to a different minimum wage job somewhere in your city, you'll find someone who says, yes, I need someone to be a manager.
Well that would depend on your interest rate, presumably. Especially since interest is tax deductible in some places.
If you _do_ break up, this also makes it harder for one person to keep the house, which might be bad if there's kids in a local school, etc. If you have 100k in equity it's easier to buy out your ex than if you have 1 million in equity.
Mathematically, yes, it depends on the interest rate. Over the reality of how humans work is people who pay their house off early are the type of people who tend to make other good financial decisions. And so paying off your house early is good advice even though it seems like it shouldn't be by any mathematical means. If you are the exception that actually has the discipline to invest in things that are better than a house Again, assuming common interest rates and other investments available - you are better off, but the reality is that type of person doesn't exist.
What is the issue with the bank holding the title? Sure, you lose the house if you can't make the payments to the bank, but you also lose the house if you can't make the tax payments to the government. In both situations (with or without a mortgage), you never truly own it.
In general your tax payment is much lower than your house payment, and so if you can pay the house off, you will have or should have no problem paying the taxes. Watch the local politics because everyone saw this does fail but it is pretty rare overall. Meanwhile people do lose their job and the payment portion of the house is a lot of money and so you can lose your job just because bad luck and in turn you lost your house.
Or to put it a different way, if my house was paid for, it would hurt, but I could make all ends meet just working fast food jobs. It wouldn't be an easy life, I'd end up walking a few miles to the nearest fast food place because I couldn't afford a car, but I could at least keep my house.
One thing - your expenses will ALWAYS somewhow expand to your income. We see our current income as somehow the steady state long term norm. I would do your absolute best to hide extra income from your day to day self and invisibly invest it in a way you don’t even think about
And when you get a windfall (stock grants, acquisitions, etc) unless it’s truly life changing money where you never have to work again, find a good investor (CFP) to manage so you’re not even thinking about it. Or invest it in some future liability like college expenses, home down payment, retirement, etc.
I used to think this and then it stopped expanding. I have very low needs. Just enough for healthy food and some tennis equipment and I'm happy.
It got to the point where I was earning much more than I could justify spending so I decided to change careers for something that optimised for lifestyle over money and now I'm much happier.
People think that more money = more happiness, but I'd say that you need more money when you're unhappy. Money buys comfort but not happiness. Ironically when you're happier you need less money.
Most people do eventually reach that point. However, for most people that point is significantly above where they are. There are plenty of things I would like to buy that I don't have the money for. I have a nice life. I had my staff engineer income, but there are things that I can't afford to buy that I really would like.
I'm sure if I was a multi-billionaire, I would have no clue what to spend a large portion of my money on. An Expensive cruise would be fun once, but I don't think I'd want to do that more than maybe once a year.
Personality and habit. For me, being a graduate student for 7 years (masters then PhD) forced me to live simply. Those habits stuck with me through the next decade of good salaries. My spending went up from graduate student poverty, but I still saved and invested 50% to 70% of gross income. Now I probably have more than a lot of peers who started working well before me, but didn't save as much.
To your point, pay yourself first. Set up automatic investments. Find a fiduciary advisor if you must, but it's really not rocket science.
>One thing - your expenses will ALWAYS somewhow expand to your income.
Not necessarily. If the savings deduction comes straight off the paycheque then it doesn't take all that much mental fortitude to pretend what you get is the salary.
Advice I got at an early job: every time you get a raise, set up auto transfer to savings/investment for the net new and keep the same lifestyle (thank you Ramit Sethi)
> your expenses will ALWAYS somewhow expand to your income
No they don't. This may be true for some people but many people do not have this compulsion. I know many people who have zero issues saving money because they are largely satisfied with their lifestyle.
The lifestyle doesn't even have to be austere. You can eat out every night at nice restaurants and rent a very nice place on a budget of a couple hundred thousand per year. There is a natural limit on the amount of money you can spend unless you are blowing it on lots of expensive "stuff" that contributes relatively little to quality of life.
I'm a "career person" and expect to retire soon in my late forties. The blog's advice is generally on point, but IMHO places too much emphasis on busting ass to play the career game. There are easier ways to win, and here's my secret sauce:
* Get a job at a successful listed tech company (not a startup) that issues RSUs.
* Get promoted to senior level but no higher (too much responsibility, poor work life balance, exposure to office politics)
* Move to a low tax jurisdiction like Dubai, Hong Kong or Singapore, at least long enough to build a serious nest egg (several million).
* Live significantly below your means: I aimed to save & invest half my income. You'll still live a good life because these countries have vast income inequality and services are cheap.
* Find a partner who shares your values.
Not saying this is easy or even possible for many, but it worked for me.
The important parts are to find good management that will help you grow early in your career and will ensure you are well compensated. Prioritize hitting investment amounts that really allows for wealth growth (a few hundred thousand).
I think startup or smaller growth companies are better for this (but I'm biased since that was my path), as you can get more responsibility and rise through the ranks quickly to that critical senior or staff level where you start getting the real RSUs even if it means moving to a different company.
I'd add or emphasize being strategic about which roles within an organization are rewarded. These are usually roles with very clearly attributable impact to top-line or bottom-line metrics.
Much enablement, unblocking, capability-based, or risk reduction work is very difficult to interpret for the business decision-makers.
This is one of the best, boiled down, to-the-point, common sense articles I've read on this topic that everyone should understand but so many don't. I'm going to have my kids read this.
A tale of two friends from engineering school in 1988:
One earned C’s, but liked to set up token ring and Ethernet networks and code network games. Nice guy, kind of a shlub but not a genius.
Another got straight A’s while mostly drunk, long hair, liked sports but still a metalhead. Breezed through any new concept as if he was born with the knowledge of complex math and advanced physics.
