Slashdot Mirror

Average pay for a server admin, and yet major sites getting hacked left and right, the Net steadily becoming more unsafe all the time:

http://www1.salary.com/Client-Server-Database-Administrator-salary.html

Must be nice to get paid to fail.

Are you clueless or just stupid?

Average pay for a server admin, and yet major sites getting hacked left and right, the Net steadily becoming more unsafe all the time: http://www1.salary.com/Client-Server-Database-Administrator-salary.html Must be nice to get paid to fail.

Holy poop man, radiologists. What a bunch.

Seriously. I'd've thought that making $800k a year would tend to make one mellow.

I'm convinced it's vitamin D deficiency from sitting indoors in a darkened room all of their professional life. And they are only pulling down about half that. That's enough to make anybody cranky.

Average salary for starting accountant.

Why do they need to arrest anyone?

AND

If a crime is committed, they need to arrest someone.

A wee bit contradictory don't you think?

If they can't actually deliver safety, then get rid of them.

Anarchy and revolt then?

Bullshit. Police make a great deal of money

Check again.
http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_compresult_national_lg12000003.html
50k is not a great deal of money.

Corrupt and unethical police are the norm.

If that were true there would be mass riots and armed rebellion.

What they lack is real oversight. Corrupt and unethical police are the norm. Because reporting corrupt and illegal behavior is not acceptable behavior within the police force. Which means that there are essentially no good cops. Because the system doesn't allow it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_affairs_(law_enforcement)

You bitch and moan but not once do you offer a suggestion on how to resolve the problem.

For "Programmer 1", national averages: feel free to select a more appropriate job title too.

http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layoutscripts/swzl_salaryresults.asp?hdSearchByOption=1&hdLocationOption=0&hdKeyword=&hdJobCategory=IT05&hdNarrowDesc=IT+--+Computers%2C+Software&hdZipCode=Enter+Zip+Code&hdStateMetro=&hdGeoLocation=U.S.+National+Averages&hdCurrentPage=1&hdViewAllRecords=1&hdJobCode=IT10000010&hdJobTitle=Programmer+I&hdCurrentTab=1&hdZipCodePosted=&hdPaycheckCalc=&hdpageName=&hdOmniJobTitle=Applications+Programmer&hdOmniNarrowDesc=IT+--+Computers%2C+Software&op=salswz_psr&pagefrom=salaryresults&hdOmniState=&hdOmniGeoLocation=U.S.+National+Averages&d50th=70170.7413&jobcounter=4&countertype=0&totaljoblistnum=25&wsrcode=SW2&geo=U.S.+National+Averages&metrocode=&geometrocode=&zipcode=Enter+Zip+Code&jobcode=IT10000388&narrowcode=IT05&state=&statecode=&r=salswz_salresnxt_psr&educationcode1=&cmbEducation=&joblevelcode=3&jobfamilycode=19&rdbLocationOption=0&txtZipCode=&hdNarrowDesc=&hdAjaxDisplaySection1=1&hdAjaxDisplaySection2=&hdAjaxKeyword=&hdAjaxKeywordWithOR=

Well, if we're being precise, rationality in game theory is concerned with maximizing the expected return. This may involve making many small, relatively safe bets, or it may involve making a larger, more risky bet. It all depends on the probabilities and expected returns of the various outcomes being considered.

Even more technically, rationality in game theory is based upon Rational Choice Theory, in which "'rationality' simply means that a person reasons before taking an action" and of which all its model "all assume individuals choose the best action according to stable preference functions and constraints facing them." To that end, there are both risk aversion and gain maximization strategies. The issue then becomes that a Vice Principal or most middle management in general has very little possibility to maximally gain if they're generally unqualified for very high management positions* or if simply those positions don't grant you very much advantage over your current position. Hence, I'd argue that most managers are in fact risk aversion, CEOs are more risk taking, and companies (and schools) try to make higher positions look tempting enough so that middle management doesn't just slide into heavily risk aversion behavior.

*Consider that in a situation where you could have an 85% of continuing as normal for years if you're risk aversion, then to overall commit a series of actions that only has about a 50% chance of succeeding, the reward would have to be a 70% reward. I'm not sure, but I don't think the Principal or Superintendent makes 170% of what the Vice Principal makes.

Looking further, on Salary.com, I get some funny results for the United States. Median Elementary School Teacher pay: $50,227. Median High School Teacher pay: $52,372. Median Assistant Principal pay: $75,402. Median Prinicipal pay: $73,536. Median Superintendent pay: $74,733.

