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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

The article says they are long overdue, so they're going up in spite of Bush.

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

[spoonyfork]

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

Obviously Bush is to blame for causing the problem resulting in salaries going down and someone else is to be lauded for fixing the problem and making them go up.

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

[njfuzzy]

If they really went up, it would be great. However, if they can't keep pace with inflation, then the slight increases we see can just be considered cost-of-living catch-up.

Re:Bush's Fault

[ari_j]

So why was the economy under Clinton such a praiseworthy thing, but at the same levels under Bush it's something to vote against him for?

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

[ari_j]

Are you claiming that the Bush administration deliberately and intentionally "hosed down" the economy starting in the year before Bush took office?

Re:Bush's Fault

[TrentL]

First, I don't actually hold Bush responsible for the economy. BUT, if Bush is going to claim that $500 billion deficits are a neccesary evil for fighting an economic slow down, I'm going to demand results. This economy is NOT worth what we've paid for it in long-term debt. More competent politicians (such as Robert Rubin) could have gotten much more "bang for the buck" with the money Bush has squandered.

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

[cynic10508]

John Kerry says: "And it's Bush's fault that IT salaries are on the rise! When I'm made president I'll make sure that IT salaries are kept low! Just don't ask me how I intend to do that..."

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

[nahdude812]

"Intentionally" implies insight into administration motivation which no one here on Slashdot is likely to possess.

But even if the guy with the hose wasn't intending to water your front door, doesn't mean he didn't do it.

I think the point is, it's possible for Bush to have squashed jobs, then later through inaction on his part, jobs come back. Some will say it's brilliant strategy by Bush to do nothing, others will say it's sheer laziness by Bush. In the end, it doesn't really matter, if being an inactive president is good for the country, then an inactive president is a good president.

That said, Bush sucks, and trashed our economy as well as the balanced budget.

Re:Bush's Fault

[Beatbyte]

it was already going the way of the titanic when he entered office.

it actually started going down as of 97... which was when everyone's favorite president was in office.

why didn't he get blamed for the dot bomb of 97?

Re:Bush's Fault

[Anonymous Coward]

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

And as a more-liberal person than you, I agree. Stock prices were amazingly untenable, and for years people outside of the feeding frenzy that was "invent doing something... On The Internet (TM) and retire from the IPO" expressed their fears of this system openly. That anyone blames the .com bust (and the resulting economic halt thanks to the pessimism it generated) on anything other than raw, blind greed is something I cannot fathom.

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]

Because the economy kept growing for three and a half more years?

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

[Odin's Raven]

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

As people are fond of saying: "You must be new here..." (Not just to /., but to the planet Earth. ;-)

It's for the same reason that leaders (in the U.S.A., and in other countries, and even the PHB down the hall from your cube) will claim credit for economic upturns during their reign, while claiming that any and all economic downturns were caused by:

• magical coincidence
• market forces (see "magical coincidence")
• consumer uncertainty (see "magical coincidence")
• the failed policies of a predecessor from an opposing political party
• evil pixies (see both "magical coincidence" and "opposing party")
• terrorists (see "opposing party")

Leaders in power like to claim credit for good things, and avoid responsibility for bad things. Opponents of leaders in power like to assign blame for bad things, and claim responsibility for good things (or at least deny that the leader may have had a role in the good things).

Welcome to the world of carbon-based Terran life forms. For further study, may I recommend reading a long-running classic field study of this planet's society, conducted by the noted sociologist, Scott Adams. While the studies focus primarily on interactions within hierarchical corporate institutions, you may find them illustrative as you attempt to understand the political systems you encounter on your survey of our planet.

Live long and prosper, or whatever the appropriate greeting is on your homeworld.

Re:Bush's Fault

[I_Want_This_ID]

That's just what MOST economists think. Most of them also think that 400+ Billion and growing deficits are bad too.

Luckily, we have the OTHER economists running the majority of the coutry (at the state and federal levels) who believe rightly that the economy can truly be jump started by giving more money to those with the lowest propensity to spend (aka: rich people).

Then they can fall back on having the conservative media sound machine (fox news, 90% of talk radio, clear channel, etc...) to continuously spout about the "liberal media"

Thanks for not paying attention

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...

Re:Bush's Fault

[ShieldWolf]

Bush began to send the economy into recession BEFORE he became president, and here's how:

He and Cheney kept referring to the weakening economy as being in "likely recession" (Which is was not at the time) during the 2000 eleciton cycle. Every politician and economist knows that you don't use the word recession until the downturn is either fully engaged or over in order to avoid having it become a self-fulfilling prophesy, i.e. people hear the word recession and they begin to dial down their spending and increase their saving in order to ride it out, thus creating the recession. Futhermore they chose to refer to the education situation in the country as an "education recession", in order to have the word repeated as many times as possible. during campaign. The reasons for doing so are obvious: if enough people think the economy is going in the wrong direction they will likely want new leadership to change the diection. So Bush and Cheney helped create, or at the very least worsen, a recession solely for the purpose of getting elected which I think is pretty sick.

Feel free to google or Lexus/Nexus the above to confirm.

Re:Bush's Fault

[TXG1112]

Corporate profits are at an all time high. See this chart. From the link:

But with the end of the recession in late 2001,* corporate profits jumped enormously. And they have continued to rise as the lousy labor market has dragged down wages and salaries while greatly-increased productivity has driven value added per worker way, way up.

Re:Bush's Fault

[Joey7F]

The way I see it, we had many more years of prosperity under Clinton than under Bush. Period. It might have sucked towards the end of Clinton, but it's sucked during Bush's entire presidency.

Okay let me expand that...

If it was bad towards the end of Clinton, you would agree it would be, by default, bad under Bush for a certain amount of time, right?

How long does it take to get policy ennacted? Nothing Bush did would have an effect until at least Summer of 01 (when tax cuts got put into the economy), a month after those we got a huge twist to the economic plan.

9/11 was to the Economy what the Mule was to Hari Seldon's plan.

So now we have that as well as corporate fraud that shakes the foundation of Wall Street, and a stock market crash (albeit not in that order). Bush will be the first president since Hoover to preside over a net jobs loss. He and Hoover had to deal with one thing in common...a market crash. This one was not as severe which is why when you look outside, it doesn't bear much resemblance to the Great Depression.

We are just now getting back on track from 3 economic altering events. Had we not had those, we would be in the greatest boom of all time. In fact, if Bush is reelected, we will likely get exactly that. Don't confuse the economy under Clinton from 1996->1999 with the economy from 1992-1996.

In 1996 we had the same unemployment as we do now, similar growth etc.

--Joey

Re:Bush's Fault

[SubtleNuance]

Nice Try CPT. Republican.

In fact, this article is dribble. Yes, the rates
'went up' -- but who cares? Big deal? They are still *way* down since Bush came to office. Further, trying to suggest a trend -- from a single uptick -- is statistically meaningless.

