And they offer stock benefits, but they're a joke. If you are still unsure, please see this flow chart before posting.
Spacex Median Salary by Job
In September , Elon Musk, alongside his private space exploration company SpaceX, revealed plans to launch a manned mission to Mars as early as If the firm succeeds, that means a private company will have humans touching down on Mars nearly a decade before NASA intends to the trip is expected to take about 18 months.
Instead of nation versus nation, this time it will be a battle, or better yet a cooperative venture, between public and private. If all goes as planned, SpaceX will already be completing over 30 launches in , nearly four times as many as were launched in and the most ever for a private space company. For NASA looking to supply cargo to the ISS, and for satellite companies upgrading the constellations, the cost savings now being provided by the private sector are simply too good to pass up.
Sign up for the Wealth Daily newsletter below. You'll also get our free three part report, " After Apple: For many investors, this hints at quite the opportunity. Of course, Alphabet Inc. As mentioned above, SpaceX is drastically cutting the cost of sending cargo to space, which means huge expenditure reductions for its customers. At the same time, continuous reductions in launch costs will make these kinds of companies more vulnerable by reducing the barrier of entry.
So in that respect, you could be looking at a double-edged sword. There are also many equipment and service suppliers SpaceX relies on for its rockets to work, some of which are publicly traded. Finding hard connections can be difficult because this information is generally not shared with the public, but there are some strong indications that at least one public firm earns revenue for every Falcon 9 launch.
Jason Stutman is Wealth Daily's senior technology analyst and editor of investment advisory newsletters Technology and Opportunity and The Cutting Edge. His strategy for building winning portfolios is simple: Personally I don't think we're going to see the kind of colonization of Mars that Elon envisions a truly self-sustaining colony with its own industrial base until someone creates a fusion powered rocket engine.
And I have no idea when or if that will happen in my lifetime. And yeah, AI is the biggest question mark for the future. I don't think most people realize how dangerous a general purpose AI could be. People picture the terminator when I talk about AI. They should be picturing a large hole in the Milky Way, light years across. That's how dangerous it could be. If nothing else, buy a house in a growth area and watch it appreciate. There's risk involved, but there's also risk involved in having large sums in a bank account, so you might as well diversify and hedge.
I'm not dumb enough to hoard large amounts of cash in a low interest bank account. I'm just saying that I'm not interested in the stock market. But I'll probably buy a house at some point and maybe make some other investments. It probably wouldn't be too difficult to pay for a Mars trip by just selling your house. After inflation most real estate is not an investment.
Dump your money in a total stock market mutual fund and it will literally double ever seven years. Please do some serious research if you really want to accumulate that much cash. You don't understand how capital gains work or how hedge funds work. The capital gains tax is pretty reasonable to me. Not everyone in the those funds is a billionaire. They are you me and everyone else who have ever bought into a fund via personal investment, pension plans or K.
Well unless you're investing in startups then I don't see the point. While the economy does grow over time, the stock market is basically a zero sum game. Unless you're providing capital for startups at a high risk of loss of investment, any money you make is basically coming out of somebody else's pocket. Erm, the stock market is far from a zero sum game.
It's actually quite the opposite. Equity is created or destroyed daily. It's all how valuable something is. The stock market is a great avenue to ensure your future if you just sit back and enjoy the ride; it's not as fun if you try to out-do those "really smart guys.
Should be self-evidently true because even professional investment managers can't see the future. Therefore, simply invest in "index" funds, which do not have management fees associated with them because they are simply buying a fraction of each of the top X number of stocks in a given market.
Managing funds is a scam. Even billionaires rarely beat the market, they just use funny accounting tricks to "leverage" the gains. Most of the time he did not see his stock picks turn into incredible investments. Most of the time they performed exactly as expected, allowing him to leverage the expected gains with money he borrowed from his insurance company's monthly premiums.
Going public doesn't prevent new fund-raising rounds. Companies sometimes issue new shares even after going public in order to raise more capital, diluting existing shareholders. Lots of trading is zero sum, but not all. Your nick is pretty appropriate. As we all can see, for some folks AI is just modern version of magic that can do anything and everything. Assuming that life, intelligence and invention of AI is commonplace, Mily Way should be riddled with "large holes in the Milky Way, light years across", whatever that means.
I assume this means lack of stars or anything in spherical region of space, presumably consumed by AI for it's purpose, like infamous paperclips. This kind of holes would be detectable with current technology. Suspicious lack of stars in regular shape surrounded by stars that are fine isn't detected.