In short, on probability it makes sense for teachers to go from 85% safe to 63% safe (or 99% safe to 73% safe) but management looks like it should try to stay as safe as possible, unless it's eyeing to leave the school system for a better management position.

That's why I say that management tends to select against rationality. Most managers I've seen do not make any sort of rational calculation of probabilities and outcomes when making decisions. They leave these things to "gut instincts". Time and again, scientific studies have shown that gut instincts can be quite easily and predictably manipulated.

And, I'd argue that that is risk aversion. The idea is pretty simple. If you're a common person in a position of authority, you can take the "gut instincts" position and most other common people will not retaliate against your decision, no matter how irrational, because they would have made the same decision. Look no further than how many people in the US seem to choose Presidents based upon "I could sit and have a drink with him", not "he's more qualified than me and would make better decisions than me"**. Being able to shoot from the hip and make generally agreeable statements and positions is more likely to make you popular than being considerate and stable, carefully weighing your choices. Since, short of gross negligence/rule violation/law violation, a Vice Principal is only likely to be fired because of voter pressure on the School Board, gut instincts seems like the natural way to act for the position.

**The latest election of Barack Ob

Well, if we're being precise, rationality in game theory is concerned with maximizing the expected return. This may involve making many small, relatively safe bets, or it may involve making a larger, more risky bet. It all depends on the probabilities and expected returns of the various outcomes being considered.

Even more technically, rationality in game theory is based upon Rational Choice Theory, in which "'rationality' simply means that a person reasons before taking an action" and of which all its model "all assume individuals choose the best action according to stable preference functions and constraints facing them." To that end, there are both risk aversion and gain maximization strategies. The issue then becomes that a Vice Principal or most middle management in general has very little possibility to maximally gain if they're generally unqualified for very high management positions* or if simply those positions don't grant you very much advantage over your current position. Hence, I'd argue that most managers are in fact risk aversion, CEOs are more risk taking, and companies (and schools) try to make higher positions look tempting enough so that middle management doesn't just slide into heavily risk aversion behavior.

*Consider that in a situation where you could have an 85% of continuing as normal for years if you're risk aversion, then to overall commit a series of actions that only has about a 50% chance of succeeding, the reward would have to be a 70% reward. I'm not sure, but I don't think the Principal or Superintendent makes 170% of what the Vice Principal makes.

Looking further, on Salary.com, I get some funny results for the United States. Median Elementary School Teacher pay: $50,227. Median High School Teacher pay: $52,372. Median Assistant Principal pay: $75,402. Median Prinicipal pay: $73,536. Median Superintendent pay: $74,733.

In short, on probability it makes sense for teachers to go from 85% safe to 63% safe (or 99% safe to 73% safe) but management looks like it should try to stay as safe as possible, unless it's eyeing to leave the school system for a better management position.

That's why I say that management tends to select against rationality. Most managers I've seen do not make any sort of rational calculation of probabilities and outcomes when making decisions. They leave these things to "gut instincts". Time and again, scientific studies have shown that gut instincts can be quite easily and predictably manipulated.

And, I'd argue that that is risk aversion. The idea is pretty simple. If you're a common person in a position of authority, you can take the "gut instincts" position and most other common people will not retaliate against your decision, no matter how irrational, because they would have made the same decision. Look no further than how many people in the US seem to choose Presidents based upon "I could sit and have a drink with him", not "he's more qualified than me and would make better decisions than me"**. Being able to shoot from the hip and make generally agreeable statements and positions is more likely to make you popular than being considerate and stable, carefully weighing your choices. Since, short of gross negligence/rule violation/law violation, a Vice Principal is only likely to be fired because of voter pressure on the School Board, gut instincts seems like the natural way to act for the position.

**The latest election of Barack Ob

Well, if we're being precise, rationality in game theory is concerned with maximizing the expected return. This may involve making many small, relatively safe bets, or it may involve making a larger, more risky bet. It all depends on the probabilities and expected returns of the various outcomes being considered.

Even more technically, rationality in game theory is based upon Rational Choice Theory, in which "'rationality' simply means that a person reasons before taking an action" and of which all its model "all assume individuals choose the best action according to stable preference functions and constraints facing them." To that end, there are both risk aversion and gain maximization strategies. The issue then becomes that a Vice Principal or most middle management in general has very little possibility to maximally gain if they're generally unqualified for very high management positions* or if simply those positions don't grant you very much advantage over your current position. Hence, I'd argue that most managers are in fact risk aversion, CEOs are more risk taking, and companies (and schools) try to make higher positions look tempting enough so that middle management doesn't just slide into heavily risk aversion behavior.

