I am almost 50, and my partner (ophthalmologist) always made more than me as developer, and architect. But to be fair, I only worked for small startups in the Bay, and startups that did not make big.
Not complaining, but a bit worried for the next decade though. Especially as I am super busy at work, so much that I cannot spend time on programming anymore.
A case of the keeping up with the Joneses syndrome?
Recent figures are not readily available, but as of 10 years ago a yearly income of $32,000 was enough to put you in the global top 1%. Adjusted for inflation, that is around $42,000 today. Interestingly, the median income in the USA is $41,535, so it is likely that half of all Americans are in the top 1%.
Although I would think that "good money" would cast a larger net than just the top 1%. Surely at least a 75th percentile income would be considered "good" by most? As such, it is likely that a $20-30,000 income is "good money".
If you have not even made that much at some point over the past 25 or so years that you have been of working age, how can you afford to be here?
it's a bit disingenuous to compare US citizens to 3rd world countries.
yes, it's technically true, but no one with a 3rd world income would ever be able to afford to live in the US, they'd be homeless. its apples and oranges.
Not at all. The topic is money made. That is independent of expenditures. We could go down the road of retained money (i.e. net income), but then clearly money made is no longer relevant. The guy who made $20,000 and spent $10,000 of it is the one who retained good money, not the guy who made $1,000,000 and spent $999,999.
One may need to spend more x to live in a certain location, sure, but that's a completely different topic. One where the money made is not relevant, for reasons already stated. As we are talking about money made, you know we are not talking about that.
Yes, as you can clearly see, he added the operative word "made". A word you conveniently left out from your message in your ongoing quest to change the subject. Had you included it like in the original comment, it would completely change your message.
Interesting that this has turned to be about me and not the content in play. Logically, they are independent of each other.
While I am not sure what you think you can be done with given that you have not yet joined the conversation that we were having before you arrived, no amount of drug use is going to give me interest in your off-topic tangent.
I get it. You misunderstood what was written earlier and now you are grasping at logical errors in order to avoid having to come back now and ask questions for clarification to save your pride. But, why are you letting your emotions drive you like that? Who cares if you made a mistake? I certainly don't. I don't care about you at all.
For anyone reading this, you can clearly see where the word 'made' is in the quote given, yet this person decided to claim I left it out on purpose. The implication being that I cherry-picked a quote when I quoted the _entirety_ of the post in question.
You included the post, but failed to speak to it, instead forcing your off-topic direction in the rest of the comment.
If it is me who misunderstands you, go on. You have already been given the floor for quite some time to explain yourself and reason for interjecting in a rational manner instead of spouting nonsensical logical errors, but I'm generous enough to give you another chance.
If I, in wintery Canada, made what is considered by most to be a good car and then put it on a boat to ship it to the hot African desert, does it magically become a bad car? The car hasn't changed. It is still the exact same car.
