The bicycle is making a comeback in US cities - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36778953 <comment><USER2> The true revolution has hit public consciousness yet and that is the rise of electric bicycles. I own one and nearly every time I ride it cross town I think again that it's nearly the perfect form of human transportation. It is said that pedal bicycles are the most efficient form of human transportation. With a motor and a lithium ion battery that charges up at a rate of 150W for 3 hours and then delivers 12-15 miles of transport at 20 mph, depending on much pedaling is done to assist uphill, and I imagine that you only increase that efficiency. Electric bikes are allowed to use the bike lanes in California, while fossil fuel powered motors are not, so bikes can take routes that beat all the car and truck traffic. I don't break a sweat riding an electric bike so I don't need to take a shower when arriving at work. Take the optimistic tone of this article and add electricity and you really have a revolution.

<comment><USER3> Are electric bicycles desirable mainly because of lower physical effort, or higher top speed? I am an avid cyclist in NYC and I don't think I would be comfortable going any faster than my current top speed. And I really enjoy the exercise. So why would I choose an electric bicycle over my traditional one?

<comment><USER4> In my experience (as someone who cycles 50-75 miles a week) people go for the electric bikes for less exertion. Probably 3-4 times a week people on e-bikes pass me on hills, zooming along.

They always seem to be heavier-set than your typical bike commuter, so if the motor's getting them out on the road and getting some exercise and fitness in, I think that is just fantastic. Anything to get people out of their cars! Maybe they'll even upgrade to a real bike some day :)

<comment><USER5> > Maybe they'll even upgrade to a real bike some day :)

Several stories I've read about ebikes point to stats about nearly all ebike owners getting hooked and continuing to buy them instead of regular ones.

That said, an ebike turns into a regular bike immediately after you turn off the assistance.

<comment><USER6> Regular and heavy as hell; those batteries won't pull themselves (well they _could_ , but you get the point ;))

To give my anecdote, I'm considering getting an e-bike for commuting, or perhaps retrofit onto my regular bike: the ride is not long (~10 miles x2), but hills on both sides are significantly easier with an assist.

<comment><USER5> One way to think of it: assistance for commuting to avoid sweating / no assistance with battery left at home when wanting to exercise.

Btw. I've had an ebike for 4 years and I'm a skinny 34-year-old man. It can still be plenty of work to ride it during the Finnish winter :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've commuted by bicycle while in school in Toronto and at a couple of jobs since. But I've ceased to be interested in sharing roads with cars. The weight-scale of the two vehicle types is just too different, and I don't bounce as well as I used to. I do love biking on trails though, and welcome the additional trails being built around the nation and here in Pittsburgh.

</comment><comment><USER8> If there were protected bike lanes along my commute (about 3 miles), I'd cycle to work in a heartbeat. (Well, showers at the office, preferably clean ones, would also help.)

Instead, only about 25% of the trip has bike lanes at all. And they share a curb with the buses (which might be the worst arrangement possible, since cyclists and bus drivers have to keep dodging one another in and out of the lane - endangering the cyclists and slowing the buses).

Instead, I walk when the weather is right. Cycling right beside cars would scare the shit out of me.

<comment><USER9> I had 3 of my coworkers killed in Chicago in last 2 years. One to to drunk driver, 2 to visibility issues( one was extreme downhill curve where a cyclist would suddenly appear out of nowhere. Other was a truck making a left turn between two cars, no way the truck driver could have seen the cyclist) .

Only people with a deathwish would ride a bike on streets shared by other vehicles.

Don't be stupid, think of your family.

<comment><USER10> > Only people with a deathwish would ride a bike on streets shared by other > vehicles.

I'll grant that the risk of death in an accident is probably higher on bike, but the risk of death by being sedentary should also not be ignored in the calculation. I don't have a deathwish, and I commuted 30 miles a day on a bike for years. It was great. I've never been in better shape. We have a problem with cars killing people with alarming regularity. The solution probably isn't to avoid riding bikes or being a pedestrian.

<comment><USER9> surely there are better ways to get in shape that don't involve risking your life on daily basis.

<comment><USER11> I think you're being pretty harsh. I don't have a death wish, I ride my bike frequently in SF because I love to ride, it's great exercise, it's by far the fastest way to get to work, and it's one less bicyclist-killing machine on the road. From a philosophical point of view, if everyone did what I did, there would be a lot of upsides for everyone. If everyone decided to ride a car, there would be many downsides.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I live in London (UK), cycling is fairly popular here but I'm terrified of being killed so don't bother with it.

I'm wondering how the US approaches bicycle safety as a whole, it's all well and good building a cycle lane, but in some places that's not feasible so you have to merge with traffic. How do US drivers treat cyclists?

<comment><USER13> If you need to take the lane, take the lane. Do not offer what might look like a "squeeze by" to auto drivers but rather ride in the center of the lane and move to the right when it is safe to do so.

<comment><USER14> I agree, I think many novice cyclists inadvertently put themselves in dicey situations by being "too nice" to car traffic. It truly is safer to be visible and temporarily "in the way" than to ride in the door zone or gutter and risk getting doored, side-swiped or right-hooked.

Being nice might momentarily appease an impatient driver, but it puts the cyclist at risk and makes them appear erratic to other traffic.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I don't understand why so many people use their cars for every chore in the Bay Area. A decent bike commuter can do 16 mph which is plenty fast for most trips. It's also 'free' in that you burn lunch instead of fuel.

<comment><USER16> I would love to ride a bike around SF, but the thought of being hit by a car is sort of terrifying to me. As a result I ride the bus everywhere: it's non ideal.

<comment><USER17> I was looking into buying a bike for commuting from Mission to SoMa until I noticed how there are multiple hit and runs reported every week. Several times have I witnessed Uber/Lyft drivers (with me as a passenger) endanger bicyclists during the morning commute. How do they solve this in other cities?

<comment><USER18> The Netherlands does this very well. Car traffic is nicely separated from bicycle traffic, which is nicely separated from pedestrians. There's even an entire nationwide network of bicycle paths.

I suggest using Google street view to look around. Usually, you can see a bike path off on the side of the road that's nicely separated from the cars. I don't think that Google has gotten around to taking street view pictures in all the bike-only paths in more rural areas, although I hear they've done that in some places.

The Netherlands has been committed to improving bicycle use and safety since the 1950s, so they've built up a lot of infrastructure with that in mind. In fact, I hear that in any accident in the Netherlands involving a car and bicycle, the car is always at fault unless they can prove that the bicycle was being reckless. It makes cars a lot more careful, and encourages riding a bike instead of driving.

From what I hear, the effect is from all this that automobile traffic in is pretty congested and slow. The Dutch government seems to be making a general policy of discouraging car driving and encouraging alternate forms of transportation, as a means to unclog the roads and reduce pollution. The Netherlands is very dense, so pollution would be very bad if all those people were driving everywhere.

I'm not Dutch, but sometimes I wish I were, because I would very much like to bike to work on a regular basis. My city in California has some bike lanes, but they aren't very wide and are right next to the cars. They've been starting to build bike paths that are completely separate from roads, but we don't yet have a city-wide bike path network yet. I suspect we'll eventually get one, but it will be decades away. I'll go biking with my children on quiet residential streets or the bike paths, but there's no way I'd take them on the bike lanes on the bigger roads.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> In New York, one thing I have strongly noticed is the decrease in smog even on rush hour crowded avenues. This alone has made it drastically healthier to go outside whether it be on bike or walk. Just a few more years and we will be able to avoid long trips to the parks and do recreational walking immediately outside of our doors.

</comment><comment><USER20> Just bought a bike this weekend. Great fun thanks to cycle lanes along the beach. Don't see it being a viable mode of transportation for day-to-day though.

>a bike lane next to [...] church infringed on religious freedom by preventing members from parking.

That's a pretty bizarre interpretation of "religious freedom".

</comment><comment><USER21> I want three things: 1) Stay dry. 2) Not wear out my normal nor "dressy" clothes. 3) Ride safely.

I can even forgo # 1 if I get to change and shower at the end.

So... you want cyclists? Find out what's really keeping them off bikes, and fix it.

P.S. And theft. You can just park your car and walk away from it -- mostly.

<comment><USER22> Some of these things could be solved with better electronics. Like providing tagging/tracking technology that would keep thieves away, and a proximity warning that would flash a bright taillight at cars coming too close or approaching too quickly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> There are some bright spots, like Cambridge, but there needs to be vastly better enforcement of having drivers keep a distance from cyclists. If cyclist-aware autonomous braking were required for cars, that might do it in a few years. But American drivers are angry and incompetent.

</comment><comment><USER23> I really hope that motorcycles make a comeback as well. They are incredibly fuel efficient, they don't take up nearly as much room, are far cheaper to buy and maintain than cars, and a heck of a lot of fun.

<comment><USER24> > They are incredibly fuel efficient,

Sadly, this is a myth.

[https://practicalfrugalliving.wordpress.com/2013/02/02/busti...](https://practicalfrugalliving.wordpress.com/2013/02/02/busting- the-myth-that-motorcycles-save-gas-and-money/)

[http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2011/09/mythbuste...](http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2011/09/mythbusters- motorcycle-emissions.html)

[http://motorbikewriter.com/motorcycles-fuel- economy/](http://motorbikewriter.com/motorcycles-fuel-economy/)

<comment><USER23> None of those links refute my claim that motorcycles are fuel efficient. The first link says that large displacement bikes are "no more efficient than a prius" which is one of the most fuel efficient cars on the road. Take any new 250cc motorcycle and compare it to any new compact car and the motorcycle will have higher fuel efficiency every single time.