Conclusions are left for readers. Google obviously paid 3x that valuation because they were getting more than just stock. Waaaait, what the hell is Google getting that they paid 3 times the price??? I remember reading Elon and Gwynne, etc, give that number a lot. As for actual launches:. I know it's jut simple back-of-the-envelope-proxy math, but it sure makes it real in terms of what they're up against. In he laid out a future goal of 12, clearly not intended to be hit in In they were actually on track to hit that goal Makes SpaceX seem more fragile than I'd thought it was.
Hoping the operative word is "seem". Well the next paragraph mentions that math isn't the whole story for several years, because of the separate NASA commercial crew contract. True, CCtCap is a supplement, but being a supplement means it's a fraction of the story.
Supplement has multiple definitions: In geometry, it means the amount an angle falls short of degrees; so for a 10 degree angle, the supplement would be , and a degree angle would have a 10 degree supplement. It is a large fraction in the former case and only a small fraction in the latter case. This is the same way it is also used lot in budgetory language, it just turns out that in most cases it is filling a small gap. In Space X's case it could be filling a relatively large one and from the context in the email and our knowledge of the numbers of launches since then, it seems to be so.
Yep, sounds about right. Which, since costs are likely much higher now than in , seems like a fair goal or maybe just a little low; hard to say. Vested stock is treated as income so you're taxed at vest rate , and only the difference between vesting rate and the rate you sell is affected for the decision of income vs capital gains tax. When you sell right away, the difference is zero.
If you hold for a year it goes up hopefully and the capital gain taxes need to be paid. So holding for a year after vesting is only better if the stock out performs the market. Doing lots of research w. American taxes currently as I am in the US for 9 months now and my employers stock starts vesting in 2 month.
And I have a strong desire to fly safely financially. First off there are lots of ways that stock can vest and it varies per the employment contract you get from the company, usually this is the same for all employees though, but can be different between companies.
Thirdly, you want to vest your options early as soon as you can if you think the company will be growing substantially between when you buy and when you sell as capital gains tax is less than income tax. Taking a huge amount of income suddenly in a year will have most of it grabbed by income tax. Ok, I assumed a standard? I work for a publicly traded company hence I applied the model as I know it.
Of course you could do fancy things with stock options etc. You have the standard deduction in and the exemption in That said, filing as a single seems horrible to me. I'm married, so I had other numbers in mind. It sounds like this is different for public companies. For private companies you usually don't get stock directly, you get stock options.
Public company stock options are pretty standard between public companies because regulations , but private companies can have practically anything. After you have some number of options you can choose to exercise them and you fork over the money and gain the actual private shares. They aren't counted as income at all until you actually sell the shares. What's important to note is that the price of the stock is always at your strike price, the price as stated in your employment contract, and this is usually the price of the stock at last valuation of the company at time of employment.
There's also the AMT alternative minimum tax to worry about as well which I know less about. You should read this guide for more info: Second page is more useful as well: I think you have a lot of misconceptions. There are three levels, not two: Unvested options, vested options, and stock. If you are able to, and you get vested options immediately upon hire would be weird and you immediately buy the stock and then sell it again, your monetary gain is zero.
Usually you have some vesting period before you can buy stock with the option and if you sell the cliff-ed stock immediately without waiting a year you will pay income tax on the gain which is substantially higher than capital gains tax. You never want to do this, regardless of the gains that the company stock has made in that 1 year. You would only want to do this if you think the company will lose value in that 1 year to the difference that you would have to pay for doing income tax instead of capital gains tax.
I can understand the worries going public and how the markets reacts to even minor things. I have invested in Tesla and already got a nice return if I sold my shares. I'm not going to sell however. That is because I like the company and its vision. The same would apply for SpaceX.
The selection for aerospace products is largely left to huge contracts and bids with the government, and everyone knows how corruption riddled that is. So, yes, I think the auto industry is the easier target. This has absolutely nothing to do with this post, but I have been trying to think of a song name all night and when I read your comment "starry eyed" helped me remember.
Wow, you were much closer than I thought! I'm looking for a job and this site will help me narrow down locations. From DC so even LA is better It's interesting to hear this confirmed. One of my professors put out a subtle warning to students about internships or jobs at SpaceX. It's kind of a shame though, because damn if they don't do cool stuff. I also just did the math for my flyover state.
SpaceX, any kind of astrophysics, and teaching science are on the list of retirement jobs for me. No rougher than the hour weeks and on call time I already work. I didn't come from a very well-to-do family and I was the first to go to college, I started with a 2 year degree and working in IT to working up to software engineering and now i'm finally paying my student debt off, I played it smart and understood I wasn't going to get to do something I loved for a living for a long time.
