DEIJ, SRA, and Me

Lyle Spencer and a Box of SRA Reading Cards

I just finished applying for a Spencer Foundation Grant.  Whew!

I didn't know much about the Spencer Foundation, so I read up on it, its history, and, it's benefactor, Lyle Spencer.

Lyle Spencer (1911-1968) graduated from the University of Washington, earning an undergraduate and master's degree in Sociology (His father was the President of UW, from 1927-1933). In 1938, while a graduate student at the University of Chicago, he founded Science Research Associates (SRA), a Chicago-based publisher of education materials and school room reading comprehension products. In 1962, he founded the Spencer Foundation (largely funded by SRA) to support education research.  In 1962 Spencer sold SRA to IBM. He continued as CEO of SRA until 1968, but he directed much of his efforts and fortune to the Spencer Foundation until his death in 1968. 

The Spencer Foundation continues to thrive today. The foundation’s mission is basically to support education research through diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice (DEIJ) — seemingly the scourge of MAGA and platform of progressives.

If you went to elementary school when I did, you may recall learning to read and write using SRA (the product of Science Research Associates). If you don’t, SRA was a big box of cards where each card had a short story and questions at the end to test what you read. The stories were arrange in color coded sections that progressively got more advanced as you passed through the sections.

It was all self paced. Every individual started at the level that was appropriate for them, you progressed as fast as you wanted, and it was accessible to everyone. If you squint a little, it was a reading and writing education program that was based on DEI — though it wasn’t called that.

For me, it was an effective way to learn to read and write. I often wondered why I was judged a slow reader but excellent at math in the second grade. I didn’t get placed in the “advanced” reading track. I sometimes wondered if there was a racial/ethnic stereotype in play. Regardless, it was SRA that allowed me to start at an appropriate level ("color"), work hard at my own pace, and “scratch and claw” my way into the top reading group by making appropriate progress on the SRA system. I thank my 4th grade teacher, Kay Brebner for recognizing my progress and promoting me. 

SRA was instrumental in teaching me to learn to read and write. If I get the Spencer (or even if I don’t), it is not a coincidence I owe much to SRA and Lyle Spencer. My personal experience is a testament to SRA (Scientific Research Associates) and Mr. Spencer. Further, if you criticize or applaud DEIJ,  my experience with SRA — a self paced, available to everyone, and accessible at any entry point reading system — is an example of DEIJ in practice.

Thank you Mr. Spencer. (Fingers crossed that I get my grant!)

Finally, I give another hat tip to the University of Washington, where I hail as an alumni!

AI & The Right to Learn on an Open Internet

Last week, the Common Crawl Foundation and Jeff Jarvis hosted an important conversation: AI & The Right to Learn on an Open Internet. However, this conversation has much broader scope -- who (or what) has the right to read anything and what can they do with this information?

td;dr; Everyone and everything has the right to read anything and everything. Including computers. Everyone and everything has the right to learn. However, the right to communicate what you've read or learned  -- including synthesizing new ideas or content with or without attribution or compensation -- is at question.

The current hand wringing has to do with what are the intellectual property rights of information on the Internet -- how should content producers be compensated for their work and what attributions must be made? This is an old question (well at least a few decades). With generative AI and Large Language Models, the question becomes murkier -- how should attribution (and compensation) be given for "new" work that has been synthesized from previous work or content (crawled from the Internet)? This conference last Tuesday (April 30, 2024), focussed mostly on this.

But this question is much larger than content that is crawled on the Internet. For all the books that have ever been published, for any music or movie that has been created, or any content of any kind in general, the question of who should be compensated for what work under what kind of derivation is unanswered. 

Kudos to the Common Crawl Foundation and Jeff Jarvis for addressing this broader question in addition to the specific about information on the Internet. In particular, through Generative AI and Large Language Models, there are no obvious answers of how to handle content (including text, audio, video) generated, learned, aggregated, and synthesized by machines (computers).