The only article that seems to support your assertion is the mythbusters one, which doesn't refute the claim that motorcycles are more fuel efficient, but instead cites the fact that proportionally more pollution is emitted by motorcycles than by cars which is a completely separate issue altogether. That would be easily solved by stricter pollution control standards on bikes which would absolutely happen if more people started riding. The article then goes onto admit:

"Despite the MythBusters' findings, emissions are only part of the story of a vehicle's true greenness. According to the Motorcycle Industry Council, motorcycle manufacturing requires thousands fewer pounds of raw materials than automobiles. They require less fossil fuel, so they require less energy to pull that fossil fuel out of the ground. They use fewer chemicals and oils than cars. And motorcycles produced today are 90% cleaner in California than they were 30 years ago."

So I stand by my original statement. Did you even read the articles, or did you just whip off a quick google search and link the first three articles that seemed to support your claim?

<comment><USER24> > but instead cites the fact that proportionally more pollution is emitted by > motorcycles than by cars which is a completely separate issue altogether.

But a pretty big one, that you're side-stepping by quoting a special interest group from the motorcycle industry. Fuel efficiency could be better, but emissions are always worse.

Here's another source for you, Ana-Marija Vasic and Martin Weilenmann. Comparison of Real-World Emissions from Two-Wheelers and Passenger Cars [http://josiah.berkeley.edu/MiniProjects/Vasic2006.pdf](http://josiah.berkeley.edu/MiniProjects/Vasic2006.pdf)

I would wager that ab bicycle will have a better fuel efficiency, emissions, and environmental cost of production than a car, or a motorcycle.

<comment><USER23> I was never comparing motorcycles to bicycles. Of course bicycles are more energy efficient. But compared to cars motorcycles are far more efficient - especially electric motorcycles which are starting to hit the mainstream now.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Pack Your Bags – Systemd Is Taking You to a New Home - <AUTHOR> https://hackaday.com/2019/10/16/pack-your-bags-systemd-is-taking-you-to-a-new-home/ <comment><USER2> _"What that means is that you could keep the home directory for example on a USB stick or external disk, and seamlessly move it between, say, your workstation at home and your laptop whenever you're on the move."_

What year is it? There's this thing called "the internet" that allows you to mount your home directory wherever you want. We could have "home directory providers" that store your home directory in the cloud, with a fast connection about anywhere.

Steve Jobs had something similar in 1990 or thereabouts, moving between home and NeXT's offices. Universities had that in the 2000s (possibly still today), but restricted to their network, too.</comment>


FastMail Refuses to Fix Security Issue Allowing Customers to Send Malicious Code - <AUTHOR> https://planetzuda.com/2015/02/16/email-service-fastmail-refuses-to-fix-security-issue-allowing-customers-to-send-malicious-code/

<comment><USER2> This post doesn't go into detail at all but even then I find myself choosing Fastmails side. If they removed / altered the images, the PGP signature wouldn't be valid anymore, right?

I'm not aware of any EXIF exploit which would be dangerous to the recipient of such an email. AFAIK, only weakly configured servers / php scripts would potentially execute an image uploaded with malicious EXIF data. Thus, there is no security issue for the recipients.

The blog post is very light on details, which makes it feel manipulative and a bit immature. For example: > Every other company has fixed this issue upon us reporting it to them.

Which companies? Even if you're not allowed to tell, how many other companies? Did they offer a similar email service?

<comment><USER3> Thank you for discussing this article. We value everyone's feedback which is why we're answering your questions. We didn't think of listing how many other companies we've worked with on this issue, but we will try to add in that type of information in future articles when possible.

It is a bit hard to put how many companies we've worked with because like you noted we aren't always allowed to tell unless we have permission to do so. Also, we deal with so many bugs everyday that we've lost count how many times a certain type of bug has been fixed.

A few companies who do try to stop these types of attacks are gmail, facebook and pinterest. It is important to note that we didn't assist them with fixing those issues, which is one reason we're allowed to talk about it. You can stop malicious images from being attached instead of just removing the code after it is uploaded.

If you have anymore questions feel free to ask.</comment></comment>


Startups with Extended Options Exercise Windows - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/holman/extended-exercise-windows <comment><AUTHOR> I think it's important to call out companies who are really trying to do right by employees, in light of all the possible pitfalls of employee equity.

The advice to consider employee equity a lottery ticket is both reasonable and sad. It's a reflection of just how nuanced the topic is, and how rife it is with opportunities to leave employees out in the cold. But it could be a lot better than this. Some startups are clearly trying to make it so.</comment>


Ask HN: How should I build my API? - <AUTHOR>

I want to build an API for my website but am unsure if I should make it a REST or SOAP based API and what kinds of features to implement in it any suggestions would be great. <comment><USER2> Please don't do SOAP. Please. It's painful to use as a developer. REST and REST-like services are much easier to build for, not to mention debug and test.

Think about the output your API will produce. JSON and/or an XML flavor? What about JSONP support?

And do you want users to identify themselves? How? An API key is the usual way, but Digg has a neat alternative (which I'm using for inspiration on a soon-to-launch API) of each API call providing an app identifier in the form of a URL of a web page describing the app.

Also, don't forget to version your API so that in the future if you implement a change that breaks the default or usual behavior, you can have a chance of maintaining backwards compatibility.

Rate limiting? If you want that, use memcached or Redis or any super-fast in- memory store.

Finally, log everything on the server.

</comment><comment><USER3> REST and JSON hands down. So easy even _I_ can do it. =) XML has been around but JSON is so much easier and more efficient that I tend to raise an eyebrow at services insisting I use XML =/

Start with basic GET services. Have users do admin stuff on your website. Then create embeddable widgets that present how to use your API to GET and display data from your service. Use javascript to fetch the JSON, and add it nicely to the DOM.

It's pretty fun actually.

<comment><USER4> I like most of this except the not supporting XML thing. Support both or just XML. There's just too much stuff out there already using XML that any big project already has the libraries, whereas JSON maybe not. So it's just more convenient to most people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Consider your audience. Specifically: The simpler the API, the larger the set of people that will build on it.

Delicious used simple GETs with a few parameters and you could talk to it with a shell script.

Unfortunately, that was before the days of OAuth, which you really need to support these days. If people build apps that interface to your app, you don't want people typing their passwords in to the other app.

</comment><comment><USER6> Take a deep look at both Flickr and Twitter's APIs. Follow their model as much as you can.

Use JSON and as consistent an interface as you can come up with.

Think through how you'd rebuild your website using only your APIs.

<http://apiwiki.twitter.com/>

<http://www.flickr.com/services/api/>

</comment><comment><USER7> This presentation from Jushua Bloch about "How to Design a Good API & Why it Matters" is very interesting, informative and and inspiring:

<http://www.infoq.com/presentations/effective-api-design>

</comment><comment><USER8> If you are using ASP.NET you may check the Web Application Toolkit: REST Services [http://channel9.msdn.com/posts/LostInTangent/Web- Application...](http://channel9.msdn.com/posts/LostInTangent/Web-Application- Toolkit-REST-Services/)</comment>


GM exec calls Elon Musk claim of Level 5 driving without lidar 'not possible' - <AUTHOR> https://www.autoblog.com/2017/10/16/gm-exec-calls-elon-musk-full-of-crap-autonomy-claims/?ncid=edlinkusauto00000016 <comment><USER2> > _to say you can be a full Level 5 with just cameras and radars, is not > physically possible._

Of course it's possible. Humans manage to drive just fine without even radar. Optical recognition is _clearly_ sufficient.

With that said, we clearly have not solved self-driving cars and it's very possible that better sensors will improve the tech faster than smarter computing.

<comment><USER3> WOuldn't that logic suggest that self-driving tech dependent only on image recognition has a hard-limit at around the human driving expertise-level? If we truly want super-human driving skills (as everyone seems to expect from future cars), wouldn't that mandate a richer and better quality of data?

<comment><USER2> Not really. Dogs have _roughly_ the same visual capacity as humans but are really shitty drivers nonetheless. Visual acuity doesn't necessarily correlate tightly with driving ability. It's possible that human-level driving is as good as it can get with just optical vision, but there's no evidence to support that. There may be vast untapped potential from pure optical vision. Honestly, if we just got self-driving cars as good as non-distracted, expert human drivers, they'd already look super-human compared to the average human.

Still, it's very likely that we can improve faster with better sensors.

<comment><USER4> > Dogs have roughly the same visual capacity as humans

While I more or less agree with the rest of your post, source needed on the quoted part. From everything I've read on the topic, there is significant differences in dog perception over humans (FoV, depth perception, motion detection, flicker fusion, etc).

<comment><USER2> Hence _roughly_. (Call it order of magnitude.) The primary limitation on dogs' driving ability is not their vision.

<comment><USER4> > The primary limitation on dogs' driving ability is not their vision.

Actually, I'd argue that it is, but maybe my definition of "vision" is overly pedantic.

 _Vision_ is to _seeing_ as _listening_ is to _hearing_ for me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> With the current state of computer vision and AI, I would agree with GM. There's a lot of fast and loose talk about what AI can and can't do, but the reality is we're not even close to having general intelligence which would, at least in a rudimentary form, be necessary to safely navigate a car using only optical recognition.

</comment><comment><USER6> How can someone say that Level 5 driving without lidar is impossible? How exactly are humans driving then? Ridiculous.

I'm still skeptical that it can be implemented successfully, though, given that we still don't have Level 5 with lidar.

<comment><USER7> Yup. GM jealousy FUD.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Level 5 possible without lidar: Tesla has a potentially less expensive driverless system

Level 5 impossible without lidar: Tesla licenses the tech and buys the hardware like everyone else

Looks like two upsides on this bet.

