The Cupertino $90,000 Challenge (Campbell, Stanford: real estate, credit, home)

[nagleepark]

Originally Posted by spicydreamt

How do they plan to achieve that? And how about the golden handcuffs?

Most people, even engineers, don't have golden handcuffs at big name companies. If they did, they could cash out as millionaires in a few years and would be free to be angel investors, found their own companies or just live off investments.

For most, even though they fantasize about being at a startup or founding a startup, they'll never, ever risk their Apple job. They just can't give up the prestige and ego boost of knowing that they work at Apple and would be afraid that, if they gave up their Apple job, they wouldn't be able to return to it later and would regret giving it up.

Originally Posted by spicydreamt

I'm sincerely interested, I've made that transition myself a couple of times, but I've observed that generally it's either a "forced" transition (refused promotion or loss of job or following a loved one) or shadowing an already successful entrepreneur (gotta manage the risk, right?) - it's never successfully applying to a co-founder job thanks to the big name company on the resume.

I'm sure that some of these methods have worked out for a few people but what I've really seen is people who move the focus of their life from job/family to entrepreneurship/hustle.

Originally Posted by spicydreamt

My understanding is also that companies like Google have all internal incentives aligned to diminish the appeal of independent entrepreneurship - you stand to lose too much unless you can turn it around in a couple of years and get the mothership to buy your company.

Google is moving away from this. It never worked very well, anyway. Entrepreneurs would rather have their own scrappy startup than do "intrapreneurship" or other big company schemes.

Originally Posted by spicydreamt

My own reasoning why a wannabe entrepreneur would prefer the bay area is - this is where angel funding, incubators and eventually VC funding prefer to allocate capital, close to home. But what a long shot this is, unless you're a well-connected Stanford graduate.

VC funding isn't easy for anybody. But the Bay Area is for tech like Hollywood is for actors, it's just "the place to be". Even incompetent/hopeless actors know enough to move to Hollywood. Tech people, even if they are incompetent/hopeless entrepreneurs, still know enough to know that Silicon Valley is "the place to be".

In terms of Seattle vs Bay Area, people stay in Bay Area for all kinds of strange reasons. I'll never move to Seattle because my wife finds the Bay Area cold and moving some place even colder is "no way". Lots of people stay here because they have family here (even if the family moved here from somewhere else). Some people just get set in their ways or convince themselves to stay. Never underestimate the effect of emotionalism and psychology on people's decisions.

[silverkris]

Originally Posted by nagleepark

Most people, even engineers, don't have golden handcuffs at big name companies. If they did, they could cash out as millionaires in a few years and would be free to be angel investors, found their own companies or just live off investments.

For most, even though they fantasize about being at a startup or founding a startup, they'll never, ever risk their Apple job. They just can't give up the prestige and ego boost of knowing that they work at Apple and would be afraid that, if they gave up their Apple job, they wouldn't be able to return to it later and would regret giving it up.



I'm sure that some of these methods have worked out for a few people but what I've really seen is people who move the focus of their life from job/family to entrepreneurship/hustle.



Google is moving away from this. It never worked very well, anyway. Entrepreneurs would rather have their own scrappy startup than do "intrapreneurship" or other big company schemes.



VC funding isn't easy for anybody. But the Bay Area is for tech like Hollywood is for actors, it's just "the place to be". Even incompetent/hopeless actors know enough to move to Hollywood. Tech people, even if they are incompetent/hopeless entrepreneurs, still know enough to know that Silicon Valley is "the place to be".

In terms of Seattle vs Bay Area, people stay in Bay Area for all kinds of strange reasons. I'll never move to Seattle because my wife finds the Bay Area cold and moving so/me place even colder is "no way". Lots of people stay here because they have family here (even if the family moved here from somewhere else). Some people just get set in their ways or convince themselves to stay. Never underestimate the effect of emotionalism and psychology on people's decisions.

All good points. The gist is that it takes a special, particular mindset and hunger to be an entrepreneur. It's not about comfort and security.

Interestingly, Google does have a internal thing called Google Ventures to incubate ideas and turn them into products/services, but folks who truly want to be entrepreneurs will strike out on their own.

[gone down south]

The OP's two budgets describe how you could survive on that salary, not how you could thrive long term. I'd make a budget like that as a way to get through a difficult time , not as a plan for how I would want the next five or ten years of my life to go.

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by raydius08

Apple is a pretty big company. Did you figure bonuses into account as well as stock options? Those things can significantly increase your earnings and long term savings.

A very excellent point. No, I didn't consider this. This would offset the tight budget, I'm assuming.

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by gone down south

The OP's two budgets describe how you could survive on that salary, not how you could thrive long term. I'd make a budget like that as a way to get through a difficult time , not as a plan for how I would want the next five or ten years of my life to go.

True. And it probably would be tight for that long, until the car is paid off or the college fund is full, etc., or the down payment has been accomplished.

Someone started another thread on who would have the better quality of life - someone in Cupertino making $90K or someone in Bakersfield making 45K. It's amazing how similar the outcomes are so far between the two.

[BridgesBurner123]

That's why I'm never having kids

[otterprods]

I think that's a good list and it proves that you can make it on a relatively low salary with good budgeting. But I've always thought people were crazy to allow housing to take up 1/3 of their gross income, even if 'experts' say that's ok. Also, you left some stuff off, which has pretty much all been covered in subsequent posts. The point is, yes you can make it on that, but I think what people really mean when they say they can't is that they don't want to spend so much money renting an old run-down house and have only a few dollars to spare for the unexpected.

Originally Posted by BridgesBurner123

That's why I'm never having kids

That's actually a great plan. That was my plan for a long time. Eventually we were able to move and happily had children at our new home. I still encourage friends in the Bay Area and elsewhere who are sans kids to stay that way if they have a mind to.

[bentobox34]

Originally Posted by BridgesBurner123

That's why I'm never having kids

Are you making that decision for yourself or because the economics of the Bay Area is forcing you? Even if it's for yourself, how could it be a good thing to have an entire metropolitan region that is only livable for people who don't want kids?

[nagleepark]

This discussion of kids is off base and doesn't reflect reality.

Many people make more than $90K/year on one income and even more do it on two incomes. So, the $90K number is arbitrary.

Also, kids can be a potent motivator, both in income advancement and frugalness. Kids can really motivate people to go in and ask for/demand/threaten to get that big salary/raise or switch/find high paying jobs. Families with kids can also be frugal to a point that singles and DINKs (dual-income, no kids) can't even imagine.

Not everybody has kids; yes, it is a personal decision. But people without kids don't have a clue about the reality of kids. Sure, feel free not to have kids but know that you don't have the info to make an informed choice.

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by bentobox34

Are you making that decision for yourself or because the economics of the Bay Area is forcing you? Even if it's for yourself, how could it be a good thing to have an entire metropolitan region that is only livable for people who don't want kids?

Keeps the population down, no? As well as the massive amounts of services needed to be provided for the kiddies.