*AND* This article didnt mention two very important issues: A) Inflation and B) The Value of the US Dollar.

A) The inflation has been relatively low. Meaning prices in the marketplace are much the same.

BUT:

B) Your dollar has taken a shit-kicking. Pre Bush the USD was worth far more than today. Have a look here. The US Dollar was worth $1.12 Euros on Jan 6th 2001. Today, the US Dollar is worth $0.88 Euro. The US Dollar was worth $1.58 Canadian on Jan 6th 2001. Today, the US Dollar is worth $1.28 Canadian.

Do you know what that means? That yes, the salaries have 'gone up', but you are far *FAR* worse off.

Not only are you (over the term) making less. BUT what you *are* making is actually worth less!

This slide in your dollar is the most alarming aspect of your economy that you USofAmericans arent really noticing -- i dont know why.

This is incredibly dangerous territory for you Yanks. Your balloning budget deficits results from tax cuts are helping to cause this weakened dollar. And a slower stock market. All this wants to increase inflation -- this reduces consumer confidence... and really reduces buying power.

Add it all up and people cannot buy as much with the money they do have, nor do they want to, because of a slowed economy.

Put two and two and two and two together and you get a recession... or worse.

You guys are in far worse trouble than you think -- and never mind this nonsense "salary increase" PR. In fact, your salaries have been SLAUGHTERED in the last 3 years.

Re:Bush's Fault

[jafac]

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

Don't forget that in the closing months of 2001, it was a top news story, I'm talking about headline news, for weeks and weeks, that 1. Enron was going bankrupt, and 2. They, and their Accounting Firm Arthur Anderson, were shredding documents by the Truckload.

Now, I don't know about you, but if I were a cop, standing outside a drug dealer's house, and heard the toilet flushing, I'd bust in the door right away.

Bush's DOJ sat around for WEEKS with their thumbs up their asses, while evidence was being destroyed.

ABSOLUTELY incompetent.

And today, three years later - only a couple of token scapegoats have been tried, and the kingpin was FINALLY just charged, with the expectation that he'll get it thrown out because there wasn't enough evidence to prove he knew what was going on. That's right. He was *competent* enough to draw a hundred-million dollar salary and perks, but not competent enough to spot rampant corruption in his own organization which ultimately caused the largest bankruptcy in US History.

The end result: millions of American Investors fled the stock market in terror, resulting in the worst bear-market since the Great Depression.

The Executive Branch is responsible for Law Enforcement. They fucked up. Either on purpose, or accidentally. Either case is absolutely unacceptable. Especially right on the heels of the worst Security failure in US History (9/11 right after Bush's monthlong vacation).

Re:Bush's Fault

[ezHiker]

I sure wish folks would realize that the economy expands and contracts in cycles, for very complex reasons, regardless of who's the President.
It's funny that people vote for this or that presidential candidate thinking that all of the economic problems will go away if their favorite is elected, but things just don't work that way in a capitalist economy.
Of course, it also didn't help the already contracting economy when a few assholes flew airplanes into our buildings a couple of years ago.

What a Crock

[HackHackBoom]

Show me places in the industry or people who have received raises. Not to sound bitter, but I know not a single person in my circle of friends and business associates who've said they're getting raises.

It's more about cuts and firings lately :(

Re:What a Crock

[MalaclypseTheYounger]

Well, a bit of good and bad at my work. They just laid off 30 (non-IT) people, but gave promotions to a handful of other (IT) people.

So this may not be complete lies.

Re:What a Crock

[Worminater]

if you would rtfa, you would know it was mainly among newly entering college grads, nowhere did they mention raises.

Re:What a Crock

[ackthpt]

Show me places in the industry or people who have received raises. Not to sound bitter, but I know not a single person in my circle of friends and business associates who've said they're getting raises.

Agreed. Many of my friends are still looking at standing pat, in jobs that pay a heck of a lot less than they used to get with their BSCS.

I'm so cynical I have a tendency to view this as something originating with a wink and a nudge from a political party or supporting organization.

When are the next Job numbers due out? If job growth is still sluggish it doesn't strike me as the sort of thing to put upward pressure on wages as employers compete for talent.

Re:What a Crock

[JaffaKREE]

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

Re:What a Crock

[finkployd]

Academia. Everyone I know has been getting regular raises based on merit.

And everyone said I was nuts to go working for a university with mainframes during the dot com boom, who is employed now, beyotch? :)

Finkployd

Re:What a Crock

[TheFlyingGoat]

I received a significant raise a few months back. Significant is almost 10% of my salary. I got a 20% increase last year. My company has only cut a few people, and those cuts were based on performance, not budget. I do programming and tech support, in case you're wondering.

The other IT workers here have gotten good raises as well. Two friends that program for the local phone company have gotten decent raises. One friend that assembles computers at a local store got a 50 cent / hour raise (he's part time). Finally, one other good friend who works for a banking software company got a good raise as well.

So, it seems primarily in the programming areas, but it may be just because I mainly know programming people.

Re:What a Crock

[Politburo]

Because companies don't like to buy from Joe Programmer. They'd much rather buy from a name like Microsoft, IBM, Sun, etc. Something that will be around next year.

Re:What a Crock

[Grishnakh]

I'm guessing it's because 1) it's impossible to compete with entrenched companies like Oracle, Peoplesoft, etc. in their own markets, so you have to go after tiny niche markets that the big players ignore, and 2) unless you happen to already work someplace close to that niche market, you'll have no idea that it exists and that you could enter it.

Most of the stories I hear about people starting their own businesses center on the concept of them stumbling into some situation and discovering a niche market there. They never go out and find this market intentionally.

Re:What a Crock

[mrlpz]

Damn...for a guy with a nick named after the main ruling communist body, you sure do sound like a Capitalist PIG. That was a compliment, by the way.

Anyway, you're ABSO-F$cking-lutely right ! 100% on the money. What ? Don't you think that HUNDREDS of those shareware programs ARE worth the few sheckels tha guy's asking for ? Sure they are. Are they getting rich ? HELL NO !

Why, because of EXACTLY the reasons you mention. And then you have costs like documentation, QA, support, etc..etc.. All that costs money.

Even if you're a genius and can take an idea from soup to nuts and get it out there. Every minute you spend on support, is a minute you're either not coding a new feature for a new version that will give your company growth, or.....anothe minute that you're not there making another sale.

And then again, how many different "Pool Maintenance Manager" programs can co-exist, and give enough people a livelihood to make it feasible for them to pursue in the first place ? What ? Do you think everybody ( maybe you single clowns can, but us family folks....fohgeddabboudit ) has the amount of time it takes to get something like that out there, and still keep their day job ? Or...conversely, have the seed money to keep their lights on while they're doing it. Of course, not.