I couldn't afford to follow my dream and possibly fail at a young age, I was even farther from able to go to college for a useless degree than most so I had to play it smart. Passion is good, but you also need to be paid well enough to support yourself long term. You still need to cover living expenses, family expenses, retirement, and still have enough left over to have a little fun with.
At the same time you also need to have enough free time and vacation time to actually enjoy life. Still at the end of the day you have to love what you do. You have to load it enough to come in bright and early Monday morning and rally wasn't to be there. You have to live it enough to be there for hours and like it. You have to love it enough to put in hours a week and he in no hurry to bolt out the door Saturday night. If you have this type of relationship with your career, you know you're in the right profession.
However , this does NOT mean you should overlook balance and property compensation for your degree, skill, and effort. You do still need to have a balanced life, one you actually have weekends, vacation time, and free hours in the day to actually enjoy. You should still demand fair compensation and have a wage that can provide a comfortable life without significant sacrifice.
To be fair, as long as you come out SpaceX swinging with market leading aerospace engineering experience you could treat it as a sort of internship.
I don't get this line of thinking. Who are you going to work for after leaving SpaceX? Boeing, Lockheed, Pratt and Whitney?
You could get a job at one of them just as well after college Yeah but you'd probably have to work your way up the ladder for years until you get "sexy" projects.
But if you think you'll be any father along than your classmates who went straight there after graduating, you're crazy. It's amazing how many people knock old space for being hidebound and bureaucratic, but don't think that would factor in when they go there themselves. These companies have civil service-like promotion ladders, and people pretty much never jump them. These are companies set up for replaceable engineers, and you don't need some hypothetical wunderkind from SpaceX for that.
I joined a big tech company 11 years ago and was putting in hour weeks easily. Then I got married, had kids, and now I put in hour weeks because I love it, but I love my family too. People should do what they like -- for some that will mean hour weeks. If they stop liking it, they will go somewhere else or change. The "as long as they get their work done" is something I hear a lot and I've not seen anyone around here getting fired or even held back for not doing enough work, just for not getting their work done which is generally about a 40hr work week work of stuff.
My wife was getting a phd. Lots of IM while we both worked until early morning. Good times as I look back on them too -- riding a scooter down the halls to take a pinball break, no headphones for my music, come home and put in a couple more hours before sleeping A business like SpaceX is pretty large with many departments. Every department and every manager will run their department a little differently.
Corporate culture isn't exactly homogeneous, and these micro cultures can vary a good bit. Department A is run as a straight forward 9 to 5 while Department B expects 10 to 12 hour days regularly and more if you're willing. Sometime it's based on need. There are deadlines to meet. Other times is just sort of a "what we do" mentality not based on any reasonable metric. As well, quality of performance degrades with time spent. Sure you can put in 15 hours a day 6 days a week and have a lot of time at work, but the efficiency may not be there, especially if the individuals are not well geared for such work not many are.
I will happily argue the same work can get done better at 8 hours a day 5 days a week because the quality and efficiency is better when actual recoup and rest time exists. When the person is working, they're working hard and focused.
If all you do is work, eat, and sleep, it can become more a blur of normality than highly focused stints. There is a line you walk with invested time that will generate degraded efficiency as well as quality after a certain point. Some of this can be mitigated through at work breaks and changes in activities. The need varies by the person though. Some can work 8 hours non-stop on a project. Others need a break every hour just to unwind the tension, process, and refocus.
The off time is also hugely important for creativity and problem solving. If you have the ability to step away from a problem, give it time to sink in and process, and then look at the problem fresh again, you tend to come up with new and intelligent solutions with fresh eyes and thought that you didn't see previously.
While this is normal in engineering over several days of work, it improves when those breaks are more readily available. I know 70k isn't necessarily good pay for the work that's being done but even in California and even in the Bay Area, it's still a perfectly livable wage, even long-term. I work daily with people making close to half that who have no issues supporting themselves. The ones that are smart with their money even manage to afford nice houses and raise families.
For some people that really is a good enough life. There's a big difference between "lower salary than you would get on the open market" and "unlivable wage. You can comfortably raise a family on that, especially if you have 2 incomes.
Managing money and spending intelligently goes much father than simply making a lot of money. Living within your means is an important life lesson that every young adult needs to learn. It basically comes down to You. Do you want to make money and have a life outside of work which may or may not be good, or do you want to work for something that will make history and hopefully change humanity for the better.
