Slashdot Mirror


IT Salaries Edge Up Back To 2008 Levels

tsamsoniw writes "A soon-to-be released salary survey finds that the average salary for IT professionals in the U.S. is $78,299, putting overall compensation back at January 2008 levels. More heartening: Midsize and large companies are both aiming to hire more IT pros. The midsize are seeking IT executives (such as VPs of information services and technical services), as well as programmers, database specialists, systems analysts, and voice/wireless communication pros. Enterprises are moving IT and data center operations back in-house, which means greater demand for data center managers and supervisors."

266 comments

  1. Yay! I'm above average. by Kenja · · Score: 0, Redundant

    But not by much. However I get to work from home, and environment where pants are not required. So its all good.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:Yay! I'm above average. by dadioflex · · Score: 2

      Porn cam working out for you then?

    2. Re:Yay! I'm above average. by Gorobei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly why this type of survey is so absurd.

      Comparing a work from home sysadmin's salary with an enterprise architect's salary is like trying to get an average salary for lawyers (add one public defender to a credit default swap lawyer, divide by two.)

      IT jobs cover a lot of space. $78K/year is just a silly summary statistic.

    3. Re:Yay! I'm above average. by SomePgmr · · Score: 1

      I was going to say I'm closer to half the average but at least I get to work from home.

      I guess I'm the outlier (or rather, sucker) out there ruining the numbers for the rest of you folks. ;)

    4. Re:Yay! I'm above average. by AuMatar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      WHich is why trying to use the term "IT" for all of these different jobs is stupid. They're completely different categories with no meaningful relationship. Break it into two groups (programming/architects and network admin/system admin/help desk) and you at least break it into functional groups that do the same thing (although still only marginally useful, as help desk is usually paid so much less). But doing anything across both groups at once is pointless, it only serves to confuse people.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    5. Re:Yay! I'm above average. by cshark · · Score: 2

      Not to mention practical inflation. If you take the cost of living into account, rather than using flat dollar numbers which don't change, you're still at a loss.

      --

      This signature has Super Cow Powers

    6. Re:Yay! I'm above average. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Too bad they don't know when to use the median instead of the mean.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    7. Re:Yay! I'm above average. by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Actually, the average is lower than they report, for several reasons:

      1. Employment levels are down, so you have to factor in all the IT workers who are either making $0, or delivering pizza. The article states that companies are continuing to replace full-time workers with contract or part-time hires.
      2. Self-selection bias - those who make less are much less likely to report how much (or how little) they make;
      3. Venue bias - this survey covers only mid-sized and large-sized companies -- whole swaths of people working in both smaller businesses (the majority of jobs in the economy) or the lower end of the industry are not included in these surveys, so they don't "drag the numbers down."

    8. Re:Yay! I'm above average. by SomePgmr · · Score: 1

      Oh sure. I work for a small business and I don't live and work in the valley. Though I did read that unemployment in the tech sector has been less than half the national average. So there's that. :)

    9. Re:Yay! I'm above average. by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      What you read and fact are often two different things. There's been a drop in IT unemployment in part because so many have dropped out of the game, changed jobs, become part of the unwillingly self-employed, or they no longer count as "unemployed" because they've exhausted their unemployment benefits.

      The article noted that the growth was in part-time and contact workers - not full-time jobs. That alone should be a tip-off that the whole thing is cut from whole cloth.

    10. Re:Yay! I'm above average. by SomePgmr · · Score: 1

      I didn't mean the summary here, I meant more like these:

      http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2011-08-15-cnbc-it-jobs-unemployment_n.htm

      http://thenextweb.com/insider/2011/06/09/tech-sector-unemployment-half-the-u-s-national-average/

      http://marketing.dice.com/techtalentdemand/

      Maybe they're lying, but reports throughout the recession have said tech sector unemployment has remained at half (or less) of unemployment nationwide.

    11. Re:Yay! I'm above average. by tomhudson · · Score: 2

      The first link - notice what they call an "IT JOB"? See the pretty picture on the left side - they consider selling cell phones as an "IT Job" because it's somehow it-related. They're pulling their numbers for future expectations out of their collective rectums, based on things like the number of job board postings, which is a negative, not positive, correlation, as I will explain below.

      The second link quotes the same dice.com survey. And it adds one necessary data point - that the reason for the "shortage" is money. In fact, it's because companies now want to pay even less than they did when job cuts and salary cuts started a few years ago. Sure, there's a "shortage" if you want to pay half price for twice the experience.

