It's probably a gamble. I'd imagine that these positions are at a company that's doing reasonably well, and hasn't had to make cuts anywhere. From what I've read, Yahoo had lots of these positions pre-Marissa Mayers--the company was just coasting along, not really having to change anything, but when she came in with energy & force, these kinds of people were the first to go.

I'd say this is a terrible thing to aspire to: you'll dread work. It'll be a matter of how many hours a day you're going to play tetris, and you'll end up just trying to pass the time. Passing 40 hours a week is tough to do when you're not really free. And heaven forbid the company blocks your ESPN/Fark/Deadspin/whatever you're reading. The stories you hear about these boring jobs--do the people who have them love them? I've never heard of someone with minimal responsibility actually enjoying their job. Sure, everyone loves an easy week now and again, but after that, a boring job really drags.

Boring jobs will eat your brain. There is no fulfillment, no pride in your work, etc. And ultimately, you'll probably end up weeded out, unless you're "lucky" enough to stay hidden in the folds of the company long enough to retire.

And what happens if/when the company hits a rough patch and realizes they can remove you? Your marketability is at a minimum: you're making a lot of money, have no new skills and are on the same job market as people who have actually worked.

Best thing to do would be to find a way to make money at something you enjoy. You don't have to make a lot of money, but enough to coast with minimal expenses. Do you really want to spend your life doing nothing, accomplishing nothing and with nothing to show for your years? It doesn't have to be anything in particular, but spending 40 hours a week doing nothing for a career is a gigantic waste of time, resources and energy.

Regarding Yahoo, post Marissa, these positions still absolutely exist and are mostly in middle management. Most of 'deadwood' elimination has been amongst engineers because guess what, the career bureaucrats are exactly the ones who end up deciding who are the people not 'adding value' to the company. The core of Yahoo is still rotten. Its just that a new layer of paint has been slapped on.

You're pretty spot on.

This is anecdotal, but I've worked both the vapid, high-paying job that comes about from credentials and experience, and the average-paying, engaging job doing work that I love.

I'm currently working the latter, and while I voluntarily took almost a 30% pay cut and sometimes miss the extra disposable income, I can say that I am happier and healthier for it.

One of the negatives you missed of working these fluff positions is that it's difficult to nail down what you did to contribute to your current employer. This makes it difficult when looking for other jobs, when interviewers start asking the "... and how did you do that?" detailed type of questions.

By and large I have concluded that except in extraordinary situations that job doesn't exist. Sure a lot of people will look at job from the outside, not knowing what it entails, and make statements/generalizations about it requiring no work to pull down some big salary, but having been on both sides of that window my experience was that it was an illusion.

That said, at an abundant salary and a young age, you can go the mr money moustache route. Save your way into an early retirement. That is probably the easiest thing to do, then any money you make from working is just 'bonus' and you can take jobs that pay less, don't challenge you much, and are perhaps less stressful. I expect you will get bored though.

The situations where you can get a sinecure (the name for the job type your looking for) is when you are in a relationship with the ownership and simply your presence is valuable enough to justify your salary. Some very large names in a field for example can get by with just having their name on the employee list as their 'value' to the company. You can also find spots in companies which are actually covers for a differently funded activity. An acquaintance of mine worked at a restaurant which was used to launder cash from some criminal group. There wasn't a lot of business so they didn't have to do a lot of work, but they got paid anyway. Granted it was at a much much lower wage but I expect there are larger companies with similar alternate agendas.

Seems like step 1 is to become a thought leader in a field respected by all, and then parley that respect into a cushy job at a big company. Sounds ideal once one gets there!

Probably the best way is to look a list of sinecure's (thanks for the word, by the way!) and work backwards from their work history.

I think if I were you (25, statistically likely to be single), I would live in the cheapest accommodations I could stand and use the mostly-excess portion of that 100k to buy rental homes in cash. Do that for a number of years, and it won't be long before you have passive income and you can make your 100k and work at whatever thing makes you most happy.