Yes I've worked on side projects here and there, and it's made me some $$, but not NEAR enough to retire on, I assure you. It's not a "woe is me" attitude, it's a REALITY attitude....if you're single and you can make it happen...
FANTASTIC...knock yourself the hell out.

But, if you're like most of us ( and there are STILL more of us "old guys" out there than there are of you younger turks ), you have to balance the needs of the many ( the kids ) over the needs of the few ( Gee, wouldn't it be nice to have my own software company down in the florida keys ).

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!

Re:What a Crock

[bytesmythe]

I'm so cynical I have a tendency to view this as something originating with a wink and a nudge from a political party or supporting organization.

You're not the only one... I don't believe anything anymore, and I get more cynical with each passing moment.

Maybe the American political process would be better off if everyone just assumed the Powers That Be were lying to them with every breath. The resulting interpretation would probably be much closer to the truth than the bullshit spewed at us from people whose jobs depend on convincing us that Things Are Looking Up.

Re:What a Crock

[coopaq]

And everyone said I was nuts to go working for a university with mainframes during the dot com boom, who is employed now, beyotch? :)

What? Your mainframe talk is confusing me.

I'm still trying to get over all the trips around the world, the hookers and the drugs the Venture Capitalist's money provided me.

Ahhh... good times. Now I'll have to smooze the dean and replace you at the university.

The Way of the Weasel!

Re:What a Crock

[LaCosaNostradamus]

Bitter? You should be. Let me show you bitterness.

I was employed in a bank's IT department. I got a 3.7% raise in May 2004 after I received my yearly eval. This came out to about $1040/yr gross.

Less than 2 months later, I got outsourced to some scumbag "IT Services" company as the motherfuckers had all been planning since Dec 2003. As a result, I lost a health-insurance stipend ($1120/yr). Furthermore, we lost the company vehicle and reverted to our own vehicles; my car costs me 30.5c/mi to run (I keep detailed records), but the mileage we're paid to cover all car costs is 22.0c/mi ... a net loss of about $40/mo or $480/yr.

So, gee, I got a 3.7% "rise", and 2 months later they contrived to have my income "fall" $1600/yr ... about 5.5%. Net loss: you figure it out.

I've been saving money like a fanatic, knowing this day must come. And it's still getting worse. I've at least $5000 loaned out to 3 friends for necessary payments (auto repair; mortgage and rent; electric bills; etc.) ... and they're still in deep economic shit since there are NO FUCKING JOBS other than $8-$10/hr shitwork.

I don't buy anything anymore. I'm never buying anything again. Capitalist America hung me out to dry and they'll never see me cooperate again. I live for the day when the Capitalists go out for long walks off their short window ledges when their nigger investments go south from the lack of credited consumers. The entire economy has been transformed into strip malls, junk bonds and websites. People have been transformed into appallingly credited hyperconsumers who are incapable of saving and meeting all future obligations. A grown person cannot expect to spend money like a 14-yr-old girl for decades and expect any good to come from it. Your houses are worth at most 60% of what you foolishly call a "going market rate", and I'm going to have my blackest laugh at you when you shed big tears over how much your property taxes are costing you when you still can't find work.

Fuck you, America! You can't eat money, and paper also makes for poor radioactivity shielding too. Die the nasty death that every Empire must encounter.

Re:What a Crock

[Dread_ed]

My condolences on your net 2% loss in income over the last year. I am sure all of the chronically unemployed people will morn your loss. Oh, and those with permanent disabilities will surely bemoan the vicissitudes of modern corporate employment with you, of this I am sure. Plus those overseas outsorced employees who do the work of a $50,000/yr American for a little less than than the cost of you shoe budget and live in sod huts will contrive to share your pain as well.

If you couldn't see through your shroud of bitterness there was just a hint of sarcasm there. After reading your post the feeling I came away with is that you are someone who feels that they are entitled to things and that the world owes them something. I could be wrong, but a minor setback should be encouragement for you and a learning experience, not grounds for excessive animosity. Heaven forbid that you have a real setback in life, you might do something rash.

In the spirit of being helpful I will loan you some advice. I say loan because I do not own this, it was taught to me by someon else.

Bitterness is a poison that will destroy your life. It makes you angry about those things you should be thankful and happy about. It can destroy your chances for things that could really help you to feel happy or contented and that can help you in the future. Furthermore, when you do receive some of those things that should make you happy, bitterness will not let you enjoy them. You might even squander or discard some of the best things in your life due to bitterness. Then you get to add regret to the pile of emotional baggage when you realize it later. Don't think that those around you can't see that you are bitter. It is impossible to hide. It makes people uneasy and sometimes even unwilling to associate with you, and what it can do to romantic relationships is shocking and hideous. I hope you never have to find that out first hand.

The easiest way out of being bitter is to look at your circumstances with an eye for opportunity. In other workds, be positive and be thankful. You will be amazed how much that can help your mentality, and eventually your circumstances, if you apply it and put aside your negative emotions. They really only hurt you.

I actually took a $20,000 pay cut last year due to market problems in my industry. If I had not kept my mind focused on my responsibilitie and remained positive and aware of opportunities I would have missed out on the job I have currently. To date this year, in my new job, I have earned almost two times what I made in my previouls highest paid year. I am positive that if I had been angry or bitter about the colossal pay cut I had taken I would not have been mentally able to take advantage of the opportunities that were in front of me. They might not have even become available to me at all if I had been harboring feelings like that.

As for the rant about consumerism, I agree with your distain of some aspects of American comsumption. However, each individual is responsible for, and the product of, their own decisions. You cannot blame external circumstances for situations which were brought on by your own choices, and being completely contrary is still letting capitalism control your behavior, just in a negative way. Better to just acknowledge the flaws of the system you currently live under and take advantage of the upside.

As for your closing statement: I hope for the world's sake that the USA continues for quite a while. Do you have any idea how much food we export and what percentage of the world gets a significant portion of their daily calories from US sources?

Oh great...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now President Bush is submitting stories to Slashdot!

How come I aint not get no raise?

[Anonymous Coward]

Im went to ITT school for HTML intraweb programming and Im stil only get 5.45 per hour?!?

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Inflation is at 2.65% right now.

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/ CurrentInflation.asp

Re:one omission

[Randolpho]

w3rd.

Average salaries may be on the increase, but total jobs in the IT field are not. It's getting *more* difficult to find a job; the glut of IT folks out there (and it *is* a glut) means employers can sit on their haunches while waiting for that "perfect candidate" who has exactly 3 years as an Oracle DBA and 5+ years experience with ADO.NET. (Yes, I've seen job offers exactly like that -- has ADO.NET even been *around* for 5 years?).

There are *ZERO* entry level jobs on the market at the moment. So the rest of us who just got out of college, even if we racked up experience with internships or other on-the-side jobs, are screwed unless we can lie convincingly in our interviews. If we can even *get* an interview, that is.