As pointed out, our current legal system is not up-to-speed on handling this question. The music industry has grapple with this for years, to no satisfactory solution. Ed Sheeran, Led Zeppelin, Robin Thicke, and even Taylor Swift are near the center of this controversy of who owns the right to music and derivative works.  The labor dispute resulting in strikes by the Writers Guild of America and SAG-AFTRA show what is at stake for Hollywood (though this was not directly addressed by this conference). 

"Fair use" doesn't seem to be an adequate "tool" for current use of content by Artificial Intelligence (or "derivative" content generation, AI or otherwise). Copyright, trademarks, patents, and trade secrets provide some guidance but seem inadequate to address current and emerging content largely driven by AI but technology in general.  Ultimately, the courts need to get involved but it will be a long slog before it all gets sorted out. Perhaps the music industry provides some hints -- there are detailed rules and payment agreements on how copyright holders of music shall be compensated. However, this is far from settled, as disputes are working their way through the courts. Further, this is no guidance on how music created from Gen AI should be dealt with.

Ultimately, the issues are financial. It was posited that we should first get the ethical and moral issues sorted out first, and the monetary solutions will follow. Not surprising, this did not get much traction.

Right to Be Removed

One side topic of particular interest to me was a discussion about the "right to be removed." Once crawled and indexed into an archive from the open Internet, what are the rights of a publisher to be removed? At one level, once the information is "out there" can it ever really be "removed?" The Common Crawl data has been down loaded by many. Versions and back ups have been squired away. How is the data to be removed from all these copies? 

Common Crawl is making efforts to remove content from an archive to satisfy practical requests, say remove links links to child pornography. However, this obviously does not affect the copies that have been distributed. And, even within the Common Crawl repository, I think these "removals" are just an update or branch from a given crawl. Think of the Common Crawl as a git repo -- all the versions are still there, even if there is an update to a branch.

Right to Read and Learn; Freedom of Speech; Intellectual Property Limits

As Americans, we have basic rights to read anything. Nothing should stop us from learning. Further, the First Amendment gives us broad rights to speak about nearly anything. There are some restrictions on what we do with what we synthesize from what we read and what we learn -- that's what Intellectual Property law is all about. The new question is whether or not machines have the same rights and if there are also somehow restricted. This is the issue discussed at this conference. With the onslaught of Generation AI and Large Language Models, the machines are spewing arguably new ideas synthesized from old. What should prevent the machines from reading, learning, and synthesizing?

Return to Xanadu

I've long been fascinated by the promise of Ted Nelson's Xanadu. While wildly impractical and unimplementable, especially when it was envisioned in the 1960s, the 17 principles are largely becoming true. In particular, in the context of attribution of source material for synthesized content by Gen AI systems, seems like "transclusions" and links as envisioned by Xanadu are relevant. The World Wide Web is often referred to as the simplified and practical implementation of Xanadu, even though Ted Nelson himself rejects this. I'd say Generative AI, transformers, and Large Language Models take us one step closer to Xanadu. And the hand wringing over how content creators (especially journalists) can be compensated for their work is found in the links/transclusions of Xanadu.

Hat tip to Rich Skrenta (Executive Director of Common Crawl) for bringing "Computer Lib : Dream Machines" (basically Ted Nelson and Xanadu) to the discussion.

Props and Acknowedgements

Thank you Rich Skrenta and Jeff Jarvis for envisioning and hosting this event. It is an important topic. But, all of the Common Crawl team were instrumental in making it happen. Joy Jing did a great job coordinating. Gil Elbaz is the founder of Common Crawl. Amazon AWS hosts the Common Crawl data (for free, I think). Mike Masnick was particularly insightful. Kearney, who hosted and sponsored much of the event, was particularly (and surprisingly) engaged in the issues of this conference. Great meeting the team from Tola Capital, sponsors of the event.

