From observing various internet forums, including this one, I noticed that people from the "first world" countries think Elon Musk actually cares about freedom of speech and isn’t just a bored billionaire throwing his weight around.
Regarding salaries, pick a number you’re a tony bit ashamed to say out loud and add 5-10%. Use that as a starting point and let them talk you down. You’ll probably want to try this out a few times on jobs you’re meh about to get comfortable saying it.
I went through this exact situation. I wound up telling them like it was - I liked everything about the job except my actual duties. Then I proceeded to describe to them what I’d like to do instead (focus on ops) and basically invented a position for myself. And they said yes!
My point is, don’t dwell On What you don’t want, but rather focus on what you do want and work to make it happen.
"I would rather leave the company than endure another minute"
However you phrase it, if that is your actual thinking, it will sound like an ultimatum. Your best bet is to say things clearly and not try to hide.
What is unclear: do you hate the task itself (because it is bureaucratic, repetitive, needs interacting with people you dislike) or do you hate the consequences of the task (privacy violations, squeezing money out of poor people, making weapons)?
I’m in the process of starting up a side business for my wife, making and selling physical goods. I’m in Sweden, and the go-to here is Klarna. They have their issues, but integration with WooCommerce was a breeze and people have come to expect Klarna as the default way to pay online.
I stumbled upon this when trying to get started with my master thesis. In frustration, I threw a bunch of buzzwords and random thoughts at LaTeX and then stashed it for a day or two. After that, I picked it up, looked at it critically and went "well, this paragraph is obviously wrong, here's what it SHOULD say..." and two hours later I had a very rough draft finished.
Write out the whole thesis as headers and fill all the sections with Loren ipsums until you have the page count you want. Then, start filling in the real text
Salaries in the US are pre-payroll taxes, post in EU. Also not included in US salaries: daycare, healthcare, college savings.
Is see this trope all the time, but it’s an illusion. Compare apples to apples.
Edit: Payroll tax != income tax. Most people aren’t even aware the employer is paying this. It’s the light blue bar in the chart in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax
No, these are double or more than pre-tax London salaries. I'm not sure about continetal Europe, but the convention in the UK is to report pre-tax salaries.
Healthcare is complicated. Most cushy tech jobs in the US come with the premiums included. But in the US there is always a significant risk of large and unpredictable medical expenses. (Especially when you consider that there's no guarantee that you'll keep your job!) That one is difficult to put figures on.
I don't personally care about daycare and college savings as I'm not planning to have kids.
> I don't personally care about daycare and college savings as I'm not planning to have kids
Right. But you ARE going to get old and sick and someone else’s children are going to take care of you. You probably want them educated and doing stupid mistakes because they’re overworked.
While that was the case, it doesn't seem to be anymore (for instance see the age cohorts here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tertiary_... ). Two year non-degree courses also seem to be much more common in the US than elsewhere, which skews things a bit.
Employer's NI is 13.8%, so multiply a normal 'pre-tax' salary by 1.16. Then again, the Americans are presumably getting health insurance so it'd be a wash.
I have a sense that Americans are just better at negotiating (taught to do it, and actually do it) than Brits. Anecdotally I know a whole bunch of people who could be earning a lot more (not only in software), but they have this sort of meekness that leads them to believe whatever number the other party says is what they have to take.
Individually that may not make up all of the difference, but collectively it probably does (e.g. the market depressing effect if most people don't bother).
Honestly it hurts to say but the prevalence of tall-poppy syndrome, deference to your boss, etc. is horrific for salaries in at least Ireland, and maybe Europe as a whole. When I left my last job we found out I was paid quite a bit better than my colleagues (who were just as good) and all I had done was... push a tiny bit. They hadn't.
Other things like "always be interviewing even if you like your job" and stuff like that get the odd look of disapproval, even though it's pretty obvious you will do your best negotiations when you have the strongest position, which means already having a job you like.
I don't follow the logic of this. The amount of your quoted salary that you get to keep (for a typical SE salary) is going to be somewhat higher in the US than in the UK. (Not massively higher - Americans often inaccurately apply the stereotype of high tax Europe to the UK.) Whether the deductions are for employee or employer taxes is moot from a financial point of view.