First guy became a VP at Google. Has multiple houses and fancy cars. Doesn’t need to work anymore but loves it.
Second guy became fellow and major CPu/gpu company. Money falling out his ass.
Me: worked hard, got B’s mostly, followed the path but never got promoted too far. Got a few mil in the 401k, but never got a big break.
I’m totally satisfied with where I’m at but these friends just hit the effing centimillionaire jackpot through stocks and weird luck.
Wish there was some consistency in my peer group. We (about 12 friends) all did well with EE degrees in the 80s. Some just did 10-100x better than others for no obvious reason.
"but these friends just hit the effing centimillionaire jackpot through stocks and weird luck" I fall into the same bucket of looking across my peer group, and naturally picking out the ones who are tracking well above me. Something something survivorship obviously. However, it certainly still feels unfair for me benchmark against the Median, Average, etc of my immediate or n'th-removed class.
I'm still early career so there is time for me yet. B's, C's, videogames- I've hit a satisfying spot where I feel I'm on the green front edge. Still waiting on my huge sparkly opportunity to fall into my lap; I feel tee'd up to drain my brain into some big machine and get hosed down with money for it- but that feels like a factor of luck, to your point.
I imagine this is where people start saying things regarding taking risks.
You don't need stock based comps, insane salaries and selling your soul to your employer to build wealth. You just need to live within your means and invest your money.
The premise of this article initially appears to be that counter to common opinion, work is profitable and it's not all about investment / entrepreneurship.
But then through the course of tedious and somewhat pompous paragraphs (I only read 5 before I started skimming so let me know if I missed something) the point seems to bend towards "work hard to get a foothold so you can own stuff and then you'll make real money" .
It did nothing to change my opinion of our system where labor earns a pittance and all real wealth comes from the lottery of birthright, corruption, picking the right stock, or getting lucky in entrepreneurship.
(What's all this stuff about grades??? Does somebody think grades matter??? Maybe I'm out of touch because I got my PhD before really starting the career grind.)
> It did nothing to change my opinion of our system where labor earns a pittance and all real wealth comes from the lottery of birthright, corruption, picking the right stock, or getting lucky in entrepreneurship.
What is real wealth in this scenario? I had no birthright, involvement in government corruption, nor did I pick the right stock or start a company. Just boring old S&P 500 and not blowing money on really dumb stuff or making mistakes. Which is harder than it looks, but if your perception is real wealth = multi-digit millions then yes sure you have to get lucky. What is surprising or interesting about that? Rare thing is rare, else it wouldn’t be of value.
What's interesting is that 50 years ago, we had a system where if you worked hard for 30 years, your career would make you wealthy. Now, that is impossible, because structural inequality (stock buybacks etc) give all of the profits to the CEO, board, and shareholders rather than to the employees. You have to play the stock lottery and get lucky if you want to afford a house in an HCOL area.
In short, careers used to be inherently profitable, but now we have a system where only gambling is truly profitable.
Damn, brutally true. If you've seen it, you've seen it, it plays out exactly as written here. Taking it as advice doesn't put you on their level though, their gift is incredible instinct hence why they do everything here without it.
I've got to admit, the most difficult part of saving money is that first you need to be able to comfortably afford your basic expenses, in particular, housing.
No, the most difficult part is it's so easy to want to live beyond your means. Take a look around your city. If it's anything like mine, you will find people who are working fast food jobs and you'll find other people who are both are doctors making over half a million dollars a year and yet, at the end of the month, both are having troubles finding enough money to pay all the bills. Unless you are at the very bottom of that, you are already living beyond what need. I don't blame you for wanting more, but be honest, you are spending more money than you need to.
It requires relatively no effort just discipline for anyone to save money and live within their means. yet, most don’t most always have an excuse. Within the design and engineering department that I worked in more than half of the people did not save always had an excuse even before they were married and had kids.
Just setting aside 25% over time adds up to a sizable amount.
25% is a huge amount. Yes, it adds up. Over time, you don't get me wrong. But you need to ask, should you do that much?
Everyone will die, despite great medical advances over the past century. Someone who lives past 5 and doesn't die in childbirth, or an accident - only got a couple years of life expectancy. You should be thinking of saving money as this is something we're going to spend in the future. The goal is not to get the most money on paper. The goal is to... Well, you figure out your own goals. I don't know the right answer for you, but to try and enjoy life with the money you make.
Most people don't have that discipline. If you asked the average person to "just" save 25% of their earnings, they'd look at you like you had two heads.
I know two engineers who worked their way to becoming centi-millionaires. One worked for the same company his entire life. Another looked at every job as feeding a 'system' of a) co-workers; b) clients; c) the economy.
Probably the single best take-away from the article is to never stop learning. I also like the tip about keep networking and building relationships.
The downside of following this kind of advice is that you have to spend a lot of time thinking and strategizing about stuff that is generally pretty
boring.
but I think there is a crowd that rejects too many of the basics at their own detriment. yes, getting work, highly valued work, still helps and helps waaay more reliably for a broader population than other methods, but its just a step. So you still need to do that, You also need to parlay earnings into wealth producing assets, assets that also have their own independent value that is intended to grow.
> There is a popular idea that substantial wealth belongs mainly to entrepreneurs.
This is probably because 24yo college dropouts are achieving billion dollar valuations after 12 months of work. Their secondary sales are worth more than following all the advice in this article will be for your entire life.
(To say nothing of NVDA, SpaceX, or other big tech acquiring them and making their billions liquid, despite no moat or profitability, just because they have so much money and need to spend it on something.)
No matter how much “grit” you have, you’re still at the mercy of such people, as e.g. the engineers at Windsurf were, who worked super hard but their founders sold to Google, walked away with hundreds of millions, and gave the employees nothing.