Exceeding System Design Scale Limits: Why the 737 MAX Is Failing

(I’m flying on a 737-8 MAX today. I’m sitting 2 rows in front of the infamous door plug in row 26L. I reflect on the 737 MAX and its problems.)

An important engineering concept is “system design scale.” When designing a system, how much can you scale up a system before the architecture is no longer suitable for performance, reliability, or economics?

In software, I generally design for 10x, maybe 100x scale up/out. So, if you design for say 100 CPU cores, can you push the system to 1,000 cores? If you look as how Google or Facebook has scaled, you will see complete rethinking/redesigns of their technology stack as they have grown/scaled up. For example, I once wrote about how Facebook has dramatically and aggressively scaled up image serving — from buying a third party proprietary solutions (Netapp), to homegrown, to Haystack, to whatever they are doing now.

Google scaled from a machine at Stanford, to using many machines in the CS department, to off the shelf racks, to custom racks, to completely rewiring from TPU to dynamic optical interconnects in data centers to support AI. I hear their Advanced Development work is even more extraordinary — Go Hank Levy? 😀

This is long, round about way to get to my point — what’s with the Boeing 737 MAX? Sure, the usual criticism is warranted —   Boeing has lost its way as it transformed from to a business culture from an engineering culture.

But I think (without talking to anyone at Boeing for direct evidence) that there is an issue with system design scale. Latest incantation of the 737 had a design architecture. When Boeing wanted to address the business threat of Airbus, it decided to scale up the 737 to build bigger planes — the MAX. And they stretched the design to build a bigger plane. The scale up went past the “system design scale” limit.

Now, I don’t know what the limits of scale for airplanes are. Certainly not 10x - 100x like software  — that might mean 737’s with say 20,000 seats. Maybe to address the Airbus threat, it was only a bigger engine or a few more rows. But it was past the design scale imperative.

Bigger engines, more rows, new range limits, and probably hundreds of (small) design changes were needed  to meet the “stretch” goal. Instead of being able to think systemically from first principles to build a plane, it was a bunch of tweaks to the original design. In software parlance, “design” (and implementation) modifications became “hacks” to make the system work. Coherent, architectural principles were tossed aside to make it work. The system is held together by “gum and baling wire.”

MCAS and the door plug were artifacts/symptoms of the problem. Procedural and manufacturing hacks, in addition to product deficiencies followed. For example pilot training and certification, QA oversight controls, and assembly issues (bolts on doors). It’s the classic “putting your finger in a dam to stop leaks” problem. Problems will continue to surface because the MAX was implemented beyond the design scale limits.

So what can be done? Maybe Boeing can continue to hack away and plug all the problems — hopefully without catastrophic failures (crashes). Perhaps a new design with a different design scale is in the works. However, I don’t think Boeing can back away from the MAX and wait for a new plane. But if they prove unsafe, would the FAA ground them? Seems like Boeing must stay the course, continue to hack away, and work with regulators to keep the MAX in the air.

I hope Boeing finds its footing and emerges as a better, stronger, and safer company. Ironically, maybe it’s Marketing and PR that will be needed to save the company, even if they fix their engineering and manufacturing issues. I’m rooting for them. Boeing has been a pillar of success in Seattle. It has been a key contributor to what makes Seattle great today.  They set a culture and built an ecosystem that has grounded the greater Seattle area for nearly a century.  I personally owe much to Boeing — my dad worked there for 30+ years.  Go Boeing!

Some side observations: 

“Move Fast and Break Things”

Facebook/Meta has been criticized for their ethos of “Move fast and break things.”  It’s an important value of many startups, not just Facebook. It works when you are the small underdog and not deploying mission critical apps (e.g. where lives are at stake). But not when you are big, as Facebook is now. In the early days, no one died when posting, “I had a great hamburger for lunch.” If I squint, I could say Boeing was “moving fast and breaking things” with the MAX. This was not appropriate — failure (“breaking things”) put lives at risk and Boeing is a large company.