If someone says "I earn 50K" in the UK then they mean that's their salary after employer NI but before income tax and employee NI. The cost to the employer (in straight cash terms, not including related stuff like a desk, computer, etc etc) is more than that figure.
It's not fully pre-tax, but we call it pre-tax, just pointing that out.
Ok, but that doesn't seem to have anything to do with US/UK pay disparities. US pay also doesn't include all the taxes and other expenses being paid by the employer in relation the the employee. E.g., the employer's portion of the health insurance premiums won't be included.
I have before. I'm confused why people are bringing up employer NI if there isn't some kind of similar deduction that comes directly out of employee paychecks in the US. Otherwise, who cares that your employer pays some tax for everyone that they employ?
Not income tax, payroll tax, the tax the employer pays for having employees. Most people are not even aware of this existing. It the one marked “Employer” in this table:
It's fairly cold comfort to know that your employer is paying some taxes associated with your position that don't come out of your notional pre-tax salary.
What most people are interested in is how much of their pay is take-home pay. In the US, the take-home fraction of your pay will typically be somewhat higher. It's certainly not the case that software engineers in the US are getting bigger notional salaries but then paying a larger fraction in paycheck deductions than their European counterparts.
At the hospital where my child was born in Ireland there was a sign on the wall apologizing for the fact that if you didn't have your insurance card or medical card (public insurance basically) and you went to the emergency room they would have to charge you....
one hundred euro.
My mom was amused when I texted her the photo, in a sad way.
Software engineers have access to higher quality insurance plans. My current plan I pay mostly in the $10-$30 range per visit. I've had better plans than that. When at the last company, I was hospitalized for 2 weeks and my plan had $0 copay.
Study after study after study shows that women in relationships with men are responsible for disproportionate share of household and childcare related tasks in the present not just in the distant past and anyone who says otherwise is sticking their heads in the sand.
>>Study after study after study shows that women in relationships with men are responsible for disproportionate
Actually they do not, please show me the studies, and actual data that does because the studies have seen say [1]
1. Women with FT jobs on Avg work 7.7 hours per day, and put in 2.6 hour per day on household chores or 10.3 hrs total per day
2. Men with FT jobs on Avg work 8.3 hrs, and put in 2.1 hours per week on household chores or 10.4 hrs per total per day
there is some data to show that heterosexual households Women primary work in the home (cleaning, cooking etc) and men primary work outside or on the home (lawn work, garbage, home maintenance, etc)
So unless you are going to cherry pick which "household and childcare related tasks" to specifically exclude the "household and childcare related tasks" men generally do there is no way to conclude that "women in relationships with men are responsible for disproportionate share of household and childcare related tasks"
> Actually they do not, please show me the studies, and actual data that does because the studies have seen say [1]
You can't use overall statistics to talk about specific cases of cross-sections. Yes, men work longer hours than women. But even in households where the woman is the primary earner, she takes on the majority of household chores, on average [1].
And this has been seen in multiple studies. See the "Work and Leisure for Dual-Income and Single-Income Couples" table here[2]. In single income families, a women earner spends 23 hours on household chores, compared to her (unemployed) parter, who spends ~29 hours on household chores. He gets around twice as much leisure time as she does.
Reverse the genders, and an employed man spends 14 hours on housework, while the unemployed woman will spend 45 hours on housework.
No matter who is employed, the mother always spends more time on housework than on leisure time, and the father always spends more time on leisure than on housework. That's true whether the family is dual income, the mother is the sole earner, the father is the sole earner, or neither parent works. In all cases, the mother spends more time on housework than leisure, and the father spends more time on leisure than housework.
>>>You can't use overall statistics to talk about specific cases of cross-sections.
It seems when the overall statistics show a favorable / Advantaged result toward men over all statistics are just fine to use, but if they who an equality in the genders they become problematic and are no longer valid, odd how that works
as to the data on Stay at-home dads, I question the sample size on that, it is such a rare status that and I am sure there is a HUGE sample size problem when they compare stay at home mom households (which make up the vast majority of the Single Income House holds) to Stay at home Dad homes which are the rarest or rare.
> as to the data on Stay at-home dads, I question the sample size on that, it is such a rare status that and I am sure there is a HUGE sample size problem
The pew social trends survey mentions that the number of stay at home dads is ~1/5 the number of moms. Smaller, but not so small as to make the conclusions invalid. You asked for studies and statistics and I provided. Please don't continue to move the goalposts.