<comment><USER9> Umm... not without losing bet number one and the associated brand and image impact of selling thousands of cars that were sold as self-driving capable.

<comment><USER8> Tesla has back peddled on so many deadlines and claims without killing themselves yet, so we'll see.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is like Lockheed/Boeing execs saying that landing a rocket booster and reusing it was impossible. There's a clip of that somewhere which I can't seem to find right now.</comment>


Ask HN: A good roadmap for someone interested in security? - <AUTHOR> I am interested in learning about the field of security.
1) What are the available areas of specialization?
2) I prefer to work as an independent consultant. Is it feasible in this field?
3) Would the nationality of a person have bearing on whether the person is hireable/employable?
4) What is the best place to start to learn and proceed? <comment><USER2> Good question and something I am trying to do as well at the moment (web dev last few years so I do know some coding Python/PHP/JS).

My own method has been war gaming sites like pwnable.kr, learning C, getting better at bash, bug bounty programs, playing with security tools (bettercap, sqlmap, metasploit) and eventually I would like to get OSCP certification.

Would love to hear from people experienced in the profession if there is anything I am missing or any pointers they could offer me.

<comment><AUTHOR> The security tools are all new to me and nice way to get my feet wet. Thanks tummybug!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I help run our Universities Cyber Security Club so I've sat through a number of presentations, lectures, recruiters, etc. If someone who's actually in the field though would like to correct me please do!

1)Specialization is incredibly broad from the people I've talked to and what I have practiced. You have everything from people who penetration test systems and software to the people who have to handle access control. My advice to new club members who are interested but don't know where to start is to go to Wikipedias entry for Information Security [0] and read through it and other related pages then pick areas that interest you the most, go find some YouTube videos that demonstrate them and go from there.

2)It's not unheard of but I would not say it's a field you can just dive into and hire yourself out as an independent consultant without any experience to show for it. A common career path I've seen brought up over and over again is you work for a military branch/government agency for 3-5 years then you leave and return a week later as a consultant/contractor with a much higher pay grade.

3)Depends on where you are trying to get a job. A number of companies that do military contract work for example at our career fair would not talk to you unless you were a U.S. citizen because of the nature of their work. Banks in my experience do not seem to care so long as you pass a background check and we've had international students from our club go on to get jobs in the industry.

4)Learn as much as you can, specialize but don't ignore the other fields. A good place to start is to learn what Kali linux is and how to setup a home lab either physically or virtually through a VM. Join local chapters for organizations like ISSA and SANS if you can. Also read the news and keep up with current events.

Sites:

[https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Main_Page](https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Main_Page)

[https://www.kali.org/](https://www.kali.org/)

[http://forensicswiki.org/wiki/Main_Page](http://forensicswiki.org/wiki/Main_Page)

[http://opensecuritytraining.info/Welcome.html](http://opensecuritytraining.info/Welcome.html)

[https://www.sans.org/](https://www.sans.org/)

[https://www.hak5.org/](https://www.hak5.org/)

Books:

If you don't have much experience with Unix or Linux systems, the Unix and Linux System Administration Handbook ( ISBN-10: 0131480057 ) is really good.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_security](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_security)

Edit: Almost forgot this site has some good labs [http://www.cis.syr.edu/~wedu/seed/index.html](http://www.cis.syr.edu/~wedu/seed/index.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> It is going to take some time to absorb all these resources but I will do my best! Wazanator, thank you for taking time to give a clear and elaborate answer.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to price yourself? - <AUTHOR> Philippines Background: I quit college because it was expensive for me. I entered the company with 1 year experience basic programming(C, C#, etc.). They have given me a book ruby "Programming Ruby" and started to work there as a web developer/tech support/call center for 3 years. I was just earning $550/month and as the company and people grow it goes down to $250 due to failed pricing and small clients.
I was still staying there due to clients that used the product. Also the relationship with clients that I have build because we worked on it side by side.
Current Situation: I have exposed my resume online. I wanted to do remote or relocation overseas.
I'd like to ask what is there regular per hour rate of ruby on rails programmer. And how skill is based on the pricing. I was also hoping if $15-$20/ hour. <comment><USER4> This is one of the most important questions in all the open source world, and yet, instead of one of the big-name writers of the hacker world bringing it to the floor, it comes in the form of a question from someone hoping to earn $15-$20 an hour. It makes me sad.

gdiocarez: First and foremost, thank you for breaking the silence on this.

As for an answer: So, the world is weird. I generally bill $185 an hour as a spot rate. I have fairly little problem finding steady work at $100 or so on a steady basis. I tell you this because I think it's fairly typical for someone living in a major city in the US.

My hope, and I hope everyone's hope, is that the world will generally equalize around this range, or even higher. I have observed again and again that, each time I or a colleague makes a contribution of value, we create a dozen or so opportunities for like contributions.

Unlike the fossil fuel economy that characterized the industrial era, I surmise that the information age is somewhat sustainable as an exponential curve of economic possibility. This is a radical viewpoint I'll warn; many of my (otherwise seemingly reasonable) friends fear that "the music will stop" unexpectedly and that today will be one of "the good old days."

The truth is: nobody that I know knows the answer to your question. Price yourself aggressively and work hard. I can tongue-in-cheekly advise you to try to be lucky. So far, being born in an economic powerhouse (and in an economic, racial, and social position of privilege) has worked for me.

<comment><USER5> It is not going to equalize around $100. It's going to be lower than that as more and more specialists from around the world enter the field. Indeed, these are the good old days, just like it was for many explorers and entrepreneurs in the past.

The software world is also still (and always will be) dependent on the "real world", where fossil fuel is still key and will be for a long, long time.

I have to say that you live in a bubble slightly above ~95% of the world, you are indeed very lucky - hopefully for the rest of your life.

<comment><USER6> My big question is how can software--particularly free software--create jobs? Take operating systems. With free alternatives the trend is towards commoditization and declining prices. Same goes for almost any category of desktop software. The only potentially increasing trend is in service, customization, etc.--all geared towards business productivity. Increased productivity may or may not result in net employment gain. In fact, for every programming job there may be manual jobs becoming obsolete. So what can sustain high hourly rates and create new jobs? One part of the answer must be increased specialization, but not everyone can become a specialist.

<comment><USER7> > how can software--particularly free software--create jobs?

Ok, let's take Linux as a specific example. Take a gander at this: [http://lwn.net/Articles/547073/](http://lwn.net/Articles/547073/)

So major companies (Oracle, Red Hat, Google, IBM, Intel, Samsung, Fujitsu, Texas Instruments, etc) are contributing to Linux. That creates jobs for all the kernel hackers who probably started before kernel knowledge was a hot commodity.

But that effect is minor compared to what people are building WITH Linux: \- Red Hat (a 1B company!) wouldn't even exist if it weren't for Linux. They don't "sell Linux", they sell services around Linux. \- IBM invested a billion dollars in Linux, and it paid off. They recently decided to invest another billion. Their support for Linux sells Mainframes and their expertise sells services. \- Google wouldn't be able to give away their search engine (over 10 million servers) if they had to pay Microsoft for every server. \- Companies like TI and Intel can add Linux support for their chips (a tiny expense compared to creating a new CPU), which will enable new devices to be created easily. Some of those new devices (TiVo, Android, Tomato WRT, RPi) will be successful and cause their companies to hire more people.

Giving away software doesn't compete with programmers -- it only competes with companies that sell software. Only a tiny fraction (maybe 5%?) of programmers work for companies that sell software directly. The vast majority of programmers write internal line-of-business software, or sell their software indirectly (SaaS).

So any Open Source software (Drupal, Apache, etc) is far more likely to help lots of companies save money (therefore have money left over to create jobs).

> In fact, for every programming job there may be manual jobs becoming > obsolete.

That will make programming jobs be more "in demand" compared to regular jobs, therefore command higher salaries.

> So what can sustain high hourly rates and create new jobs?

You are thinking about it from the wrong end. The question is "can a bit of software be worth millions/billions to a company?" The answer is clearly "yes", since we've seen tiny teams create billions in value over and over.

Search around for the writings of patio11 on HN. He will open your eyes. People charging $200/hr are playing a different ball game than people charging $20/hr. They are not 10x better, just better at demonstrating the value of their software to the client.

> not everyone can become a specialist.

Just the opposite. There are so many new technologies and branches of science coming out that _everyone_ will be a specialist in the future. In fact, programmers are _already_ highly specialized. No matter what technology you pick (COBOL, Java, .NET, Linux, Microsoft, nodejs, Ruby, Python), you will find that some subset of programmers will refuse to work on it because they refuse to learn it.

<comment><USER6> Did you see the Economist article on the front page today?[1] It asserts that technology fails to boost wages and that over-education is a problem because of a failure to create enough suitable jobs. I don't know if that's all true, but surely there must be a point when enough software exists that it becomes difficult to find jobs unless you are above average or highly specialized. Or in other words, workers fail to adapt to the increased rate of change.

Linux is certainly the shining example of free software. But how many other projects have the same potential to create jobs? Even with Linux, it's not enough to have an average understanding. Large companies may have a few positions for mediocre sysadmins, but competition will squeeze them out.

Probably the answer is not in software itself, but in the creation of small businesses that rely on free software. Sites like eBay and Alibaba have enabled countless people to work from home selling things around the globe. There are also countless data entry and Mechanical Turk-style jobs. And of course electronics manufactuing. So the trend is that even at the bottom technology becomes a requirement. I guess the good news is that with all the increased productivity the standard of living rises and people will have more time to learn new technologies.