787 Dreamliner Problems Were Different

Problems with the 787 is a different issue. The 787 was designed to be built in a using a loosely coupled distributed system where subcomponents could be built by independent manufacturers. Final assembly (integration and system engineering) would be done by Boeing. Boeing would have to write specifications for the independent suppliers to implement. This was  a complex process with supply chain, vendor/partner management, manufacturing, and integration issues.

These design principles are often used  in software. Loose coupling, strong specifications, separating interface from implementation, interoperability of different subcomponents, etc. has been used to great success. The Internet was built on these principles. This did not work for the 787 Dreamliner. Boeing had to pull back from many of its partners and bring things back “in-house.” In general, what works for software might not work for many complex physical world systems.

Afternote: I just read this article — apparently, the 737 is also plagued by the distributed, outsourced production system too. And Boeing is trying to reel it in. 

3814 24th St #202 San Francisco, CA 94114 Foreclosure

My neighbor is being foreclosed on. Should I buy it? I am the President of the HOA so I know a lot about the property -- what's good and whats bad. It's info that others likely don't know. If other potential buyers knew what I know...

https://www.zillow.com/homes/3814-24th-St-.num.202-San-Francisco,-CA-94114_rb/15147127_zpid/

https://www.xome.com/auctions/3814-24TH-St-202-San-Francisco-CA-94114-382552160

Last to the Party: My First Experience Driving a Tesla Model 3

Many friends are surprised I don’t own a Tesla. I’m near the center of their demographic target. Except that, as some have pointed out, I’m a bit “careful with money.” 😀

So, when given the opportunity to take a Tesla Model 3 as an alternative to my reserved Toyota Corolla that I reserved at Budget, I jumped at the chance. Here’s a review of my experience.

TL;DR; It was a little disappointing. I'll wait and re-evaluate in a year or two before buying. Thank goodness I'm currently not in the market for a new car.

 

First Impressions. Operating most cars is pretty standard. If you can drive one car, it’s pretty easy to drive others. This is especially crucial when driving a rental car – there isn’t a big learning curve to driving it. Whether a Toyota Corolla, a Chevy Malibu, a Toyota Tacoma, or a Dodge Minivan, the cars are all pretty much the same.  All the controls and displays are in pretty much the same place. (The only typical confusion is how to operate the windshield wipers.)

 

On the Tesla, nothing is very intuitive. All most everything must be discovered or learned. Everything from how to unlock the car, how to open the door, how to start it, how to turn it on, how to put it drive/reverse is different from a normal car. The fact that 90% of the controls are buried onto a touch screen account for a lot of the differences. It’s a very different interface than normal cars. I never did figure out how to adjust the horizontal tilt on the mirrors.

 

“Gassing it up” is a specific new challenge for those used to ICE cars. When do I need to charge, where can I charge, how do I charge, how long will it take to charge are all new problems.

 

“Different” isn’t necessarily bad. Just unfamiliar. I think most will get comfortable with time. But for a first time user in a hurry, it’s pretty cumbersome.

 

Drive Assist. This was probably the biggest surprise. I’ve driven cars with “self driving”/auto-assist before. Infiniti, Ford, and Honda to name a few. Surprisingly, Tesla didn’t perform as well as these other cars. I thought Tesla would be ahead in this game. Engaging it, keeping it engaged, and “trusting it” seemed deficient on the Tesla.

 

There was a fair amount of anxiety when driving. What was and wasn’t the car doing? Was the car veering too far left or did it really want to hug the left part of the lane? Was it going to stop before hitting the car in front? The car knows there is a stop sign ahead, but it doesn’t appear it is going to stop. Autosteer would turn off, sometimes at times when it wasn’t clear that it would. How much pressure and turn guidance does the driver need to apply and how often?

 

“Auto steer” vs “Full Self Driving” was confusing. T first day I drove the Tesla, a “recall” was announced on all Tesla Full Self Driving enabled cars causing further confusion. Maybe there was an over-the-air update that disabled some capabilities. Or that it was never fully turned on? And, sometimes the “Full Self Driving Preview” would turn on. What was that telling me?