Of course, it depends on your meaning of “substantial”. Successful engineers have great wealth too, enough that they can be very happy and buy anything they want. But pretending the two levels are comparable is silly.
God I'm so tired of this stuff. How about instead we use our democracy to create laws that let people live their lives in dignity with no worry of having a roof over their head and food to eat without having to spend every waking moment hyper-optimizing their entire existence.
The marxists are correct there is the wage earning class and also the ownership class
They are incorrect in that there is no strict separation of the two.
Anyone in tech can easily enter the ownership class. American assets are exceptionally cheap for what they are. It's very easy to purchase asset producing goods, whether that be businesses or real estate.
The ownership class matter because a worker exchanges time for money. Time is finite. Ownership is not.
A career is a quick and low volatility way towards ownership. You owe no loyalty to any company or any manager. Only owe loyalty to your friends, family, and the financial assets you own. These things reflect on you. Your job is just a distraction.
> American assets are exceptionally cheap for what they are. It's very easy to purchase asset producing goods, whether that be businesses or real estate.
I agree with a lot of your post, but I don't think this is true anymore. Real-estate is pretty much at the maximum price the population can pay for it. We'll never see a rise like we did from the boomer generation until now in real-estate again. I also think most businesses don't make much money, at least small businesses.
Not really. Real estate is exceptionally easy because of how ridiculous mortgage terms are. I'm a bit of a heterodox in my thinking. If people want to do it then it is definitely made easy. I mean a 600-800k duplex can be had for 19k - 25k if you'll live in it and rent the rest out.
It is extraordinarily easy to enter the ownership class in America which is why Marxism rarely takes root here.
This is all good advice... but just browsing X, the salaries folks are pulling down give me incredible FOMO.. early 20s already achieving generational wealth just spending 1-2 years in the right startup or frontier lab.
..and this doesn't include hustlers in Dubai or some other tax haven earning six figures a month doing various schemes.
There’s always been lottery tickets. If this causes you to lose sleep you need to take a step back and reconsider some things. Either learn to cope or become more risk tolerant. I mean this in the most genuine and whole hearted way possible as an engineer on the second half of a career.
These are glorified exceptions and not the norm. Hell, there's no telling what the reality is vs some randos post. But I hear ya, it's hard not to feel the fomo. I do too as a 40y/o that's been in tech obsessively my entire life and hardly have the monetary worth to show for the effort by comparison.
If you have generational wealth you can spend all your time traveling, hanging out with people no matter where they are in the world, having new experiences and just generally encounter way more there is to the world than you ever could working 60 hours a week for minimum wage in your hometown. You never have to worry about expenses for anything, you can hire maids and other professionals to take care of other things that would otherwise take up your time. Almost every single woman you ever meet likely will try to get in on it so if you want to casually have a lot of sex with beautiful women you can do that too. You are given a strong preference socially in any setting you meet others. If you have a health problem you can see your genius concierge physician who will personally try to help you the best you can be helped. You don't have to wait 6 weeks for an x-ray or CT scan on a cancerous tumor that can switch from stage 3 to 4 right in that time period.
It's really not even comparable to the life that normal people have. It's really sad.
If you're poor or otherwise lack good health insurance it's very likely you will endure negative health consequences as a result.
If you don't have money it's very likely that you'll have a poor diet and have negative health consequences, be dumber, be able to do less, and just generally have a life filled with more suffering.
I've more or less followed this advice, and it's worked out for me. For the most part, I used my salary to pay for expenses and stock compensation to build up wealth.
The tricky part is that a lot of this advice is situation-dependent. Should you switch to a riskier company that offers a higher compensation? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Should you work late to accomplish goals hoping to get a promotion? It depends.
So how are we supposed to know what to do?
The answer, in my opinion, is people. You have to trust people who are trustworthy and avoid people who are not. As an employee, your success depends on the people who hired you--they are the ones who can promote you or cheat you. The best leaders are the ones who realize that helping you advance is going to help them advance. Help your boss accomplish their corporate goals and they will promote you--not as a reward, but as a bet that you will help them on the next goal.
Bad leaders are either too selfish (fail to promote you) or too incompetent (unable to rise, even with your help). You need to learn to avoid them.
Therefore, my advice is this: Look at the leaders in your company--people who could plausibly hire you. Which ones are the best bets? Which ones have both the talent and the integrity to succeed? If you're lucky there's more than one and you can work to get on their team. If you're unlucky, there are none and you need to find a different company.
100% agreed
Warren Buffet also made the point that investing in a company (this applies whether its your capital or your time as an employer) that it was the calibre of the people that determined whether the investment was worthwhile, or not.
And that's why interviews, as a potential employee are so important, you want to know who you will be working for/ with, so you should be asking questions that determine what sort of people you are getting involved with.
Problem with this is that this can get you to 1-5 million in net worth (declining fast, someone joining a FANG now certainly won't make it as a single contributor to 5 million, unless they're truly exceptional) (of course 5 million effectively pays you a relatively high level FANG salary just from 4% safe investments ...)
Maybe you can get to 50 million with a reasonable management career.
But let's say you're on this path and you have 3 million or so, at 35/40 years ... then what? Management at all costs? No reasonable job at a FANG will get you to even just double what you have at that point.
If you have $5 million USD wealth you're in the top 5% of the US (and top 0.5% of the world).
If you cannot have a happy life on that, well...
But I get it--if your goal is to accumulate more wealth (no judgement--that's a legit goal) then it gets harder. When I was at Microsoft, partner-level engineers were making $1 million per year; now it's probably $2 million. Staff-engineer at FAANG is probably similar, I bet, to say nothing of the AI labs. I bet you could reach $25 million after 10 years with the right investment strategy. And $25 million throws off at least $1.25 million per year if you invest right.