It's an internal decision people rarely face and it's a tough one. It's personal benefit versus working for the greater good. Out of curiosity, what is the typical age of employees there?
And what kind of retention rate? And while job satisfaction is great, at some point paying salaries below market rate is just insulting. Tell us how you feel in another 2 years.
You might still love it, but I've watched this happen a few times. Working 60 hours weeks arguably underpaid, working with cutting edge tech will definitely show some passion. Not like it's 2 years wasted! If you're doing more in a couple months than most other aerospace engineers do in a year, you should be getting paid more than other aerospace engineers. Changing the world is great and all, but you shouldn't sell yourself short for it. That passion is commendable but at the end of the day, that is a billion dollar company, and you are replaceable.
Sacrificing for the sake of that company is silly. What is k for a company that size that scores contracts in the billions of dollars?
There are a bunch of naive engineers straight out of college that are blinded by the glamour of working at spacex. I want to live a life outside of work that is good, but to each his own. Hell, I'd rather bump it down to 30 hour weeks for the same pay per hour. That said, I certainly wouldn't work 60 hour weeks for less than 40 hour week pay. There's just so much to do outside of work that I don't want to miss out on. Pay has got nothing to do with the greater good. Anything else feels like they are exploiting their reputation.
Why exactly does a billionaire need to pay his staff significantly less for a highly technical job? Because you don't become a Billionaire, and able to start up your own space company, by handing out all your money. To be honest man, if I get into my dream job and I am basically living at my desk with little to no social life, then it's just going to make me hate it. The pay is too low to justify a career there. I am really saddened by this because I love my job and I love the mission.
SpaceX and Tesla have cool technology and good public relations, so they have a nearly endless supply of naive engineers they can burn through. But I have a number of engineering friends who left other big Silicon Valley players to go to Tesla.
Ranging the gamut from software to E. They all tell me they have higher pay there, and many have been there 3 or 4 years already and are perfectly happy. After losing my job I had an engineering interview there 2yrs experience. The highest offer I received was 44k, a 22k pay cut from what I was making fresh out of college.
People want the name on their resume and are happy to take stock instead of salary. Unfortunately in California stock options don't pay rent. I got a different impression when I visited their offices, but it's certainly possible I was mistaken. I am glad to hear this. I would rather take less money to work at a job I love, than get paid more to work at a job I hate.
Oh, I wouldn't mind being paid a bit less to work at a great job, but to me, a great job doesn't involve working more than 40 hours a week, or perpetually being under a ton of pressure. The working conditions at these companies almost inevitably lead to burnout. This hiring model seems very similar to that of Disney Resorts. They know people want to work for a cool and interesting company.
Because of this, they can offer less than competative salaries and still get talent. There are plenty of qualified engineers that are willing to accept 72k to work at SpaceX in California. Why would they go for you at 80k if there is someone who can equally fulfill the requirements of the position for 72k? I work in the aerospace industry in Southern California and participate in recruiting and interviewing for engineering positions.
There are many qualified candidates out there who have a passion for aerospace and are willing to accept the offered rate to work in the industry. Unless, of course, your passion is working for SpaceX, then I'm sure 72k will provide sufficient food on the table, and some in the bank too.
Just having the name SpaceX on the table might net you a lot more down the road Having Disney and relevant experience on my resume, who notoriously pay lower, got me an awesome job at Intel.
While I agree with your logic, I was lucky enough to get this experience while in school. Once the student loans kicked in, it was time for a real salary. It doesn't for you, but there are enough people out there who are driven by passion alone that they can keep doing this shit. If 72k isn't enough to live on and save a little you're doing something terribly wrong. I get your point, but let's not be over dramatic.
I haven't included SO MANY other expenses that a typical person may have online subscriptions, newspaper, pets, medical costs, travel expenses, gasoline, etc. I hope you can see that money disappears quickly. Folks who live on significantly less money certainly exist, however they are less likely to be paying student loans, car payments, or making provisions for retirement savings.
And their housing and food will be at the low end of average. In summary, 72k is good money, but it's really below average for an aerospace engineer in LA, and it's not really as much money, accounting for cost of living and expenses, as it initially seems.
I thought you were on crack, so I looked it up. That is actually the same figure I found. For two cars and a motorcycle. The cars aren't beaters, either - Both luxury cars, one less than 2 years old.
In SoCal a motorcycle gets you around faster than a car and rain is rarely a factor. If you finance one over a few years it's much smaller than this car payment.
Forex uv direktdruck | 1 2 3 diagramme graphique forex | Forex paypal retirer | Forex ea constructeur en ligne |