      The Dice one is the most bogus of the lot - the fact that there are more job postings on a job board in this case correlates negatively with the employment figures - especially when you consider that last month's government stats say that hiring in IT declined. When the population is increasing, even maintaining the same numbers over the years, when you throw in the new entrants, is actually a net loss due to basic economics 101 - more people competing for each job.

      So employers downsize, and/or hire new people at lower wages - hence the increase in job board postings. Keep in mind, these are not jobs, just job postings - and a lot more of them are just duplicates than even a few years ago, as more recruiters post the same job offer. Whereas before you might have seen 3 recruiters post the same job, now you'll see 10. That's not an increase in underlying jobs - to the contrary, it reflects the weakness in the entire IT sector, because now recruiters simply cannot make $$ except by using the shotgun approach.

      Do you really want to count two part-time Hell-desk workers getting hired and one full-time developer getting laid off as a net gain? Because that's what it's come down to, same as declining salaries and the continuing trend (noted in the original article) away from full-time hires to part-timers. The type of jobs you hire part-timers for is NOT the type of jobs that you need a full-time worker for - so devs are $crewed for the next 20 years.

      Who 20 years? Because people continue to enter the industry, even while the higher jobs are disappearing.

    12. Re:Yay! I'm above average. by Skapare · · Score: 1

      A more meaningful measure would be the TOTAL of all salaries in IT (with break down subtotals for various IT areas).

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    13. Re:Yay! I'm above average. by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      Actually, the average is lower than they report, for several reasons: 1. Employment levels are down, so you have to factor in all the IT workers who are either making $0, or delivering pizza. The article states that companies are continuing to replace full-time workers with contract or part-time hires.

      The average is the average salary of IT professionals, who are making a salary. If you are making your money delivering pizza, you aren't an IT professional. If you aren't making any money, well you are ALSO not an IT professional. So no, you don't factor in the people making $0 or the people working in other industries.

    14. Re:Yay! I'm above average. by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      By your logic, even someone with decades experience is "no longer an IT professional" during an economic downturn the moment they lose their jobs.

      Also, 50 postings for the same job on dice.com really does not translate into 50x more demand. All it means is that more recruiting agencies are resorting to posting the same job offers on multiple sites, so you end up with 500 posts on 30 job sites for the SAME job. Many of them don't even make an effort to hide it any more.

      Did the doctor drop you on your head, or does it come naturally?

  2. Average by Dyinobal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The average is going up because all the lower end IT positions are over seas mostly now, at least that is my guess. I always found these 'average' salaries to be very misleading. Because I always seem to be making below the average.

    1. Re:Average by Dyinobal · · Score: 1

      well over seas and being replaced by the nebulous 'cloud'

    2. Re:Average by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wish they'd report median salary more. It's probably much lower. Executive pay is ridiculous. Even IT executives.

    3. Re:Average by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      It really needs a breakout by state (or some other COLA) to begin to be useful.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    4. Re:Average by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It all depends on where you live and even then what you make in dollar terms means little when it comes to how well you can live. Making $78K in some big cities gives you a decent livable apartment and a decent, but not extravagant, lifestyle. Making $78K in some other areas of the country gives you a large house and a more extravagant lifestyle.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    5. Re:Average by t0qer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You call this going up?

      I made $85k in 2001, before 9/11 and before my layoff (after 10 years in IT) Ever hear the saying, "If you're out 6 months, you're back at square one?" It's true.

      The economy is fucked as ever. The kids they're paying $78k to have vastly more talent than I ever did, and had they been getting paid 2001 wages, would be making closer to 130k if not more.

    6. Re:Average by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No offense intended, but generally speaking a sizable portion of the group will be paid below average. Perhaps you're just part of that group?

    7. Re:Average by hedwards · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, but if they're just reporting an average salary half of the people will be getting below average salaries. It's a lot more informative if you get mean, median and standard deviate. Preferably with some indication of how the samples are distributed.

      A mean alone is of very little value unless you've also sorting things in a way that makes sense. For instance a mean that covers the entire country is going to be somewhat worthless as one could be making a good salary in one part of the country and effectively impoverished someplace like NYC, and be making the same amount of money.

