IT (And Other) Salaries On The Rise In The U.S.

pertinax18 writes "CNN Money is reporting that salaries for most college grads are on the rise once again. Especially interesting to collegiate (and other) /. readers may be the 4.1% increase in pay for CS grads, and 10.7% increases in pay for others in the field. From the article: 'If those numbers sound enticing, it's probably because computer science graduates are long overdue for a pay increase. "They haven't seen an increase since 2001 and this is the first year, in all four reports, that they showed an increase," Koncz says.' Are things finally starting to look up for us?"

Comments

Bush's Fault

[ari_j]

Why is it Bush's fault when salaries go down, but a magical coincidence when they go up?

Re:Bush's Fault

[Forge]

It's the fault of the guy with the hose when your house gets wet. When he runs out of water and your house dries out again is that his fault too?

Re:Bush's Fault

[ari_j]

So you're saying that things were not on the decline until spring, 2001? Seems to me that 2000 wasn't all that hot, either. Explain how you blame that on Bush.

Re:Bush's Fault

[Ubergrendle]

After 3+ years of downturn (e.g. wasn't there an article detailing the net-loss of 400,000 IT jobs in North American just a few days ago here on slashdot?) it will take more than a one-time modest increase to give the Bush administration credit.

If things do turn around over several successful quarters, you can ask this question again and expect a fair answer.

Given the relatively bleak outlook on the economy right now, I don't think that this is likely. Typically there is a modest boost in economic output during an election year due to American optimism, but even THAT effect is heavily muted this year.

Re:Bush's Fault

[randall_burns]

It isn't just inflation-you need to look at where the jobs are. We've seen a decline in IT jobs the last few years-and much of that decline is in the places with the lower cost of living--so all these figures mean is that newer grads are getting jobs in places like California with a high cost of living.

Re:Bush's Fault

[chris_mahan]

Why should they pay more if someone will do the same job for less?

If you want larger salary, you ask for it. If you are afraid, then there is something else at play.

PS: You hardly ever want to tell your boss you want more money without doing your homework first. But on the other hand, don;t go apply for a job elsewhere just to see how much they'll offer you so you can tell your current boss, because the new company will feel slighted and you may need them in the future (like 6 months down the road after you really get fed up and just walk out).

The other thing you want to do is keep learning on your own. I have learned that you don't actually learn new stuff at companies. You have to learn it on your own time. It also demonstrates to potential employers that you are self-motivated, able to take on a difficult project, and are able to carry it to fruition.

Finally, save some money. Put aside enough for 6 months of living expenses. That way, besides earning a little bit of interest, you'll have enough money to weather a sudden job change, and not feel pressured into taking whatever just to pay next month's rent.
Trust me on that one.

Now, for some more on-topic stuff:
As someone mentioned, other costs have risen steadily for a while. We're seeing a reajustment of wages to match the increase in the cost of living. In Computer stuff, a lot of people have given up on the field altogether and gone back to the farm (so to speak) or became realtors, etc. I say this is good as there are more people in the computer field that do it "for the love of the game" rather than just for the quick buck.

Re:Bush's Fault

[Omega1045]

If I recall it was just two (2) months into Bush's presidency that most economists came out and called it a recession. I don't care if you are Satan himself, you cannot kill the economy in two months.

I am not a Bush fanboy, but I would also like to point out that it is interesting that all the Enron, etc, crap is pointed at Bush when it all occured during the Clinton administration under the nose of Reno.

Re:Bush's Fault

[OwnedByTwoCats]

The more likely case is that the economy was already fragile and on course to cracking regardless if Bush or Gore had been president.

That is an adequate explanation for 2001. But it fails to explain that Bush promised hundreds of thousands of new jobs every month if his tax cut was passed, and it was passed, and the jobs just haven't materialized.

Most economists believe that other choices, like modest tax cuts targeting the middle class along with extending unemployment insurance, would have cost the treasury far less, and done far more to get the economy moving again.

Re:Bush's Fault

[cluckshot]

First I would agree that the economy wasn't doing too well in 2001! Next I will give instructions on how to start an Instant Recession.

Begin by sturring in the information to CEO types that you will no longer enforce the border. (This kills the labor market) Throw in a dash of telling them that the US Justice Department will quit looking to see if they are doing securities fraud etc. (This loots the money from investors) Turn up the heat on the pot by demanding Trade Promotion Authority (Which makes the companies have no national loyalty) and then simmer gently over a fire of refusing to enforce environmental, health and safety laws.

If that doesn't work bring in advisers who talk about outsourcing as being good for the economy and the mad rush will be on...

But that didn't happen did it?!? Of course having busines s awaiting new more favorable tax laws will halt their current plans too. When these passed they could best be stated that they told American Business to "Get the Hell out of the USA ASAP!"