Beyond that, you probably do need a startup or some other significant ownership stake.
I know these are just spit-balled numbers but getting to $25M in 10 years even with $2M annual comp would require pretty risky investment I think. Assuming you spent $300K per year and paid US taxes you’d have about $900K left over. 7% average returns would mean you’d have about $13M saved after 10 years. Getting more than 7% on the whole portfolio is going to require significant risk.
Hindsight is perfect in stock markets,but with 100k in initial investment in 2010 in VUG, and a 40k/mo recurring investment until now (little more than half the savings), it would be worth 33M+ now.
Obviously this means one has to be earning that much for 15+ years.
Fair enough--I didn't do the math. Looks like you'd hit $25M after 15 years or so. And I grant that 7% is aggressive.
Still, if you reach staff-level at 40 years old, you could have $25M at 55. That's pretty amazing. But that requires lots of luck. Most people never make it to staff-level. I never did.
It is incredible. Sustaining 15 years at staff level will cost you a lot in other ways though!
Yup! Depends on the company and the person, of course.
Another thing: People at FAANGs usually ride the stock up and get way more than 7% per year. I'm embarrassed to say that I sold a lot of MSFT stock at $30 in 2011. Today (~15 years later) it is trading at $530.
Never be embarrassed about diversification. In 2012 Microsoft could have been found to be cooking the books and $30 would be a lot. Or they could have hit a hard patch, lost stock value and laid you off and you'd be out income and savings.
Most helpful way I know to think about this is: if you’d been given that stock as cash would you have bought the stock. Breaks the cognitive bias of already holding the stock.
You're right about that! Remember that in 2011, Microsoft was considered a zombie-company. No one expected it to grow in value.
Sustaining 15 years at staff level is near-impossible and will extract a heavy toll for the vast majority of people. Plus at 55? Not saying you'll be dinged purely for your age but it's not like it has no influence ...
> Beyond that, you probably do need a startup or some other significant ownership stake.
That would be what I'm trying to avoid.
> When I was at Microsoft, partner-level engineers were making $1 million per year; now it's probably $2 million.
This seems...high. The levels.fyi data for 68/69 shows them maybe crossing 1M, and the highest available data point at a bit under 1.5 mil. Staff engineers at FAANG are not making 1M a year except in cases of significant stock growth. 700-800K is more reasonable. The AI labs pay a significant premium, yes (2-3x!).
My math on it was basically "I can work for 10-15 more years and retire meeting my financial goals, or work until my 4 year grant at an AI lab finishes and meet all the same goals, with more interesting work".
If you're at 5 million you're already well past wealthy and should probably not be stressing about this.
I think you can make it to 5 million in maybe about 12 years at FAANG. Maybe quicker if you're frugal. More if you raise the ranks quickly.
I don't think your math is mathing. To end up with $5,000,000 after 12 years at, let's say, a constant 5% annual interest rate, you will need to invest over $25K per month over that time, or $300K per year of disposable income, after taxes, living expenses and so on. You would have to be very high level even in a FAANG to be able to do that.
I know, I know, everyone on HN says entry level FAANG makes $600K/year and drives a brand new Porsche, but it's not reality.
Heh, it's much easier to drive a brand new Porsche than make 600K or save 5M bucks from a 9-to-5.
It was much much easier ten years ago, too.
That's one of the clearest examples of the difference between income-vs-wealth and the difference between "high cost of living" and "every expense is higher." If your higher salary offsets your higher cost of essentials of SV plus goes beyond that, a Porsche is much more relatively affordable to you than someome making the "inflation adjusted" amount in Ohio. (Or if you're looking to retire earlier, you can put more away for that too.)
In the last few decades the part you're missing in your math is that the trick is NOT to take 5% gains. Instead, keep it in the company. The wealth people have gotten from working BigTech hasn't been higher base comp or even TC, it's been specifically stock in BigTech.
In the last 15 years there have been several significant Big Tech valuation-jumps that have helped people save $$$$ too, but won't necessarily help the next round of folks. Amazon, Google, Meta are both up 10x since 2014. Apple is 20x+. So if you started then with an equity package worth 500k... 2022 was also a great time to start at Meta, and a decent (2x+) one at Amazon. 2020 even was a great time to start at Apple, up 6x since then. And before then, 2002-2014 was also a wildly good time to be at Amazon or Meta or Apple or Google. Better, even, for some of them!
So that's a good 25-years of wild gains. The "regular" employees who benefited from that timing are somewhat-understandably now saying just everyone can do that and have great results. I'm not sure if I'd make that bet myself in 2026 with the changes to things from AI. Though none of them are pure-SAAS that's easy to duplicate, so... maybe still go for it!
I think I'd be way too bored, though. Last time I considered a job offer from one of them, I just decided to throw a bunch into stock in the company instead and took a startup offer. It worked out ok as a hedge, if not AS good as taking the offer would've been.
Staff working remotely in LCOL area can easily manage that if their lifestyle doesn't explode.
I'm not sure that's quite feasible. 2-2.5M in 10 years is about the best I've seen excluding getting reasonably lucky with major stock jumps. You could juice that a bit further with really aggressive savings, but for most people, you're looking at 4-5M in income pre tax over that 10-12 year period (maybe a bit higher), weighted mostly toward the end, so without a ton of time for market gains to help.
You don’t need a FAANG salary, that just makes it easier. My net worth is nearing $1M after saving for 8 years, making less than $100,000 a year. If I exclude the ESOP equity I have, it’s still over $500,000 and that’s just maxing out 401K and Roth each year for 8 years with the market return.
When i saw this is immediately wondered if FAANG now is heading to Microsoft territory, once it was a sue fire way to become wealthy, then it was a good strong income, now it's a thing of the past.