1\. [http://www.economist.com/news/special- report/21621237-digita...](http://www.economist.com/news/special- report/21621237-digital-revolution-has-yet-fulfil-its-promise-higher- productivity-and-better)

<comment><USER8> It's an odd perspective. We produce more value for less work, and yet we can't work (proportionately) less and still enjoy the same value. Sounds like a problem of how the value created is distributed, not a problem with not creating enough value?

<comment><USER9> That's because world governments and central banks devalue currencies. Instead of US getting to work less hours because of increased productivity, banks and governments get the benefits of increased productivity.

Oh sure, computers and televisions are better and cheaper than ever, but you can't support a family of 4 if the dad is a grocery store bag-boy and the mom babysits, which is what my family was able to do 50 years ago, with a house (mortgage), car, motorcycle, and a boat. I doubt if a bag boy today can even afford gas, car insurance, rent, and food without struggling.

<comment><USER6> I think inflation has more of an effect on savings than earnings, but what you said about supporting a family 50 years ago rings true. I don't think today's salaries go as far as they did in the past few decades.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Simple approach which while took some time, did work great for me in long term:

\- register on odesk.com and elance.com (same owner, but slightly different projects there)

\- start from very low hourly rate to build history and feedbacks. Make sure that every client is super happy and leave only 5 stars. Try to focus on small projects in the beginning (you don't want to get stuck on large project with low hourly rate, and bumping hourly rate in the middle project both unfair and hard to do)

\- As you get projects closed (also reason to start with small project - <USER2> close these quickly) follow with client to make sure he leave nice review. In the very beginning you don't want really to focus on relationship, since these clients unlikely be able to pay higher rate in future, but you have to get to get project to complete client satisfaction.

\- Bump hourly rate few dollars every week/months/x projects/x dollars billed. You need to find perfect formula here for yourself. Good signal to bump rate - when you get offers to work on project and you don't feel like you will be able to do it 'cos of a time constraints.

\- If project does not satisfy your curiosity or feels like a BS project (this all will be based on what you personally like and do not like to do) - <USER3> decline projects, but instead make a "fuck you bid", where you multiply your "normal" bid by x2 / x5 / x10 (again, you will need to find perfect formula here). Idea is that you never say "no", but instead make client say "no" or get paid a lot for doing something you do not want. This also makes you look more expensive and your work more precious.

\- Don't be afraid to bump rate. It is a bit contradictory, but in my practice very often well paid work came with very reasonable clients, and work where project was on very tight budget came with manager-jerk. Somehow when you charge a lot, clients respect you more.

\- Do all of this until you reach point where total revenue will start dropping off or you find yourself without necessary projects. It is very important to keep in mind that 100% "employment" should not be main driver behind hourly rate pricing. You need to find optimal balance of number of hours you need to spent on projects vs. your hobby project or self-education. It is MUCH better spend 20 hours a week at $50/hr vs. 40 hours a week at $25/hr.

Hope this helps :)

<comment><USER11> I often wondered how you even get started at places like elance.

Job postings go up and within a day like 20+ proposals are already there with most from 4.9+ ratings. Why would anyone ever pick someone new when they have so many choices of already highly rated people? I don't know what they are charging, but I have to imagine with so many, that they all can't be very high.

<comment><USER12> I have the same feeling. Even if I apply with a low rate, there's always 20+ in front of me. Clients don't even have time to answer everyone (my guess).

<comment><USER13> My experience hiring for jobs on those site is most of those responses or bidders clearly have not read the requiements. You can distinguish yourself by giving clear evidence in your bid you understand the requirements, and importantly, note areas where clarification is needed. Also, a lot of bidders respond with, why not use framework or service X? Don't do that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> $100 an hour is a rough journeyman rate in a lot of US metro areas. This implies that you're able to take a description of what software should do, implement it in code, have that code actually work at accomplishing the objective, and deliver it in a fashion instantly consumable to your clients. Also, it is a plus if you don't require handholding to do this.

Self-assess honestly on whether you're there yet. If you are, your new rate is $100 an hour, and you should spend the next several weeks pitching clients on why they should have you build a system for them. Where to get seed clients? I'd start by working your pre-existing clients, either for direct work (if allowed under your contract with the ex-employer and local norms) or for introductions to similarly-situated firms, _if_ they were good clients. If not, skip it, find good clients.

Relocation is not necessary and, short term, will neither sell engagements nor immediately improve your situation.

<comment><USER15> What you say is true but many clients will prefer to pay $100 ph for a local guy they can meet face to face rather than outsourcing overseas. I don't mean to devalue the abilities of OP but one of his strengths is his economic favour, i.e. if OP's skill set is equal to a US metro area journeyman then price is definitely a selling point taking into account without it having a major impact on OP.

<comment><USER16> OP doesn't need all the clients, just enough to keep him busy. Let's say that's five clients. Perhaps there are five or more clients in the world who'd be willing to pay the $100 rate to work remotely with someone. Why should he cut his price without finding out?

<comment><USER15> Oh. That's certainly true and OP should definitely try. However, all I'm trying to say is that clients will have expectations regarding price/cost working with someone who's located in the Philippines. Again, it's not my intention to devalue OP's skills and/or experience. What I'm trying to say is that the hourly rate doesn't have much to do with skills or experience but with the economy of the place you're located. I.e. why does a developer located in New York City charge more than a developer located in the Philippines? Both can be just as good at their job, it's just that "their" costs are different because their local economy is different. Therefore a client located in NYC who approaches a developer in the Philippines will have expectations regarding an hourly rate of that developer. I.e. why would I as a client want to work with someone far far away while I can work with someone face to face for the same cost? The primary reason a client located in NYC who wants to work with someone located in the Philippines will be cost and it's the reduction in cost that this developer uses as advantage over developers located in NYC.

I believe StackOverflow did a similar thing when they hired developers all over the world. The salaries of the developers were based on the local economy. Not on NYC or SF economies.

<comment><USER17> I would be very surprised to find a (small) company usin local economy rates. I would assume the fairly massive disparity in wages for a person doing the same job is going to cause a lot of resentment.

<comment><USER15> I think it's more likely the other way around. E.g. you have a team with one developer located in NYC making $100 USD ph and a developer in rural Romania making $100 USD ph. Both of equal skills. The NYC developer makes a good wage, enough to pay off his 30 year mortgage and the developer in Romania will be richer than the president of his country after a year of salary. I think that will cause more resentment amongst your development team.

<comment><USER17> Bt he won't be richer - two flights to the US and a hotel stay for his family will hurt as much as his US compatriot.

Yes he will spend far less on basic living - but paying for his sons medical treatment will be far more worrying (more expensive in US but also more likely to work)

There is a reason Mexicans cross a border instead of remote cardless working.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Hi. I'm french but I live in the Philippines, and I worked with many rails programmers here. As employees, Rails programmers go from PHP 50 to 150k a month usually ( in USD, it's USD 1200 to USD 3800 - And yes the Philippines Peso symbol is PHP ;) ). For remote programming, $15-$20 per hour is really a floor rate. Specialize yourself and become really good. Contribute to projects. Have personal project. Have a good portfolio, answer questions on StackOverflow, have a nice github. Deliver on time. Communicate clearly with your clients. More importantly, learn how to define clearly the scope of your missions, learn how to say no, how to explain why some features might take more time, etc... . Your skills are important, but to make your clients satisfied, what matters is communication and specialization. Your specialty is the value you can add to a business, and your difference vs the competition.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the advise. I'll build my profile to those sites you recommended. My communication skill are up most important at this time to clarify ideas to clients.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> First off, I think you should probably ignore a _lot_ of the advice in this thread. They're tossing US rates at you which are basically irrelevant.

There's simply no way anyone will pay $100/hr to someone in the Philippines.

That being said, your goal of $15-20/hr is completely doable from the start. Just go on odesk.com or elance.com and start bidding on projects. Start at $15/hr and then gradually increase your rate as you develop a great reputation.

If you'd like to increase your rate substantially (never to US levels, but maybe to $50-60/hr), make 3 investments:

1) Take English classes. Communication skills are absolutely essential for freelance/remote work, and I'd much rather pay $20-30/hr more to someone whose sentences parse readily for me.

2) Learn other languages and some CS fundamentals. Someone who basically just learned Ruby out of 1 book and worked at a mediocre company is never going to be considered at the top of the heap, so do what you can to move up the value chain.

3) Start to build a technical brand/portfolio. If you contribute to some open source projects, that's where you can really start to see higher rates (if you wrote/contributed to an open source project I'm using, I'd happily pay you $150/hr to make some changes).

<comment><USER20> I've been freelancing on the web for a few years now and I agree about the $100/hr rate being ridiculous, at least for freelancing on the Internet.

Keep these 2 things in mind:

1) Not all clients are from the US on freelancing websites!

2) Clients are on there because they want a cheaper rate!

Now I'm not telling anyone to work for cheap. $50-60/hr is perfectly achievable. Just remember to start low and buildup on sites like oDesk/Elance.

Another route you might try is [http://www.toptal.com/](http://www.toptal.com/). They only hire the very best developers, and their interviews/tests reflect that. It's worth nothing that even they will advise you that $100/hr is a rather expensive rate for someone outside the US.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Rails especially is being overrun by bootcamp graduates.

I would say though that $15 - 20/hour is about half of what you could charge depending on what you have to show off (your portfolio of projects). If the portfolio is bare or small with nothing very impressive, then $20 - 25/hour is where you will be at until you have something to show.