If you don't like real estate, then pick something else: save a bit longer and buy a pizza franchise. Save for a few centuries and buy a football franchise. Buy some other kind of small business. Learn an investment strategy that makes you a few percentage points annually.

> Is there a way to get a ...decent salary...doing very little from 9-5?

This is generally called passive income, and you don't get this on someone else's payroll. You have to get there on your own.

This is a workable plan, but as a note, I had a friend in this exact situation do this exact thing (except with 4-plex apartments instead of houses). He burned out pretty quick. Dealing with tenants can take a lot out of you, especially if you try to leverage yourself by buying properties in the bad parts of town.

My answer to that would be either (a) be more selective with the tenants and (b) consider hiring a management company after the first few properties. They take a bite of of the profit, but it might be worth it in the long run.

As a landlord:

A) is rather hard, profiles and credit reports don't tell the full story and lots of odd things happen during a lease.

B) makes sense when you have >2 units to lease (SFR, flats, whatever) and at least one is cash-flow positive. And they will save your mental health.

At many medium-to-large companies, being the CTO or in the office of the CTO fits this bill. I've worked with many such people who were brilliant and/or hardworking, but I've also worked with many who just liked to fiddle with stuff and either throw it over the fence (where it inevitably had to be rewritten) or just never finish it. Generally "staff" (as opposed to "line") positions are a bit like this, because you can basically ride on one person's power/reputation and you only have to please them. A lot of "architects" also have responsibilities so vague that it's hard to say whether or not they're doing their jobs.

Mostly, though, it's less a matter of the position than of strategies you can use in any position. A perennial favorite trick seems to be working on multiple projects reporting in to bosses who never talk to one another. I've seen people perfect the trick of telling each boss that they're working on stuff for the other, until both essentially give up. At a company where reorgs are frequent so that many people nominally report to managers who have no oversight of their actual work, you can even get people who literally appear nowhere on the org chart but still get paid. It sounds like a joke or a movie plot, but it's true. I've seen it. I have to admit I've been tempted to "fall between the cracks" myself, but I'm just not that kind of guy.

As a CTO, I imagine you're legally responsible for all sorts of stuff. Having your name on corporate documents and such, there is all sorts of responsibility for things!

That's likely to be more true at startups than at mid-to-large companies. There, the CTO is often further from the center of power and responsibility. It's even possible to have a CTO who is not an "officer" of the company in a legal sense.

Run for Congress...

No accountability, don't really have to do anything, high salary, no real job requirements except age and citizenship, not a lot of work expectations, and if you are an incumbent your re-election rates are 90% for House and 91% for Senators.

Perfect fit.

On the contrary congressmen are incredibly busy people. Something like 60-70% of their time is campaigning and raising money for the next election. If you aren't raising money for your election, you're raising money for your party. See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/call-time-congressi...

Get a job programming at a medium-large .NET or Java shop that moves slow (the more dated their stack, the better!)

You have a problem and it's not your job, it's your laziness. you are 25, you can't coast through the rest of your life being lazy. If you try, at some point you will fall, and when you fall, you will fall hard. Your problem should be to find a way to motivate yourself to work even harder and earn even more.

I agree that a sinecure is probably not the best long-term strategy, but "work even harder and earn even more" doesn't sound any better.

There's simply no guarantee that working an extra 10 hours per week, for example, will gain you enough extra cash to make up for the activities which might have been more meaningful to your life (such as spending time with a significant other, pursuing a hobby etc.).

Or, you know, chill out, enjoy life, make what you need and dream about more money for no extra work.

Basically any middle management position in a large enough company.

That's accountability by definition. Your ass will be on the firing line for every decision that doesn't work out, whether done by those below you or above you doesn't matter.

You're labelled mr. or mrs. Expendable.

That has not been the case everywhere I have worked. Also not anywhere I have been as an outside contractor. Perhaps it's the industry.

