'From $100k to 10LPA salary': Redditor asks for suggestion on return to India upon H1-B expiry
A Reddit user asked for tips on how to mentally prepare for a huge salary cut while coming back to India from US for any personal reason or the expiry of the H-1B visa. "Those who plan to return to India from the US either due to expiring H1B or personal reasons, how are you mentally preparing for this reality check? These kinds of salaries are normal in entry- mid level tech roles in US but this is equivalent to what a CEO or director earns in India.
..." the post read.
The crackdown on foreign nationals by the Donald Trump administration has proved to be a challenge for Indians as well who are accused of taking up American jobs at a cheaper rate.
Other Redditors opined that both $100K in the US and Rs 10LPA in India are equally depressing. "A salary of 10 LPA is quite low. I used to earn more than that 10 years ago. In today's world, you need a salary of 40-50 LPA to live a decent life in Indian metro cities," one wrote.
Redditor asks how to prepare for a low salary if one relocates to India from US.
One pointed out that there are some perks in coming back to the home country minus the stress of getting sacked anytime in the US because of the geopolitics that impact H-1B and F-1B visas. "I'm at 500k in the US on H1b. It is going to be a big adjustment in India if H1b goes away," one wrote.
"You're seem to be naive. You can't make apples to apples comparison. Also, once you graduate with a Master degree you make more than 10LPA in India.
That's like less than a fresher's salary," one wrote.
"You can assume that an annual $100k lifestyle in New York is equivalent to around an annual $40K lifestyle in. Delhi or in another way. And this is a very conservative estimation," one gave a breakdown of the cost in both countries though it would vary a lot from city to city.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
Kaushik Basu: India must not fall into Trump's tariff trap
Kaushik Basu The spot that India finds itself in is reminiscent of Chekov's short story 'The Ninny.' However, New Delhi shouldn't use counter tariffs to retaliate as the damage done will outweigh any near-term gains. India's policy of siding with Trump may have made India easier to take for granted Gift this article Economic relations between India and the US have been thrown into disarray after US President Donald Trump announced a sweeping 50% import tariff on nearly all Indian imports, with the exception of some electronic items and certain pharmaceutical products. The move places India among the five most heavily targeted countries under Trump's tariff regime, alongside Brazil (50%), Syria (41%), Laos (40%) and Myanmar (40%). Economic relations between India and the US have been thrown into disarray after US President Donald Trump announced a sweeping 50% import tariff on nearly all Indian imports, with the exception of some electronic items and certain pharmaceutical products. The move places India among the five most heavily targeted countries under Trump's tariff regime, alongside Brazil (50%), Syria (41%), Laos (40%) and Myanmar (40%). The announcement caught Indian policymakers off guard, particularly given Prime Minister Narendra Modi's apparent support for Trump's re-election campaign. The White House's harsh statement, framing the move as punishment for India's purchases of Russian oil, has only added to the confusion. As the Wall Street Journal recently noted, this reasoning does not hold up, since China—the largest buyer of Russian oil—has not been penalized for its purchases. So, what explains Trump's decision? Paradoxically, India's policy of siding with Trump may have made India easier to take for granted, to the point that even a minor departure from Trump's preferences is treated as unacceptable. This dynamic is reminiscent of Anton Chekhov's short story, The Ninny, in which an employer withholds the equivalent of nearly a month's salary from his children's governess for arbitrary reasons. The governess accepts each cut without protest—a passivity that the employer chastises as spineless. Economist Ariel Rubinstein later drew on Chekhov's story to develop a model illustrating how submission can invite exploitation. India's apparent subservience to Trump had marked a departure from its longstanding role as a strong independent country. As a co-founder of the Non-Aligned Movement, it once championed strategic autonomy, balancing relations with multiple countries while avoiding subordination to any major power, be it the US or Soviet Union. It is time for India to draw on that legacy and cultivate economic and diplomatic ties with countries like Mexico, Canada and China. This also means strengthening trade and cooperation with other governments that are concerned about the impact of Trump's tariffs, particularly in Europe and Latin America. Also Read: Rajrishi Singhal: Look East to grasp why Trump is ghosting India It would be a mistake for New Delhi to retaliate by matching Trump's tariffs, as some prominent Indian commentators have urged. While retaliation would hurt the US, the damage to India would be far greater. The US is India's largest trading partner, whereas India is only the tenth-largest partner for the US—well behind Mexico, Canada, China and Germany. The US economy is also far larger and therefore better able to absorb major shocks. More importantly, courage