I recommend finding a site that you use often that you think is cool/awesome/great, define a MVP (minimum viable product) version of the site and re-build it using Rails. Make sure the front end and backend are as solid as you can make it but also don't spend more than a few weeks on it.

This is now a project you have to show off to potential employers, freelance clients, etc to display that you know what your doing and really show the quality they will get.

Once you have 3 or 4 of these projects under your belt I think you can charge +30/hour at least.

If you can't think of anything to do as projects, take the top websites on the internet and re-build them with a simplified feature set: > YouTube (shows you can work with video upload/storage/encoding even if its all through gems) > Facebook (shows you can handle authentication and user relationships as well as many different models and controllers) > Reddit (shows you can build sites that can handle lots of link organization)

As a fourth I would choose one of these: KickStarter, SoundCloud or some type of mini game.

With these make sure to go the extra step of using ElasticSearch or Solr for auto-completion in search as well as indexing. Basically take your simple feature set and go the extra mile to make them really good.

Feel free to send me a message if you want to discuss anything else. I just finished a dev bootcamp myself but I have recruited for developers in the past at a few startups.

<comment><AUTHOR> Wow, rebuilding and simplifying websites is a great idea. Thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Honestly, I'm not sure that anyone can answer this for you. As a freelance web dev myself, I can barely answer it for myself.

I suggest starting by setting a bare minimum for yourself – the rate you need to charge to survive. Freelancing should probably be about double the rate of full-time employment, as you have a lot of unchargeable (or just plain idle) time, so you have to allow for that.

Then, it's really just a matter of looking around and trying to figure out what other people are earning for similar work. It also helps if you have some idea of the value you're providing for your clients, as your rate should be roughly proportional to that.

For instance, I know one of my main clients charges out (both my time and theirs) at a flat rate of NZ$150/hr, and a bunch of their time is unbilled, so the NZ$80 they pay me is in the "reasonable" zone (especially for pretty solid guarantees of ongoing work). My "survival" base rate would be about NZ$60/hr (NZ$40/hr at the kind of hours I manage to bill wouldn't really provide me a living.)

But like I say, you're in entirely different circumstances to me, so the details don't really translate at all. It's a matter of (for all of us) figuring it out for yourself, really.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the advice. I should focus on that "survival rate" so I know what my pay would be.

<comment><USER23> You should know that rate BUT DON'T CHARGE THAT rate.

Patio11, whose judgement I will defer to in all things regarding freelancing, just tweeted this, earlier today:

>Far too many freelancers have an internal script where you have to start your biz in poverty and claw your way out of it. Eff that.

And:

>Professional work commands a professional rate, on day one. That's what professional _means_.

Also his general remark regarding rates: Charge more.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> You should go read "Double your freelancing" by Brennan Dunn [http://doubleyourfreelancing.com](http://doubleyourfreelancing.com)

Also check out his blogs, his book goes exactly through how to figure out all your questions, like how much shouldnyou charge, how to find clients, etc While you probably won't be charging 100+$/hour at thr beggining you can work your way up to that eventually.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for the link. I'll read into this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Side tangent (and maybe this should be its own thread), but I would be interested to know what is generally considered billable time - where do you generally draw the line?

Learning a common tool (say Rails) that you will have to use for the project? Learning a very specific tool (say a function-specific library for some particular part of the project) that you have not previously claimed prior knowledge of? Studying the clients own existing code?

What about negotiations? Research into the required work needed for particular functionality?

<comment><USER22> My projects are generally quoted, so a lot of this is not always relevant to me (although they affect how I quote things), but, my thoughts:

\- Learning core software/skills is not billable. "Core" is "any decent dev in this niche already knows this stuff." That's the stuff you read up on in your evenings. (One way my main client works around this is to have a senior dev always quote the tech side. Even if a junior dev does the work, they only get paid the quote, so they effectively self-adjust their hourly rate according to their skill level.)

\- I would charge (and have charged) reading the docs, figuring out how to compile, and integrating a third-party payment lib I'd never seen before. So, specific tools/libs outside of the norm, I consider chargeable.

\- Research for what I do is usually a write-off, but I can sometimes work a couple hours into the quote for a prototype if there are big unknowns. Or, before quoting, I say "give me a couple of hours to prototype, with the understanding that if we go ahead it's a component of the quote, if we don't go ahead you'll pay me anyway." Sometimes I don't charge the prototype, but it's instrumental in convincing the client to go ahead at all, so it's still a win.

\- Tangent of a tangent, but kinda related to your 'research' point – quoting is really hard, mainly because quoting _thoroughly_ approaches the complexity of doing the work for real. So a lot of my quotes are "if things go how I hope they will this will take 1 hour. If things go badly I'll come back and talk to you because we could be looking at days." Unknowns are really hard to quote without just doing the work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> 1) Compete on skills, not price. There will always be people charging less than you, but that's OK. Find similarly skilled/experienced remote workers in developed countries, send them a sample RFP, and ask several for a quote. They will readily respond, and you'll have a very solid grasp of what you should charge.

2) Unless clients have legacy code, most don't care how their mission is achieved; they only care that it gets done on time and on budget. When talking with them, focus on _what_ you will do for them - not on _how_ you will do it.

3) On the matter of budget, the bigger the better. Financially constrained clients are not worth your time. They must squeeze more out of every dollar, which means squeezing _you_. In the words of famed bank robber Willie Sutton: _" Go where the money is."_

</comment><comment><USER27> If you're a skilled Ruby on Rails programmer, you can get well over $20/hr as a remote contractor. It might take some time to build up to the higher pay rates, but it's certainly doable, and you can probably make decent money along the way as you develop your skills. You could try sites like ODesk and Elance on your own, but you should also consider joining an "offshoring" firm as an employee to learn more about the business and develop your skills.

Caveat: being a successful contractor requires more than good programming skills. You also need to be an effective communicator, find clients, plan and manage projects, etc.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the sites. I'll try those two.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I'm NYC based Front-End Web developer and I'm earning $20 an hour, do you think it's time to move to another company?

<comment><USER29> To piggyback off your comment, I'm a backend developer (primarily Python/Django) with 1.5 yrs experience making 60k/yr in NYC.I feel that I might be underpaid and plan on asking for a raise but I'm not sure what salary range I should price myself in. Any NYC devs here able to give me some feedback?

<comment><USER19> It really depends on your abilities (I largely don't care about years of experience). Do you have a github?

Assuming that you're not exceptionally good, at 1.5years I'd still put you in the junior category with around $80-90k/yr.

<comment><USER29> I do have a github. I've got a few repos on there, all of varying scope and quality. It'd be cool if you could check it out here and let me know what you think: [https://github.com/philangist](https://github.com/philangist)

<comment><USER19> I'd say you're probably looking at around $90k.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Pricing your self is just one aspect of being a successful freelancer. There is a lot of other stuff that you have got to keep in mind including: client satisfaction, getting paid on time(or at all!), finding new clients, letting go of existing clients, dealing with failure etc

One of the books that has really helped me and the one which I refer to constantly is "thefreelancery" by walt kania [1] Give it a read. I am sure you will find it useful.

There is another book that focuses more on the "survival" part of your freelance journey. The freelancer's survival guide[2] by Kristine Kathryn Rusch.

My experience has been that

a) your rate usually depends upon your perceived ability to successfully deliver. Prove to your prospects that you can and they will be more willing to give what you ask

b)Don't mention where you are from (unless you are okay with your prospects discriminating on price based on your location, it's sad but it's true)

c) If you have trouble finding >$50/hr jobs then what you do instead is quote a fixed price (non refundable 1/4 in advance) and finish the job in fewer hrs it takes some practise to identify high income and low effort projects though

All the best :)

[1][http://thefreelancery.com/portable- wisdom/](http://thefreelancery.com/portable-wisdom/) [2][http://kriswrites.com/freelancers-survival-guide-table-of- co...](http://kriswrites.com/freelancers-survival-guide-table-of- contents/#sthash.aElbivOX.m4tkcjAZ.dpbs)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for the advise. I'll read on those books.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> As a kind of food-for-thought question rather than a topic-hijacker, how much should cost of living be taken into account for your pricing?

E.G. if living in Manila is 50% cheaper than living in SF ([http://www.expatistan.com/cost-of- living/comparison/manila/s...](http://www.expatistan.com/cost-of- living/comparison/manila/san-francisco)) (and my apologies to gdiocarez if they don't live in Manila!) you probably shouldn't price yourself at 50% of the wage of a US remote worker. But what about, say, 5% cheaper than the competition so that you can compete on price (or indeed earn more, relatively speaking) without devaluing your skills?

I think current advice here does a good job of giving you some algorithms for taking your cost-of-living and working upwards to a reasonable wage from there.

(Full Disclosure: I've worked in Waterloo, Canada and currently in London UK, so I'm used to a generally lower salary than comparable jobs in the US and currently pay similar living costs to SF and NYC. :P)

<comment><USER32> Or price yourself 5 percent higher and employers will thank you're 5 percent better than everyone else.

<comment><USER31> Yeah good point. Others have also made good arguments that it's silly to base your price on cost-of-living. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> One small advice is to work on the whole project, not just a small part of it.

If you have a very clear backend specification, it's very easy to find a good RoR freelancer to code it. Or, if you have an exact and thoughtful wireframe, practically any UI person could do a good job. And html? There are thousands of freelancer on Elance/Odesk that will charge 5$/hour. Will they all be the same quality? Of course not. But the point is it's very hard to differentiate yourself for a prospective client.

Now, taking on the whole project is much harder and requires more experience but it pays off because there's less competition. More specifically, if you can gather the requirements and really understand the problem, finding the best technology for it, coding it and managing other freelancers as well as delivering a high quality project with amazing documentation.. that's gold.