Re:one omission

[KevinIsOwn]

Wrong. If there are less jobs then that means there are more people vying for those jobs, thus there is a high supply and low demand. This would cause salaries to go down. This is very good news as it means there is more demand for CS and IT professionals now that companies realize that 50% of all outsourcing ventures lose money. About the only ones that end up profiting are call center outsourcing ventures. All others tend to be cheaper at first, then hemorage money once traveling, translating, and other expenses are factored in.

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?

Re:one omission

[danheskett]

Yes, I've seen job offers exactly like that -- has ADO.NET even been *around* for 5 years?).
I dont know for 5 years, but I know i was hacking around on samples and messing it up wit ADO+ and ASP+ samples back in early 2000.

I feel bad for all my friends who went to college for 4/5 years when we graduated from high-school. I went to work straightaway after college, and went to a 4-yr college full-time in a 2-year program full-time. I got my Associates degree as they were starting their second semester of sophomore year. I transferred to a public University and finished my BS part time (well, I graduate after this semester).

That summer after high-school I was a pretty decent programmer already so I took an entry level programming position.

At the same time I very agressively pursued industry certifications. Cisco, MS, and Novell (bah, what a waste). I have a big string behind my name: CCNP, MSCE, MSCD, MSDBA, and SCJP.
What about now? I did almost two years at that first job, and "outgrew" it, and moved to another position. I "outgrew" that job at the height of the recession and was recommended by my boss for a different position at another company as - you guessed it if you said "Senior Developer".

I am doing very well. I have an AS Degree (which granted is a joke), a BS is a short march down the isle away, and I have less than $10,000 in debt (well, half that now). I have a much stronger resume than any of the other people my age in this area, and I am a pretty decent software engineer. I have six programmers working for me at our different locations including two junior programmers here. People really like me here and even the junior programmers who are older than me don't hold a grudge because (I think) they recognize me as a helpful, hardworking, industrious person (ohh, and I very obviously endorse heavy Slashdot consuption during down times). On top of all that I earn a very respectable living. I have been contributing my 401k since a few weeks after my 18th birthday.

I sympathize with those of you who spent big bucks to get a name brand education and who now enter the market to find the big-boys have frozen hiring (IBM, HP, et all), the little guys are looking for experienced players, and that the formely copious entry level jobs have dried up.

Re:one omission

[finkployd]

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)

We in the economics field refer to it as "supply and demand" and boy does it work.

There is a finite number of IT jobs available, and a plethora (a word I learned from The Three Amigos) of unemployed "C++ in 21 days" and "1337 HTML Hax0rs". The tragedy is not that every code monkey who went into CS because they heard you can get rich quick that way is not going to get a six figure job anymore. The tragedy is that they used to and still, for some reason, expect that.

NOTE: this isn't meant to disparage everyone currently unemployed in the IT industry, times have been tough even for qualified people. But you are not going to convince me that times are bad because literally everyone who wants an IT job can't get one. Not everyone who wants to be a nuclear physicist can get a job doing that either.

Finkployd

Re:one omission

[Patrick Lewis]

You are (politely speaking) misinformed. CPI-U (which the parent linked) includes both energy and food components. Don't believe me? See the FAQ and the most recent (detailed) release. Milk and gas are clearly included.

Re:one omission

[Patrick Lewis]

First, that's not what you originally said. You said It doesn't include food and energy (gas, natural gas, fuel oil, petro, or electricty) in its figures. This is demonstrably not true.

Second, home energy costs make up 3.83% of the CPI budget, auto fuel makes up 3.25%, dairy makes up 0.84% of the budget, and all food makes up 15.38% of the budget. Assuming a $2,000/month budget, this translates to $76.60 a month for home energy, $65 for auto fuel, $16.80 for dairy, and $307.60 for all food. None of those figures look too terribly out of line to me. Specifically, which one do you object to?

Third, the BLS table shows dairy up 10.4% since August 2003, and auto fuel up 16.5% over the same period. I calculate the price rise from the USDA numbersto be about 23%, and the Department of Energy has fuel prices up 15.9%. Granted, the milk number looks skewed, but the DOE numbers are actually higer for fuel costs.

I will concede that the CPI numbers aren't perfect; no measure of "inflation" can be. But, to insinuate they are cooked or are made up is really tenuous.

Re:one omission

[xenocide2]

There is a finite number of IT jobs available

I'm afraid I must take issue with your very first assumption. The mere availablity of so much related IT talent is what made Silicon Valley a hotbed. Essentially, my counter-argument goes like this: With the number of skilled workers growing while the job numbers remain in check, now is the time to start your own company and give these people a job.

Makes sense to be a contrarian. If more people than just me believe in that, then job growth is partially dependent on the available work force. In other words, the more people out there, the more jobs, rather than a finite and fixed number.

Re:one omission

[finkployd]

That's a very good point as well. An often overlooked option (or one that immediately written off as unrealistic) is to start your own business. If you have usefull skills that you believe to be in demand, become an independent contractor. Or get some like minded people together and start a business. Even though we are no longer in the heyday of the dot com craze, it can still be done. Just don't expect to pull together enough capital to buy everyone $1000 chairs :)

Finkployd

Are they really?

[Nos.]

I wonder if this isn't a side effect of a lot of the outsourcing to India that's happening. If a lot of the lower paid jobs (tech support and the like) are outsourced, what's left behind are the higher paying jobs which results in a higer average.

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.

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.

The sky ISN'T falling

[smaksly]

Relax.

IT is still alive and will continue to be a career with prospects in the USA.

Not everything can/should be outsourced.

Re:The sky ISN'T falling

[jlleblanc]

I've been seeing more job postings for US/North American candidates only. I think the time difference is beginning to wear on some of the PHB's out there.

-Joe

Raise?

[ackthpt]

More like a 4.1% harder kick in the butt around here.

Meanwhile the administrators are trying to get 17% and I don't mean retroactive or anything, just a big fat raise.

Jobs

[Raynach]

While jobs are on the decline.

Question

[apoplectic]

Given the title "IT (And Other) Salaries On The Rise In The U.S." but knowing the content to be talking about rising initial pay for grads entering the market...is there necessarily a direct correlation between the two?

I mean, it certainly seems reasonable to assume that the two are related...but...?

A Year ago...

[JaffaKREE]

A year ago, getting an IT job was hard as hell. Countless resumes, postings and searchings EVENTUALLY netted me a DBA position.

In the last few months, I've started getting emails randomly from recruiters who've seen my resumes posted. I haven't been looking, haven't updated it. One of the opportunities struck me, so I took it. No problems. I've been offered more jobs in the past month - without looking for anything - than I could even get close to a year ago.

Re:A Year ago...

[csimpkin]

I agree. I graduated last December and I was really getting disheartened while looking for a job. I couldn't even get an interview for 5 months. Then in late April into early May I was getting contacted for interviews on a daily basis. I landed my dream job the begining of May and I am still getting the occasional call. The market seemed to go from dead to booming in a matter of a couple weeks.