See also IBM
4% of 5m is 200k; not a high level FAANG TC
200k is very high L4 at Google, medium L5, not out of the question for L6, and 300k is definitely L6 level (2% or so are your odds of getting there)
Also different tax rates for investment vs income: 200k taxed at 30% is easily L6 level compensation. And if you're comparing to L6 anywhere outside of US it's easily L7.
Also: these amounts are declining. Except perhaps in AI.
> 200k is very high L4 at Google, medium L5, not out of the question for L6, and 300k is definitely L6 level
In my experience, those numbers are low for the US. This is about accurate: https://www.levels.fyi/companies/google/salaries/software-en...
Do you sell your stocks immediately and reinvest in SPY?
I put half in a basket of tech stock (QQQ, etc.) the other half in buying a house. I am not an expert, so don't take my investment advice--do your own research.
Disclaimer: I am not qualified to give investment advice, I’m just an average tech worker who spent some amount of time on bogleheads forums.
I personally don’t invest more in tech than I need to via broad index funds (and I certainly never keep my RSUs in the company stock, I always sell immediately). Otherwise, if there is a sector-wide downturn, I’d be triple exposed - my paycheck, my tech investments, and my company stock. That seems like a lot of risk to take on.
I’m open to other opinions here.
Which game would you rather play:
Obviously B has greater expected return, but losing $1,000 hurts. What if you can't pay the rent that month?To me, that's SPY vs. QQQ. Tech in general has higher expected return, but more volatility. If you can handle the volatility, then QQQ is better. If not, then not.
Ultimately, I'm taking a bet on tech because I believe tech has the greatest chance of improving the economy/world.
[I'm also not qualified, so do your own research]
For other's interested in leveraged ETFs please see this excellent piece from Ben Felix: https://youtu.be/E7pl0tqzIUQ?si=py-3Uy1wb_yG3e5U
Neither QQQ nor SPY is a leveraged fund.
What's weird about this article is none of it is technically wrong: "Become a cheetah(super at ___)", "Aspire and engage to be better", "Build 6 types of capital". They are not bad things to do, if you can: and that is what it misses, if you can.
But don't feel bad if you have not been able to do any of them, e.g. Most People with kids can often do very little than job and take care of kids and that's it. What is more important is to not beat yourself up about it, give yourself grace and do one or two things that make you and your near and dear people/pets happy.
Agree, be kind to your self. Its ok to slowdown if need be depending on life circumstances.
To be honest, I'm really surprised this blog post of nothing but platitudes is on the front page of HN. Yes, you want to do well in school so you can get a good first job, make yourself excellent at something, don't inflate your lifestyle. I mean, yeah, duh.
The much more valuable and harder advice is what to do in a particular situation or when things go awry. For example, most career paths where you really end up at higher earnings require that you eventually manage large groups or many teams. The thing is, a lot of people hate managing people, and setting them up for a career path where they have to move into management is a recipe for misery. Much more valuable for these folks is to know what a good IC path looks like, and which careers can be particularly lucrative even if you don't need to manage people.
On the other hand most of this stuff is much less work than you think.
Again, its less work for people who can. Consider 3 something billion people in China and India. A conservative estimate is that at least 1/2 of them are living hand to mouth — could be tech workers, other service jobs, manufacturing jobs, farm jobs but all of these 1/2 are living paycheck to paycheck.
Most of these people cannot do most of these things, but it's not they can't or don't want to. The key IMHO is psychological/cognitive load to get past the day. A good example that OECD country readers can relate to is homeless people - an extreme but relatable example because you can see it. When you become homeless the first thing to go are dignity, self-confidence and in short order mind's ability to think beyond the short term(next 3 hours and today). And Living hand to mouth(just beyond the edge) is the same proverbial frog(the mind) in boiling water(circumstances), just slower and acceptable to one to not completely break one but deform the mind enough that it's not always possible to recover.
Except India and China are places where the 'american dream' are taking place in droves today.
> When you become homeless the first thing to go are dignity, self-confidence and in short order
The data on American homelessness are actually exceptionally good and the support network means that the vast majority of people who avail themselves of help are back in a home in a year or so.
I skipped most of the stuff described in the article and just invested most of my salary into index ETFs. Mostly because I hate work much more than I like buying stuff.
It takes over two thirds of the article to get to the actually relevant advice: spend less, invest the difference.
Kissing ass at work might help you but not nearly as much as this two ideas.
It's a prerequisite to having an investable level of wealth though. If you're working minimum wage and you can only invest $10/week, compound interest won't get you anywhere. (Which is one reason why gambling with shitcoins promising 1000x returns is/was so popular.)
Yes sure, some kind of middle class job is worth it. But most of the article it about how to get minor gains inside that middle class job
every minimum wage job is looking for managers who make middle class incomes and then you'll have something. You end up tying yourself to the job, sometimes that means you have to move to a different part of the city or even a different city. But if you go to a different minimum wage job somewhere in your city, you'll find someone who says, yes, I need someone to be a manager.
I've come across co-workers who make +$250K in salary who live paycheck-to-paycheck...
1. Alimony
2. Child support
From Buffett: Keep your first house and your first wife.
And work on paying your first house off early. The rest comes and can go. Stable home attenuated the unpredictable ups and downs.
Well that would depend on your interest rate, presumably. Especially since interest is tax deductible in some places.
If you _do_ break up, this also makes it harder for one person to keep the house, which might be bad if there's kids in a local school, etc. If you have 100k in equity it's easier to buy out your ex than if you have 1 million in equity.
Mathematically, yes, it depends on the interest rate. Over the reality of how humans work is people who pay their house off early are the type of people who tend to make other good financial decisions. And so paying off your house early is good advice even though it seems like it shouldn't be by any mathematical means. If you are the exception that actually has the discipline to invest in things that are better than a house Again, assuming common interest rates and other investments available - you are better off, but the reality is that type of person doesn't exist.