    8. Re:Average by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      Exactly. In Hollywood, CA, you are paying $1million USD for mortgage a one bedroom living space, where in rural PA, you could pay $40k USD for a 4 bedroom, 3 story house.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    9. Re:Average by timeOday · · Score: 3, Informative

      And of course "IT" is a nebulous job classification in the first place. It's almost like measuring the average pay of "health care workers" (which range from orderlies to brain surgeons).

    10. Re:Average by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Congratulations on understanding how an average is calculated! You realize that, unlike a mode, an average does not require anyone to actually make the average pay. 10 schmucks well below average and one overpaid CIO makes an average higher than the schmucks are paid. Of course, more seriously - it also depends on where you live; at least for smaller companies. My global company (for example) doesn't differentiate pay geographically in the US because they claim they are competing "nationwide" for professional talent. So I get the same pay in the SF Bar Area of California as others in my company in say Houston who have substantially lower cost of living. But for smaller companies at least, generally, location is a factor in pay. So if you live in say Tennessee, you should expect to make well under the US average since the cost of living is so much lower there.

    11. Re:Average by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Yes, but if they're just reporting an average salary half of the people will be getting below average salaries."

      Nope. Given the usual pay scales, far more than half the people will be getting below average salaries. Exactly half the people will be getting below the median salary. Different things.

    12. Re:Average by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HB1 visa, people have them for decades, and are hired over qualified Americans
      These people are not qualified, but they are cheaper than the Americans sitting at home, because Americans have to pay thousands upon thousands for heal care unlike the rest of the world

    13. Re:Average by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Stop bitching and follow the money. Some of us are making the 130k even though the economy is "fucked".

      Or you're still pimping your vertas+solaris skills and not following the buzzwords. There's at least another year on the cloud train, time to hop on it buddy.

    14. Re:Average by evilviper · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I made $85k in 2001, before 9/11 and before my layoff (after 10 years in IT) Ever hear the saying, "If you're out 6 months, you're back at square one?" It's true.

      You seem to be completely missing the context here.

      First, 2001 was still during the hey-day of the dot.com bubble. You're upset that you aren't earning as much as you think you should be, but here I missed out on the bubble entirely, as really Jr. level people I worked with were getting $150,000 job offers as soon as they got some certification or other...

      I know it sounds harsh, but you need to consider the possibility that you weren't ever worth $85k, and you were lucky enough to have been getting an insanely inflated salary for a few years. It's "found money" to you.

      And the 6-month rule? Did you happen to notice that the dot.com bubble burst around that 6-mo period? I very, very seriously doubt that was anything but a coincidence. It's really not like your skills are out of date in 6-mo, as I'm still impressing some very higly paid pros with lots of stuff I was doing a decade ago. I wouldn't even note the gap on my resume, and I've yet to find a company that cares enough about about minutae to track down exact employment dates, rather than just confirming rough details, and making sure your references aren't giving an unenthusiastic endorsement.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    15. Re:Average by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best post yet. Silicon Valley is expensive, we start people out of College at 100k plus stock.

    16. Re:Average by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      give this guy all the mod points you got. seriously. all this fucking up between average and median is ridiculous. this is /. after all...

    17. Re:Average by netsavior · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No shit. We are almost done virtualizing our entire datacenter, I assume the next step is to realize that having a single point of failure for 20 virtual servers isn't as cool as having 20 dirt cheap real servers, each independant. So maybe we can squeeze a few more years bouncing back with de-virtualization. "From the cloud to localization, the next revolution! Have a little piece of the cloud right in your own office!"

    18. Re:Average by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

      Exactly. In Hollywood, CA, you are paying $1million USD for mortgage a one bedroom living space, where in rural PA, you could pay $40k USD for a 4 bedroom, 3 story house.

      I don't think either of those things are true.

    19. Re:Average by Ossifer · · Score: 1

      Yes, fringe benefits -- they can use the stock to wipe their asses after getting laid off.

    20. Re:Average by Ossifer · · Score: 2

      Tech unemployment in the Bay Area is currently 3%. Fucked.

    21. Re:Average by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh... can I have that job and sleep in the cafeteria?

    22. Re:Average by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Informative

      No shit. We are almost done virtualizing our entire datacenter, I assume the next step is to realize that having a single point of failure for 20 virtual servers isn't as cool as having 20 dirt cheap real servers, each independant.

      What are you virtualizing them onto? If it's a big machine that's highly redundant, then the "single point of failure" mantra is false. On a big iron machine where you can hot-swap power supplies, hard drives, memory, CPUs without missing a beat, there is no single point of failure, and you get much higher availability than 20 dirt-cheap servers where something could break at any time.