Anyway, all I've seen is a bunch of "Cover Your Ass" and reluctance to make decisions by middle management. I think OP would love such a position. Very little "work," just a bunch of delegating and meetings to review progress. Be ready to embrace a life of looking at Excel spreadsheets.

Middle Management is high enough that you can blame an underling when things go sour, yet high enough that you can command pay for your "value" of managing people.

This does sound the best so far :)

Where I work, all the middle management (one exception, he was hired from the outside) was promoted from within due to high quality work and desire to manage.

At a prior job it was half and half. Half were promoted because of stellar prior work and half were promoted to remove their incompetent from harming the organization. I worked for both kinds at that organization.

In mega corps (worked for 2) I have never witnessed a manager or employee being fired for performance. The only times I saw a manager get fired was for sleeping with another manager's wife. I've had team members that literally did nothing continue to collect their 2% raises because it's cheaper than facing a lawsuit over termination. My last manager (before I left the first mega corp) lost 70% of his team within a 2 month span, including me, due to poor management. I think he was promoted to director or some senior management position now. If you golf with the right people there is always someone else to pass the buck too.

It's incredibly difficult to fire someone in a large company, not to mention you basically just have to "hit your numbers". As an example if you go work for a company like SAP or Oracle, you can literally coast along on a 9-5 (sometime unpaid overtime can happen) and make $80k+. The real problem usually ends up being the ability to get in (depending on role).

Source: I worked as a support consultant working for SAP and the amount of 9-5'rs who just skated by was shocking. I got paid well.

That's why they avoid making any decision until absolutely forced to. If it's big enough, get your manager to decide. If it's small enough, "empower" someone below you to make the decision.

In a well run and effecient organization, yes... in a stale, ineffecient organization where incentives are not there, but keeping the status quo is king, then no. Like others have said, look at government and military contractors.

I will tell you about my story. I am not at 100k but at equivalent given the quantity of free benefits I get in the country I am working in.

I am currently on a job I have taken for Visa and quick Money (mostly visa though). Six months later I had milked all the experience I could get out the tech and people I am working with.

Basically I went from a high accountability role in a startup in Europe where as a Junior coder I was entrusted with big services and decisions (technical decisions) that could undo the company if I messed it up. And now I am doing fairly PAR level corporate internal services in JP company, using "good old" stacks of technologies where the most cutting edge aspect is that we use the latest version of PostgreSQL. I am basically doing undergrad DB 101 data modelling within a team that do not care about the technical quality of its product.

Everyday I dread the boredom I feel at work. And If I didn't commute with my wife (she is the high of my days) every morning I would have probably become a statistic during the rainy season.

On a bright note: I have already found the next thing that looks really interesting, new and well compensated. I am currently shaking off that funk the projects I have been working on have put me in.

It was difficult keeping morale up, I must say that I was on the fringe of depression. I felt exhausted even though all the work my managers could put on me was done, tested and pushed to production before most people were in the office (again: used to start-up pace here), and then you guys (HN) enter my day (at 9 flipping 30 AM) ... I have never been so well informed in my whole life.

I'm in a position like that right now. And it is driving me crazy. Sure the pay is good. And the responsibilities are well-defined and reliable.

But the challenge and enjoyment is not there. I find myself working like crazy after hours to carve out a new career while still maintaining the income of the day job.

The balance between stressed-out and challenged can be hard to strike. But I know that for me I need to be challenged to be enjoying my work life.

Not only that, the hours will simply drag by in a job like that. Days will seem endless.

Our sales VP once called this - dig yourself a hole and sit there for 10 years.

If by 'low accountability' you mean - don't do much work - it definitely exists and is all over corp IT shops. I would separate out the technical positions from the management positions.

A manager usually doesn't do much real work, they have a team to do the work, but does often bear the responsibility to higher up mgmt, and will get canned when things go bad.

A dev works very hard, but once you become an expert after years of specialization in say a particular language for framework, you can coast because it takes you 30 minutes what a junior person may struggle with all day.