I'm confused

[lucabrasi999]

What does salary increase mean?

Where's my job then?

[Lovedumplingx]

Salaries may be on the rise...but it doesn't do the new grad any good if he/she can't find a job.

I know of one person who moved from Texas (where he lived and graduated) to DC just because the odds were better that he'd get a job. Didn't work.

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.

Re:CS != IT

[ari_j]

CS is a branch of IT. So one segment of the IT job market is covered here. I agree that the title is misleading, but this is Slashdot, where there are more fact-checkers than any other site by the same name. Or maybe it's tied.

Re:CS != IT

[orst_sw_engr]

I do not know why Software Engineering got lumped under IT in job posts.

IT was a business major at my school.

I am a Software Engineer / Computer Science with a BS from the College of Engineering at my school. With more upper division classes I could build bridges or making chemicals like my other Engineering friend do. Even Computer Science is a science discipline.

In most companies I have worked for, my development group reported to a CTO or VP of Engineering while IT groups report to CIO or VP of Biz. They are different.

I am not sure, but I think ./ has an IT slant. Not many conversions about NP-complete problems, graph theory, grammars, or abstract syntax trees.

And history drops almost 5%

[nathan s]

I think it's more interesting to see what fell than what rose. Computer engineering, mechanical/industrial engineering, and history. Any ideas why those would fall?

Although in this political climate, doesn't seem like much attention is being paid to history, as the same mistakes keep being repeated.:-P

Re:And history drops almost 5%

[stratjakt]

What job, exactly, does a history major apply for, other than history teacher or museum curator?

I hardly ever have an experience at work where I'm working on a design document or expense report or something, and all of a sudden it's like "OH SHIT! I'm gonna miss the deadline! When did Hannibal cross the Alps!?"

Re:And history drops almost 5%

[jeanlo]

I don't know. CEO, Chairman of the board?

bachelor's degree in medieval history and philosophy

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.

keep in mind that

[Triumph The Insult C]

that 4.1% increase comes out to about 23 rupees

trimming off the bottom

[crowdozer]

I wonder how much of this is due to outsourcing. Get rid of a bunch of the lower-than-average wages from the equation and you will get a perceived increase in average, which could then be misconstrued as a good thing. For example... 30K 40K 50K 60K = average of 45K Now outsource the jobs of the 30K and 40K guys so they go work at McDs and you have... 50K 60K = average of 55K Oooh were all making 10K more. WRONG.

Recent College Grads Only

[digThisXL]

The 4.1% increase is reflective of *recent* graduates only. The rest of us poor experienced scum suffer with a COLA raise if we're lucky!

Meanwhile...

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile CEO salaries are up 200%. Yeah, I'm really excited about my 2% pay increase now.

Got to be an average.

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Meanwhile, computer science graduates make $49,036 a year, a gain of 4.1 percent.

Got to be an average- I've got my Bachelor's of Software Engineering, and I'm only making $42,000/year after 10 years of experience.

Re:Got to be an average.

[Violet Null]

Depends on where you work. In central Florida, $50,000 / yr is a pretty good salary. In San Francisco, $50,000 / yr is less than the janitor gets paid.

National averages are pretty useless.

Re:Got to be an average.

[(trb001)]

Where are you living? If you're not in a city, you're probably still above the average when you factor in cost of living. Quick Googling for a salary comparison, $100k in my home town of Centreville, Va is equal to $150k in San Diego, Ca. Oddly enough, DC (which is essentially where I work) has a comparison of $100k to $83k in SD. Huh.

--trb

Re:Got to be an average.

[ReverendHoss]

Agreed, averages may be useful to spot trends, but never compare your actual salary to them.

Programmers in NYC get 80K per year just so they can keep up with the increased housing, cost of living, etc. Programmers in the Midwest get 35K. Same quality of life, just different numbers. Take a look at these numbers to make a comparison by region.

Comes from employers/tax returns (I believe), so will probably be more accurate than surveys which have voluntary participation.

Re:Got to be an average.

[rk]

In related news: A statistician from the local college drowned today in a lake with an average depth of 7 inches.

Re:Got to be an average.

[NerveGas]

The people making $130,000 per year in Silicon Valley make those making $42,000 per year feel really bad - at least until you look at the cost of housing in Silicon Valley.

A good number of years ago, when I made $35,000 per year, I did some cost-of-living calculations to live an equivalent lifestyle around the nation. In some places, I would have needed to make $90,000 just to break even.

steve

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.

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

[Marxist Hacker 42]

What about the ones with 10-12 years of experience that were laid off for 2+ years and still have to relocate to take on an entry level job? Sometimes the strongest get hit at random too.

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.

No

[cubicledrone]

Are things finally starting to look up for us?"

Is it a good thing we got a 4% raise on the job we got laid off from?

Oh, and 4% PER YEAR, EVERY YEAR,would just about keep up with inflation. Then, maybe management would notice the 15% annual increase in housing costs...

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.

No EE on list?

[workerbeedrone]

Maybe slightly off-topic, but why are there no Electrical Engineering numbers on the list?

Has the BSEE degree been absorbed by BSCS, BSME, and BSIE, while I've been in the basement?

Re:Theory: Placement rate

[Marxist Hacker 42]

With the result of fewer people actually working. If they'd factor in all the people now earning $0 or minimum wage with their CS degree, it would make more sense.

Yep, theory makes sense and fits the facts.

You have to get laid off first.

[MexicanMenace]

I got laid off from Sabre late last year after 3 years as a Senior Developer. Sabre froze salaries, stopped raises and bonuses after they aquired the company I worked for. There were programmers at Sabre making less than I was that were as or more experienced than me and they hadn't had raises in even longer.

Since June of this year, I've been able to dictate my price. Recruiter calls up looking for experienced Enterprise Web Developer? $45/hour minimum. Period. End of story. No I won't take less, there's someone on the other line offering $50/hour.

Thanks for laying me off Sabre. :D

I call shenanigans...

[twiggy]

Sorry, but this is not as good a bit of news as it looks...

Unemployment in the IT sector is up (due to both outsourcing AND the struggling economy), so who cares if the people with jobs are getting a bit more money?

Furthermore, this article is talking specifically about fresh out of college newhires - something the person who posted this seems to avoid clarifying altogether.

Guess what? They're getting these jobs and their first increase since 2001 (CS graduates) because the older folks who were making $60k and are now unemployed are gone - a net savings of $11k.

Bottom line: It's still brutally difficult to find a decent computer science / IT job right now, and the people in them aren't getting huge raises. It's also important to note that there's complaints heard 'round the country from IT and CS folks about the fact that they're working ridiculous numbers of hours.

The insane high salaries of the tech boom, however unjustified they seemed at the time, were actually justifiable because these fresh out of college kids were often dumping 60-80 hours per week into their job. (Note that I agree that the rest of the spending during the tech boom, however, was just as stupid as everyone says it was).