*Consider that in a situation where you could have an 85% of continuing as normal for years if you're risk aversion, then to overall commit a series of actions that only has about a 50% chance of succeeding, the reward would have to be a 70% reward. I'm not sure, but I don't think the Principal or Superintendent makes 170% of what the Vice Principal makes.

Looking further, on Salary.com, I get some funny results for the United States. Median Elementary School Teacher pay: $50,227. Median High School Teacher pay: $52,372. Median Assistant Principal pay: $75,402. Median Prinicipal pay: $73,536. Median Superintendent pay: $74,733.

In short, on probability it makes sense for teachers to go from 85% safe to 63% safe (or 99% safe to 73% safe) but management looks like it should try to stay as safe as possible, unless it's eyeing to leave the school system for a better management position.

That's why I say that management tends to select against rationality. Most managers I've seen do not make any sort of rational calculation of probabilities and outcomes when making decisions. They leave these things to "gut instincts". Time and again, scientific studies have shown that gut instincts can be quite easily and predictably manipulated.

And, I'd argue that that is risk aversion. The idea is pretty simple. If you're a common person in a position of authority, you can take the "gut instincts" position and most other common people will not retaliate against your decision, no matter how irrational, because they would have made the same decision. Look no further than how many people in the US seem to choose Presidents based upon "I could sit and have a drink with him", not "he's more qualified than me and would make better decisions than me"**. Being able to shoot from the hip and make generally agreeable statements and positions is more likely to make you popular than being considerate and stable, carefully weighing your choices. Since, short of gross negligence/rule violation/law violation, a Vice Principal is only likely to be fired because of voter pressure on the School Board, gut instincts seems like the natural way to act for the position.

**The latest election of Barack Ob

Well, if we're being precise, rationality in game theory is concerned with maximizing the expected return. This may involve making many small, relatively safe bets, or it may involve making a larger, more risky bet. It all depends on the probabilities and expected returns of the various outcomes being considered.

Even more technically, rationality in game theory is based upon Rational Choice Theory, in which "'rationality' simply means that a person reasons before taking an action" and of which all its model "all assume individuals choose the best action according to stable preference functions and constraints facing them." To that end, there are both risk aversion and gain maximization strategies. The issue then becomes that a Vice Principal or most middle management in general has very little possibility to maximally gain if they're generally unqualified for very high management positions* or if simply those positions don't grant you very much advantage over your current position. Hence, I'd argue that most managers are in fact risk aversion, CEOs are more risk taking, and companies (and schools) try to make higher positions look tempting enough so that middle management doesn't just slide into heavily risk aversion behavior.

*Consider that in a situation where you could have an 85% of continuing as normal for years if you're risk aversion, then to overall commit a series of actions that only has about a 50% chance of succeeding, the reward would have to be a 70% reward. I'm not sure, but I don't think the Principal or Superintendent makes 170% of what the Vice Principal makes.

Looking further, on Salary.com, I get some funny results for the United States. Median Elementary School Teacher pay: $50,227. Median High School Teacher pay: $52,372. Median Assistant Principal pay: $75,402. Median Prinicipal pay: $73,536. Median Superintendent pay: $74,733.

In short, on probability it makes sense for teachers to go from 85% safe to 63% safe (or 99% safe to 73% safe) but management looks like it should try to stay as safe as possible, unless it's eyeing to leave the school system for a better management position.

That's why I say that management tends to select against rationality. Most managers I've seen do not make any sort of rational calculation of probabilities and outcomes when making decisions. They leave these things to "gut instincts". Time and again, scientific studies have shown that gut instincts can be quite easily and predictably manipulated.

And, I'd argue that that is risk aversion. The idea is pretty simple. If you're a common person in a position of authority, you can take the "gut instincts" position and most other common people will not retaliate against your decision, no matter how irrational, because they would have made the same decision. Look no further than how many people in the US seem to choose Presidents based upon "I could sit and have a drink with him", not "he's more qualified than me and would make better decisions than me"**. Being able to shoot from the hip and make generally agreeable statements and positions is more likely to make you popular than being considerate and stable, carefully weighing your choices. Since, short of gross negligence/rule violation/law violation, a Vice Principal is only likely to be fired because of voter pressure on the School Board, gut instincts seems like the natural way to act for the position.

