Biggest jump is 400K and that's at L7, for Principal SE, the top level. Below that each level is about a $100-150K jump. Nothing to complain about, to be clear.
E6 -> E7 at Meta is $1M (which sounds a little bit crazy tbh). Google L6 -> L7 is 300k, but their numbers look smaller than what I'm privy too. A generic Level 6 to 7 (staff to senior staff) promotion can easily be $500k at a tech company.
And yet, how many people are actually happier with that extra $500k? It's one thing if you're not making enough to allow you and whoever else you might need to support to be happy and comfortable and be able to save enough for emergencies and retirement, but I'm dubious that someone only one other away from a half million dollar raise is in that position.
Something that's often overlooked is the time equivalent of money. If the average salary is $50k but you get $500k, you only have to work 1 year in every 10, and that's crazy.
And the feeling of safety that comes with it. I left my previous employer during an acquisition and took a year off and am taking my time to find the right next gig. I cannot imagine the terror of having to find a new job, any job, ASAP because otherwise we starve and lose the house. Substantial savings are honestly much nicer than spending on a lavish lifestyle.
yes thats true if you survive it. Have two friends with a salary over 300k a year. one worked 5 years and retired the other bought more luxury products to reflect his income and is now completly burned out after 3 years but forced to work because of his 300k a year lifestyle
at that price level as a senior engineer there are plenty jobs available, no stress on that point.
i have little savings but my life is great, my kids love me, my health is good, i work from home and i have time for my friends. honestly everyday is great.
> And yet, how many people are actually happier with that extra $500k?
A hella lot people, are you seriously that dense? If there were gladiator fights for 500k, I would be a fucking janitor cleaning up the bloody mess, because of how many people would die for a chance to make 500k extra.
I think you're overestimating how much making $800k versus $300k would actually make most people happier. You're welcome to disagree with me, but there's plenty of research indicating this might be the case (from a quick Google for "happiness self reported by income" this is the first result: https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/does-more-money-correlate-g...).
If you think that everyone is the would either agrees with you or is "dense" without doing any sort of cursory investigation on whether the alternate view might actually be common or supported by evidence, I'm honestly not really sure why you're bothering to engage in discussion in the first place.
> The main finding of our reanalysis of MK’s study is that the shape of the distribution of happiness changes—slightly, but systematically—as income rises. The same increases of income have different effects on the happy and on the unhappy regions of the distribution. In the low range of incomes, unhappy people gain more from increased income than happier people do. In other words, the bottom of the happiness distribution rises much faster than the top in that range of incomes. The trend is reversed for higher incomes, where very happy people gain much more from increased income than unhappy people do. The upper part of the happiness distribution rises with log(income) at an accelerated rate in that range, while the lower 20% is almost completely flat.
So it sounds like this study is saying people who are unhappy and have low income or are already happy and have high incomes will become a lot happier with more income. The lower end would be consistent with people are are unhappy because of the lack of income, and I don't think would apply very much to people one promotion away from a $500k raise. For the other end, it seems like it would be consistent that people who have high incomes and are happy might be just as likely to become happier from other things instead of more income; maybe they're just people who are naturally happy whenever something good happens regardless of what it is, and because they have high incomes, they don't need to worry about existential life issues most of the time.
In other words, none of this seems to heavily contradict what I said, other than the caveat that if you are already happy, you might still be happier with more income (but we don't know that you might be just as happy from getting a new hobby or spending more time with your family instead of getting promoted). Even without that caveat, it does not seem like your link is nearly enough to make a reasonable argument that I'm dense for happening to cite an effect from an article that, according to your link, was a valid result according to both of the authors.
But concrete is measured by volume at least in the US (cubic yards…sigh). I think this is because different mix designs can change the resulting weight. I’ve even heard of adding air to make for better pumping.
I'm not sure I'd agree, "Intrusive thoughts" can happen to anyone for example, and it doesn't mean you're a bad person because you literally cannot control them. But what you can control, is acting/listening to those thoughts or not, which for me would be the important part.
An intrusive thought is not necessarily a bad one. Bad thoughts are those that are counter-productive and should be avoided. e.g. self loathing, hatred, paranoia and many more.
> it doesn't mean you're a bad person
Nobody suggested that.
> you can control, is acting/
One's thoughts can also be controlled to a large degree. This is why people practice meditation, affirmations, cultivation of wisdom, gratitude etc.
What happens when a situation that the agent hasn’t been trained on occurs?
Is it going to have the critical thinking skills to understand the situation and make the right decision or is it going to just hallucinate some impossible answer and get people killed?
I’m not saying human controllers don’t make mistakes but this should be one of the last areas to fully automate.
Defensible housing exists, there have been some viral photos of a few houses that survived this wildfire. But the embers from large fires can fly for miles in high wind, so it would likely have to be the whole city
Technically, but nothing miles away caught on fire. The ignition zone is likely only a few hundred yards even in intense Santa Ana winds. So that means only homes in fire prone areas (or adjacent) would need to be made very defensible.
"Technically, but nothing miles away caught on fire. The ignition zone is likely only a few hundred yards even in intense Santa Ana winds."
Not true. Here in Riverside we were watching large still-lit embers floating in (some which caused a repeat fire in the riverbottoms north of the 60, first called Brown then called Holly.) The primary stopping zone currently is around Pomona but another hard uptick in wind and it can easily cover out to the badlands.
These winds are absolutely insane, you just do not understand. When they were peaking on Wednesday morning, my Subaru was being blown almost out of lane while driving down the 91 to work.
Probably a more pertinent question would be: can you construct houses that would not burn in a Santa Ana if all the vegetation and landscaping nearby burned.
If you have fire resistant structures and only vegetation burned, not any structures, it would be much less expensive to replace just the landscaping plants.
In a 80 mph wind, it would be very challenging to design a structure that would survive a wooden house burning next door.
You’re forgetting lots of people rent. Lots of people can’t afford to own, and almost all of them rent. The other factor is dual, or even 3+ incomes in families living together.
lots of people that can afford to buy many houses rent because it makes very little financial sense (for those who understand slightly-above-basic-math) to own a house in the US
I wish more people in the US believed that, it'd make my retirement planning so much easier. Incidentally if that statement were even vaguely accurate private equity would most likely not find residential real estate an attractive investment, which they most certainly do. All of my real estate has doubled in value over the last 5 years and through the magic of depreciation I'm on track to get back more in taxes over a 20 year span than the original purchase price of my investment property. Home ownership: shit makes perfect sense to me.
That thinking is very location-dependent. Cities and counties across the US vary wildly on the ratio of cost-to-rent to cost-to-own, and that number is sometimes less than and sometimes greater than 1, depending on where you are.
A big problem with renting is the capriciousness of the rental market in many places, which you can't solve with "basic math". That plus the availability of the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage in the US means that rental costs can be much more unpredictable than buying. Some people will -- very reasonably -- pay a bit more for peace of mind. And that's before we get into the topic of no-fault evictions, and how that can wreck a family's housing situation, sometimes with not too much notice.
Renter protections in the US are not great compared to in many other places, and that can make renting unpredictable and more "costly" in other ways.