What if you have a mortgage with 2.5% interest? Even if I had enough liquid assets to pay it off, I wouldn’t with the current market.
It's about individual tolerance for risk and ability to sleep at night knowing that the bank still holds the title to your house.
What is the issue with the bank holding the title? Sure, you lose the house if you can't make the payments to the bank, but you also lose the house if you can't make the tax payments to the government. In both situations (with or without a mortgage), you never truly own it.
In general your tax payment is much lower than your house payment, and so if you can pay the house off, you will have or should have no problem paying the taxes. Watch the local politics because everyone saw this does fail but it is pretty rare overall. Meanwhile people do lose their job and the payment portion of the house is a lot of money and so you can lose your job just because bad luck and in turn you lost your house.
Or to put it a different way, if my house was paid for, it would hurt, but I could make all ends meet just working fast food jobs. It wouldn't be an easy life, I'd end up walking a few miles to the nearest fast food place because I couldn't afford a car, but I could at least keep my house.
One thing - your expenses will ALWAYS somewhow expand to your income. We see our current income as somehow the steady state long term norm. I would do your absolute best to hide extra income from your day to day self and invisibly invest it in a way you don’t even think about
And when you get a windfall (stock grants, acquisitions, etc) unless it’s truly life changing money where you never have to work again, find a good investor (CFP) to manage so you’re not even thinking about it. Or invest it in some future liability like college expenses, home down payment, retirement, etc.
I used to think this and then it stopped expanding. I have very low needs. Just enough for healthy food and some tennis equipment and I'm happy. It got to the point where I was earning much more than I could justify spending so I decided to change careers for something that optimised for lifestyle over money and now I'm much happier. People think that more money = more happiness, but I'd say that you need more money when you're unhappy. Money buys comfort but not happiness. Ironically when you're happier you need less money.
Most people do eventually reach that point. However, for most people that point is significantly above where they are. There are plenty of things I would like to buy that I don't have the money for. I have a nice life. I had my staff engineer income, but there are things that I can't afford to buy that I really would like.
I'm sure if I was a multi-billionaire, I would have no clue what to spend a large portion of my money on. An Expensive cruise would be fun once, but I don't think I'd want to do that more than maybe once a year.
Personality and habit. For me, being a graduate student for 7 years (masters then PhD) forced me to live simply. Those habits stuck with me through the next decade of good salaries. My spending went up from graduate student poverty, but I still saved and invested 50% to 70% of gross income. Now I probably have more than a lot of peers who started working well before me, but didn't save as much.
To your point, pay yourself first. Set up automatic investments. Find a fiduciary advisor if you must, but it's really not rocket science.
>One thing - your expenses will ALWAYS somewhow expand to your income.
Not necessarily. If the savings deduction comes straight off the paycheque then it doesn't take all that much mental fortitude to pretend what you get is the salary.
Advice I got at an early job: every time you get a raise, set up auto transfer to savings/investment for the net new and keep the same lifestyle (thank you Ramit Sethi)
It's a personality thing. I literally don't need anything and hate spending money and am miserly as a hobby.
> your expenses will ALWAYS somewhow expand to your income
No they don't. This may be true for some people but many people do not have this compulsion. I know many people who have zero issues saving money because they are largely satisfied with their lifestyle.
The lifestyle doesn't even have to be austere. You can eat out every night at nice restaurants and rent a very nice place on a budget of a couple hundred thousand per year. There is a natural limit on the amount of money you can spend unless you are blowing it on lots of expensive "stuff" that contributes relatively little to quality of life.
I'm a "career person" and expect to retire soon in my late forties. The blog's advice is generally on point, but IMHO places too much emphasis on busting ass to play the career game. There are easier ways to win, and here's my secret sauce:
* Get a job at a successful listed tech company (not a startup) that issues RSUs.
* Get promoted to senior level but no higher (too much responsibility, poor work life balance, exposure to office politics)
* Move to a low tax jurisdiction like Dubai, Hong Kong or Singapore, at least long enough to build a serious nest egg (several million).
* Live significantly below your means: I aimed to save & invest half my income. You'll still live a good life because these countries have vast income inequality and services are cheap.
* Find a partner who shares your values.
Not saying this is easy or even possible for many, but it worked for me.
The important parts are to find good management that will help you grow early in your career and will ensure you are well compensated. Prioritize hitting investment amounts that really allows for wealth growth (a few hundred thousand).
I think startup or smaller growth companies are better for this (but I'm biased since that was my path), as you can get more responsibility and rise through the ranks quickly to that critical senior or staff level where you start getting the real RSUs even if it means moving to a different company.
Step 1 - don't buy a boat.
Better to a friend with a boat, than a boat.
Yeah, if you find a friend with a boat keep that friend.
I took the most boring approach: twenty five years of steady index fund investing allowed me to retire early.
I'd add or emphasize being strategic about which roles within an organization are rewarded. These are usually roles with very clearly attributable impact to top-line or bottom-line metrics.
Much enablement, unblocking, capability-based, or risk reduction work is very difficult to interpret for the business decision-makers.
This is one of the best, boiled down, to-the-point, common sense articles I've read on this topic that everyone should understand but so many don't. I'm going to have my kids read this.
I’m going to go against most of the comments here (negative) and say that there are a ton of wise nuggets in this article.
Specifically pieces about how to be valuable in a pragmatic and honest way.
A tale of two friends from engineering school in 1988:
One earned C’s, but liked to set up token ring and Ethernet networks and code network games. Nice guy, kind of a shlub but not a genius.
Another got straight A’s while mostly drunk, long hair, liked sports but still a metalhead. Breezed through any new concept as if he was born with the knowledge of complex math and advanced physics.