Re:I call shenanigans...

[NerveGas]

Unemployment in the IT sector is up

When those who claim to be unemployed are asked "Are you actively looking for a job?" by anyone other than their unemployment assistant, the numbers who answer "no" are fairly high, those people are skewing the official tallies of the unemployed.

steve

Re:I call shenanigans...

[enjo13]

Unemployment in the IT sector is up (due to both outsourcing AND the struggling economy), so who cares if the people with jobs are getting a bit more money?

Speaking as someone with a job in IT.. I do.

Thanks.

I'll tell you why

[paranode]

He eats babies, simple as that.

Re:I'll tell you why

[cynic10508]

He eats babies, simple as that.

Are you kidding? He got the recipes from Nixon.

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.

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

[Pragmatix]

A degree is definately worth something--it can be a solid foundation on which to build real-world skills. Problem solving, abstract reasoning and communication skills are all part in parcel of a degree from a good institution. In addition, understanding the fundemental principles of computer science can make learning new languages and technologies easier.

Of course a degree alone is worth nothing. What really matters is the person. If the person sucks, then they will suck no matter what degree they have. If the person is good, a degree can only increase their value to your organization.

Now, would I pay more money for a person with or without a degree? No. But a degree may influence my hiring decision.

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

[Darlok]

Dear cog:

In light of recently discovered developments, you may hereby consider your position terminated. Your salary will go directly to supplement my bonus, and your work will be farmed out to Abu Dabhe.

As it is only September, your final paycheck will be docked for 1/4th the value of last Christmas' company gift.

Regards,
The Mgmt.

Re:Good news for all, not just American IT workers

[allden]

IT salaries have seen a big boom in India in the last 2 years !!. The intended joke just doesn't work.

what it means...

[Rob Nance]

Salary increase is when you get laid off and come back as a contractor for a few bucks more after being out of work from said company for several months.

always a demand

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to break it to you guys, but there is always going to be a local demand for good IT professionals.

No matter how much stuff gets shipped overseas, there exists the need for people here to plan and implement everything.

The times they are a-changing

[leonara]

I am not sure how these numbers will look after employment rates, out-sourcing etc. are taken into consideration but I can say this, the situation does seem to be getting a little better. I joined my present company when the industry was going into free-fall. For the first two years, my work was not even appraised because there was no room for even token pay hikes, what with the company being in the red and all. Then almost after 3 years, a few months ago, I was given a pay increase.

Another sign of things being on the mend - last week I got a call from a recruiter and I thought the species were near extinction!

My 0.02.

I have

[ZeLonewolf]

Since I started at my first post-college job in September 2002, I've gotten about $13,000 in raises.

By the way, I work for the government as a computer engineer. Your tax dollars at work! I guess this is the only sector that doesn't rise and fall with the economy...spend spend spend...

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.

Those poor, misguided Psych grads

[prgrmr]

From TFA:

Psychology majors enjoyed a 2 percent increase with entry-level salaries averaging $28,230.

Is this some strange useage of the word "enjoyed" with which I was not previously familiar?

Alignment with European salaries?

[andrewa]

When I moved back to England in 2000, I negotiated with my company for a US-level salary, and when I arrived, found that most of my colleagues were paid quite a lot less than me. Is it still the case that European salaries are significantly lower than US salaries, regardless of the economic condition over the last few years?

BTW, some invites for anybody who cares....
http://gmail.google.com/gmail/a-f70e1240a6-58bc0fa ff1-194df49add
http://gmail.google.com/gmail/a-f70e1240a6-376a4fe b24-b577b68ef0
http://gmail.google.com/gmail/a-f70e1240a6-e9139ec 2fd-b0904ad927

One Two Punch

[4of12]

OK, so maybe my tinfoil hat is wrapped on a little bit too tightly...

But isn't it strange to put this story side by side with CNET's interview of Professor James Foley's warning about too few people going into computer science related studies.

Of course, the professor has a vested interest in increasing the number of CS students and also in getting more research funding for CS projects - which is to be expected given where his bread is buttered.

He does make good points about the long term consequences of turning out fewer CS grads per capita than other countries, and about how younger researchers deserve a chance to do independent research without laboring as indentured post-docs under the wing of less creative mentors.

But trying to encourage more students to go into CS and IT right now is not necessarily as good a plan as trying to improve the education level of future CS students that are only 0-10 years old right now.

No so fast Billy Ray...

[mabu]

1. Eliminate four positions, increase one person's salary by 20% Give them four times more work. Solicit young college grads instead of older people who don't know they're getting shafted.

2. Send out a press release showing the economy is doing great because salaries are going up.

3. Profit

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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.

Re:Good news for all, not just American IT workers

[bot]

Hindu, not Hindi. Hindu == religion. Hindi == India's national language. Also, the last name Singh doesn't always imply a Sikh person.

Besides, there a lot of Sikh software engineers in India, so dont understant your point. If any.

Re:You can't blame stuff like this on ANY presiden

[leadsling]

HOLD ON THERE! Don't let something like economics get in the way of someone's pet theories. Next thing you know, you'll be wanting journalists to have proof for their stories before they're published! (couldn't resist ;>)

H-1b/L-1 effects

[randall_burns]

It should be noted that the H-1b quota was reduced in fall of 2003(back to 65,000/year). Now last year congress expanded the L-1 program--but there were clauses in that expansion that made it difficult for companies to take advantage of that program until after the election. L-1 employees need to work for a company for something like a year before the company and use them for work in the US. So this effect-to the extent it is real(i.e. it may just be movement of jobs into high priced areas), may well be temporary.

Actually, you CAN kill the economy in 2 months.

[Magnus Pym]

Are you in the telecomm industry? If so, you would have heard of the so-called "CLEC"s (Competive Local Exchange Carriers) that were to compete with the big telecom boys. As soon as Bush was elected, they went out of business... because the smart money knew that Bush would support the incumbent big firms against them... just like he sabotaged the Microsoft antitrust trial. As went the CLECs, so went the telecomm infrastructure startups who were building innovative equipment that the CLECs would have bought, but that the ILECs have no interest in buying, because they have a monopoly anyway.

It is no accident that the bust coincided with Bush's election. Without Bush, there still would have been a dot-com bust, but other sectors would not have been as badly affected.

It is also no accident that oil prices, after stagnating for pretty much the entire Clinton years, started skyrocketing after Bush's election. It is his priority to keep gas prices high. For every cent in gas price hikes, the Oil industry makes millions of dollars. And guess which industry forms Bush's personal financial base.

Magnus.

Re:Actually, you CAN kill the economy in 2 months.

[Omega1045]

While I respect your opinion, I don't agree with it at all. You cannot blame Bush for what others decided on speculation of laws and policies that would be made in the next four years.