 

Finally, even though autosteer was off (I couldn’t enable the “blue steering wheel”), speed control was on without clear indication. So, it seemed there was autobraking/acceleration capabilities without driver assist lane control. But it was unclear.

 

I never could figure out the autopark. Was it enabled? I couldn’t figure out how to turn it on from the touch screen.

 

Maybe my expectations were off. I was thinking that Tesla was far ahead in the self-driving car game. And expectations didn’t match reality, and those other cars aren’t as good as I imagined. Maybe my expectations were just lower for other cars.

 

Sensors and warnings. There are many sensors on the car. However, when I got close to objects, the car didn’t warn. For example, I got no warning when pulling up to wall or navigating around cars in a tight garage. Maybe there’s a way to turn warnings on – but it wasn’t clear. By default, this works intuitively on my Infiniti and Lexus.

 

Maybe things are in transition – a friend told me the sensors are different in 2023 (was this the first year without lidar?). Maybe Tesla needs to work out some bugs/deficiencies.

 

Speed (really, Acceleration).  This car is quick. It accelerates like no other car I’ve ever drive. It’s amazing. Makes passing, merging, and lane changes a brand new game. It’s pretty fast too, I think. But I never pushed it over the speed limit. 

 

I never really appreciated “Jerk” – the derivative of Acceleration (the third derivative of Displacement). I think I experience it when driving the Tesla (e.g. the Acceleration is increasing). Or at least I’m getting a better intuitive understanding.

 

Fit and Finish. This is a beautiful, solid car. I’ve heard complaints before – especially with the Model X. It’s on par with my Porsche, Lexus, and Infiniti. Maybe as good as Mercedes or BMW (I’ve never owned one of these).

 

Miscellaneous.

 

• The need for the bulky plastic key is annoying. For most of my cars, I can leave my key in my pocket to unlock the car or start it. Not so with the Tesla. First world problems, I know.  I’m told I can pair car with with my phone to overcome some of these problems. I couldn’t figure that out – perhaps because it was a rental car. Further, if your phone runs out of battery, does that mean you can’t enter or drive your car?

• When I first sat in the car, my eyes were immediately drawn to the big touch screen. Picture of the car was front and centered with two prominent labels "Frunk Open" and "Trunk Open."  I thought it meant that the trunks were open. So I get out of the car to see -- no, they are closed. I get back in the car, and touch the open labels -- Voilà the trunks open. That is a very confusing interface."Open" means push here to open -- not "it is open. 

This was a horrible first impression. Not only did it not spark joy, the experience created confusion and displeasure. It was far cry from the rapturous unboxing experience of a new  Apple product.

• The touch screen to control all most everything is interesting. I'm sure it saves money as so many mechanical parts -- physical dials, knobs, sliders, special purpose output -- are eliminated. The jury is out whether the screen only I/O is going to be better or worse. For now, I prefer real world buttons and knobs. The tactile feel is much better and operations are more obvious. Maybe I will get accustomed or the touch screen interface will improve. The debate between touch screens and real controls isn't just for cars -- this is a concern for all things that use digital controls and output. 

• I had to find a YouTube video or I called a friend to do a few things. I couldn’t figure out how to unlock the car. I couldn’t figure out how to remove the universal charge adapter. I couldn’t figure out how to turn on autosteer.

• Using the screen to consume media (e.g. YouTube) seems interesting – but I never did that as I never sat around in the car.

 

Conclusion. I thought Tesla was way ahead of the game with self-driving cars. This doesn’t seem to be the case based on my experience. I’m thinking maybe there’s a major breakthrough coming from Tesla with Domo, FSD, and all the investment in software and hardware. But today, the other car companies seem a lot closer than I imagined.