First guy became a VP at Google. Has multiple houses and fancy cars. Doesn’t need to work anymore but loves it.
Second guy became fellow and major CPu/gpu company. Money falling out his ass.
Me: worked hard, got B’s mostly, followed the path but never got promoted too far. Got a few mil in the 401k, but never got a big break.
I’m totally satisfied with where I’m at but these friends just hit the effing centimillionaire jackpot through stocks and weird luck.
Wish there was some consistency in my peer group. We (about 12 friends) all did well with EE degrees in the 80s. Some just did 10-100x better than others for no obvious reason.
"but these friends just hit the effing centimillionaire jackpot through stocks and weird luck" I fall into the same bucket of looking across my peer group, and naturally picking out the ones who are tracking well above me. Something something survivorship obviously. However, it certainly still feels unfair for me benchmark against the Median, Average, etc of my immediate or n'th-removed class.
I'm still early career so there is time for me yet. B's, C's, videogames- I've hit a satisfying spot where I feel I'm on the green front edge. Still waiting on my huge sparkly opportunity to fall into my lap; I feel tee'd up to drain my brain into some big machine and get hosed down with money for it- but that feels like a factor of luck, to your point.
I imagine this is where people start saying things regarding taking risks.
Be sure to talk about your achievements. As important as making things work is making sure the right people know you did that.
Understand when you’re in a meritocracy versus a plutocracy. Outshining the favorite son can be harmful.
You don't need stock based comps, insane salaries and selling your soul to your employer to build wealth. You just need to live within your means and invest your money.
Not sure there’s really anything useful in here for building wealth? I get to grind the corporate ladder and hope I get paid more?
The premise of this article initially appears to be that counter to common opinion, work is profitable and it's not all about investment / entrepreneurship.
But then through the course of tedious and somewhat pompous paragraphs (I only read 5 before I started skimming so let me know if I missed something) the point seems to bend towards "work hard to get a foothold so you can own stuff and then you'll make real money" .
It did nothing to change my opinion of our system where labor earns a pittance and all real wealth comes from the lottery of birthright, corruption, picking the right stock, or getting lucky in entrepreneurship.
(What's all this stuff about grades??? Does somebody think grades matter??? Maybe I'm out of touch because I got my PhD before really starting the career grind.)
> It did nothing to change my opinion of our system where labor earns a pittance and all real wealth comes from the lottery of birthright, corruption, picking the right stock, or getting lucky in entrepreneurship.
What is real wealth in this scenario? I had no birthright, involvement in government corruption, nor did I pick the right stock or start a company. Just boring old S&P 500 and not blowing money on really dumb stuff or making mistakes. Which is harder than it looks, but if your perception is real wealth = multi-digit millions then yes sure you have to get lucky. What is surprising or interesting about that? Rare thing is rare, else it wouldn’t be of value.
What's interesting is that 50 years ago, we had a system where if you worked hard for 30 years, your career would make you wealthy. Now, that is impossible, because structural inequality (stock buybacks etc) give all of the profits to the CEO, board, and shareholders rather than to the employees. You have to play the stock lottery and get lucky if you want to afford a house in an HCOL area.
In short, careers used to be inherently profitable, but now we have a system where only gambling is truly profitable.
Damn, brutally true. If you've seen it, you've seen it, it plays out exactly as written here. Taking it as advice doesn't put you on their level though, their gift is incredible instinct hence why they do everything here without it.
A lot of words to say “save money”. Remove the wealth aspect from this and it’s a good article for people early in their career though
80%+ of the article is not 'save money'. It's nuanced.
Woah, you can't do that. It only requires only no effort to save money when you have tech salaries.
I've got to admit, the most difficult part of saving money is that first you need to be able to comfortably afford your basic expenses, in particular, housing.
No, the most difficult part is it's so easy to want to live beyond your means. Take a look around your city. If it's anything like mine, you will find people who are working fast food jobs and you'll find other people who are both are doctors making over half a million dollars a year and yet, at the end of the month, both are having troubles finding enough money to pay all the bills. Unless you are at the very bottom of that, you are already living beyond what need. I don't blame you for wanting more, but be honest, you are spending more money than you need to.
It's not that difficult.
If you live anywhere in the developed world, and you are reasonably able bodied, you can certainly save sufficient money for your long term needs.
there is maybe 1% of the population who can't do it, for everyone else it's a choice.
It requires relatively no effort just discipline for anyone to save money and live within their means. yet, most don’t most always have an excuse. Within the design and engineering department that I worked in more than half of the people did not save always had an excuse even before they were married and had kids.
Just setting aside 25% over time adds up to a sizable amount.
25% is a huge amount. Yes, it adds up. Over time, you don't get me wrong. But you need to ask, should you do that much?
Everyone will die, despite great medical advances over the past century. Someone who lives past 5 and doesn't die in childbirth, or an accident - only got a couple years of life expectancy. You should be thinking of saving money as this is something we're going to spend in the future. The goal is not to get the most money on paper. The goal is to... Well, you figure out your own goals. I don't know the right answer for you, but to try and enjoy life with the money you make.
Most people don't have that discipline. If you asked the average person to "just" save 25% of their earnings, they'd look at you like you had two heads.
A fairly easy method is, when you get a pay-rise, setup an automatic payment that pulls out the extra money you now get, and auto invest it.
Otherwise you end up with what's called lifestyle creep, if you leave it into your bank account you will always find something to spend it on.
It does depend a bit on how much money you were making, but I'd guess it applies to most here.
most people don’t have the discipline to floss their teeth
In the capitalist economy one of the most important job is to build ones financial wealth and stability.
The employer doesn't do it.
Doing the day job is priority #2. Many do not fully understand this late into their career.
By then it is too late and late stage health problems start due to stress.