does not necessarily mean responding in kind. By imposing heavy tariffs on its longtime trade partners, the US is making a grave error, isolating itself and inflicting enormous damage on its own economy. To be sure, tariffs can play an important role in economic policy. A well-known example is the infant-industry argument, which holds that when a promising sector is still in its early stages, temporary tariff protections can give businesses the confidence to invest, allowing the sector to grow, achieve economies of scale and become competitive. But once the industry matures, tariffs should be reduced, so that the discipline of open competition can help it perform even better. India is a case in point. In 1977, a political dispute led the government to expel IBM, compelling the country to develop its own mini- and micro-computers. Protected by trade barriers, India's domestic computer sector expanded quickly. But it was the economic reforms of 1991-93, which opened up India's markets to international competition, that enabled its infotech sector to flourish and Indian corporations like Infosys, Wipro and Tata Consultancy Services to emerge as global leaders, helping drive a period of unprecedented economic growth. Interestingly, the infant-industry concept predates modern academic economics and can be traced back to Alexander Hamilton, America's first treasury secretary, who successfully advocated for US tariffs to protect and nurture its nascent industries. Although US trade policies shifted after 1860, relatively high tariffs remained in place until 1934, after which they fell sharply, fuelling a sustained economic boom. By contrast, Trump's decision to raise tariff rates to their highest levels in more than 90 years is less an infant-industry policy than a nonagenarian one, shielding an American manufacturing sector that long ago outgrew any need for protection. Moreover, competing with manufacturers in emerging economies like India, Vietnam and Indonesia would require driving down the wages of American workers—a strategy that is neither realistic nor desirable. The same applies to India: tariffs should not be used to settle political scores. In the long run, the collateral damage will far outweigh any short-term gains. As for Trump's tariff policy, we can only hope that he will recognize the mistake and reverse course before it causes any more damage to the US economy. ©2025/Project Syndicate The author is a professor of economics at Cornell University and a former chief economic adviser to the Government of India. Topics You May Be Interested In
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
an hour ago
- First Post
Cryptocurrency: America rushes in where India, China fear to tread
Geopolitics has revived the 'crypto wars' of the 1990s, yet today the struggle is continental rather than computational. On one flank stand the United States and much of the West, treating digital tokens as just another volatile asset class to be tamed by markets and tolerated by regulators. On the other side stand China and India, unlikely fellows whose shared suspicion of borderless money has inspired a twin assault on private crypto-currencies. Whether laissez-faire zeal or dirigiste caution proves the surer guide will shape global finance. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Beijing fired the latest salvo on May 31, when it imposed a blanket ban on mining, trading and even private ownership of coins such as Bitcoin and Ethereum. The decree capped a decade-long squeeze that began with banking curbs in 2013, hardened into an ICO prohibition in 2017 and outlawed onshore transactions in 2021. Three concerns drove the final kill switch. First, capital flight: analysts reckon more than $50 billion seeped out of China via crypto in 2019-20. Second, financial stability: untamed price swings threaten household savings and could undermine the country's highly leveraged property developers and shadow banks. Third, political control: decentralised ledgers collide with the Communist Party's quest for digital sovereignty and jeopardise the e-CNY, a central-bank token Beijing insists must sit on the throne. New Delhi has not gone so far, yet it has tightened the fiscal tourniquet. Gains on any coin attract a punitive 30 per cent tax and a one-percent tax deducted at source on every trade. The Reserve Bank of India, which once likened Bitcoin to a Ponzi scheme, still campaigns for an outright ban, warning that borderless money could drain rupee sovereignty and turbocharge illicit flows. Across the Pacific the mood is giddier. Roughly one in six American adults already owns some crypto. Wall Street hawks spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds; North America now processes more on-chain value than any other region. Donald Trump, sensing populist resonance, is pouring accelerant on the bonfire. His media firm is floating 'America First' crypto ETFs, seeking a 2.5-billion-dollar Bitcoin treasury and trumpeting the Genius Act, a law that offers legitimacy to dollar-pegged stablecoins. Meanwhile, a meme coin dubbed 'Trump' has vaulted from obscurity to multibillion-dollar heft, with scant disclosure and most of the supply parked in entities the former president ultimately controls. Oversight, like taxes on Mar-a-Lago tips, looks optional. The divergence is rooted in history as much as ideology. The West has few capital controls and long experience of volatile assets; the Global South has spent decades fencing off foreign-exchange reserves. Washington views crypto much as it once viewed biotech or cannabis: speculative, risky, but ultimately containable. Beijing and New Delhi see an escape hatch through which wealth, tax and ultimately sovereignty might vanish. Studies of money laundering reinforce their fears. Forensic firms report that criminals cherish the 'virtually instant' cross-border hop of tokens, and European police agencies warn that professional crypto-launderers now pose a systemic threat. Officials fret that a mere string of private keys could spirit fortunes abroad faster than regulators can draft circulars. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Yet the prize is hardly stable. Bitcoin has crashed by more than 50 per cent five times: from 1,200 dollars to 200 in 2013, from 20,000 to 3,000 in 2018, and from 69,000 to 20,000 in 2022, before roaring past six figures in late 2024. Still, adoption creeps upward. Roughly 560 million people—almost seven per cent of humanity—now hold a sliver of crypto. Millennials dominate in America; in Vietnam and Nigeria grass-roots users are even younger. The genie is out, but it still rides a roller coaster. Proponents trumpet three virtues. Crypto, they say, slashes payment friction, crossing borders in minutes rather than banking days. It extends financial inclusion because a smartphone is cheaper than a branch network. And it offers censorship resistance, letting dissidents raise funds under repressive regimes. Each claim carries a sting. Congestion fees can rival bank wire costs, and proof-of-work remains an energy glutton. Volatile balances can evaporate faster than payday-loan interest, leaving the poorest with no recourse. The same cloak that shields activists also hides ransomware gangs and narco-cartels, frustrating police armed only with subpoenas. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Meanwhile, the stand-off sharpens. China's e-CNY pilots are courting Belt-and-Road creditors; India's digital-rupee sandbox is under way. The United States toys with a central-bank dollar yet seems happier letting private stablecoins bloom so long as they stay green-backed and vaguely regulated. The conflict is no longer merely regulatory; it is philosophical. Must money remain an instrument of the state, or can code and consensus dethrone the decree? Crypto's architecture answers yes; its history of scams answers not yet. The writer is a senior journalist with expertise in defence. Views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of Firstpost.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Techie in Delhi NCR earning 30 LPA reveals toxic work culture pushing him to burnout: 'Can't bear anymore'
A techie working at a company in Delhi NCR has drawn attention on Reddit after revealing how his job has impacted his mental health. The employee, with over a year of experience in backend development, shared that despite earning nearly 30 lakh rupees a year, he has been facing anxiety, recurring headaches, frequent breakdowns, and a constant sense of burnout. A tech worker shared how a high-paying job caused burnout, anxiety, and health struggles.(Representational image/Unsplash) (Also read: 'I feel like a ghost': Bengaluru techie opens up about isolation and loneliness at work and home) In his post titled 'My high tech job is causing problems that I can't bear anymore', the user explained, 'Since the day I started, I've been struggling with severe anxiety. A year in, it has worsened. I now face frequent headaches, mental breakdowns, and constant burnout at a young age.' Pressure and limited flexibility The techie went on to describe the intense work environment. 'The work pressure is extreme, we need to often work long on major Indian festivals due to business needs. Sick leave usually just means work from home while sick. No hybrid policy, it's five days a week in a highly toxic environment,' he wrote. He clarified that his concern was not about pay but about long-term well-being. 'This post is not about salary discussion, it's about how I want my present and future to turn out to be,' he noted, adding that he had been applying through LinkedIn but faced little success in the current job market. Fear of quitting without a backup While admitting he sometimes feels like resigning without another offer in hand, he shared his hesitation. 'Going from a stable, high salary to zero income is daunting, even though I have no major financial responsibilities right now. The fear of not finding another role — especially when I see people with more experience struggling — makes me hesitate,' he explained. Mixed responses from users The post, shared by the username @VDtheking, attracted varied reactions from fellow Redditors. One user empathised, saying, 'Your health is more important than any salary. A break now may save you in the long run.' Another advised, 'Don't quit without a plan. Try switching internally or wait till you land another role.' 'This is the story of most techies in NCR. The toxic environment eats you alive,' one remarked, while another added, 'Working on festivals and while sick is unacceptable. Companies need to rethink policies.' Others offered practical guidance. 'Expand your options beyond NCR, it will open more doors,' a commenter wrote. Another urged, 'Focus on your mental health first, jobs can come later.'