You were entirely fair about Enron except not noting who supported who for the Presidency...

one omission

[rritterson]

The numbers look great on a cursory glance, but they are missing one thing important: They don't list what percentage of graduates were able to find a job within x months of graduation.

So sure, maybe the ones that were hired are making more, but if they are only hiring a small percentage of grads, you'd expect them to make more, wouldn't you? (As they would be more qualified than the average grad)

Re:one omission

[ari_j]

Don't forget about inflation. Even if you find a job that pays 4.1% more than it would have a year go, you're still taking a hit if inflation is over 4.1%.

Re:one omission

[DAldredge]

No, it isn't. That number is as much BS as enron's books. It doesn't include food and energy (gas, natural gas, fuel oil, petro, or electricty) in its figures.

What has went up the most in the past 12-24 months? Food (Milk and anything made with milk) and Energy prices.

Funny how it excludes the products that almost everyone has to buy from its calculations, isn't it?

CS != IT

[drinkypoo]

While there is certainly crossover, your typical IT employee is/was not a CS major. CS is programming and software engineering, IT is servers and networks, and yes, occasionally writing some code. Programmers' salaries rising doesn't mean shit to most of us IT employees.

Theory

[webword]

Low wage jobs have been outsourced from the U.S. therefore the remaining jobs in U.S. drive higher mean wages, even for college graduates.

SHHHHHHHHHH

[slashdot_punk]

Stop pimping IT. We need perception to be BAD... so students stop taking IT majors.

That's what will increase our salaries and our demand.

Re:What a Crock

[JaffaKREE]

Right, because salaries of recently graduated IT people have nothing to do with salaries of veteran IT people.

College

[TPoise]

Many CS majors have it all wrong. College isn't about wasting 4-6 years studying, it's about doing something PRODUCTIVE during that time (co-op, internships, start your own business, develop a new 3-d game engine). Something to show that I have talent. Unfortunately darwinism is taking place and only the strongest are surviving right now. The weak are all complaining that it's Bush's fault that they have no experience and aren't willing to relocate to take on an entry-level job.

Only the strongest will survive.

Re:College

[velo_mike]

Many CS majors have it all wrong. College isn't about wasting 4-6 years studying, it's about doing something PRODUCTIVE during that time (co-op, internships, start your own business, develop a new 3-d game engine).

I wish I had mod points for this one.

Unfortunately, college has been dumbed down to where high school used to be. We're now faced with streams of college graduates who spent their time either sleeping or partying wondering why, oh why don't I have a job.

Re:Are they really?

[krem81]

And if that's teh case, then it is a good thing. If we always kept our low-paying jobs, half the country would still be laying bricks and raising cattle.

Perhaps,

[Teclis]

If IT Jobs are really earning more money than there must be a few things going on. Firstly, The industry may be seeing increased profits, Secondly, There may be increased demand for IT Professionals. Thirdly, There may be a decreased supply of IT Professionals.

The salary paid to those working is not just something that is nice to have high. It is calculated from the state of the system. If the pay is bad then do something about it. Sometimes the only thing you can do is find a different job as there are too many workers in the industry.

Also, the industry can regulate this more if IT people want more money. Take the Medical Profession for example. They place a limit on the number of accepted students every year. If CS education did this as well, then the decreased supply (I don't think the demand is going anywhere) will force employers to pay the workers more money. On the reverse side, not as many people would have jobs. This is almost like the question on Socialism vs. Capitalism. If you want everyone to be working and be marginally content, then don't expect alot of money. Judging from this article, that is not what people want but infact the Capitalistic prespective in that they want more money.

Re:Are they really?

[DAldredge]

You forget that not every one can do the high tech work. You also forget that they can vote.

If it gets bad enought they will just vote them a much larger portion of your check.

New graduates don't have a clue...

[Darlok]

As a partner in a small tech consulting business, I can state without reservation, "New CS Graduates don't have a clue what they're worth." The survey is almost certainly taken from a handful of large, national employers with fixed entry-level employement packages.

The truth is that most CS graduates go into smaller businesses. And when they walk in my front door, they have no clue what they should be making. I've had B-students who held a student job doing data entry for their University walk in the door and tell me they're "willing" to work for $75,000 a year, to be a code monkey after graduation. I've also had graduate students with quite a bit of experience walk in and tell me they're expecting $36-40k.

Depending on how many /. articles they read over the last 5 years, you either end up with new grads with no experience, who think they're the second coming, or experienced folks who had a bad co-op or were laid off rapidly from their first job, who walk in demoralized, and are willing to work for peanuts.

As far as I'm concerned, the question of "What's a Degree Worth" is bunk. 90% of a new grad's worth has little to do with their academic program, and everything to do with their attitude, their experiences, and their fitness for the job. There's MIT grads that I wouldn't hire if they were the last non-Indian programmers on the planet.

