Well I guess the idea is that all the "best" engineers would have already made millions by the time they hit 50 and so therefore those who are left are...
> But, yes, if someone has had a successful 35-40 year career in tech and has managed their finances reasonably, it's not unreasonable that they might decide to pack things in some years early
Early? If you've been in tech (or any job, really) for 35 to 40 years you're going to be in your 60s (or close) which is a normal time to retire.
> It may be that I'll be forced out of my career somewhere around 60 or so (I'm currently 40) due to ageism
If this is in reference to programming, somebody will have to maintain the mountains of C++ that all the younger devs don't want to learn.
Personally, I'll probably be working 10-20h a week or so by 60 as consultant. Your retirement burn rate is much, much lower if you have cash coming in, even if it isn't covering all expenses.
"If you save wisely, you can retire just fine after a career at a tech company making 2-3x the US median salary."
This is a theory at this point...and it's not a well-tested theory. I don't know many people who have actually retired from a lifetime (i.e. 30+ year) career in tech. Considering that the software industry (as we know it) is only about 30 years old, it's hard to draw long-term conclusions.
> But, here's the deal: he's basically going to make top dollar until he's 65. Meanwhile, I'll likely be seen as a dinosaur in tech by that age and will be lucky to find work at all.
Errr, I'm 64, generally get a title like "senior programmer", and have switched jobs a few times recently and didn't have a day out of work. I expect to be going for a few years yet - in fact I expect your husband will be forced into retirement, whereas I will chose my time.
Moreover, I have quite a few software engineering friends or about the same age. It's the same for them. Some are still working, some not. But in every case it's been their choice, they weren't forced into it by the industry.
A more nuanced discussion would perhaps help. You are just jumping between extremes.
Obviously the average tech person can't retire with 50 while living in a golden castle. Nobody claimed that. If you retire that early then you lifestyle needs to match your wallet. I'm not even 50, I'm just below 40, but I could retire tomorrow despite not having worked at Google or similar. Obviously I couldn't own a 1500sqft condo in downtown SF, drive a big car and go on a yacht vacation in Monacco every year. But I could afford a nice place in the countryside and continue with the hobbies I have, none of them demanding big financial resources. It's about lifestyle choices, no matter how much money you have.
I didn't say that. I agree that most tech workers are not (realistically, anyway) planning to retire in their 40s. Most in their 20s probably do not have concrete retirement plans.
The claim I was responding to is andrewprock's statement:
> Most tech workers who plan to retire by their 40s will be working into their 50s.
Which makes a specific claim about the specific subset of tech workers who are planning to retire in their 40s.
>Your chances of dying before "making it big" and retiring are somewhere in the 1-in-10 range.
I'd like to see how you came to this conclusion.
Painting with broad strokes, one can retire after working in tech for 15-25 years. Start at 25 and they are done by 50. Current death rates for dying between 25 and 50 are less than 0.7% [0]; that's not even correcting for the fact that the wealthy likely have a reduced mortality rate [1].
> Fellows are retired people who don't have to leave.
This is false. Retired people can be fellows but you do not have to be retired. Some Fellows at tech companies are quite young because they were lucky to invent or spearhead famous technology that changed the fortune of the company.
Perhaps I was over-stating. But it is true, that tech people retiring at 50 and living comfortably is a real small minority, not some common occurrence like everyone in tech is swimming in gold. Living on street was hyperbole, but I do see a lot of tech people working long hours, on -call 24-7, dealing with bad bosses, all because of the 'fear' of living on the street. So maybe they aren't close to the street. And if over 50, that fear drives the 'do-whatever-it-takes-even-if-pulling-another-weekend'. It isn't some golden retirement, that is so bogus. Its like there is some assumption that everyone in tech got stock options at google.
> We want to save up enough money so that we can retire at 55 and stop working.
If that's what anyone takes away from my jeremiad, then I actually think that's pretty great. Except ... why not 45? Maybe if more people could use software development as a quick route to something else that created more personal satisfaction and/or social value, that would actually be a good outcome. A bit more "it's just a job" and a bit less "it's my holy calling" is a necessary ingredient in that formula.
> it's a long road of several failed startups and well over a decade before they find success
How is that not compressing your career into a few short years? Most people start working at about 20 and retire at about 65. That's 45 years of a career.
A decade sounds like "a few short years" compared to four or five decades if you ask me.
Well I guess the idea is that all the "best" engineers would have already made millions by the time they hit 50 and so therefore those who are left are...
reply