The simple fact is that the dot com bubble burst. Two many tech related industries grew too fast. Is this Clinton's fault? I really don't like the man, but I don't blame him. I don't think anyone would have foreseen the situation we got ourselves into. I do blame Reno and the feds for not keeping a tighter reign on corporate fraud.

Blame Bush for any number of things, but blaming him for an economy tanking two months in just sounds like a desperate attempt to lay more stuff on him just because you don't like him and want more reasons to not like him.

Re:Actually, you CAN kill the economy in 2 months.

[gcaseye6677]

That's quite a stretch, to claim that the mere idea of a Bush presidency scared everyone into bailing out of investments and tanking the economy. Telecom lobbyists, and for that matter all lobbyists, are not stupid enough to base all of their efforts around one politician or party. You bet your ass they were out lobbying Gore as well. Telecom deregulation took place over a number of years, and was supported by Democrats and Republicans.

As for the Microsoft trial sabotage, this occurred due to Microsoft's massive lobbying efforts, which they only began to do after the guilty verdict. Bill really didn't see the point in political involvement until the breakup verdict, which was a wake up call to MS that they need to play by "the rules" if they want to play in the big leagues. See my earlier statement about lobbyists playing both sides of the field.

As for oil prices, I recall a large spike in gasoline prices in EARLY 2000. Who was president? Once again, the oil industry has BOTH parties in their pocket. I think it's clear that, had Gore been elected, things would not be that much different with the exception of Iraq.

Re:Actually, you CAN kill the economy in 2 months.

[Anonymous Coward]

The political rhetoric on /. is just amazing. I cannot see how this post from Magnus gets a Score 5, Informative. He's spouting off non-sense. You cannot say that investors went one way or another just becuase Bush was elected. That's like saying they had some sort of crystal ball to gaze in and just knew that the right choice was with "big firms" and not "CLEC"s because of Bush. It's all speculative. Also, to say that the .com bust would not have affected other sectors as badly if Bush was not in office is ludicrous. The markets are affected by how investors are feeling. If investors see a whole segment of the economy going up in flames before their eyes, you better believe they are going to have knee-jerk reactions when it comes to other sectors. The economic bust started under Clinton, and it continued into the next administration. If Gore had been elected, he would have inheritted the same tanking economy. I think some people's political biases are starting to affect mod points here.

Re:Actually, you CAN kill the economy in 2 months.

[BreadMan]

>> Are you in the telecomm industry?

I was. In fact, I worked at a company that sold to the CLEC market. The collapse of the CLEC market had nothing to do with who was in oval office; CLECs, like many other new companies, failed for legitimate business reasons.

Starting a CLEC means a huge capital investment before booking the first sale, think 50 - 100 million. You need ATM switches, DSLAMs, premise equipment, billing and equipment management systems, 911 systems, service huts, trucks, office space, trained employees, etc.

These companies were competing with ILECs, (incumbent local exchange carriers, think US West) that already made the bulk of investment to service customers, and did so at a lower cost because they could access capital markets at a much lower rate. Bigger companies have a higher marginal efficiency of capital, and in a capital intense industry like telcom this made all of the difference. Pair with the expectation of big returns when investing in a start-up, and the CLECs were paying quite a bit to access the capital markets.

Furthermore, much of this investment was occurring in a market with large excess capacity. Given the low marginal cost of servicing customers, the ILECs could easily compete with the CLECs on price and frequently offered better service. I'm not saying the ILEC service was good in an absolute sense, just better than most CLECs.

Re:Actually, you CAN kill the economy in 2 months.

[tkg]

I think some people's political biases are starting to affect mod points here.

If you've only just noticed this I'd have to say you're a bit slow on the uptake. ;o)

Re:A Big Helping of Hypocrisy

[Maul]

Another prevailing view is that because the market is no longer willing to pay six figures for a HTML jockey who once flipped through "C++ in 21 days", then the market is shot to hell

Not correct. The market is shot because idiot HR departments assume that everyone who applies is an HTML jockey who once flipped through "C++ in 21 days" unless they have a PHD and have 10+ years experience with .NET, are graphic artist experts with all Adobe and Macromedia software, have experience designing and adminning on all major databses, and can perform hardware maintainence on legacy mainframe machines from the 80s.

Okay, I may be exaggerating, but I see a lot of job postings in my area with insane requirements requiring the ideal applicant to basically be able to wear all the hats. The pay may be nice for these positions, but the person they hire is probably lying about their skill set and will likely be working 80 hours a week doing all of this crap.

Case in point a recent job I applied for in my area. The description of the job was to do work designing and maintaining a database that would be accessed from a web interface.

Over the phone they made it sound like the tasks of designing the actual page and all the coding outside of the DB would be handled by other people and I'd be working together with those people as a team.

But I start getting asked questions at what experience I have with graphic design and Active X during the interview. The interview was conducted by an HR person who admitted that she had no technical experience.

I answered honestly that these aren't my areas of expertise. Needless to say, I wasn't called back for a second interview.

Maybe I was mistakenly interviewed for the wrong position, but it seemed to me that they were hoping for a single person that could create them a dynamic, database driven website from scratch by themselves.

Hate to Burst a Bubble

[Shihar]

It takes a vast amount of stupidity to blame Clinton for the great years in the 90's and Bush for the slow years opening the new decade. I hate to burst bubbles (haha, pun) but the reason why the Clinton years were so great was because the Internet came into full force on his watch. He had absolutely nothing to do with it. At the very best you can credit him for not taking on protectionist policies that might have thrown water on the fire. Other then staying pretty much out of the way, Clinton just so happened to be president during the world's most significant technological boom to date. If you worked in industry in the 80's and still work in it now, you know the impact e-mail and personal computers has made, and it isn't a little one.

Bush happened to catch the tail end of the boom. More specifically, he caught the boom that a bursting tech bubble makes. The technology bubble burst, and neither Clinton nor Bush had anything to do with it. Worst still, Bush then got to be on watch as 9/11 happened. Unless you believe Bush had the ability to stop it (and that takes some pretty creative hindsight argue), he wasn't responsible for subsequent crash that resulted from both 9/11 and the burst bubble. Giving him credit or blame for what happened is down right stupid.

If another terrorist attack occurs and it has a financial impact, say terrorist blow up Wall Street or nuke or a US city, then you would be completely justified in pointing the figure squarely at Bush and the US congress for ruining the economy.

The president of the US controls only two (arguably three) things when it comes to the economy. The first is that a US president needs to not go overboard with protectionism. I am not saying they can't use a little of it now and then against other nations doing the same, but so long as they keep their protectionist impulses in check, they are doing close to all they can. Second, a US president needs to keep control of large macroscopic problems. In other words, the president needs to keep good trade relations up with all nations that matter and keep other nations/entities from blowing up things in the US. Arguably the third piece is that the president needs to keep debt in check. I say arguably because economists have recently begun to question how important the debt figures really are. Some are arguing that government debt doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things for a nation like the US.