It's so much better to charge for a whole project than bill per hour.

</comment><comment><USER34> It seems like your best bet is to move to Cebu or Metro Manila and get a job in BPO. You can start around 40,000 PHP a month pretty easily (30,000 very easily) from what I see on Jobstreet and when I go to hire. Competition for devs is fierce in the city between the different ROHQ's and BPO companies.

Actually we're (ROHQ) trying to hire a junior .NET dev in Makati city, here's the link if you want to apply: [http://jobs.jobstreet.com/ph/jobs/5088558?fr=21&src=12](http://jobs.jobstreet.com/ph/jobs/5088558?fr=21&src=12)

If you'd rather contract and work remote, best of luck to you! I have no idea what that market is like. If you're not in the city, it seems like your internet's not going to be stable enough for reliable work, and if you are, maybe it's easier to brave the traffic as you get your feet under you career- wise.

</comment><comment><USER35> If you go to freelance, don't make your price lower than $20, even for a beginner it's a normal price. I'm disappointed and desperate to see A LOT OF indians and people from SE Asia who are ready to work for a plate of rice, they are ready to work for $5! Don't be that stupid.

That situation also affects the employers: they see so low prices and they consider that normal. If I were to ask those employers: would you be able to survive in your country (mostly America) for $5-10 per hour, I'd be stoked to listen to their answers!

</comment><comment><USER36> Hey gdiocarez, I am a student from India and still in college, I started out freelancing on Odesk with an hourly rate of 5$/hr and soon realized I was in demand and started raising my price over months. And soon I was charging 25$/hr before one of my clients hired me full time 40hrs a week at a rate of 15$/hr. So you should get started with freelancing and you will eventually know your price. If a client likes your work, he/she will be ready to pay more on next project and thats how you increase your price.

<comment><AUTHOR> Wow, thanks for telling your story.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> I suggest getting back to university.

It is about future-proofing. And for this, the actual university doesn't matter much.

A college degree is required for pretty much any medium to large company. This is especially so for international companies in developing countries. Think long term: 5 to 10 years down the road all kinds of opportunities can open up, don't exclude yourself from them.

A college degree is (amongst other things) a document, a passport, and without one you will have incredible obstacles to overcome.

<comment><USER38> > and without one you will have incredible obstacles to overcome.

Not very true in my experience. Just last year my friend landed a job in Samsung without even BSc and he's now flying to Korea on a monthly basis. Last month he got an offer from Fujitsu. And the funniest part: he's a self-taught JavaScript programmer. This is not a proof, just an anecdote - but one not entirely uncommon in our industry.

Sure, there are useful things you'd learn in a university, but you can also learn them by yourself. I did. It's so much cheaper that way and just as effective. It's completely irrelevant where does your knowledge and skill come from as long as you have them and can prove it.

During the last decade of my professional software development work there were perhaps two times where not having "a passport" was a bit of a problem. But never a deal breaker, much less "incredible obstacles".

Nowadays it's easier than ever, with online courses everywhere, some free and others infinitely cheaper than university fees. My advice is pretty generic here: have a github account with lots of fun stuff, have a blog documenting interesting projects you do (even failures), answer SO questions, go to conferences, build a decent portfolio and so on.

<comment><AUTHOR> Nice story, I'am only the RoR programmer in the company and others doing codeigniter. I already asked for another RoR programmer to help me manage 3 colleges. Though they(new employees) ended up not knowing RoR instead do CI.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Price yourself just a little higher than you feel comfortable doing. You should _almost_ feel like a fraud by asking for that much money. Having been in your position before, I recognized that this question essentially boils down to confidence. The more confident you are, the higher you can price yourself and still be effective at getting clients.

You're looking for an absolute answer to a problem that doesn't work by that kind of logic. There's no big price sheet in the sky that says that guys with your experience level should get $X per hour.

Think of yourself like a priceless painting at an auction. Nobody knows how much you're worth until someone digs deep into their wallet and pays $X million dollars for you. And the reason that caused him to do that could be as much about his art-hungry, gold-digging spouse as it does about anything to do with the painting.

So get used to bargaining. There's a bunch of negotiating tips you can use to get better compensated, they're scattered all over the web. A big one is to never drop your price. Have the chutzpah to stand firm. People will use dirty tricks to get you to drop your price. You have to get wise to them, or you'll never be able to really do well.

</comment><comment><USER40> The number you're looking for exists in some theoretical sense, but I don't think knowing it will do you any good.

The price appropriate for you is the one that when you charge it to the market you can reach, you'll sell the number of hours you want to sell.

This depends on your skills both as a programmer and as a marketer. Your skills, the market you can reach, and the broader market are all changing. Indeed, it's your job to expand the first two.

Treat this as a set of experiments. Try setting your price at $15/hour. Can you sell all the hours you want? Great, then tell the next client who asks that your price is $25/hr. Eventually you will discover a level that keeps you as busy as you want.

At that point you may, if you like, start asking how you can bill even more. New skills? Better marketing? Different clients? Building a team? Alternatively, you can just keep plugging away.

</comment><comment><USER41> You should charge as much as you can charge while still getting work. For fully remote work as a programmer, honestly, it tends to top out at $45/hour for experienced people. If you aren't experienced yet, you can't charge as much. This is because there's basically infinite workers willing to work in Europe on programming at that price.

For someone who can meet in person in the US, on site, with a legal ability to work and then works remotely you can do double that. For someone on site rates easily reach $200/hour and above. My Dad used to bill $213/hour doing neural network programming for credit card companies. Generally you spend Monday- Thursday on site consulting, often expensing a hotel, then head home for the weekend.

<comment><USER42> $45 is absolutely not the top range. A previous startup paid more than that to our overseas developers. It is definitely lower than a US contractor rate, but not by that level.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> One 'trick' that has worked for very well for me on several occasions is to offer a fixed price rather than an hourly rate. This does however require that the job has very clear deliverables and the you have a very good feel for how much work the job actually is. It's especially helpful if you've already done something very similar in the past and already solved all the hard problems once.

In my experience many clients prefer knowing up front how much a job will cost rather than having to worry about arguing about hours as a project drags on. I've managed to essentially get double and triple my normal hourly rate this way, while the client still walked away feeling like he got a very good deal.

<comment><USER44> Otherwise known as fixed bid.

This is dangerous, in most cases, because clients are not looking out for you -- by definition they look out for themselves. It is not in your best interest to offer a fixed bid because undoubtedly problems out of your control will arise, and you are on the hook for it.

Furthermore, since the client is not always benevolent, you may be expected to implement changes outside of the scope of the contract, and this can often sour the relationship when you explain that it can't be done in the fixed bid you supplied. If you were upfront about a time and materials (T&M) beyond the agreement of the fixed bid, then you can protect yourself from this situation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Hi,

Thank you for your courage in making this post. I am from the Philippines too. Like you, I did not finish college. Yeah, it's really hard in this country to get a corporate programmer job if you don't have that piece of paper.

I am solely a freelancer for about 4 years now (not full time though, as I don't get to work 8 hours a day). I get mixed results with my career as a freelancer (oDesk, Elance, etc.). Sometimes the monthly income is so high I can take a vacation for three months. Sometimes, it's very low or nothing at all. At times I had to borrow from my girlfriend or some friends just to keep things going. Here are some things that I have learned in my journey:

1\. Make sure that you have winter savings, or it would be hard to raise your rate even if you are qualified to do so. Before I resigned from my BPO job, I made sure to have some savings before working freelance full-time. Unfortunately, TY Ketsana hit, and my house went underwater. I lost my initial savings, but still I was able to thrive with some projects.

2\. Start with small projects first. Your priority at this time is feedback. When starting out, my mistake was that I aimed at larger projects first. In the eyes of most clients, size does not really matter. Your ability to accept and finish work with good results is more important.

3\. Personalize your cover letter, but keep it short. In my experience, clients don't like reading lengthy messages. But they take effort in writing jobs descriptions. Every freelancer should respect that.

4\. Higher-paying clients are generally easier to work with.

5\. As much as possible, charge a fixed-rate for projects. Clients can limit their risks while you can save yourself from time trackers. If it's going to be a job for at least six months, it's usually OK. If not, it's often wiser to give a fixed price. I have seen some bids where their hourly bid is equal to the fixed-price, and get accepted.

About your employment, I think you can sue your employer for lowering your rate (if it's at least an established business entity). That's against the law.

<comment><AUTHOR> I have been told that the company should be sued due to lowering my rate. I'll take your advise on climbing the ladder. Thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> I'm from the Philippines, too.

From my experience, you have better chances of getting a better pay AND work- life balance at a full-time job than in freelance sites (Elance, oDesk, Freelancer.com). There's barely any decent clients there who are willing to pay us $30/hr. However, you have the experience, and I'm very well aware that RoR developers here can easily command a salary of PHP150k-200k every month... perhaps even more. All you have to do is find the right company, and ask.

If you check out Jobstreet and JobsDB and set the salary filter to a minimum of 100k, you'll still find plenty of openings for Ruby devs.

<comment><AUTHOR> Wow, I never imagine those 6 figure salary. I'll check on Jobstreet and jobsDB then. Thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> It is pretty simple:

1\. Determine how much time are you willing to allocate for work.

2\. Set whatever the price that will fill up that time with client work.

3\. Once you have more clients than allocated time, increase your price.

(bonus) 4. Client pool and time permitting, target projects that will further evolution/creation of skills you want to improve/develop, not the ones that you've already good enough at.

