JMTQp8lwXL

It's possible folks used that merely as a conversation opener. Sure there was some concern but primarily they wanted to reach out and talk. Concerns for hysteria are valid, but there are more plausible explanations.

I wouldn't leave my job for a "slight" increase in pay, though that's subjective and we haven't defined concrete amounts, other than 300k and 700k in my previous comment, and such a jump (more than double) could not be characterized as slight-- it's substantial.

I need to be paid a risk premium for the new gig having potentially worse colleagues, poorer WLB, or whatever things I find after the interview process. With my current job, I know all of these things. So jumping from 300k, to say, 325k would be unwise and immaterial (8.3%). I might jump for 350, definitely for 400.

You could change the process by being the person who rubber-stamps everyone, regardless of how silly the "process" is. If the person didn't get the PhD algorithm perfect, yet still did a good job, let them in. Anyone who is good enough to be considered for an interview at FB or G is good enough to do the job. That's the truth of the matter. Be the change you want to see-- this somewhat reads as a 'stick-in-mud' approach which may not get your desired outcome.

I told myself I'd be fine at 300k. Now I'm there, and I've picked up more hobbies. Doesn't stop me from looking for new gigs, from time to time. Going super deep into optimizing for one thing might be a good short-term, but bad long-term proposition. A lot of getting to 700k, I imagine, is luck. So long as you're competent, it's right place, right time. You can't force that situation to happen, so it's wasted energy to invest further.

If they already have their budget in mind before the interview process began, it won't buy you any leverage waiting until the very end. They won't care that they burnt the money/time/energy considering your candidacy, even if that costs them more in the long run.

I've ended up wasting a lot of my own time with this strategy. I'll get to the point where they want to extend an offer, I name my number, and then we have an awkward 15 minutes on the phone (e.g., "the VP couldn't ever approve that amount") and then I say I'm not interested 24 hours later.

A simple rule would be only permitting publicly traded companies from being included in an IRA. No private companies. Then, no more 100,000% growth inside of the IRA.

Combining "enterprise" with "vague promise of longevity" is quite the oxymoron. Google should start celling cell service if they want to continue upleveling their doublespeak abilities.

Re-frame the question: if they could have western style liberal democracy without any bloodshed, would they? The answers you're seeing might be tainted with knowing the path to democracy would be painful, and all else equal, that pain is worse than the current power structure.

The nominal return (9%) is:

40000 * (1.09 ^ 70) = $16,669,203.

The first calculation uses 7%. It is the real return. You'll actually have $16m, but the purchasing power would be $4.5m in 2021 dollars.

It's less than the median household income. If you save 15% of the median income for a few years, you could come up with $40k. It's also small relative to $4.5m (0.88%).