Slashdot Mirror
Annual IT Salary Survey Finds Dissatisfaction
BobB writes "A storm seems to be brewing in the IT job market. Pay raises have continued to outpace inflation, and bonuses are downright impressive — 11.6% on average. Yet, as the 2007 Network World Salary Survey finds, dissatisfaction over salary packages is rampant."
When i first commenced full time work i was making $300aud/week and i was able to live off that.
I now make $1200+ a week, and it's barely enough a reasonable cost of living, yet offical inflation is only a few %.
The other blindingly obvious problem with IT is it's a thankless job.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
I mean, who is going to answer yes?
Oh yeah, and I forgot to add that inflation calculations don't take into account the following:
:-/
1) Rising Energy costs (i.e. Oil @ $84 anyone?)
2) Higher Energy costs increase costs of most consumer goods due to higher cost to transport them
3) War in Afghanistan & Iraq costs a few billion per month that you pay through taxes
4) US dollar deflating for the past year against just about every other currency by 20%+
5) Crazy Tuition fees in your Universities
6) Even more insane Health Care costs
Time to buy Gold people, cuz your economy is going down the tube.
No trees were killed in the making of this post; however, many trillions of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.
Do you know where money REALLY comes from? (no it's not the government or the mint)
What you mean by "money" is obviously different than mine. My "money" has the stamp of the location it was minted in.
Do you know what inflation REALLY is?
Eh... Inflation is where money becomes less valuable when compared to other commodities. Money is a commodity, and all commodities have relative worth based on their availability.
Do you know who benefits from inflation and who loses out?
Benefits == people who owe. Loses out == people with cash savings?
If you think you know something valuable, out with it. Don't be a pompous jackass. Free exchange of ideas, and all that.
But let me guess: Your answer involves [a] Illuminati [b] Jewish bankers [c] Fractional Reserve Banking [d] Federal Reserve conspiracies or [e] Trilatteral Commision / Council on Foreign Relations?
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
I really like my job and the people I work with but I need my salary doubled to even begin to be satisfied with it. I'm willing to give up a lot to have such a great job but I think I should still make enough to support me and my wife without my wife needing to work too. If my salary doesn't go up quite a bit in the next couple years I'll probably be forced to find another job which is really not what I want to do. The company I work for claims that wages it pays are lower than average because we are located in an area with a lower cost of living. That's great and all but I'd still like to make the median income in this state at least. Cost of living may be cheaper but that only represents around 1/4 of my monthly bills. The other bills are just as expensive as they were when I lived in California.
If I could support a family while sticking at my current job I'd probably stay for a long time. The schedule is flexible, the work is fun and just challenging enough to be interesting, there is nobody micro-managing me and I mostly manage myself, my co-workers are friendly, and upper management isn't retarded (they're intelligent, honest, and fun to be around). I'm trying to do my part to earn the company more money so that my position can pay for it's own raise in pay.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
> Sadly, I fell foul of their Gestapo-like HR department, who decided not to give me the job because,
> during one of the interviews over the phone to a woman in Texas, I didn't sound 'positive enough'.
Sorry, that is really rough. I had a similar problem once where I got to the final stages of the interview process, the guys I interviewed with were all ready to hire me, but just because I *asked* the HR interview person if in the future the company would be considering allowing employees the occasional work-at-home day (not that I expected to work at home at all, but was thinking about the future when I might have kids).
I think it's really stupid that technology companies let their interview process get hamstrung by HR departments. They should not have HR interviews at all. If the people you're going to work with like you, the HR department really ought not to have any say in it at all.
US engineers get (mostly) paid on merit and (mostly) get paid a heck of a lot more than regular old company workers with similar degrees and experience. Example: the average national starting salary for a liberal arts major working 9-5 is somewhere in the $30k range. The average starting salary for a graduate from my CS department is in the $55k range. A disproportionate number of our graduates go on to live in high, high cost areas (California, New York City), but you can still see the disparity (there are plenty of 22 year old graduates in NYC not making 55k a year or anything close to it).
So, back to Japan: my starting salary approximately $25k, with some perks that could scarcely be believed (by American standards) which probably contributed an effective $15k on top of that. That is on a low-stress 9-5 We Don't Crunch You job.
Three years later, I switched into a job at a different company, with work habits which are more typical of Japanese companies and American programmers. My pay package is now about $40k, exclusive of perks. Perks are decent but no longer jawdropping. Of note to American engineers, I get paid overtime, national health care, 100% subsidized transportation expenditures, and am statistically speaking impossible to fire. (Number of nonvoluntary separations in my company's history is about 5, we have 1,000 employees, you do the math.) $40k is adequate where I live, where the cost of living is generally comparable to a Midwestern state with Californian food and fuel prices.