I've met all kinds of devs who are very sharp, they make over 100k and they don't "work hard" at all.

Any enterprise company that's all aboard the .NET and Team Foundation Server train. With the daily scrums, sprint planning, and interruptions from the stakeholders, taking a full work week to create one table in Oracle/SQL Server is par for the course.

A company that makes use of tech but is not a tech company. The problem is finding one that treats its employees well... basically I found myself in the position you describe. I stuck around for years but ultimately decided it was not good for my career long-term. On the other hand, I was pulling right around $100k, working from home, realistically putting in 2-3 hour days most days. I went entire weeks without doing any actual work beside sending a couple emails, if that. But it didn't feel cool, like I was getting one over. It made me feel like shit.

If you find something like this you absolutely must supplement it with lots of self-directed learning or you'll stagnate and be totally stuck.

Join Wells Fargo. We have a lot of people like that. Plus you can work remotely!

Wow! I know this is said sarcastically but I will keep WF as an example of a Big Corp where it might be possible.

I was being 100% serious. It's unfortunate for those of us that work hard and want to get things done, but there is very little accountability once you're in the door.

You are ready for a career in the insurance sector.

I believe everyone has their "department they don't like" and where you ask yourself: what do they do all day?

For me, it's Governance. The governance departments of big companies do not produce a product the company sells (maybe it can be argued that they take a role in producing the image of the company, though). If they don't do their job properly and other departments of the company do not comply with whatever they are governing, they can always blame that department. And their jobs are well paid as their role is seen as important from a higher management position.

Best answer IMO is JonFish85's. You really don't want to do that. But if you want to trash yourself, who are we to prevent it? It's not the job or the company in particular, it's the circumstances. Some ideas:

Look for a big company. Easier to hide in them.

Find a place with internal fights. Same reasoning.

No external competition is a plus.

A lazy boss is a treasure. A very busy one is a close second.

Never be just under "the line" (between managemente and technical).

Have reports. Make them do everything you should.

Advice.

If you are one of 3 trusted advisers who have a 1-in-3 chance of providing critical business advice for a multi-billion-dollar company? You're worth every penny even if your batting average sucks.

The trick is to get into that position. You usually get there by making lots of real-world decisions for yourself for your own multi-billion-dollar company. But -- I'm sure there are other ways.

Good luck!

Line coder at a huge company (such as Oracle). You can't make many major changes without going through bureaucracy, and you don't have the leverage to even begin to navigate the bureaucracy. Do what you're told, and reap the benefits of decent monetary compensation and golden health/retirement benefits (AKA really good 401k matching).

Have you worked at Oracle, or just bashing them for fun because they're a large successful company?

Yes, I have. And I'm not bashing them with this post, I'm just answering the OP's question. I know of a few people who are taking advantage of these traits right now, and they love it there.

As for the bureaucracy comment - it's real. If you're in dev and need a server, your request will end up going through Larry Page's office. When the CEO's office needs to be involved in cross-departmental requests, that's the very definition of red tape.

Cool. I've never worked there, but I appreciate that your comment came from personal experience.

Also, Oracle sounds super bureaucratic if you actually need approvals from the Google CEO! ;-)

Whoops. Larry Ellison. :D

Government/Military contractors are a great place to start looking, particularly where there is a lot of legacy technology.

Most people I know who are in this situation are

1) Old

2) Have tons of experience and worked hard earlier in their life

3) Have lots of connections that prevent them from being fired

I'm sure there are employees at large companies who collect 6-7 figure salaries and do little to nothing on a day-to-day basis. However, they can only do this because of their past merit and connections.

Probably anything government tech related.

government pay is terrible (for us software types)

government contracts are another story...

Reminds me of the "forgotten" employee. A lengthy but a very interested read:

https://sites.google.com/site/forgottenemployee/

Off topic, but now have you secured a 100k job at 25?

Supporting legacy products in a large company.

That sounds like anything but coasting...