**The latest election of Barack Ob

Well, if we're being precise, rationality in game theory is concerned with maximizing the expected return. This may involve making many small, relatively safe bets, or it may involve making a larger, more risky bet. It all depends on the probabilities and expected returns of the various outcomes being considered.

Even more technically, rationality in game theory is based upon Rational Choice Theory, in which "'rationality' simply means that a person reasons before taking an action" and of which all its model "all assume individuals choose the best action according to stable preference functions and constraints facing them." To that end, there are both risk aversion and gain maximization strategies. The issue then becomes that a Vice Principal or most middle management in general has very little possibility to maximally gain if they're generally unqualified for very high management positions* or if simply those positions don't grant you very much advantage over your current position. Hence, I'd argue that most managers are in fact risk aversion, CEOs are more risk taking, and companies (and schools) try to make higher positions look tempting enough so that middle management doesn't just slide into heavily risk aversion behavior.

*Consider that in a situation where you could have an 85% of continuing as normal for years if you're risk aversion, then to overall commit a series of actions that only has about a 50% chance of succeeding, the reward would have to be a 70% reward. I'm not sure, but I don't think the Principal or Superintendent makes 170% of what the Vice Principal makes.

Looking further, on Salary.com, I get some funny results for the United States. Median Elementary School Teacher pay: $50,227. Median High School Teacher pay: $52,372. Median Assistant Principal pay: $75,402. Median Prinicipal pay: $73,536. Median Superintendent pay: $74,733.

In short, on probability it makes sense for teachers to go from 85% safe to 63% safe (or 99% safe to 73% safe) but management looks like it should try to stay as safe as possible, unless it's eyeing to leave the school system for a better management position.

That's why I say that management tends to select against rationality. Most managers I've seen do not make any sort of rational calculation of probabilities and outcomes when making decisions. They leave these things to "gut instincts". Time and again, scientific studies have shown that gut instincts can be quite easily and predictably manipulated.

And, I'd argue that that is risk aversion. The idea is pretty simple. If you're a common person in a position of authority, you can take the "gut instincts" position and most other common people will not retaliate against your decision, no matter how irrational, because they would have made the same decision. Look no further than how many people in the US seem to choose Presidents based upon "I could sit and have a drink with him", not "he's more qualified than me and would make better decisions than me"**. Being able to shoot from the hip and make generally agreeable statements and positions is more likely to make you popular than being considerate and stable, carefully weighing your choices. Since, short of gross negligence/rule violation/law violation, a Vice Principal is only likely to be fired because of voter pressure on the School Board, gut instincts seems like the natural way to act for the position.

**The latest election of Barack Ob

Those cables I linked come in easily opened soft plastic sleeves, and their ordering time is essentially free since you'll be ordering other things (that you can't make) from them anyway; we're talking about 30-90 seconds of extra ordering time with big-O(1). And no, I don't test manufactured cables unless I think there's a problem with them. Not worth the time (it's too rare an occurrence).

Sharing honey wine with the delivery guy is one thing, but shouldn't there be non-IT people for receiving packages?

Let's see. The average Silicon Valley mid-level network engineer makes $85k/y, which is $40/h. $1.49 / $40/h * 60m/h = 2.23m ... so I suppose it's mostly a wash if you can reliably make a cable that fast or you're paid less.

However, there's also the cost of the heads, cable, boots, and the loss of quality that this article is talking about, plus the fact that you can't keep that kind of pace for ten reliable cables, and your error rate will be higher than the manufactured cables, even at a slower pace.

Plus, I'm sure you'd rather be doing something else.

What exactly do you consider a good salary? Entry level software engineering jobs typically pay much more than most entry level positions. $50-60 grand right out of college? Most people consider that pretty good.

Yes, those jobs often involve a lot of boring work, but so do most jobs. Thats why you get paid for it. I think you've spent too much time watching TV where characters always seem to have fun exciting jobs. But in real life, work almost always involves, well, work.

Median salary for a cardiologist is $290k a year. Even if he starts at only $200k, and you take 60% for taxes, malpractice insurance, and other bills, that still leaves $80k a year to pay off school loans and live off of. Unless you of know some investments nobody else does, I'm pretty sure he's better off becoming a cardiologist.

That said, if he really just wants money, he should become an attorney, or start a successful business.

exactly all you need to do is include things about how linux is a $25 billion dollar industry for a start http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2008/10/linux-ecosystem-worth-25-billi.html .