    23. Re:Average by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Yep. I've been told it's 2% here in Madison.

    24. Re:Average by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity, I just checked. He's close enough for our purposes here.

      No, most people wouldn't take the $1.5m+ 1 bed / 1 bath I just looked at, but they're there. On the other end, I have family living in (what i consider) mansions that cost them what my 1bdrm unit went for. They just live in the middle of nowhere.

    25. Re:Average by The+Snowman · · Score: 1

      The average is going up because all the lower end IT positions are over seas mostly now, at least that is my guess. I always found these 'average' salaries to be very misleading. Because I always seem to be making below the average.

      Same here. I look at IT salary statistics, even ones drilling down to "software engineers" or "software developers" and I end up crying. Sure, I live in a part of the country with a lower cost of living, but so do most people in my career. Am I really getting the shaft that bad? Or are these studies that skewed?

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    26. Re:Average by artor3 · · Score: 2

      "Yes, but if they're just reporting an average salary half of the people will be getting below average salaries."

      Nope. Given the usual pay scales, far more than half the people will be getting below average salaries. Exactly half the people will be getting below the median salary. Different things.

      No, far more than half the people will be getting below the mean salary. The word "average" can refer to mean, median, mode, or other things.

      If you're going to be pedantic, check a dictionary first.

    27. Re:Average by hemp · · Score: 1

      The number if IT workers admitted on H1-b visas is also at a 10 year low.

      --
      Skip ------ See the latest from http://www.anArchyFortWorth.com
    28. Re:Average by LordLimecat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Step 1:
      Consolidate onto virtualized servers.

      Step 2: create multiple VM hosts with high-availability

      Step 3: set up redundant networking (switches, etc)

      Im not seeing the problem, nor the single point of failure. In fact, virtualization is much cooler than those crappy servers, since you can take a server offline without taking the service offline by migrating a guest between hosts. That is, in fact, one of the main reasons you use virtualization to begin with-- to disassociate the service from the piece of hardware.

    29. Re:Average by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      It also depends on what exactly your job is. As a programmer, I make double that with stock. It's actually not too far from what I made at my first job ten years ago. Help desk will make far less. Lumping everyone together makes these surveys useless. It's like averaging nurses with surgeons and reporting an average "medical field" salary. Pointless, noone makes that- they make far more or far less.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    30. Re:Average by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The people I knew who were making 85K in 2001 fell into two categories

      The first were the bullshit artists or too stupid to know they were bullshit artists but working for bullshit companies like March First; like the idiot I interviewed with there who was a hiring manager with about 6 months of experience.

      The second were the ones with a lot of experience.

      My guess is the GP falls into the first category.

    31. Re:Average by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      generally speaking a sizable portion of the group will be paid below average

      nearly half!

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    32. Re:Average by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know ADP and Kronos, two very large HR services and payroll companies, pay based on area of residence. Good, in a way, since ADP is the top provider of job data in the private sector. Good for a company like that to make sure wages are relative to location, as they are very visible to other businesses, plus it sucks in your case

    33. Re:Average by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's like saying the number of box cars to a concentration camp is low, numbers add up, at the end you have a big number of dead people, you only killed a few at a time, they are here for decades, getting lower pay and buying houses, I've seen it, and they can't even speak English or have the experience or program well, but they are cheap and young

    34. Re:Average by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can believe that, not in the sense of outsource and lay off because that created way too much noise and fear in the people remaining, wondering who'd be next. At least here in Europe where there's much less culture for that kind of adversarial employment. But I do see a significant trend in pulling the ladder up after themselves, the people that are "in" they stay and higher positions are filled or promoted locally but new positions at the bottom of the ladder is outsourced. It doesn't create the same kind of fear and battle to make yourself irreplaceable, but the young people that are out of a job are royally screwed. People are going now for years without a job, and that's a blow to their careers they'll never recover from. More and more I see how much is pure luck, if you graduated into a boom and got a great position and pay your career is on steroids but if you graduate into a crisis like from 2008-present you're boned all for reasons you can't change.

    35. Re:Average by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      130? Get yourself a Top Secret / SCI with full scope poly and you will command a real salary.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    36. Re:Average by laffer1 · · Score: 1

      If done correctly, virtualization can be valuable. Companies just hear they can buy one computer instead of twenty and they go cheap on that computer. You don't get the redundancy. You don't get the backup server that you can migrate onto.

