> The salary is MISERABLE compared to what you could get in the private sector.
That all depends. Many comp sci students are brainwashed to think that if a salary isn't at least 100k then it's not worth their time.
The fact is that it depends on location and cost of living.
For example - if you get hired to work for Google in their HQ in CA then you are guaranteed to get at least 100k salary. However, 90% of that will go towards food/rent (you will most likely rent as houses cost up in the millions...) - which making $60k in a smaller suburb area (where housing is in the affordable $50-$200k range) would arguably be the same net income as if you were working at Google.
I will say that you will earn more in the private sector - but I wouldn't use miserable to describe government salaries (more like underpaid). When I worked for the man it was defiantly an interesting experience but it was a very relaxed environment/startupy feeling.
90%? If you're willing to commute from Redwood City (15min CalTrain ride to MV, 35 minute CalTrain tride to SF), you'll be paying $1500-2000/mo for a 1br-2br/1ba. That comes to 24% of salary, and you'd be hard-pressed to spend more than another 6% on food.
Rent alone would come out to about 50% of your take home pay[1] (estimated of course - you would probably get less depending on benefits). Assuming if you hunted you might be able to rent for $1500, but from zillow[2] the rent appears to be from $2-4k+. If you showed me an apartment for $1.5k and the average is $2k I would want to know what is wrong with it.
In my suburban area - I could get a mortgage for a $100k house with at least 2br for about $500/month.
Of course people at Google probably don't get paid exactly $100k but keeping in mind a good sized chunk of that is just going toward living there.
Assuming $2k/month is $40k - that is almost half of $100k. So almost half your salary is going towards just rent.
Let's say you made $50k in a suburb area - using your numbers you would only pay $10k/year for a mortgage ($500/month) - with only $20k difference in salary.
$100k in CA ~ $60k
$50k in suburbs ~ $40k
Realistically you would probably make $60-$70k in suburb areas which, according to your numbers, would make the same if not more AND own a house.
Of course this is ignoring other factors like food, utilities, bills and taxes.
I find it extremely hard to believe that you would be unable to spend less than $90,000 a year on food and rent in any city in America assuming you have a modicum of financial restraint.
That all depends. Many comp sci students are brainwashed to think that if a salary isn't at least 100k then it's not worth their time.
The fact is that it depends on location and cost of living.
For example - if you get hired to work for Google in their HQ in CA then you are guaranteed to get at least 100k salary. However, 90% of that will go towards food/rent (you will most likely rent as houses cost up in the millions...) - which making $60k in a smaller suburb area (where housing is in the affordable $50-$200k range) would arguably be the same net income as if you were working at Google.
I will say that you will earn more in the private sector - but I wouldn't use miserable to describe government salaries (more like underpaid). When I worked for the man it was defiantly an interesting experience but it was a very relaxed environment/startupy feeling.