Point out how widely used it is in universities, how much it's used in the industry

Oh and your average unix admin earns about $80000 a year http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_compresult_national_IT10000152.html

I searched Google for "salary comparison." Among the many relevant results were http://www.salary.com/ and http://www.payscale.com./

For fulltime jobs, check salary.com and glassdoor.com for good salary information. For salary.com, you can enter in a job title (e.g. software engineer II) and zip code; the salary range results are pretty accurate. When you move to take a fulltime job, be sure to check the cost-of-living adjustment calculator there too.

If you are looking for an internship, then I recommend you not be so concerned with money. The goal of an internship is get real-world experience and do a good enough job so the manager will remember you well enough to write a letter of recommendation when you need it later. You will have the rest of your life to worry about making money. I would also recommend you get as many summer internships before you graduate as possible with a mix of big-name and small companies (where presumably you'll have more responsibilities at the smaller companies).

From http://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/products/prod_ibonds_glance.htm:
I bonds are currently 4.84% through October 31, 2008.

Interest earnings are exempt from State and local income taxes, but are subject to State and local estate, inheritance, gift, and other excise taxes.

So that raises the effective interest rate a bit if you are in a state with income taxes.

From http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_statetaxrate_CA.html
If your income range is $40,346 and over, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 9.3%.

So if my calculation is correct, that makes an effective APY of about 5.34%. Of course, I-bond rates vary over time, but I am under the impression this is one of the highest rate, lowest risk investments you can make.

(Though I realize there's a flaw. Nowadays you can only buy $5K/year of them. It used to be $30K/year.)

Your post is almost 100% bullshit political conjecture about 'illegals,' corporate american, and employment. BTW, RN salaries here:

http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_compresult_national_HC07000001.html

Yeah, they make 60k, not 10-20k.

Great job title.

And my postman's a customer-focussed peripatetic supply-chain-enablement engineer. He wins "postie of the month" awards quite frequently.

Well, at least you've demonstrated an ability to be a dick. Perhaps you can bring up your research skills next?

About 90 seconds with Google leads me to the details of a packaging Master's program, a history of that school going back 50 years, a long Wikipedia page on the topic and job listings under that title.

Remember: even if your main goal is to be an asshole, knowing even a tiny bit about the topic can help. You want to be an ass, not just look like one.

Based on what, beleiving it is so just 'cause "it should be?" How much stock do you own? Since RHT is so great I assume that you are heavily invested.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=RHT&t=my&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=

Some people are benefiting from the "subscription model."

http://swz.salary.com/execcomp/layouthtmls/excl_companyreport_C1001403_summary.html

I wonder if IBM, GE, or Microsoft pay close to 10% of their gross to the top 7 execs? Hint: NO

Just more dot com BS that is leaching off the investors and their seed money.

Except IT professionals often are treated on the same level as their parents. The entry level salary for a software engineer is 48-60 grand, thats pretty close to the average household income for people their parent's age (and note thats household income; often households have more than one working adult). And considering how often employers expect newly graduated kids to perform on the same level as their more experienced employees (just look at how often people complain the CS curriculum is teaching too much theory and not enough real world experience) and try to get them to do the jobs of experienced engineers, can you really blame IT workers for having this approach?

An additional benefit is that it has a rather sobering effect on local know-it-all's when they see that their work is in fact inferior to what we can get from a third world sourcing partner. After this sort of ego bruising they are more ready to accept modern and mature practices.

1. Stan O'Neal at Merrill Lynch walked away with no explicit severance, but with salary, stock, and retirement benefits, left with 160+ million after steering the company to at least a 4-5 billion dollar loss (source: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&refer=home&sid=aPxzn5U8zNBo/).
2. Mitchell Caplan cost E*Trade billions, and they had to get a 2.5 billion dollar cash infusion (for 17% of the company). Can't find an exact severance, but he was paid over 14 million in total compensation in 2003 alone (source: http://swz.salary.com/execcomp/layouthtmls/excl_execreport_103364.html/, so I don't feel too badly for him.
3. Citigroup is writing down billions in assets. Chuck Price left, but according to the WSJ (Link here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119403363814780742.html/ will walk away with about $31 million or so.

I don't know that you can link the difference between Boston and Silicon Valley to enforcement of non-compete agreements. Here's some other equally likely candidates:

San Jose has better weather than Boston. Maybe people with a choice of where to work choose a nice place to do it.