Its obviously something that varies from job to job, company to company. But in my experience, these are by far the cushiest of jobs.

This is pretty dangerous. Another poster mentioned Yahoo pre-Mayers. Generally, positions like what you describe are either politically protected: a manager with a large number of reports has more "importance" than a manager with few, so some managers try to inflate their staff, or, the position has just slipped through the cracks as times change around it.

The problem comes when you've been in that position for 10 years, doing little to no significant work, not building or honing any skills, and suddenly a new management comes in and cleans house, and you're gone. Now what?

I work for the government and we have a lot of folks like what you describe, but with less income. As long as they show up for work and answer a few emails, mostly, they can get by. This works, I guess, if you're just a few years from retiring. But we do sometimes get aggressive politicians in office who promise to "cut the fat", and we have had cuts and layoffs in the past. So imagine yourself, at 25, you take a position and intentionally don't learn, don't advance, and just do the minimum to collect the salary.

10 years later, you're 35 and still working with Java 6 on some legacy system that needs 2 hours a week of maintenance. That's your whole job. Suddenly, some political upheaval happens and a bunch of folks, including you, are laid off.

Can you get back in the game? Of course. Would it be a lot easier to get back in if you took that time to keep your skills at least somewhat up to date?

That said, I'm very sympathetic. I'm a computer programmer because I've always been good at it. When I was a kid, and in high school, and so on. That's the only skill I learned. But I don't like computers. New frameworks don't excite me, they make me feel tired. When I go home, I don't want to play with the newest technology or even gadget. I dream of getting out of computing all together, but, nothing else would bring the salary combined with the light workload. It's a "bronze handcuffs" situation (I say bronze, because, as a government worker, my salary is too low to qualify for anything else). I had a job for a while teaching remedial basic math to adults, which was pretty neat, but it was part-time, no-benefits, low wage. That's the kind of thing that is fulfilling, but doesn't pay the mortgage.

Even so, I read HN. I sometimes do make time to try new ideas, even small ones. I'm not using node.js or angular, but, at least I've heard of them and know what they are. Don't become the guy that hasn't heard of them [where them refers to whatever is fresh] and doesn't know what they are... Or I worry you'll find yourself in a very difficult spot in a few years.

Yes it's possible, the guy next to me makes 80K and does next to nothing.

Interesting, are you employed or self-employed?

Employed!

As a senior marketer who was up last night till after midnight analyzing view-through attribution data for our display efforts, I really resent that.

You may not clearly understand what goes into marketing, but just as there are good and bad people in any field, a good marketer actually does quite a bit of work. In most cases, marketing is one of the most visibly measurable functions in a company and unless the company is growing itself because it is a one-in-a-million hit, marketers have their hands full and rarely have enough resources.

Drop the stigma against marketing already--it's getting pretty old.

If you are performing your own data analysis, then you are beyond the typical (common?) role. "Marketing intelligence" / "Market analyst" / someone who works with data is unfortunately atypical in many businesses, where marketing does not utilize a skillset that takes time to develop.

I have the current good fortune to work with some people who I would describe as you have above. But my experience has unfortunately more often been with those who took a "quick path" through education and experience to get a front-line, visible, and reasonably well compensated role.

Thanks for this.

Government. More specifically, get contracted by the State Department in Wash DC. No lies when I say, very low accountability and lots of pay.

Think 86$ an hour when jobs that are supposed to take you 2 days to do are setup for 2 weeks of work. So lots of doing nothing.

Speaking from experience. Its a lazy persons wet dream.

Bankrobber?

You're not just asking for a high paid job with low accountability, you're also asking for a place where you don't have to learn (so a stagnant field) without advancement that's an area of the cube that is totally empty as far as I know.

I suggest you get off your ass for the next 10 years, save like mad and then retire from your savings at as low an expense level that you can get away with.

Bankrobber : high risk, high accountability.

Investment Banker, on the other hand...

I think he meant 9AM - 5PM for hours, not 9AM - 5AM.