I know two engineers who worked their way to becoming centi-millionaires. One worked for the same company his entire life. Another looked at every job as feeding a 'system' of a) co-workers; b) clients; c) the economy.
Probably the single best take-away from the article is to never stop learning. I also like the tip about keep networking and building relationships.
> centi-millionaires
Don’t you mean hecto-millionaires? Otherwise it’s not so impressive. ;)
Nah, they're right:
> A centi-millionaire (or hundred millionaire) is an individual with a net worth or liquid investable assets of USD $100 million or greater.
I thought they might be a centillionaire, but that's a 1 followed by 303 or 600 zeroes (?!), depending on the numeric system used.
I know, the emoticon was to indicate that my comment was tongue-in-cheek.
That's more of a "build a career", than "build wealth".
It helps to be in the U.S., too.
Conversely, how to build a carreer as a wealthy person?
The downside of following this kind of advice is that you have to spend a lot of time thinking and strategizing about stuff that is generally pretty boring.
psyop, nobody is falling for it
but I think there is a crowd that rejects too many of the basics at their own detriment. yes, getting work, highly valued work, still helps and helps waaay more reliably for a broader population than other methods, but its just a step. So you still need to do that, You also need to parlay earnings into wealth producing assets, assets that also have their own independent value that is intended to grow.
What an insulting article.
> There is a popular idea that substantial wealth belongs mainly to entrepreneurs.
This is probably because 24yo college dropouts are achieving billion dollar valuations after 12 months of work. Their secondary sales are worth more than following all the advice in this article will be for your entire life.
(To say nothing of NVDA, SpaceX, or other big tech acquiring them and making their billions liquid, despite no moat or profitability, just because they have so much money and need to spend it on something.)
No matter how much “grit” you have, you’re still at the mercy of such people, as e.g. the engineers at Windsurf were, who worked super hard but their founders sold to Google, walked away with hundreds of millions, and gave the employees nothing.
Of course, it depends on your meaning of “substantial”. Successful engineers have great wealth too, enough that they can be very happy and buy anything they want. But pretending the two levels are comparable is silly.
I do agree with this, but also, being an entrepreneur is a high risk venture, and most people fail at it. You only hear about the success stories.
Does this perspective come from a founder or a rank and file engineer?
God I'm so tired of this stuff. How about instead we use our democracy to create laws that let people live their lives in dignity with no worry of having a roof over their head and food to eat without having to spend every waking moment hyper-optimizing their entire existence.
The marxists are correct there is the wage earning class and also the ownership class
They are incorrect in that there is no strict separation of the two.
Anyone in tech can easily enter the ownership class. American assets are exceptionally cheap for what they are. It's very easy to purchase asset producing goods, whether that be businesses or real estate.
The ownership class matter because a worker exchanges time for money. Time is finite. Ownership is not.
A career is a quick and low volatility way towards ownership. You owe no loyalty to any company or any manager. Only owe loyalty to your friends, family, and the financial assets you own. These things reflect on you. Your job is just a distraction.
> American assets are exceptionally cheap for what they are. It's very easy to purchase asset producing goods, whether that be businesses or real estate.
I agree with a lot of your post, but I don't think this is true anymore. Real-estate is pretty much at the maximum price the population can pay for it. We'll never see a rise like we did from the boomer generation until now in real-estate again. I also think most businesses don't make much money, at least small businesses.
Not really. Real estate is exceptionally easy because of how ridiculous mortgage terms are. I'm a bit of a heterodox in my thinking. If people want to do it then it is definitely made easy. I mean a 600-800k duplex can be had for 19k - 25k if you'll live in it and rent the rest out.
It is extraordinarily easy to enter the ownership class in America which is why Marxism rarely takes root here.
This is all good advice... but just browsing X, the salaries folks are pulling down give me incredible FOMO.. early 20s already achieving generational wealth just spending 1-2 years in the right startup or frontier lab.
..and this doesn't include hustlers in Dubai or some other tax haven earning six figures a month doing various schemes.
Why am I wasting my life?
There’s always been lottery tickets. If this causes you to lose sleep you need to take a step back and reconsider some things. Either learn to cope or become more risk tolerant. I mean this in the most genuine and whole hearted way possible as an engineer on the second half of a career.
They represent the ~99%+ of income. X is large enough that extremes are represented. Don't be fooled by the extremes.
Go after the achievable P75-P90 that's within your power.
These are glorified exceptions and not the norm. Hell, there's no telling what the reality is vs some randos post. But I hear ya, it's hard not to feel the fomo. I do too as a 40y/o that's been in tech obsessively my entire life and hardly have the monetary worth to show for the effort by comparison.
Why do you think your life is wasted if some computer has a smaller number next to your name?
If you have generational wealth you can spend all your time traveling, hanging out with people no matter where they are in the world, having new experiences and just generally encounter way more there is to the world than you ever could working 60 hours a week for minimum wage in your hometown. You never have to worry about expenses for anything, you can hire maids and other professionals to take care of other things that would otherwise take up your time. Almost every single woman you ever meet likely will try to get in on it so if you want to casually have a lot of sex with beautiful women you can do that too. You are given a strong preference socially in any setting you meet others. If you have a health problem you can see your genius concierge physician who will personally try to help you the best you can be helped. You don't have to wait 6 weeks for an x-ray or CT scan on a cancerous tumor that can switch from stage 3 to 4 right in that time period.
It's really not even comparable to the life that normal people have. It's really sad.
I don’t think it’s a sad life if you don’t have these things
If you're poor or otherwise lack good health insurance it's very likely you will endure negative health consequences as a result.
If you don't have money it's very likely that you'll have a poor diet and have negative health consequences, be dumber, be able to do less, and just generally have a life filled with more suffering.
Sure but there’s a wide band between not having money and having generational wealth.
Yeah right.