To be able to do that, you should have some form of rudimentary tracking of your time/price/value performance. No need for overkill here, a simple regulary updated spreadsheet or even just a text file will do. The accent is on "regulary updated".

</comment><comment><USER48> Back when I was freelancing the single best piece of advice I got was to keep on raising my rates until no one would hire me. It's a very simple way of finding out the price the market will bear for your skills.

<comment><USER49> Well, that way you will end up working on ridiculous things with stupid or noob clients. In the end, that kills your value. Customers who want real stuff also know how to hire so they won't hire overpriced devs.

<comment><USER48> Actually I ended up working on fantastic projects for some excellent clients, but I had a strong personal reputation and a great network backing me up as well.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah. Network is a big deal too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> If you plan to work remote, don't charge Phillipines rates just because you live there. People in the US will easily pay you 5-6x as much for the same work, and all you have to do is _not say where you live_.

On that note, I second the suggestion to improve your English. Most of your clients will know absolutely nothing to very little about technology and your ability to convince them will end up being a function of your command of English in your email exchanges, Skype chats, cover letters, etc.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank for that advise "not say where you live"

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Start with a "Salary" that you would like to earn. Where I am at Software Engineers go for around 100k + Benefits. If you conservatively figure 20% of salary for benefits then the total number is about 120k. Still tracking with me? Now divide that number by the number of man hours in a year (1928) or the number of hours you are willing to work. In my example you would have to charge 62.24/Hr to cover that cost.

<comment><USER52> You do that, and then double the result.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Try checking other freelancers on sites such as odesk and elance.Compare their expertise and experience with your as a measure in molding your own rate.

</comment><comment><USER54> It's not entirely clear if you want a regular job or to freelance/consult. Lots of good advice on here re: freelance. If you want a salaried job checkout weworkremotely.com for finding 'western' priced remote working jobs.

You're in quite an enviable position - your in a location where your cost of living is relatively quite cheap to the west, but the potential to earn western type wages - enjoy :)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thank you all for your feedback. I have learned more not just about pricing here. I'll do my research on developing my communication skills.

I'm not from marketing and sales. We are managing college school data. I have build from enrollment to accounting. Our boss just discuss about our sales and market that is why I know how the company works.

Here is link to my projects if anyone is wondering: arcibalio.com/works

</comment><comment><USER55> I work with a number of staff in the same spot you are. A year is unlikely to cut it re overseas clients. With hiring one of the most impressive things is open source work or blogging about how to do things: seniors do this from frustration, but they're are plenty of early lessons that go forgotten. I would encourage that if you are targeting au companies with existing tech teams

</comment><comment><USER56> Price is relative to how available, responsive and bug-free your work is, and how good your attention to detail is before you ever write a line of code.

A key thing you can do is maintain a public github account and show the quality of your problem solving skills and work. The people who pay more find these types of insights useful.

</comment><comment><USER57> I view the way to bill yourself as "What's the difference between me and the next best person for the role?"

This means a talented engineering manager will pay you more than an HR person, and any way into a company that involves HR will underpay you. Just my 2 cents.

</comment><comment><USER58> 1\. Are you really good at what you do? This is important. Find out - what a person charging $100 per hour can do in one hour or few hours. How much time would you take to complete the same work (with similar quality)? This should include reworks and the time spent on communication and clarifying stuff.

For a minimum rate in Philippines, I would say you should target 1/2 (or 1/3 if cost of living is really low) of the rates a similarly-productive person would earn in the US. If you are unable to get even 1/3rd within the first 3-4 months, you should take up a job and improve your overall skills in parallel. You may find clients and people telling you 1/4th or even 1/6th is good enough - its a no no, not sustainable.

I work as a consultant and have also hired freelancers occasionally. Your expected rate is certainly doable. Even if you start with Elance/ODesk you can easily achieve $25ph pretty quickly if you can communicate well, and ask important questions. Also try to get long-term work at your expected rate and charge higher for short term work. I find it easier to get a fixed-cost projects at a better rate compared to getting a higher hourly rate.

2\. When working remotely you have lesser chances of charging more than half the rate of a similar person living and working in the US (and with rest of the western world). Even if you charge half of that say $50ph, you are doing really good. Beyond that, try starting a firm and build local presence.

3\. For money, focus on a particular type of work you can get good at pretty quickly. If you are an RoR person - stick to it. Allocate few hours if you want to do something like PHP or some strange new tech - just to learn.

4\. Once you are set and earn a minimum rate comfortably, target not to work above 20 hours per week. Typically many people have degraded productivity above 24-25 hours per week. Focus on efficiency and improving it consistently. Leave the rest of 20 hours for reading, educating yourself, increasing domain knowledge, for hobby stuff and figuring out ways on how to charge higher :)

5\. Write blogs, contribute to open-source, answer questions on stack- overflow, take up learning some bleeding edge stuff. I usually get a lot of work just because of these.

Market economics, opportunities, education, language and culture for North American region and Asian region is quite different and sometimes counter- intuitive. So when a US-based-person says "I can get $100ph fairly easily" \- you should always introspect what/how they are doing differently.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for the advise.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> sorry for hijacking the topic. I started learning programming recently and I have been programming since past 1.5 years and I consider my skill to be somewhat between beginner to intermediate. I know Tornado, Flask and Django.

My question is, is it okay for a beginner like me to work remotely? For some reasons I will be leaving my current job soon and move to a small city where are jobs. So my only option is remote jobs. However some friends/colleagues suggested me that it would be a bad idea cos in a real job I could be learning under an expert which is not possible in remote situation and so, I should move out to city.

Any advice? Thank you.

</comment><comment><USER60> Software DEV. 4k+/Month 100€/Hour Germany

<comment><USER61> Since I'm also based in Germany, may I ask how you do marketing, where you get your gigs? Agencies, word of mouth, previous employment?

What technologies do you do, do you cover the whole tech spectrum in that area, how many years experience, are you in Bavaria (where rates are a bit higher than elsewhere)?

Most advertised job offers seem to be only through agencies, and over here hardly any freelancers work without agencies. Plus 100€/hr is pretty high (for a non-company rate), so you must be doing something right.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> I am form India, started working $5/hrs and now I charge $20-22/hr.

Odesk and Freelance.com are good places to start looking for remote work.

</comment><comment><USER63> In the US people will typically not respond to a job posting unless it is 40/hr. 30/hr is too low for most knowledgable developers, who could go another place and get 50 or 75/hr.

cheers.

<comment><AUTHOR> That is already big pay here. I was negotated by an employeer in US then asked me of my previous salary and want to base my salary on what I have been earning.

<comment><USER64> Lie to them to bump it up or tell them that your previous employer asked not to disclose it. Works every time. They're using a standard technique to smack your pay down and it works for a lot of people but there's nothing wrong with playing them at their own game and using it against them. Not joking but when it comes to negotiating pay, you need to take control over it.

I managed to go from (I've converted these from GBP) $23k to $56k by doing that in one jump and three jumps later I'm earning $110k sitting on my butt at home. Just requires some balls and outward confidence which I will admit was slightly alcohol fuelled when I was on the phone _choke_ hmm.

Plus I know what I'm doing but that's a case of two decades of hard work and is entirely separate to the job market and salary expectations unfortunately which is all about knocking people's salary down.

<comment><USER65> Are you self-employed or remote?

I've found remote work hard to come by in the UK.

<comment><USER64> Both. I do anything that comes by. I'm currently contracting to a large financial company in the UK, fixing a pile of laptops to sell on ebay, doing a couple of web sites for people in europe and rewriting an ASP.Net web app for a company in Ireland.

Remote work is easy to find in the UK, but through word of mouth. You'll get nothing through the agents.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> Here, or in Japan? because you know the Japanese are more enlightened. They can see beyond the physical

<comment><USER67> lmfao</comment></comment>


Q:What are the mentorship programs in your area for Women in Tech? - <AUTHOR> https://code.likeagirl.io/q-what-are-the-mentorship-programs-in-your-area-for-women-in-tech-b83a2f4d0b64 <comment><USER2> We don't really have them in China, and overseas Women in Tech communities aren't really interested.</comment>


How Home Loans Have Changed since 2000 - <AUTHOR> http://www.zillow.com/research/conventional-mortgage-changes-12999/ <comment><USER2> It depends on the circumstances. I have a great paying job and good job security and just bought a condo. Had I waited to have 20% down, I would have had to wait at least 10 years, and in the meantime still pay rent somewhere. So I can either go in with very little down (in my case I actually walked out with a check) so that I can pay extra each month toward the principle, or I can save that down payment and essentially pay for somebody else's property. Many of my friends simply can't afford to save for a house because rent is so high that they just don't have savings. You can argue that they should move to cheaper housing (and they did) but at some point the balance between cheap and safe will tip away from safety.

<comment><USER3> What would you do if property values declined such that you were underwater 20% on your condo? It seems like some minimum amount of equity is a stabilizing force in turbulent markets, the lack of which contributed to some of the unpleasantness in 2008.

<comment><USER4> The unpleasantness in 2008 onward was a conscious decision by the Obama administration to not bail out underwater home owners.

Banks were bailed out. Large businesses were bailed out. Ordinary homeowners caught up in a massive housing bubble, reviled and sent down the river.

<comment><USER5> > The unpleasantness in 2008 onward was a conscious decision by the Obama > administration to not bail out underwater home owners.

You might be able to make an argument that the unpleasantness in 2009 onward (or, more specifically, late January of 2009 onward) was the fault of some conscious decision of the Obama administration, but as popular as it has been with the Trump campaign recently, pretending that the Obama administration is responsible for things which occurred before his inauguration is indefensible without some kind of strong evidence for the extraordinary claim of retrocausality.