 

On acceleration, the Tesla is amazing. I wonder where other electric cars stand? On the other hand, I do miss the experience of the Internal Combustion Engines of yesterday. The noise, the feel, the smell. Acceleration and top speed are only part of it.

 

I’m glad I test drove a Tesla. We were considering a new car this year. And, Tesla was under consideration.  I think we’ll pass if we must buy soon. Maybe in a few years, this will be the car of choice. Of course, if Elon finds out I’ve posted this less than stellar-fanboy-quality review, I might get canceled.

Why I'm Voting for Donald Trump

I don’t believe he is an authoritarian. I don’t believe he is a threat to democracy. Abuse of power by using Russia and the Ukraine? No. Criminal activity and use of the Presidency to enrich himself? He’s gotten the courts to suppress the records. Using trump tower or trump hotel to receive bribes? No, just good business.  I’m unconcerned that he hasn’t decoupled these conflicts of interest from being President. Encouraging voter fraud or using the USPS to tilt the election? Fake news. Discrediting free press? No. News organizations are awful and the enemy of America.

In short, I’ve gotten past that he is a traitor or a criminal acting in treasonous ways or in violation of his oath of office. These indeed would be disqualifying and this I could not support. So let’s move on.

$6 Trillion in added debt since taking office is not a problem. Unemployment is at 8% up from 3%. Better than the 12% from a few months ago. Record drop in GDP? No worries. My average tax rate is up 40%. Tariffs, centralized international commerce deals, farm subsidies, government intervention on the private sector (TikTok) — sounds like central planning and socialism but okay. Reneging on agreements between AMZN and USPS (and tilting JEDI away from AMZN towards MSFT)? Fine. That Bezos “owns” WAPO and is CEO of AMZN is of no consequence. I’m okay with all of this.

The cities burn. The national forests are on fire. The opioid epidemic hasn’t subsided. A virus can’t be contained. 200,000 people are dead. Restaurants and stores are closed. No fans at sporting events or audiences at concerts. Schools remain mostly closed. We’re still locked down inside and can’t visit loved ones. Better leadership at the top can’t help. It’s not his fault. He tells us he’s doing a great job on the China Virus. I believe him.

No progress on healthcare reform. Denial of global warming. Changes at the CDC, FDA, State department, and FBI improve America — not destroy important institutions. Of all the losers (his assessment) he’s appointed, the appointments are not his fault. His attacks on Muslims, Mexicans, Blacks? All fake news. The detention camps at the border? Fine. “Law and order” means sending in the Fed (ICE, the military) to quell unrest — over the objections of local government. Embracing/befriending dictators (Putin, Duterte, Erdoğan, Kim) is a good thing. “Being tough” on allies  is also good. His views on NATO, withdrawing from TPP and the Paris Agreement, reneging on the JPOA — I’m fine with all of this.

The lying, the cheating, grabbing women by the pussy, accusations of being a sexual predator  — I don’t have a problem with any of this.

The collective body of racist comments? I’ve nit picked at each one, word for word. I’ve done rhetorical gymnastics to rationalize that his words and he himself are not racist.

He and Fox News have told me that things will be far worse under Biden. I believe them but have thought through this for myself. The economy is going great.  I believe my life is much better since trump became President.

This is why I’m voting for trump.

Living the Dream, Part 2: What It Costs to Live in San Francisco

A few years ago, we did a calculation on what it costs to live in San Francisco,  one of the greatest cities in the world. A few years have passed, and much has changed. The City, the world, and probably even you are very different from when we took a look at the economics of living in San Francisco. Today, we'll take a look at what it takes to own a house and possibly raise a family as a married couple in San Francisco.

TL;DR: If you make $600K/year, live frugally, and send your 2 kids to public school, yes. Private school, maybe.

How Much You Make

Let's assume you and your spouse are both gainfully employed, each making $300,000/year. Or maybe one of you is working and making $600,000/year. We'll ignore any (potential) windfalls from stock options at this point and assume this is your (adjusted) annual compensation. We assume that you'll fully contribute to your company's 401K plan and it's employee stock option plan (at $25K/year).