A degree is worth nothing. The grad's attiude and ability to produce is what sets their salary. Lacking that, they're either unemployed 6 months later, or getting bonuses and raises because the company wants to encourage loyalty and keep them around for a long time. The diploma on your wall has very little to do with that.

Re:New graduates don't have a clue...

[Lumpy]

getting bonuses and raises because the company wants to encourage loyalty and keep them around for a long time.

where the hell do you work??? What you speak of flies in the face of what corperate policy is.

Do more and bust your arse = very little thanks and only more work with a "sorry no money available for raises" while we hear about the CTO getting a 1.2M bonus.

I would kill to work for a company that encourages hard work and rewards for a job well done.

You can't blame stuff like this on ANY president.

[FlimFlamboyant]

Presidents don't create or destroy jobs. They don't raise or lower wages. At best, what they can do is create circumstances that make it possible or impossible for CORPORATIONS to do these things.

You know what caused the tech market crash? Clinton? Bush? No... YOU did! By "you" I mean every American who pissed their savings away by investing WAY too much money in an empire that (at the time) had almost nothing to offer in terms of REAL product. As a result of all the venture capital flying around, too many .coms were created, hiring way too many people for jobs that the market simply wasn't prepared to sustain for the long term.

The result? Exactly what SHOULD happen. Companies collapse, people lose their jobs (unfortunately), and the economy (not the president), along with the basic rules of supply and demand, slowly corrects our mistakes.

Re:What a Crock

[geoffspear]

You don't need to give anyone a raise to have a higher average salary. You just lay off all of the lower-paid employees, replacing them with contracted offshore labor, and let your higher-paid managers keep their jobs.

It's just like lowering the unemployment rate by waiting for people to give up looking for jobs instead of actually creating new jobs. Lying with statistics is fun!

And Vice Versa

[weston]

Why is it Bush's fault when salaries go down, but a magical coincidence when they go up?

For the same reason that when nice things happen, the Bush campaign proclaims that their plans are working, but when bad things happen, it's because we're just in tough times.

Yes, people who don't like Bush see more reasons to dislike Bush in the information they encounter. But this isn't unique to his critics, nor make him a particularly uniquely beleagured president.

Salaries not an issue if you can't even get a job

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

What difference does the salaries make if you CAN'T EVEN GET A JOB?!?

Knowing you would've made more money if you could even get hired doesn't put food on the table.

And of course salaries can go up if there are less people to employ. A given amount of money divided less ways is more per person.

But it doesn't matter how big the pieces of the pie are if you aren't even allowed at the table.

Re:Bush's Fault, Clinton's Fault, Bush's Fault, Re

[Tlosk]

What should we have done? Let the inspectors finish their jobs maybe? Assemble a convincing case and get UN approval before playing cowboy half way across the world for something Hussein *might* do? Afghanistan was one thing, but we also had widespread support, because it was a reasonable and just thing to do, going directly after Bin Laden.

Iraq was something we never should have undertaken. Life is filled with choosing the lesser of two evils. Invading a sovereign nation and pissing off 90% of the Arab world, torturing people, ignoring basic rights, excluding ourselves from international treaty agreements, this whole mess is going to return to us ten-fold over the next century.

*I* did? Funny, I thought the fed did that...

[MacDork]

First of all, DJIA != Economy.

But since someone brought it up... I remember Greenspan playing a key role in helping that bubble burst. You know, Mr. Irrational Exuberance himself. The guy raising interest rates with the stated purpose of 'slowing down the overheating economy.'

He also stood by and watched Clinton sign away depression era laws in 1999 that had been on the books for decades. Yeah, that's him on the far left. These laws separated banks, securities firms, and insurance companies for a reason. Imagine a bank invested in the stock market. Not only is this a risky investment for a bank holding *YOUR* money, but suppose it provides a conflict of interest. The bank is also dispensing investment advice. Banks might mislead investors in order to bail themselves out of a bad investment, no? Well guess what happens next...

• In 2002, Accounting firm Arthur Andersen was convicted of a single charge stemming from its lackluster auditing of Enron. That action forced Andersen, one of the largest and most respected auditors in the world, to go out of business.

• There was plenty of blame to go around. Corporate executives had cooked books while lining their pockets. Analysts at investment banks had recommended stocks they knew were dogs in a quid pro quo that ensured banking business from those same firms.

Which brings us back around to the real reason for our failing economy. Gross mismanagement of tax laws, banking regulations, and the federal budget by congress and the president. And not just this congress and not just this president. You don't get a 7.4 Trillion dollar national debt overnight. That, friend, you cannot blame on me or the terrorists.