Accidentally in Code

Tag: money

  • Real Talk: Women in Tech and Money

    Real Talk: Women in Tech and Money

    This post comes from multiple requests from friends with whom I have talked about leaving tech, and returning to tech, and the way that I started to think about money relating to that. Money is a loaded topic, and I want to be up front here that this is written from a place of financial privilege. I graduated from my undergrad (and dropped out of grad school) without any debt. My first developer job paid well, including stock grants (not options). I inherited some money. I’m also a citizen of a country with public healthcare. I need to work, but I’ve not had to try and create my own financial stability – because I already had it.

    house of fortune
    Credit: Skitterphoto

    Forty-one percent of women leave technology companies after 10 years of
    experience, compared to only 17 percent of men [source]. For comparison, consider that the average career length of a Premiership Football player is 8 years [source]. Premiership Football players make a lot more money, but if you know that part your career is likely to be over within ten years, you (if you are sensible) factor that into your financial planning. Looking at the data, it makes sense for women in tech to do the same.

    Some people call it a “fuck you fund”. I call it sensible financial planning. Bankers who treated their bonus like it was part of their salary ended up in hot water when the markets crashed and bonuses shrank or disappeared. Looking at the stats about women leaving, to me it makes sense to treat every year you last in tech after ten years as a bonus.

    I would love that to be different, and let’s be clear – I work very hard to make that the case, for me and others. But sometimes we play game that’s on, and sometimes we try and make a new game. Until we have a new game, 10 years is realistic – and honestly, optimistic for some.

    Tax and Rent

    The first way in which I changed the the way I thought about money was to realise that my major out-goings were tax and rent. My salary seemed so much more than I could possibly make doing anything else. But let’s do some math.

    Let’s consider a salary of 75K British pounds, which is I think pretty standard for London. And then consider a salary of 50K British pounds (a number I completely fabricated) outside of London.

    Woah! A 25K pay cut! But first – the top 25K of that was taxed at 40%. So the government loses 10K, and you lose 15K.

    Then, rent. The difference between rent and council tax on a 1-bed apartment in London vs another major UK city like Manchester or Birmingham could reasonably be 750 GBP / month. So now you’re paying 9K less a year in rent.

    So now you’re 6K a year worse off, or 500 GBP a month.

    But you move to a place where things are on average 1/3 cheaper (completely reasonable for Birmingham, Manchester or even Edinburgh in comparison to London [source]). So gym membership, food, transportation… depending on your habits, it might just be a wash.

    Then if your job no longer stresses you to the point where you are paying for weekly therapy and / or expensive getaways or other forms of retail therapy… you might even be in profit.

    Salary and Longevity

    The second is to consider longevity. Consider two job offers. Job A pays 20% more. But the company is well known for being staffed by brogrammers. You think you could do two years. Job B seems nicer – they let you work from home 1-2 days a week, invest in your personal development, and there are noticeably more women there. You think you could do three years there, maybe even longer!

    So then the maths (ignoring inflation and payrises):

    Job A: year 1:X + 20%, year 2: X + 20%, year 3: 0 (burnout) = 2.4X
    Job B: year 1: X, year 2: X, year 3: X = 3X

    Then Job B starts to look like a better option financially – as well as emotionally. And that’s not even considering tax.

    Let’s consider tax (at an average of 30%).

    Job A: year 1: 1.2X * 70%, year 2: 1.2X * 70%, year 3: 0 (no tax!) = 2.4X * 70% = 1.68X
    Job B: year 1: X * 70%, year 2: X * 70%, year 3: X * 70% = 3X * 70% = 2.1X

    This doesn’t consider that with a non-regressive tax system you might actually pay proportionally more of your salary in tax when you make more.

    Even though Job A pays 20% more, in this scenario, you’re 25% better off over a three year period if you take Job B.

    Tradeoffs

    This is not to say I think people should always take the lower paying job, or move to the cheaper city. I’m not a financial advisor, and I don’t like to give advice about any topic, least of all this one.

    But I think people should think about costs as well as salary. And salary in real (post-tax) terms. And for women – our best financial investment might actually be in creating longevity in our careers.

    Thinking like this has encouraged me to take more risks in my career, and approach it differently. I stopped being afraid to take an on-paper pay-cut, because I looked at it differently and knew I could end up much better off over the longer term from it. I think I did end up better off financially over the longer term. But emotionally there is just no comparison. Leaving (again) is something I accept as statistically likely, but no longer feel every single day.

    But, like I said at the beginning, financial privilege. And risks are much more palatable when you already have a baseline.

  • Uncomfortable Conversations About Money

    Uncomfortable Conversations About Money

    money flower
    Credit: Wikimedia

    When it comes to speaking at a conference which involves some travel costs, there are four* main options:

    1. The conference pays.
    2. The company you work for pays.
    3. You pay.
    4. You don’t go.

    The Conference Pays

    I think this, announced up front, is the most inclusive option because it means you don’t have to talk about money. Sometimes it’s capped, and sometimes it comes in the form of an “honorarium” which you can use to offset your travel costs. If those things are transparent, you can figure out what’s an option for you… or not.

