Quitting your job is a good first step but ideally you're supposed to sink $200/mo into tokens to code your AI-generated startup idea instead of hiring app developers.

My thoughts exactly when I read "Instead of taking on IT jobs, Biesma hired two app developers, paying them each €120 an hour" like holy shit bro, you already have a subscription, you could have prototyped your idea for essentially zero additional cost and tested it for PMF. He wouldn't even have needed to turn down contracts since it doesn't take full-time effort to steer a coding model. Would have been much better off with a somewhat buggy AI prototype and spending extra on marketing to see if it got any traction.

> paying them each €120 an hour

Those must be some of the best programmers in Europe at that rate.

Anyone know how one can get one of those sweet €120 an hour gigs? Whenever I talked to recruiters they say their customers pay way below that, so there must be some scam I'm not in on.

My experience was that recruiters tried lowballing me, because they wanted to set up a system, where they ran the contract, and I subcontracted with them.

They wanted to pay me $50/hr, but they would charge the customer $150/hr.

It got quite insulting. They would dis my capabilities to me, but I’ll bet I walked on water, when they talked to the customer.

It's because companies reduced sourcing and supplier to two to four companies.

You either get in with those companies or zero chance.

They know that and abuse the shit out of the situation.

Rumours has it, that companies are thinking about to end this setup and allow "anyone in" because recruiters ( Accenture, sthree and what not) are abusing this. With we get 150 we pay 60. What do you think what kind of developers you get?

The bad and left over..

Pretty normal senior contractor rate in London.

Not far off from SF rates TBH.

I think billing rates for experienced seniors like architects are around there or higher. But this is basically before cut to company, taxes and any employment costs.

What companies can pay to employees is always significantly lower.

Probably includes circa 30% employer contributions to various taxes (employer side, the employee will be paying their own of course). And possibly VAT.

Still an amazing deal compared to the rates I got quoted by recruiters. I'm guessing you must first live in Amsterdam for that. In Vienna you get laugh if you asked for 120, and there you pay even more in taxes than NL.

Perhaps, but Vienna has better QoL so maybe it balances out at this level. If you want to just maximize income, there are better places for that than Amsterdam.

>but Vienna has better QoL

According to who? Visiting tourists rating amenities and people on welfare? NL infrastructure and tech jobs market is leagues beyond what Austria offers.

>If you want to just maximize income, there are better places for that than Amsterdam.

Like which?

> According to who? Tourists?

Just about every QoL index around. [1] [2]

> NL infrastructure and tech jobs market is leagues beyond what Austria offers.

These are not QoL-related beyond pure income.

> Like which?

California, NYC, London even.

---

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Liveability_Index

[2] https://www.mercer.com/about/newsroom/zurich-offers-highest-...

>Just about every QoL index around. [1] [2]

What if random arbitrary QoL indexes made by corporations listed on the stock market don't match real world reality? Just look at how made those indexes like The Economist. Plus Austria has an allocated budget of spending taxpayer money on advertising to attract foreigners and tourists to come there. So given this, I can't take an index made by "the economist" in good faith as being an objective representation when it was most likely a paid ad disguised as access journalism like so many journalist pieces today. My experienced reality is a much better and objective index, thank you very much.

>These are not QoL-related beyond pure income.

Except that income lets you get better life for you and your family. There's no guarantee the government will always, or ever, have your back. And we are on a tech forum here after all, so obviously the QoL for tech workers matter most for me since people are driven by self interest, including you. If Vienna was better athan Amsterdam you'd see a lot more tech expats from HN come there instead of NL but they aren't, because work opportunities and money matters, and you won't be happy in an underpaid toxic tech job in any city regardless if it's Vienna who you believed has the best QoL even though you never lived there, but just because the stro turfed internet told you so.

>California, NYC, London even.

Except that unlike Amsterdam, none of those cities are in the EU therefore not accessible to EU labor, and we were talking about a sum in Euros.

> What if random arbitrary QoL indexes don't match real world reality?

That would be up to you to show. By default, I trust the Economist more than I trust a random guy.

> Except that income lets you get better life for you and your family.

We're in a thread about whether the non-monetary QoL aspects make up for less money. This is irrelevant.

> Except that unlike Amsterdam, none of those cities are in the EU therefore not accessible to EU labor, and we were talking about a sum in Euros.

First of all, at these levels you can move almost anywhere. It's not that difficult to get a visa for skilled work. Second, you said Europe. London is in Europe just fine. Talking about Euros hardly matters. Sweden and Switzerland are both part of Shengen, don't use Euros, but you could move there trivially. Zurich probably pays better and has better QoL as well.

>That would be up to you to show.

You want me to show a personal opinion?

>By default, I trust the Economist more than I trust a random guy.

Then why are you living somewhere else with on objectively worse QoL according to "The Economist"? Why are you leaving QoL on the table and not moving to Vienan to get the best in the world?

Why are you on HN then, which is all opinions from random guys? Why aren't you getting all your life information from your trusted source "The Economist" instead? What are you doing here with all these random untrustworthy comments that disagree with what you find on the internet?

You see, in my opinion, people like this, who proudly swallow mainstream media propaganda without question as a badge of honor, are what's wrong with society and the world in general, and it's not worth debating further since they're not arguing in good faith, they already made up their mind and it would a waste of time and energy to continue.

The idea that the Economist is running ads for Vienna's tourist board is insane enough to convince anyone reading this thread to make up their mind, I think.

It's high but I mean that the developer is asking for 90, and 120 is leaving the employers pocket.

60-70 is then making it to the developer's pocket.

> Whenever I talked to recruiters they say their customers pay way below that.

Recruiters gotta eat too :)