      Virtualization is always pushed as a cost savings when it's not if you're doing it right. You really need to buy two monster servers with high redundancy at a minimum. I often come out against virtualization because of this.

      For instance, my employer has four servers that are virtualized with at least 10 instances on each. They're all different systems, some with old scsi 10k drives and others with SATA and SSD. The processors are years apart. The other machines couldn't handle the load of the main production system in the event we needed to migrate everything. We had to migrate the database server a few months back. The other system couldn't keep up with IO requests. Not only did it run poorly and cause us grief but it also made every other vm run like crap on that box. This is extremely poor planning.

    37. Re:Average by rollingcalf · · Score: 1

      "My global company (for example) doesn't differentiate pay geographically in the US because they claim they are competing "nationwide" for professional talent."

      That's dumb. They forget that location is part of the competitive criteria. An offer for $90K in New York City is generally much less appealing than $90K in Atlanta, unless the candidate has particular ties to either area.

      --
      ---------
      There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
    38. Re:Average by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No shit. We are almost done virtualizing our entire datacenter, I assume the next step is to realize that having a single point of failure for 20 virtual servers isn't as cool as having 20 dirt cheap real servers, each independant.

      What are you virtualizing them onto? If it's a big machine that's highly redundant, then the "single point of failure" mantra is false. On a big iron machine where you can hot-swap power supplies, hard drives, memory, CPUs without missing a beat, there is no single point of failure, and you get much higher availability than 20 dirt-cheap servers where something could break at any time.

      Visualization is really only reliable when you spread your 20 machines across say 7 servers with 3 VM's per server, with the capacity to run 5 per server. This lets you loose as many as 3 of your 7 servers and still be up and running with zero down time. Visualization is the future, and it's here now.

    39. Re:Average by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      5000 bucks per vsphere enterprise license, per cpu

      1500 bucks for the vcenter VM to manage the damned things

      the enterprise license enables fault tolerance. you can do high availability but that requires rebooting downed hosts. fault tolerance keeps another vm running so you can just switch to it in about 20ms if the other goes down. all the changes to the live vm are duplicated over an out of band connection.

      anyways, those cheap servers are the best you can do until you have at least 11500 bucks plus the required 500 bucks or so per machine's support. i just had to do a demo of this for my boss so it's fresh in my head.

    40. Re:Average by SnapShot · · Score: 1

      "Have a little piece of the cloud right in your own office!"

      I love this line! I hope whoever is still making servers a year from now uses this.

      --
      Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
    41. Re:Average by Sadsfae · · Score: 1

      Also remember VMWare isn't the only game in town, it just happens to be the most expensive. Red Hats RHEV (Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization) is a contender along with XEN, KVM, Hyper-V etc. (I've only used the first three, can't speak for Hyper-V).

      --
      Have a squat over at the hobo house.
    42. Re:Average by Sadsfae · · Score: 1

      And of course "IT" is a nebulous job classification in the first place. It's almost like measuring the average pay of "health care workers" (which range from orderlies to brain surgeons).

      This is very accurate, the number of specializations, sub-specializations and disparity between low/entry-level to upper-end architect varies drastically.

      --
      Have a squat over at the hobo house.
    43. Re:Average by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 1

      Sure, I live in a part of the country with a lower cost of living, but so do most people in my career. Am I really getting the shaft that bad? Or are these studies that skewed?

      Depending on how much cheaper your area is, you could be coming out ahead of those $100K+ folks in, say, the DC area, New York City, etc. I know that if I had my salary in the part of South Carolina where part of my family lives, it would be an almost palatial lifestyle. Housing costs are at least half of what they are in my area. Gas is also nearly a dollar per gallon cheaper. I could take a fairly hefty paycut and still have the same standard of living.

      --
      SSC
    44. Re:Average by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No shit. We are almost done virtualizing our entire datacenter, I assume the next step is to realize that having a single point of failure for 20 virtual servers isn't as cool as having 20 dirt cheap real servers, each independant.

      What are you virtualizing them onto? If it's a big machine that's highly redundant, then the "single point of failure" mantra is false. On a big iron machine where you can hot-swap power supplies, hard drives, memory, CPUs without missing a beat, there is no single point of failure, and you get much higher availability than 20 dirt-cheap servers where something could break at any time.