    There’s a second option which is they will cover “if necessary”. This ranges between checking a box on application, or asking. I think it’s always reasonable to ask.

    The Company Pays

    There are two main reasons why companies cover the costs of having employees to speak at conferences.

    1. It’s part of the employee personal development (e.g. there’s a budget for a fixed amount or for one conference a year).
    2. It’s part of a strategy to recruit developers: either for jobs, or for adoption of company products (developer relations).

    Use of this reasoning varies from “we think it is the right thing to do because (1) and (2)” to “this is part of our recruitment strategy”.

    Many big companies cover these kind of things, but not everywhere. Having to admit that $brandname company won’t cover travel can feel like saying “the place where I work values neither my professional development nor giving back to the community” – embarrassing. Because it’s rarely talked about we don’t really know whether this an accurate reflection of company policy… or more common than we imagine.

    This also often comes with constraints on what you say, requirement for advanced views of slides etc. Focus on recruitment ROI can also mean restrictions on what you wear (not inclusive, my favourite outfits rarely include branded tshirts and on stage it’s reasonable to carefully consider what you’re wearing).

    This is less inclusive because it involves asking. I once had a manager who worried that it was “unfair” that I was using the development program to cover that kind of thing… when the men on my team didn’t. Some conferences offer the option where you get credit for “sponsorship” if your company covers it. I think this strikes a nice balance. If you’re at an unsupportive company or have an unsupportive manager, you can avoid asking. If you’re not – great. The conference cuts their costs, the company gets exposure. Win win.

    You Pay

    Clearly this is an option** – tech (in particular developer) salaries are in general good and some conferences view speakers paying their way as part of the “giving back to the community” on top of giving a talk.

    But: pay isn’t equitable and the pay gap in tech is actually larger (2013 study reported that the gap has disappeared, but a more recent 2015 article reported that men made 61% more than their female peers), and there is also a racial pay gap. And consider that the typical time that a woman woman stays in tech (10 years) is comparable to that of a pro footballer (8 years) – very relevant to financial planning (I have found no data on retention by race). Both of these things effect the level of disposable income for underrepresented groups in tech.

    This is the least inclusive option, because it means that people are likely to have to pass up on opportunities due to financial constraints. Financial constraints that may well be the result of structural unfairness in the industry.

    You Don’t Go

    This falls under the list of options because it is always an option. You’re not obliged to say yes to every invitation. It can seem like you’re missing out on the opportunity to give a talk, learn, or connect people. But I’ve come to view it as the opportunity to instead say yes to an event where they value being inclusive, and respect my time.

    Of course this is an easier decision at the 10th speaking opportunity than the 1st. And easier again at the 100th.

    Decision Time

    For individuals: it may suck but these are your options, and now you get to pick one.

    For conference organisers: please consider how the way you approach travel costs effects your inclusivity.

    If you’re looking for speaking opportunities that cover your travel costs consider subscribing to Technically Speaking. We send out a no-more-than-weekly tech-focused newsletter with curated resources about public speaking and CfPs. Whether travel costs are covered is highlighted, and heavily weighted in whether we include them.

     

    * There’s actually a fifth option which sometimes applies: scholarships. I’m not going to go into these here because they are a complex topic with a variety of options. The only comment I will make on scholarships is if they involve you paying upfront and then claiming the money back, it’s not inclusive of people who either cannot up front the money, or do not have a credit card that will up front the money. If relying on a credit card it can be anxiety inducing if it takes a while for payment to come through.

    ** For freelancers or small business owners the distinction between “you pay” and “the company pays” is blurred, and it’s important to note that expecting companies to pay means skewing against small organisations. For me the main difference for costs I have to cover myself now (as opposed to when I worked for a company that didn’t cover these kind of costs) is that by making is a business expense it comes out of pre-tax rather than post-tax income.

  • Book: The Richer Sex

    Book: The Richer Sex

    The Richer Sex For women who have complained about modern dating and men being intimidated by the success of women… The Richer Sex is the book to read.

    Personally I’d kind of thought the problem was dating engineers (common complaint amongst my female peers – how many of them have stay at home wives and the effect that can have on their attitudes to women at work), but turns out it’s much more widespread than I thought! Well, at least I feel less alone.

    Interesting (depressing) insight, this trend started with women of color in the US being more educated, and more successful in the workforce than men. This was seen as being some kind of aberration, when in fact it was the start of a trend.

    Other interesting insight, on the diminishing remarks that men make to women to try and bring them down a bit (I knew it!), they can do this whilst actually also being proud of them (did not know that!)

    The most unexpected thing I got from this book, is some sympathy for the men in these situations. Trying to navigate a new path, sometimes ostracised from school communities. Caught in a situation where they are supportive of their wives doing what they want, whether it is staying home or “leaning in”, whereas women have sometimes found it harder to let go the idea that men should be doing some kind of external work, even if they don’t make as much money.

    The book is optimistic, which I was surprised about – my own experiences and those of my friends have not always supported a positive outlook on this. But, it did make me look at it differently, and assess my own feelings about how I would feel about a partner who did not work.