Total tax burden (national income tax, local residence tax, 5% consumption tax) is in the general neighborhood of a generic US state. (For those folks unfamiliar with the US system, local and state taxes can vary drastically in the United States based on where you are. For example, Alaska doesn't charge individual income taxes at all, California's top rate is almost 10%. Sales taxes are a similar mixed bag.)
The brass ring which many of my Japanese coworkers are aiming for is a management position paying approximately $80k, which they would achieve in the 35-40 year old range. (There are, of course, numerous promotions between then and now.) That doesn't fit into my long term plans but, hey, to each their own.
I should point out that I am working at a software development house in a major Japanese city other than Tokyo. If I were working in Tokyo, as a bilingual engineer if I were inclined to work in the financial sector I could name my price. I'd also be expected to work the sort of hours that come with having a job where the top rung of the salary scale is "Let your imagination run wild a bit".
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
I see this more as an indication of wide-spread management failure in the industry than of money per se.
Ironically, (unreasonably) high wage demands typically have more to do with the non-tangible compensation that a job offers than the actual amount of money employees make. That is, when people are happy with their job, when they enjoy the social contacts, when they get to work in a nice environment and, above all, when they have a sense of purpose, then they make reasonable wage demands. When the job sucks, they spend 8 hours a day thinking "I don't get paid enough for this shit." In that case, no wage will be high enough.
One of those things that management should be doing is ensuring that their employees have the intangibles to keep them happy and productive. That is something that our much derided PHBs learn to do in their MBA programs. However, I think that the IT industry is having issues in this arena because the skill set required to perform the job is so specialized that programmers who get promoted to managers never bother to acquire "managerial" skill sets (or they just don't put any value in managerial skill sets) and people who do have managerial skill sets are so wildly incompetent in IT that you would not dream of hiring them to manage coders or SAs.
just my $.02
-mat
weirdest thing I ever saw: scientology advertising on slashdot.
Would you hire me? Am I chirpy enough for the personality-over-skills organization you run?
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
UK != Europe either (UK is much higher than 3k euro a month)
Some basic reasons
1) Employers Tax. The US and UK don't penalize companies for employing people. The UK has a small employer tax and some US states have none. Most continental countries have a significant company tax burden for each employee.
2) Culture. The US and UK have pretty dynamic IT markets with people not remaining with one company for a long time, this means people pay more to attract talent knowing that this will help.
3) Cost of firing. The US (more than the UK, but the UK is less than the continent) has very little employee protection which means you can get rid of poor employees or during a down turn. In the continent this isn't the case so the wages are lower as employers have to employ good and crap people and have to factor in the cost of not getting rid of them.
The other thing that shouldn't be overlooked is the fact that English is the lingua franca of computing, this does tend to mean that top people from all countries move towards the US (and to a lesser extent the UK) and that everyone has to speak english thus meaning there is more international competition for jobs in the US and UK markets.
With the way that the dollar is at the moment the average UK IT salary could well be above our cousins over the pond.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
I agree with the parent. I love having a job good enough that my wife can be a stay at home mom. She loves it, it's much better for our girls, and I don't ever have to worry about some wacko being around my kids. I'm willing to make some real sacrifices for this. For instance, I work a rotating shift schedule every two weeks I switch between days and nights. They're twelve hour shifts, but the nice thing with that is that I also only work 4 days one week and three the next. The work is fairly interesting (I don't have as much free reign to come up with solutions to some of the problems, but hey can't have everything) and I still have time to continue going to school. The tradeoff to all this being that we live a pretty mediocre lifestyle, no HDTV, no Xbox360, no PS3, no iPhone, no Mac Pro, no super frills. Guess what though, you don't need all that to be happy, nice house, kids that know and love their daddy, and actually leaving town to go see and do things (for cheap) leads to a pretty happy lifestyle and once I completely finish my degree I'll be able to have all that nice stuff.
"Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
Overall I would agree the modern MBA program puts a lot of emphasys on Buisness Ethics and focusing on the intangibles because the accountants can deal with the tangables. Sometimes forces higher then them force them to be more stupid, Policies like fireing 10% of all underperfoming or middle perfroming employees every year to make sure we only have the top ones available. Seem to force a lot of stupidity in management because they have to show costs savings even though they are IT and normally the more money they have the better the cost savings is for rest of the corporation. But the MBA program and the Managers are normally not the problem, unless they have some sort of powertrip ego. But most conflects with Managers and Employees happends because the manager actually has to deal with more issues at once, many are really conflecting eg. Increased Demmand on IT Resources, Lower IT Budget. And all these other things that lead them to try to get the most out of everyone.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
People are always dissatsfied with their salaries. It's a scientific fact.