      More than that. One of the big draws of virtualization is the ability to hot-migrate VMs. And these days, whether it's a "big iron" sysplex or a couple of racks of Intel/AMD, the total cost and power draws are probably going to save enough money to justify better quality infrastructure. At least until the bean counters find out.

      Disclaimer: "6 months and you're out?" In the Bush 1 recession, the gap I had between major jobs was closer to 3 years. By keeping visible, keeping up with technology, and taking advantage of what few small gigs were available in the interim, I got back into the mainstream, albeit at a 15% pay loss. Then again, I was already over 40.

      And, as we all know, old fuddy-duddies can't learn about cutting-edge stuff like virtualization and cloud computing.

      Although, come to think of it, I think that's the period when I started building the VM appliances that I'm still running.

    45. Re:Average by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is dumb is for a company to consider paying more for a guy in NY when they can get the same value of work for less money when they hire a guy in Atlanta.

    46. Re:Average by netsavior · · Score: 1

      There are trade-offs both ways. If you have a server that you think is so redundant and bulletproof that it will never go down, well you are wrong. You can either plan your application deployment with occasional hardware and datacenter failures built in or not. If 20 servers each have 99% uptime, but my application doesn't go down if I lose one or two or 10 servers then I have a much higher uptime then if my iron warhorse of a host machine has 99.9% uptime.

      I like to compare IDE Raid 5 to a really good scsi back in the day. Sure the IDE drives failed more, but it didn't matter if they failed, because you could just pop another cheap IDE in there and the volume never actually went down.

      The thing is I have to plan for servers to go down unexpectedly anyway. Multiplying my server cost by 10, then dividing my server count by 10 sometimes feels like chasing buzzwords is all.

    47. Re:Average by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      generally speaking a sizable portion of the group will be paid below average

      nearly half!

      Half will be below the *median*, no telling how many will be below the average.
      (one 'Bill Gates' outlier in the list will skew the results.)

        75 80 83 86 85 88 90 93 100,000

      median 85 (four above, four below)
      average 11,187 (one above, eight below)

      Given typical pay structure, there will be more than half 'below average'.

    48. Re:Average by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you virtualizing them onto? If it's a big machine that's highly redundant, then the "single point of failure" mantra is false. On a big iron machine where you can hot-swap power supplies, hard drives, memory, CPUs without missing a beat, there is no single point of failure, and you get much higher availability than 20 dirt-cheap servers where something could break at any time.

      Given that KVM/Hyper-V/Xen/VMware are probably the most popular virtualization types of software, and they run on x86 CPUs only, can you please provide links to HP/Dell/IBM hardware that uses Intel/AMD chips and that has hot swappable memory and CPUs? Or hot swappable FC HBAs? I've had all of these three types of hardware go bad on me over the years, and when dealing with x86-based systems, have always had to power down the machine.

      I have run hardware from old school Unix vendors that could hot swap these devices (CPU, memory, PCI(e)), but never an Intel-class machine.

      Given that when most people say "virtualization" they generally mean VMware and/or Windows, your comment on "big iron" having all of these RAS features is mostly moot since "true" big iron isn't what VMware and/or Windows runs on.

    49. Re:Average by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      When was the last time an IBM mainframe went down? Probably never. 99.999% uptime isn't something to sneeze at. The only way a machine built that way goes down is when there's a natural disaster.

      In a highly redundant machine, the chances of multiple things failing all at the same time are astronomical, so no, I'm not wrong if I think it's never going to go down (or at least offer less availability than 20 cheap servers).

    50. Re:Average by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      While Windows is obviously out, I'm pretty sure the z-series mainframes make heavy use of virtualization to run Linux apps.

    51. Re:Average by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      What you say is true, but then you need to take an average, weighted if you like, of all those cost of living factors too. Or measure in units other than dollars, i.e. square feet of real estate.

      But summing up an industry with probably millions of workers in a variety of roles into one number is little more than a parlor game.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    52. Re:Average by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      No, far more than half the people will be getting below the mean salary.

      Would that be the harmonic mean, the geometric mean, the arithmetic mean...

      If you're going to be pedantic, check a dictionary first.

      Maybe a dictionary of proverbs. The cobbler's child goeth oft barefoot.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    53. Re:Average by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      What is dumb is for a company to consider paying more for a guy in NY when they can get the same value of work for less money when they hire a guy in Atlanta.

      What's dumber is not knowing that there could be valid reasons for having people based in NY. For example, if you're in any way involved with banking and finance.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    54. Re:Average by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Virtualization is always pushed as a cost savings when it's not if you're doing it right.