> It seems when the overall statistics show a favorable / Advantaged result toward men over all statistics are just fine to use, but if they who an equality in the genders they become problematic and are no longer valid, odd how that works
Such as? I didn't see anyone doing that here. I saw you misunderstanding and attacking a claim, and then being unwilling to admit you were wrong when confronted with the evidence you requested. It's not easy to try and discuss these topics with you.
Speaking from personal experience, women often want things "just so" and men tend not to give a shit. So either the woman does it, or nags the man to do it, or gives up on it being done. None of those options is great, but the woman doing the work she desires done herself is the most fair and least damaging to the relationship.
Even the data you decided to pick for this conversation supports the opposite of your conclusion:
Household chores:
--On an average day, 84 percent of women and 69 percent of men
spent some time doing household activities, such as housework,
cooking, lawn care, or household management. (See table 1.)
--On the days they did household activities, women spent an average
of 2.6 hours on these activities, while men spent 2.0 hours. (See
table 1.)
Women: 156 min * .86 = 134 min / day
Men: 120 min * .69 = 83 min / day
Women dating men, on average have a share of household tasks is 161% of their partner’s.
Childcare:
--On an average day, among adults living in households with
children under age 6, women spent 1.1 hours providing physical
care (such as bathing or feeding a child) to household children;
by contrast, men spent 26 minutes providing physical care.
(See table 9.)
Women: 66 min / day
Men: 26 min / day
Women dating men, on average have a share of childcare tasks is 253% of their partner’s.
This is without even needing to dig into the crosstabs, on the data source you picked. Which supports the both widely accepted and studied conclusion that household and especially childcare tasks among heterosexual couples are absolutely not evenly distributed.
As for more studies, feel free to, I dunno... pick any of them?
I really shouldn’t have to do the math for you on this. Your point is about as well supported by the data as climate denial and at some point you lose the right to ask other people to prove this to you and just need to go read basically anything on this subject.
Your claim was not "women do more housework" your claim was "women do disproportionate amount" of housework
That to me would be Income Producing work + Housework.
So based on this response you believe that Housework should be a 50/50 Split even if Income-producing work is not? Meaning in a Single Income household the person making the income should put in an equal amount of household work to the person not bringing in income to support the household?
Ah. I see the disconnect. You managed to misinterpret both the point of this conversation and my specific claim.
The original poster I replied to suggested that if men pulled their weight in relationships wrt household tasks and childcare more often, women might have more time to devote to work.
You have decided to argue that women of course should spend more time in those areas, because they don’t spend as much time at work.
My claim was merely that women are in fact “responsible for disproportionate share of household and childcare related tasks” which is fully supported by all the data cited in this conversation.
You seem to be arguing that this is a perfectly fine thing. This completely ignores the possibility and frankly likely conclusion that the expectation that women do more of these tasks might have something to do with the fact that so many women aren’t in fact able to spend as much time focusing on their careers as they might otherwise.
To chose a concrete reason from too many relationships for too many women, if they don’t pick up the kid, then no one bloody will. So they don’t get to spend time to focus on work at the end of the day because they suddenly have to leave the workplace at a fixed time no matter what is happening or what thing they might want to spend a bit more time to nail down, because they are responsible for a disproportionate amount of childcare. Which then results in them being less able to be engaged and succeed in their careers, which can result in them opting for more flexible or reduced schedules, which then results in less take home pay, which then results in dudes on the Internet arguing that this is fully fair and there’s no mismatch whatsoever in response to a comment that merely points out that women perform a higher share of household and childcare tasks in an average relationship with a man.
It sounds like you missed the context of the discussion. The starting point was "women cannot take on more income producing work because they are all tied up in housework."
So long as the reports are "FBI can unlock iPhones by unknown means" we don't know the cost to execute the exploit.
Just because the FBI pay $$$$ per unlock, doesn't mean the marginal cost to the supplier is $$$$, that could just be GrayKey trying to cover the $$$$$$$ they paid for an exploit, and make some profit.
> It's not safe to grow veggies and grains with human manures.
Not true. My wife does research on this and post-sewage treatment dried sludge actually has better values than some of the food the used as reference samples.