San Jose pays programmers slightly better than boston. Maybe people like to be paid more.

Why are people always so eager to boil complex situations down to a variance in a single variable in an attempt to prove a point?

I don't know that you can link the difference between Boston and Silicon Valley to enforcement of non-compete agreements. Here's some other equally likely candidates:

San Jose has better weather than Boston. Maybe people with a choice of where to work choose a nice place to do it.

San Jose pays programmers slightly better than boston. Maybe people like to be paid more.

Why are people always so eager to boil complex situations down to a variance in a single variable in an attempt to prove a point?

Sure, there are theoretically ways that these systems could be fixed, but in practice that would be very difficult to do.

Why? The people who have the positions and power to make the changes are benefitting from how the status quo, so why would they really want a change?

Healthcare workers get huge salaries, http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swz l_compresult_national_HC07000007.html Anesthetist Nurse:$130k+, etc etc.

There is no motivation from within the healthcare sector to fix the problem. Any moves from outside to do so will get lobbied to death pretty soon.

From Hotjobs/salary.com's methodology statement (http://hotjobs.salary.com/salarywizard/docs/salwi zhtmls/methodology.html):

Although the data sources we use are the most recent available, there is a lag between the effective data of the salary information they report and today - sometimes more than a year. To recognize that salaries increase faster than studies are printed, Salary.com uses the industry standard approach of modifying the data by applying an aging factor to adjust the data to a common date and to accommodate the movement of salaries over time. Not all salaries move at the same rate. For instance, in the last few years, salaries in the information technology field have increased much faster than salaries in other jobs (5 to 15 percent for IT versus 2 to 5 percent in general). Therefore, IT salaries are adjusted at a higher rate than non-IT jobs.

So I wonder how old the data they used to adjust developer salaries is. I wonder if anyone else can provide a link that shows how developer salaries have changed over, say, the last ten years.

1. Go to salary.com
2. Search for a really common job. Let's use, "Web Developer"
3. Fail to find that job. Instead get offered variants of "Web Software Developer" that appears to describe a web application engineer rather than a general web developer.
4. Look at the salary range for a job that's markedly different to what you do.
5. Take offense at how unfairly you now feel you're paid.
6. Go to manager and demand a raise that you think is only fair.
7. Feel horribly taken advantage of when the manager, fairly legitimately, claims you're already pretty well compensated for the job you actually do vs. the significantly different job you found on the web.
8. Fester about the injustice.
9. Bitch about how the company you used to love is now terrible and evil.
10. Wonder why your manager who used to love you now sees you as a morale leech and someone they need to deal with.

unless you can figure out a way to paint it so that it's to their personal advantage.
The biggest personal advantage one can give a novice:
"You don't have to spend $250.00 on MS Office 200x of your own money to use the formats that we will use at the school. Here, take this disk, or here let me put this install file on your USB drive... double click on that and off you go."

(Sure, they get the educational edition... it's only $120.00 at Amazon. Many teachers have to work an entire day to take home that much pay. An average of $50k/yr /(12*4*40) hourly wage * .80 take home after taxes = ~$21.00 of take home pay/hour.)

You also forget to note that he is a software consultant.

Looking at the following average pay (national US):
Consultants & Contractors Information Services Consultant

This guy should be making upwards of $75k, if not nearly $100k+. Yes, after taxes that doesn't leave much, maybe $40-55k. Then after you factor in family, mortgages, all the works, there's potentially nothing left over. But if he's been in the industry for nearly a decade, he better have at least $25k saved up. Setting aside $5k/yr would've already done it, let alone the often recommended 10-20% of your base salary.

The truth is, it's because he picked the dream of family over space.

Sorry if this doesn't sit well with those who make less, but this is his situation, not yours. And $25k should not be putting him in debt.

in small cities/large towns police officers are some of the best paid

Median pay for a patrol officer is about $46k. I'm suggesting that "patrol cop" be a highly skilled profession, requiring a college degree and post-graduate study, about the level of training of a Master's degree, paying $100k+. Of course there may be less-skilled, lower-paid support positions, and many of the jobs (like running speed traps) now done by police officers should be done by support personel, or perhaps by an entirely different agency.

(We should also be sure that citizens are empowered to protect themselves against criminals, by ensuring they have legal access to tools for self-defense.)

And what are 'actual bad guys'? Do drug dealers count? Child molesters? Rapists?

"Actual bad guys" are people who credibly threaten to violate the rights of others. So: no (not so long as they're just selling to people who want to buy, not using force or fraud), yes, yes.