1/3 of jokes get modded OT. If you get the joke, mod 1 in 3 insightful/interesting/underrated to restore karma balance.
Wow, what backwards thinking.
So nowadays, the mere act of RAISING your own children is "overprotection?"
I agree, children should have social outlets. A morning pre-school for 3 and 4 year-olds is probably a good idea. But your notion that all day childcare is somehow > stay-at-home mom is a little silly to me.
Well age is definitely a factor. A 4 year old can benefit from group play much more than 2 year old or, obviously, a 6 month old baby. Even then, who said kids who stay at home have to be alone all day? I think there are groups for stay at home parents where they can get together and let their kids play for a few hours a day. That only makes sense, since who would want to be alone all day? So I really don't see any social advantage that daycare has over a situation like that.
Also, why do you assume that not putting your kid in daycare results in overprotection? I'm sure many parents are overprotective, just like many parents with their child in daycare will be constantly complaining to the teacher that their child is being made fun of, not played with, or bored. But when you have your child at home at least you have the potential to do cool non-overprotective things, whereas most daycares are probably too concerned about their legal liability to do much stuff other than babysitting.
Further, I don't think there's any doubt that kids in group daycare are sick more often. That's just much more likely when you're around 30-odd kids (maybe constantly rotating too) who *have* to go to daycare whether they're sick or not, whereas in the above situation, if your kid is sick you wouldn't take him to group play that day.
And I've always heard that kids in daycare are more likely to have Attention Deficit Disorder (a quick search found this report).
It's not terrible for two adults in the same household to be working. It's terrible for two adults in the same household to be forced to work. If you've spent 17+ years of your life in school (including kindergarten and college), it certainly makes sense that you ought to be able to earn enough money to provide food and a place to live for your family. It's the lack of choice that is so terrible. Back in the mid-20th century, when women were unable to get the same jobs that men held, women wanted to be able to make the same choices as men. And there's absolutely no reason why they shouldn't have had those choices available to them. Today, women (and men) still want to be able to choose, and rightly so. But now they are frequently denied the option of staying home with their children, while at the same time experiencing discrimination in hiring and salaries (albeit not as bad as in the 50's). Progress? It doesn't seem like it to me.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
I shouldn't reply, but this is insane....
Following your logic, we should send kids to daycare because 75% of abuse happens from relatives? Sorry, but If you truly believe that your kids are better off in the hands of someone "Not their parents", then you shouldn't have had children. Maybe the percent is high because they spend most of their time with close relatives?
Yeah, I heard that most car accidents happen within 10 miles of home, so I am moving.
If management is good, then being gone for a week and everything functioning well during that time reflects well on their ability manage efficiently.
If your IT system is so fragile that being gone for a week leads to major failures, then you're not doing a very good job at...wait for it...managing your systems. You shouldn't have to be on your systems 24/7 just to make them work. If that's the case, then something wrong is going on.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Also, can anyone find a source also that energy has been taken out of the consumer price index? Both the US government and wikipedia say energy is part of the Consumer Price Index.
You sound like a heaven-send to them. However, such qualities may never be appreciated if you don't bring it up skillfully. Inspired by dental clinic and architect offices where you always find magazines with subtle or not so subtle messages, I would find magazines featuring a cover story of SQL injection and XSS attacks and just place them around the cube. I would then find excuses for people to pick them up and have a look (sorry, I'll be right with you in a moment. Feel free to read these magazines while I finish this up), then try to find a conversation topic about that. Then drop a line somewhere to mention, "I routinely keep track of these issues to make sure it doesn't happen here." That, and you portray a very professional image like dentists and architects.
(Is it true that Brits have bad teeth because nobody can bloody afford to see a dentist?)
If the way people perceive your value is your biggest concern (it definitely is, otherwise you wouldn't have quit IT altogether), then advertising your value should be your first priority.
About the "not happy enough" attitude, you just need to realize that, after all, American dream is all about "riding on a smile and a shoeshine." Even if you could find an employer who is sympathetic to your past career, it is still best to leave the sullenness behind.
I once had a signature.
The most "fun" work environment for the worker is one of unstructured cooperation where there are no rules.
That sounds like it ought to be true, but IMHO it isn't. I think IT mainly attracts three kinds of people, and if you look at what drives them, it's never really that.
