47
S.F. tech founder says 84-hour workweek approach is ‘because I’m San Franciscan’
(www.sfchronicle.com)
this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2024
47 points (84.1% liked)
Technology
59774 readers
4692 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So that's the equivalent of 60k-100k at a job where you can work normal hours. I could see this maybe if he was paying more than twice the market rate for more than twice the normal amount of work, but he's not. Not even close.
Its also San Fran, where you'll lose all that money on COL.
Thats below market for a 40hr week in San Francisco for a software dev. From levels.fyi, which allows people to confirm their employment anonymously:
Town is wildly overpriced, and hes paying about 1/4th what he should be for 84 hrs/week.
And people wonder why I don't move to work at these big tech hubs. I have lots of tech jobs in my area and most of them expect normal hours. As it turns out, I rarely work more than 40 hours, and most weeks I'm around 35.
This isn't the only guy hiring in SF. By and large the pay seems really good for below average effort.
Cost of living is insane though, and there's way too much traffic for my liking, which would really impact my quality of life.
I make around what the OP is talking about, work less than half as much, and my COL is way lower. I'll just travel to CA if I feel like it, but I'm not interested in moving.
That's a larger equation, and it sounds like it totally makes sense for you. I've been working remote to SF for 15 years and made the same choice you did. That experience has also let me see that the comp to effort ratio there is very very good.
How's the remote pay? I was under the impression that you get your pay adjusted based on where you live, so you wouldn't make SF money of you live elsewhere.
I did the math a while ago and I could probably make $100k or so more if I move there, but that would go almost entirely to COL and taxes, and I'd have to put up with SF traffic as well. And I have kids, so I'm unwilling to commute there (e.g. fly there for the weekdays).
I've worked on site there (my company partnered with Facebook for a project, so I hung out with one of their teams), and I really didn't like it. But I've heard a lot of people like it, so do what works I guess. My in-laws keep trying to convince me to move to SoCal, but that's worse than SF to me.