The good news: You and your spouse (assuming you are both working) are saving $88K year (not adjusting for taxes or appreciated stock gains from your ESPP). Congratulations!

The bad news: After taxes/deductions, you only get to keep $289K.

You Buy a House

You're an adult now, so it make sense you want to own a home -- at least join the club of people that have a mortgage instead of renting. In San Francisco, a modest 3 bedroom, 2 bath starter home (perhaps 2000 sq/ft) will cost you about $2,000,000. Assuming you are able to make a 20% down payment of $400,000, it will cost you about $125K/year (and this is with a 5% interest only loan). Your monthly housing costs will be about $8700/month.

Basic Living

Living in San Francisco is expensive not just because of housing -- everything is a little more expensive than the rest of the country. And, for whatever reason, you like to "live larger" than others in other parts of the country. On average. Dinner at Saison will set you back $398/person. Drinks at Black Cat are $15. I'm sure our estimates are often high and often low -- there's a lot of variability. For example, do you own two cars or one? What kind of car? Are you including loan payments?  What about rideshare? We guestimated $20K/year for your automobile/transportation costs. In totality, we're guessing you'll spend about $125K/year for the two of you, not counting housing. YMMV. 

So, given you after savings take home pay is $289K, and your spend is only $249K -- hooray! --You're in the black by $40K.

More good news: Assuming you qualify for the full mortgage interest deduction (the deduction is capped by the interest on up to a $750,000 loan) , you save an additional $17,625 in taxes plus another $8800 for a property tax deduction. So you save another $26,505. So, you are net $66,505 in the black!

But wait...

What about Kids?

Tick, tock. Tick, tock. 

You're in your thirties now. And the desire for kids grow every day. Congratulations on your coming of age entry into full adulthood. Thank goodness your employer has provided you with stellar insurance, possibly including IVF/IUI options, pregnancy coverage, and a great family plan.

And your life plan probably calls for two kids. What's this going to cost?

Since both you and your spouse are working, a day care or nanny plan are likely needed. Call it $35K. And, maybe the incremental cost (food, clothing, summer camp, etc) will be $20K. So, maybe you are in for another $55K/year for two kids.

Awesome -- you are still spending $11K/year less than you are taking in.

...And Private School?

Apparently, many parents are choosing to send their kids to private school. Getting into a great/acceptable public school is literally a lottery in many cases. So, what is this going to cost? I'm told this is between $20K and $50K per year, per child. The base cost is highly variable depending on where you send your kids, plus there are  multi-kid discounts and possibly "negotiated rates." Let's call it $30K/kid.

Your "all in" spend is $365K.  Your tax deductions are $26K, so your net spend is $329K. Your take home earnings are "only" $289K.

So, now you are running a $50K/year deficit. Bummer!

Tap the Savings and Hope for a Windfall?

So, how do you make up for this shortfall? Well, you are saving $50K year with your ESPP. And, you're employer is likely buying stock for you at a 15% discount. So, maybe you will choose to use this money. Further, hopefully, your company ('s stock price) is doing well, so you are actually earning more. 

Finally, perhaps those stock options or RSU are worth more (not less) over time, so you cash in on the success of your company. After all, it is the equity incentives that have drawn us to San Francisco. We must have hope and dream big.

Does It All Add Up?

The two million dollar house in San Francisco is surprisingly small in San Francisco. And the down payment may be hard to save for. And you may want something bigger and better. Say $2.5 million? 

You could trim your lifestyle back -- seems like "keeping up with the Joneses" is an unstated driver for many of us. 

The big unknown is public school vs. private school. 

So, if you can live in a modest home, trim back your living standards, and send your kids to public school, this is doable. With private school, it's a big stretch.

And, of course, is making $600K/year reasonable?

Last maybe you can "wait it out," and hope those stock options convert.

Or move to Modesto.