Certainly this is a first world problem in its purest form. But remote development to me represents one way for software developers to realize the dream of high-paying jobs anywhere, even in a rural town in Missouri.
I would contest the "very comfortable" part. For one thing, the training and education a doctor has to go through is an order of magnitude more intense - and it is expensive as hell[1]. For another, after med school doctors continue to work like crazy. My parents, who are in their late 50s and early 60s, still work 12 hours a day on a regular basis, and have to consume entire journals/periodicals and travel for international conferences just to stay on top of new things.
Among the hundred or more doctors I personally know of among my family's circle of friends and acquaintences, only one or two live "comfortably," by working a few days a week and making a ton of money. But that's because they:
a) have hyper-specialized so that they are one of the few experts in their sub-field b) live in a geographic area where they can charge a ton for their services
Compared to this, a software engineer making a low six figure salary lives a very comfortable life. AND software is much less location-dependent, since you can work remotely (unlike doctors).
[1]A software engineer goes to college for four years and then gets a job as a programmer. In stark contrast, a doctor though has to do four years of undergrad, four years of med school after that, and then three to seven years of residency. If they want to become highly specialized? Two to three years of fellowship after residency.
> it is expensive as hell
It is incredibly expensive, but there are a few points to make here:
* $150-200k are the minimum salaries for doctors in many areas. Certain specialists can make $300-450k anywhere in the country. I'm sure a select few make far more even than that, but then again a select few software developers are billionaires, so perhaps we'd best steer the discussion away from the best of the best here, otherwise it just gets silly.
* There are army scholarships which eliminate the debt entirely. The catch is you have to work as an army doctor for several years after residency, and the pay there is less than civilian doctors make (although still a lot, even in cheap areas).
* Let's say a medical student goes into $300k of debt (which is an overestimate for most cases). The difference in cost between a nice house in San Francisco and a nice house in a small town is far more than $300k. So in a long run, the doctor who chooses to work in a small town can still come out on top--and with a greater salary as well once the debt is paid off.
> My parents, who are in their late 50s and early 60s, still work 12 hours a day on a regular basis, and have to consume entire journals/periodicals and travel for international conferences just to stay on top of new things.
It would seem to me that this is not much different from many lesser paying jobs in the software industry, even (in fact, especially) in hot spots like Silicon Valley.
> software is much less location-dependent, since you can work remotely
That is the hope, anyway.
There is also the strategy of saving your SF/NYC salary while living in comparative squalor, then retiring early in a cheap place that you love.
I picked the first option, as I value roots, family, and home life more than a glitzy software career. You couldn't pay me enough to move.
As for a house out in a suburb? Absolutely. Minus the downpayment, I could have afforded a decent one right out of college. But those houses come with a minimum of a 30 minute commute, one way, by car.
I was always under the impression that Houston was actually cheaper than Austin, but perhaps I'm wrong.
Of course, if small towns are your thing, medicine would be better.
Intuitively, it feels like boom towns are price-inflated, and that letting less crammed parts of the USA (for example) get some of the economic activity would be a win for both the long-term residents of the boom towns (NYC, Silicon Valley would become less expensive) and the other areas (there would be more economic activity).
I make 6-figures in a small city doing IT. It is absolutely possible. I'm not working for Google, but that isn't something that I lose sleep over.
These sorts of anecdotes don't really mean anything to me. If you don't like small towns to the point that you're going to fly to NYC every weekend, then yes, it would all seem a bit pointless working in one.
> I make 6-figures in a small city doing IT. It is absolutely possible.
I never said it wasn't possible, but it isn't even remotely normal, unless you have a different idea of small city than I do.
Let me give you an example: for a bit my dad did IT for a local school system (elementary + high school) and made a little under $40k. And he wasn't underpaid for that job in the area. The "top" IT guys with bigger clients would pull about $60k, which was considered a very good salary for the area (and indeed it was, when a nice house could be had for not more than double that).
If I could secure even 50% of my London rates > 1hr outside of London I would be laughing in terms of quality of life.
Alas, since the financial crisis, prospects seem to be better in London and worse outside than they ever were.
Much better, IMHO.
Second, why would they put the picture of a communist leader who used to shoot defectors and kill artists? Why is he any sort of hero?
At this point, the Che portrait is sort of the reverse story of the swastika. The swastika started out as a symbol of something good and got turned into a symbol of something monstrous; Che started out as something monstrous and got turned into a symbol of something good. That good being, I suppose, a consumerist, photogenic representation of rejecting consumerism.
I could think of far more deplorable historical figures someone could stick a picture up of other than Che.
While I don't necessarily agree with his ideals, I can respect certain aspects of his persona and drive.
It's a play with the word "revolution".
Companies can gain a lot by allowing people to work remotely - they vastly increase the talent pool and they save money by not having to supply office space. But like the article said, there's a cultural issue here. The whole thing reminds me of online dating ten years ago, when the perception was that it's for losers. Now seemingly everyone does it.
What's needed is basically validation for this lifestyle. Once that happens, the awesome tools will follow. Screenhero seems like a great first step for sure.
http://blog.screenhero.com/post/45779204029/share-a-little-l...
The attitudes re: online dating a few years ago vs. now are like night and day.
The only tool on the market that does this is Sococo; I don't understand why it never gets mentioned in these conversations.. https://www.sococo.com/home#screens-carousel
An alternative would be if those millions of information workers worked out of coffee shops and the like during the day, but at that point, what is the benefit over working in an office?
The problem is that in freelance you're getting a bunch of specialized labor to spend a considerable portion of their time performing a non-productive task: i.e., sales.
This is suboptimal use of time for the worker, since those hours aren't billable. This is suboptimal use of time for the employer, since evaluating bids and candidates isn't free either.
In cases where the employer does not have enough work to justify a full-time hire, this is an acceptable cost of doing business in order for the work to be done. It doesn't scale beyond this group though.
Having a bunch of engineers spend a significant portion of their time performing salesmanship rather than engineering is very inefficient, though it may achieve locally optimal results for the individual if you account for flexibility.