Firstly, you have those who are only in it for the money. They probably took some university course just so they could work in IT, and they probably aren't very good at their job. Most of them don't get very far, because their attitude is entirely selfish, and the only motivator they have is making as much money as possible from doing as little real work as possible. In their minds, they'll have fun later, when they're rich.
Then you have the "journeyman" developers and sysadmins: those who are happy to work in a well-paid industry, but basically see it as just another job. These people represent the largest proportion of the industry, IME. They are typically competent but unexceptional in their skill and aptitude, and approach their jobs with a reasonably professional attitude. The best motivator for these people, IME, is simply to let them get on with their job: give them clear instructions about what needs to be done, and some relevant background information if they're the kind of person who likes to see how they fit into the bigger picture, and then just get out of the way and let them do their work. These people typically recognise the value of good organisation, and respect strong but flexible leadership. They don't go to work to have fun, but they will find their work environment most pleasant this way and rarely demand more.
Finally, you have the guru types. Often, these are the guys who got into IT because they enjoy the field. If they took a university course they enjoyed or they get paid well, that's almost incidental, and just a bonus on top of having a job where they enjoy the work. These guys know their subjects inside out. The big variable — and the thing that separates the gurus who are great people to have in your group from the gurus who are liabilities — is how well these guys do things outside their own development or administration work.
Those who develop people skills, understand the business context for their work, cooperate with management, and give constructive input to these areas from the point of view of the IT guy, tend to go far, though they tend to stick to a technical path rather than moving into management. Motivation for these guys often comes from seeing a good result from their work, and they will work in whatever way seems best to achieve that goal. Again, this isn't usually unstructured cooperation; on the contrary, IME these guys are the ones most likely to want good processes in place, and to appreciate readily whether existing processes are helping or getting in the way. Often, these guys also value honest recognition when they produce good work, and like to know that when they make constructive suggestions they are being listened to.
Of course, you also get the gurus who want to have everything their own way. These are the guys who want their own office and to work in their own style. They want full-time ownership of the code they write (not that it matters since no-one else can understand it anyway) or the final say over any changes to their networks. These guys probably are motivated by unstructured work, but cooperation is a word that doesn't enter their vocabulary. Frankly, you're better off hiring a couple of less egotistical, less demanding, and far more pleasant and constructive journeyman types anyway than you would be getting stuck with one of these guys, who seem to be known as "rock star programmers" in trendy blogs.
So I don't think unstructured cooperation is really fun for any of the major types of IT guy. The good ones tend to appreciate enough structure to do an effective job, while the bad ones will cooperate only as far as is necessary to get what they want anyway, and often would prefer to stay under the radar and just do things their own way. Constructive anarchy doesn't really work for either group.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Nobody is denying you the choice to have a partner stay home. Do so if you want. But it's kind of a weak argument to say that it somehow becomes the responsibility of your employer to pay you enough to do so. I want the choice of a second home in Hokkaido; that doesn't mean I can rightfully expect to get enough of a salary that I can have it.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
A team that works well together will always outperform a cowboy coder hacking away exclusively.
I have yet to see what you suggest in 15 years working in the field.
In theory, I have to concede that more than one person can get more done than one person. And for truly huge projects, obviously one person can't do it all. But I stand by my stance that, for any project a single person can complete in a reasonable time, they will produce a better final product than even the best of teams (with one exception - The "let's make management think we work as a team" group of individual gurus. N of them can successfully "work together", wink-wink-nudge-nudge, to complete N distinct projects at the same time).
they can always do it better with support from others.
No. I can't put it any more tactfully - You have bought into the same line of BS that leads companies to treat IT people as interchangeable cogs, leading to this very FP article. More people can do more work in the same time, not better work given their total man-hours.
Consider the possibility... That you are one of the problem people.
When my employer expresses that sentiment, I will consider it. When my performance reviews stop glowing, I will consider it.
In the meantime, perhaps you should consider that just because you depend on the support of others to complete a sizeable project, doesn't mean no one can do it alone as well or better. That sounds more caustic than I intend it, so I apologize in advance, but so it goes.
There is a difference between firing 1 person (and everyone agrees there was likely cause) and firing 15 people.
I'm observed that firing the "dead wood" in the second fashion resulted in losing about 50% of our highest quality employees over the next 18 months. Many of them had been here for 10 or more years. Prior to this the company was strongly against mass firings or layoffs. So people who valued that stayed despite lower pay.
If you are good- and you can make $120k, then why the hell would you stay at a company for $106k unless there is some non-financial incentive? That is exactly what happened here.
The result is a lot of canceled projects- failed projects- etc. when a key resource for the project suddenly disappears into tech consulting or the oil field.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.