Get the government out of legislating morality, let people choose what to do with their own bodies - take drugs, sleep with hookers, gamble, whatever - and you'll have a lot more resources to go after people who are actually hurting or endangering other people.

Money Magazine and Salary.com say Software Engineering is the "Best Job" out there. However, their criteria are hardly guaranteed to be the same as yours (actually, the criteria might be the same...but the priorities probably won't). It's really all about what you like to do. If you like to write programs and solve problems, CS is great and there's money to be made (somewhere...I'm told).

I'm no games journalist myself, nor do I live in california, but Salary.com cites numbers in the $30-$60 thou/year for entry-level copy writers (not game specific) in the San Fransisco area, which sounds pretty typical for entry-level jobs with a college degree these days, though it might be slightly less than what bay area residents typically recieve.

the gulf between the rich and the working class grows wider every year

I don't know about you, but I hardly consider myself part of the "working class". According to Salary.com the average American makes $39,795. I make more than double that, but am not management or executive level. To lump myself in with the working class that makes $40K per year does them a disservice. There are people in this country that have it a lot rougher than I do. I'm just fortunate enough to be in a field where I can ask for more money than, say, a teacher or a nurse. I work hard and am well paid. Does our CEO make a large amount more than me? Yes, but he's also got more responsiblity. The market will determine what a skill set it worth. There's a reason the janitor in your building doesn't make $100K per year. People with skills that are in demand have the luxury of holding out for more money. Likewise, people with skills that are not as in demand will have a hard time commanding the same salaries. Does that mean that those lesser-skilled workers are being taken advantage of? No. It's just about supply and demand.

Absolutely.

I've been considering a move lately, and in considering the cost-of-living difference (i.e., the difference in average prices between 2 locations), I used this tool on salary.com. Pretty useful. :-)

i recently went through this drill in searching for my first job after graduate school. i did an extensive amount of research in the process, based on which i can state the following (general--YMMV) observations:

a) average pay for a person with given qualifications can vary widely (>20%), even within a given industry.

b) average pay can, and does, vary widely between industries (e.g. aerospace vs. electrical engineering).

c) despite how they may act upon initial contact, HR people are not your friends. their job is to make you feel like they're your buddy, and to create the appearance of "it's you and me against The Man," where "The Man" is the company in question, early on in the negotiation process.

d) after getting the go-ahead from the hiring manager, HR's job is to get you on board for the lowest possible amount of money. if you think about it, doing things significantly differently would be financially irresponsible from the company's standpoint in most cases.

e) do your homework. that way you can counter glib and/or arbitrary assertions from the HR person about salary with tangible facts. even then they will likely not concede an inch verbally, but it does make a difference.

f) in case it is not clear from points b) through e) above, HR people are weasels. i was incredibly lucky to receive seven offers from seven interviews. with one small exception, this was the case in all of them.

g) whoever names a number first during the negotiation process generally loses.

although the title makes it sound very much like a huckster's manual, jack chapman's book is actually pretty decent and worth a look. some of its advice may be inapplicable or unworkable for you, but it's a good place to start. you can find it at most big bookstores for about $10. (no, i have no affiliation whatsoever with him.)

some universities' career offices publish historical starting salaries for their graduates online. if this isn't your first job, these numbers may not be directly relevant to you, but it's another piece of information. stanford MIT.

other salary links: the wall street journal published two surveys in the november 5, 2004 issue, one showing average salary by location, another by degree/education, for computer engineers. my two links are both dead, but if you have access to a library or a subscription to the WSJ archives, those are worth a look.

cost-of-living calculators one, two, three, four, five. that last one is a general link to the ACCRA index. it is not published for free on the web AFAIK, but if you google around you may find snapshots posted in various places.)

finally, general salary negotiation advice links: one, two, three.

be prepared, and good luck! /CF

I agree, you NEVER answer this question. Leave your current salary blank. The hiring process is not as collaborative as it seems, it's more like a car dealership. If an employer wants to hire someone, they offer a salary. If you are unfairly asked for salry requirements, that is a huge red flag. Google is your friend in this matter.