(Also, factually, the administration decided to bail homeowners out in a variety of ways, though perhaps not as direct, universal, and significant of a bailout as some advocates -- myself included -- would have preferred.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> With the state of rental rates at the moment, if you can scrape any kind of down payment together, it's worthwhile to buy rather than rent. Even if you are on a 3.5% down FHA loan, the mortgage + taxes + PMI is considerably less than renting the equivalent property.

If you're smart, buy a duplex, and basically get your tenant to pay the mortgage for the whole building.

<comment><USER7> That very much depends on where you live. I have a pretty thorough spreadsheet for modeling this kind of thing.

Even if I had a 20% down payment, fully accounted for tax deductions, payment against principal, etc, and ignoring costs like maintenance, my lease in Seattle is significantly _less_ than the monthly cost of a mortgage for the same place.

This is true more often than people expect. Many landlords are not covering a mortgage payment as large as yours would be, or any mortgage at all, with your rent check. Their cost basis is not your cost basis so it is not unexpected that the market clearing price for rent is below the monthly cost for many people to buy the same property.

<comment><USER8> > Many landlords are not covering a mortgage payment as large as yours would > be

Why not? I can understand already owning the property, but do property- management companies just get better mortgage rates or something? Does that mean I could theoretically save money by buying a house as a company and then renting that house to myself as an individual?

<comment><USER7> There are a number of reasons beside owning the property outright. They can make a bigger down payment than you can, so the total debt is lower. They bought it at a much lower price many years ago. Their total capitalization is much larger than yours, which drives interest rates toward zero. Their tax basis is different than your tax basis would be.

It is straightforward financial math. If they have more capital than you or a different tax basis, they can have a lower monthly cost basis than you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I find figure 7 very interesting, "Share of newly mortgaged homes by property type". I seems like a very large shift in what types of homes that are mortgaged (e.g. condos going from ~19% to ~43%).

Anyone with deeper insight in this trend? As an outsider European I was not aware of such a strong urbanization trend in the US, or are there other mechanisms in play as well?

<comment><USER10> Could be affordability, as single-family homes become unaffordable in many markets.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I found this interesting, especially the bit about the condos since I am part of that trend (selling a SFH and moving to a condo unit).

The graphs of percentage-down payments looks exactly backwards from what I might have guessed had someone asked me just prior to reading this. In the run-up to the meltdown, most borrowers were still putting between 5 and 20 percent down. (I think that blue line to the left of the 5 value is "3.5%," or the standard FHA down payment.) My guess would have been that the far left of that graph would grow higher as 2008 approaches and then drop after. It doesn't; the 20% line stays as the overall winner, even though 5 and 10 percent down still collectively beat it.

I see that the post frames it as "so many low-down mortgages" but I look at it as "a whole lot of people were still putting 20% down." I wonder if some of this had to do with the appraised value...the value was seen as "high enough" so a higher initial LTV was acceptable because 5% was still sufficient skin in the game. (Oh, who am I kidding? Many loans made in the years prior to 2008 had only superficial relationships with reality.)

<comment><USER12> It's interesting how perspectives change. If you talk to older folks they will point out that even 20% down was 'low'. I think my father had to have something like half to get a mortgage (late 1960s).

I can't help but wonder if we would have much more affordable housing if it wasn't so easy to get such massive loans relative to their down-payments.

<comment><USER13> I don't think that's in question; The simple fact is money for housing is cheap right now, which means it requires more of it to convince owners to part with their assets as most of them still need to buy elsewhere after they sell a house.

If money was hard to come by, houses would be cheaper, but then you would also have more difficulty getting that money to start with. I'm not sure the affordability would improve, it's hard to say what other impacts a higher interest rate (or even more so, a higher % down requirement) market would create.

The only exception to all this are new houses and condo builds, but in those markets the reason they're more affordable comes down to a combination of location and risk, risk that the property may not actually be worth its selling price, so you get it at a 'discount' to the market if it were in a more established area.

<comment><USER14> > ... most of them still need to buy elsewhere after they sell a house.

This is one reason that I never understood people treating their first house as an investment. Yay, it went up 50%... And so did the house you'll buy after you sell it. You need to live _somewhere_. Your first house is covering a short position, not an investment.

<comment><USER15> A house is an investment. It isn't a liquid investment which is something to consider.

A house as an investment only pays off after a long term: if you live in the house for 30 years (doesn't have to be the same house, though trading will change the time), you have your mortgage paid off. Suddenly your monthly rent goes to near zero (only taxes and maintenance to pay) Better yet, odds are you are nearing a different phase of life (kids living on their own) and you don't need as much house so you can downsize and apply the difference to your retirement plans. (or if you decide the house is where you want to live for life a reverse mortgage might make sense - though this area is full of scams)

Note that real estate is very much about location location location. There are places and times where the difference between rent and a house payment is significant and it isn't always in favor of either one.

Also comparing renting and buying is NEVER an apples to apples comparison: owning vs renting nearly forces different life styles. Renting typically means you get a much smaller place for less money which means you have less room to have fun at home, but more money to enjoy the time on the town. Buying typically means a larger place to fill with the type of things you like to do with your small family. This lifestyle factor is very important, and not one that you can put a monetary value on

<comment><USER16> > A house is an investment.

As a rental, sure. As a home? yeah, i'm pretty skeptical of that idea. There's no rate of return.

Some people buy a big house to raise a family, and then downsize when the kids move out. I can kinda sorta see that as an investment, because you've got a planned future exit, and the value you extract from the extra space is more than the 1-2% rate of return.

Your cheap place to live is just a cheap place to live. Sure, in the long run, it's a good deal, but there's no rate of return. Is McDonalds for lunch is an investment, because it's cheaper that a fancier place?

<comment><USER17> Owning a home is functionally equivalent to renting from yourself. So if a rental property is an investment, then so is owning your own home.

I also don't understand how you can claim there's no rate of return. Home values have historically trended upward reliably. Does the stock market also have no rate of return?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> How has the ARM vs fixed mix changed?

We started with a 30 year fixed, but refi'd to an ARM after we got over the conventional wisdom and noticed how much lower the rates were. We paid it off before the rate reset and ended up saving thousands.

<comment><USER17> It really depends on your financial situation. If you've got the resources to pay off an ARM before the reset, then absolutely you should do that. Why not?

If you can make the payments on the 30 year easily, then an ARM could be a good bet to save some money, but there's some moderate risk. If you're a bit stretched making a 30 year, then an ARM is probably too risky because a rate increase could push you into default. If you are able to make the payments on the ARM but not the 30 year fixed, then you probably shouldn't buy at all (at least not that property).

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Well I have two effects on their story first hand. The multiple loans to buy a home or such was what the buyer of my previous home did to get in the door. 80/10/10 however it was not because the values exceeded maximum loan values but they could not make the down payment but wanted in the area.

The second is the combining of credit scores for couples, good friends are currently renting as his wife's score is the pits. This is even after spending two years so far paying down here debts which were not education related. On his own he can land any house they want, together they have to accept loan rates that make it not worth the costs.

I figure the twenty percent rule saw a resurgence because that number was so ingrained into the minds of buyers and sellers.

<comment><USER14> I got a mortgage with just myself as the signer. And this was with a major bank; nothing shady or weird. Since my wife is on the title, all she had to sign was a single page indicating that she was allowing her half of the property interest into the mortgage. But my income and credit were enough to completely support the mortgage we got, so that's what we went with.

<comment><USER20> My fiance got our house for us. It's in her name until we refinance in a few years and my credit is better.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Figure 4 and 5 have the same credit groups, but opposite colors. That seems unnecessarily confusing.

</comment><comment><USER22> Watching the loan value increase makes me realize I won't be able to afford even a dumpster with shutters. I hear about all these people buying houses without much down payment and it makes me feel uneasy.

<comment><USER23> I felt that way in 2006. "I'll never be able to save up a down payment because the estimated down payment is going up faster than my ability to save!"

In retrospect, that was a sign.

(of course, I didn't learn my lesson, and bought a house in the Valley 2 years ago)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> So many good nuggets in this analysis!

"If two people wanted to buy a home together, only the lower of their two credit scores would be factored into important calculations like the mortgage's interest rate."

"Mean down payment on new mortgages by credit score tier"

</comment><comment><USER23> One thing they didn't mention is that jumbo loan rates have tumbled, and are, in some cases, cheaper than conforming loans. I don't know how or why that is, but it sure makes paying PMI less attractive!

<comment><USER25> >jumbo loan rates have tumbled, and are, in some cases, cheaper than conforming loans

Here's a WSJ article¹ explaining the reason behind this weird inversion, for anyone like me who was wondering: "how is that economically possible?"

¹ [http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014241278873238930045790552...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323893004579055283906962194)

Here's the pertinent section in case anyone is hit with the paywall:

 _Conforming loans have become more expensive because federal officials, in a bid to reduce the outsize footprint of Fannie and Freddie, have raised the fees those companies charge to lenders, which translates into higher mortgage rates._

 _Meanwhile, interest-rate volatility has driven up yields on mortgage bonds issued by Fannie and Freddie as investors brace for a slowdown in the Federal Reserve 's bond-buying program, which has included those mortgage bonds. That has boosted rates on conforming loans._

 _Jumbo mortgages, meanwhile, are increasingly kept on banks ' balance sheets, which means prices aren't usually set by bond markets. "Banks have more deposits than loans today, so the desire to put that money to work, as well as the fact that it's at a very low cost, allows us to make [jumbo] loans at a very good interest rate," said Mr. Blackwell._</comment></comment>