Bush's score is about as good as any other president's score. In other words, he hasn't done anything blatantly stupid to the economy and has kept trade relations solid. From a purely economic standpoint, the only thing Bush has done that is arguably bad is his anti-terrorism policies. It could be argued that he has increased the likelihood of a finically crippling terrorist attack.

I am not saying Bush is the cat's meow, but I am saying that giving Bush credit for a poor economy and Clinton credit for a good economy is utterly stupid. If the two had switch presidencies the economic world be about the same. Bush would have had an economic boom and Clinton would have had a recession. There might have been a difference in the intensity of these cycles, but nothing more.

4.1%

[mrscorpio]

Sure seems like what has traditionally been called a "cost of living" raise. 10.7% in other industries, on the other hand, sounds pretty good. But 4.1 is by no means anything to jump up and down about.

"Just not in Delaware.."

[Da VinMan]

I fairly lurch with sympathy every time I read an account like yours. Everyone deserves to work fruitfully, but some people just aren't "lucky" in the way that other (sometimes less proficient) people are.

So, here's my $0.02 on your approach and how to change your luck. Note up front that your problems are most like all about what you AREN'T saying.

First of all, I like the $500 idea. FWIW - It's kind of cool and shows some spunk. But, asking people to go ahead and tailor YOUR resume to THEIR needs isn't appropriate. You'll want to assert yourself more strongly than that. Keep reading for why..

Your requirement that the new position NOT be in Delaware seems to indicate that you would be willing to relocate to somewhere else in the country. That's fine. But, it sends the implied message that you don't really care where you land. And that implies that you aren't necessarily going to be dedicated to remaining in that area (and, by extension, that job). All of that put together screams "train me for free and give me valuable experience so I can go work for someone else as soon as humanly possible". Keep in mind that I'm interpreting this from the perspective of an employer.

Secondly, your resume is asking for a development position OR a system administrator. I understand your desire to be flexible. You probably just want to go with the flow, be agreeable, and land your first job. That's well and fine, but it doesn't get you noticed by an employer.

To make what could be a much lengthier post shorter, I would suggest that you develop a more specific vision of what you want out of your first job. Decide on one area in which you would like to live (metro areas are preferred for fresh graduates). Decide on a more specific professional specialization for your career. Then once you've decided all of that that, you'll be able to market yourself in a much more focused manner. You'll be able to say to an employer "Hey you want X right? I want to be doing that. Let me do it for you and show you how good I am at it. And hey look, I'm not too expensive either. It'll be good for both of us."

The bottom line here is that good employers understand that employees are not just interchangeable cogs. You have to show them how you will fit their specific needs. You have to show them how they'll be able to hand that piece of their organization to you and never have to worry about it again because you're driven, you're on target to be the best, and because you love doing it.

And that, in my opinion, is the difference between a career and just another job. Which one do you really want anyway?

Re:Ah, who should I believe?

[mabu]

CNN or my paycheck?

Your paycheck is obviously part of the liberal media. You are either with CNN or against democracy(tm).

Re:You can't blame stuff like this on ANY presiden

[paranoic]

When they stop taking credit for a good economy, I'll stop blaming them for a bad economy.

Bush's Fault, Clinton's Fault, Bush's Fault, Regan

[TiggertheMad]

Probably for the same reason why Bush is 'getting' credit for shooting terroists in afghanistan, when Clinton spent the last eight years building up the nation's military capablility to deal with terrorists, despite the fact that Bush's staff blew off all of Clinton's warnings in 2000.

Life is is pretty complex, and you can't really really pin down who's fault the economy is, unless they do something pretty bad to screw it up.

That being said, the Economic downturn wasn't Bush's fault. Ignoring the economy to waste billions on Iraq is his fault. He gave irresponsable tax cuts to the rich. He has turned a balanced budget into a massive deficit.

Proper credit where credit is due...

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:Where's biotech?

[rice0067]

I would say that this is pretty accurate. In 2001 academic positions for a BS with no experience were starting at 25K or 23K if you work at cheap ass Brigham and womans.

I now get paid somewhere around 30K, and I think I should be able to command around 35-40K in an industry job. (In fact with 3 years exp and my skills I would be insulted to get any less than 35K)

Anyway.. Academic jobs are lower paid because you are only supposed to be in them for 2-3 years as a training position. You are then supposed to go off to higher education. If you want to work in biotech as a leader in research you need a Ph.D,
but if you want a nice job where you don't have to make hard decisions a masters will do nicely.
And by the way PhDs are paid about 20K living stipend while in grad school
(TUFTS pais 25K... Umass pays 19K)

Overall not too bad. (unless you like want to buy a house or something silly like that in boston :) )

They're not increasing in the UK/Europe

[ploppy]

While it's nice to know IT salaries are increasing in the US, it's definately not happening in the UK or Europe.

I'm currently looking for a IT job and the salaries are the same or lower than I was paid in 2001. At my last job I didn't get a pay increase during the three years I was there, and I don't know anyone who has received a pay rise.

People have commented the rise is only because all the low paid jobs have been outsourced from the US. In the UK/Europe every IT job has gone - experienced/mid-level/junior the lot. In fact the majority of jobs in the UK are listed as entry level jobs because they're paying peanuts (the same amount of money I was getting in 1997).

The UK and Europe has lost out particularly badly because we're playing 'piggy in the middle'. The high-skill jobs are in the states, the low-paid jobs are in India/China and the UK/Europe gets nothing. The UK doesn't invest enough to get the high-skill jobs and is too expensive for the low pay stuff.

Re:Bush's Fault (off-topic)

[Cromac]

I heard Kerry say if he were president, he would take a tough-guy stance with OPEC and pressure them to release more oil.

Good luck with that plan.

No kidding.
Maybe he'll get them to release enough to balace out the $0.50 / gallon gas tax increase he wants to impose (yeah, right). I'm sure that will really help the poor and cause the cost of goods to drop since EVERYTHING is shipped by truck eventually.

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.

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

[Kokuyo]

Being a long time critic of Bushs politics (while not bveing American, I admit) I say the real problem was that he lied from the start.

Had he just said "Look people, we gonna kick that ass once and for all because right now we have troops down there and he is overdue" then we'd have been a bit pissed but most of us would have said "Oh, well. Hussein is an ass so WTF why not." eventually.

Bush basically pissed on everything positive democracy has managed to spit out over the last few decades and THAT will return to you a hundred fold. Europe doesn't like you. It likes you even less than before (but before it was mostly jealousy). And while you might argue that Amercia can do quite well on its own: That's right but it's a lonely and expensive world if you have to do everything on your own.

For all it's worth I hope that Kerry wins and actually corrects some mistakes. He won't be perfect. Nobody is perfect. But at least he could TRY to get closer to Europe again. Be a dependable partner and you'll have dependable partners.