I pulled those exact numbers from salary.com, but the numbers from Federal studies are very close to those. I don't have those on hand, though.

http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swz l_compresult_national_ED03000011.html

Your mother would very likely be much better compensated in a private school rather than a public school. Since she's been in for 30 years, she's really never going to get better pay while working under a teacher union. Longevity is a real annoyance... :(

The criticism is that Congress and the Supreme Court have passed the buck on patent regulation to the USPTO. The passed buck spans from approving the patent all the way back to approving who gets to prosecute the patent. Our elected officials in charge, constitutionally, of regulating patents have abdicated their responsibilty to a bureaucracy that largely writes its own rules.

As far as compensation goes, it's about $75,000 per year, and the job market is strong.

So you believe a doctor who goes through 2-3x more training than a computer programmer should make less money than a computer programmer?

Doctor in Virgina Beach, VA: $137,717
Doctor's salary

Entry level programmer in Virginia Beach, VA: $48,699
Programmer's salary

What you think a doctor should be paid: $39347
I guess you don't expect doctors to be able to research the latest medicine or buy a house.

So you believe a doctor who goes through 2-3x more training than a computer programmer should make less money than a computer programmer?

Doctor in Virgina Beach, VA: $137,717
Doctor's salary

Entry level programmer in Virginia Beach, VA: $48,699
Programmer's salary

What you think a doctor should be paid: $39347
I guess you don't expect doctors to be able to research the latest medicine or buy a house.

I found a cost of living calculator at Salary.com the other day, because I'm looking at moving within a year or two. I currently make a base salary of ~$55,000 as a web developer in Dallas, Texas. Here are some numbers of approximately what I would need to make in various cities across the U.S to be at the same level:

• New York, NY—$103,000
• San Francisco, CA—$97,000
• Boston, MA—$72,000
• Seattle, WA—$68,000
• Philadelphia, PA—$64,000
• Chicago, IL—$58,000
• Atlanta, GA—$57,000
• Miami, FL—$56,000
• Phoenix, AZ—$54,000
• Wichita, KS—$52,000
• Baltimore, MD—$51,000
• Pierre, SD—$47,000

As expected, the cost of living is higher in the big cities, especially in California and New York State. Anyway, I hope this was helpful. The link is below if you want to try it yourself.

http://swz.salary.com/CostOfLivingWizard/layoutscr ipts/coll_start.asp

Good websites like salary.com will provide you with the median income in your area. Median is of course a better measure of central tendancy for salary than average, so you can get a reasonable idea of what someone in your area should be making, along with a range (i.e. you may not make exactly ___, but you will make within $20k of it).

OK, I know it's bad form to respond to my own post, but reading more about this "survey" really raises my ire about the willingness of the media to report junk surveys. This survey was all over the local news yesterday, mostly because my state (Missouri) was the chief time waster. Even the governor had to respond to the media saying that we Missourians aren't a bunch of lazy workers.

But then if you look at the "methodology" of this survey (see bottom), you'll see there wasn't a shred of science in this. Not only was the audience surveyed limited to AOL users, Survey.com users, and HR professionals, but the "data was analyzed by Salary.com's team of Certified Compensation Professionals." What the hell is a "Certified Compensation Professional" and what do they know about statistics and surveys?

The media needs to be a little more responsible in writing news stories based on something as weak as an online survey that had no scientific sampling or margin of error associated with it. If anything this proves that reporters are the lazy workers here.

And as always, it's not quite that simple. Pay scales, for instance. Let's compare registered nurses in London and NYC.

London midgrade RN salary - £21,605 ($40,859 at todays conversion rate)
NYC midrange RN salary - $59,102.

I'd say that numbers like those make up a LARGE portion of the difference in medical costs.

I'd start with salary.com, actually. There's a lot of information on cost of living, expected salary ranges by geographic location for virtually any position, and comparisons between different areas so you can start to guage how expensive it is to live somewhere.

As a personal recommendation, Saint Paul or Minneapolis, MN (or the surrounding area) is probably one of the best places for a tech-minded person to find work right about now. The salaries are still high versus the cost of living, and there are a lot of positive things about Minnesota... just so long as you don't mind the freezing cold in the winters or the massive snowdrifts. ;)

Um, no. Your average system administrator earns about $62k has at least 2 years experience, and generally a bachelors degree in a related field. At least according to most industry figures.

The job title also entails tweaking system configurations for security, evaluating patches, etc. etc.

Software Developer Salary

You can check out salary.com for salaries of other IT personnel such as SW Engineers, Network Support Techs, Programmers, etc. All make more than Electricians.

Software Developer Salary

You can check out salary.com for salaries of other IT personnel such as SW Engineers, Network Support Techs, Programmers, etc. All make more than Electricians.