      Thats not correct.

      A lot of the cost of a server is its drive-bays, its RAID card, its motherboard, its backplane. All of those can be shared with minimal performance loss. Overprovision the CPU (which is really not that expensive), over provision the RAM (which is downright cheap) and overprovision the storage (which has been and will be cheap), and you can now have multiple servers running on one server; where before you needed 3 $1500 cheapo dell servers, now you get one $3500 dell server which has more aggregate performance, more hardware redundancy (PSUs, disks), and can be scaled up in the future if the need arises.

      I have a client where we went this route. We started by moving from Exchange 2003 and a Server 2003 domain (2 boxes) to a virtualized, 2-guest ESXi install. We later added a second host, with 2 more hosts, and later a third. The benefits have been wide:
      A) When our crappy firewall appliance took a dive, I was able in about an hour to provision a new VM running pfSense, and rewire the network through that VM so that our network was able to come back up. In otherwords, virtualizing gave us the ability to quickly implement if a need arose, rather than having to wait for new hardware.
      B) We can easily test new services by deploying a new VM.
      C) We can do hardware upgrades without bringing a service down (or could, if we paid for Storage Motion licenses).
      D) If in the future we desire, we can fill in the remaining drive bays on the servers, pump up the RAM, and set up High Availability.

      All of this cost us literally nothing; there was added implementation time, but there were savings on buying a pimped out server rather than 2 weaker ones, and it has given us enormous flexibility.

    55. Re:Average by laffer1 · · Score: 2

      I don't agree. The premise of successful virtualization is that you're not utilizing the hardware most of the time. This is quite true for some workloads, but not all. I don't believe virtualization works for disk bound workloads. I've never seen evidence that it's a good idea.

      Specifically, I think virtualization is terrible for database servers. There are also cases that mail servers could be a problem.

      Let me give an example. I know someone that works at a large company and they have clusters of mysql servers in several data centers. To save money, they bought a monster hp server and moved all of the database instances into one big box. The old servers had very nice raid controllers and so forth. They needed them. This new box, no matter how special isn't going to handle 10 mysql servers under load with disk IO. It's just not going to happen. IT people don't seem to get that anything that's CPU bound or disk bound isn't going to work well in a virtualization environment. You're counting on things not being utilized to pull this off and they are maxed out. There's also the obvious fact that if you had to cluster 10 mysql servers together, that's probably because hardware on one box couldn't handle it to begin with. You could get away with less instances of MySQL (and it would probably help) on the VM host.

      I totally agree that light use servers or web hosting environments could get away with this without a problem. I also agree that if you had a bunch of cheap servers that migrating to a very good server and virtualizing will work. I do not agree that a mid sized farm of database servers can be migrated to a server and it will work out.

    56. Re:Average by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Atlanta has be best salary/cost of living ratio in the US. At least for J2EE geeks.

      Sure, I could go to the bay area and get a 10-25% raise, but I would need closer to a 50% to 100% raise to actually break even.

    57. Re:Average by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You and the rest of 50 per cent of people in IT positions. That's what average means, dumb ass.

    58. Re:Average by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.trulia.com/for_sale/42021_c/#for_sale/42021_c/4p_beds/price;a_sort

      http://losangeles.condo.com/ForSale/United-States/California/Los-Angeles-Condos/Hollywood#view=list&beds=1&loc=69783

      Seems close enough to have made his point.

    59. Re:Average by dysco_dave · · Score: 1

      50% of people are below average.

    60. Re:Average by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      I've always been making below the average, too, but I suspect that's because I'm not a very good salesman: I see plenty of jobs going for well over my pay grade for which I'm qualified. Also, keep in mind that unless you're in one of the handful of metro areas with a high cost of living which have heavy IT industry, your salary is going to naturally be less (NYC, Atlanta, Austin, San Francisco, Silicon Valley, etc.). For instance, the numbers in the article are, I'd guess, 10-30% less than what I've seen for similar jobs posted in the SF Bay area.

      A lot of jobs are coming back stateside because overseas work results suck. People don't like Indian "support" any more than they like Indian call center hotlines or cold callers. Maybe there are more developer jobs going overseas, but the titles didn't really reflect programming jobs. If anything, I'd say the increase of stateside 'entry level' IT jobs would increase the average, not decrease it.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    61. Re:Average by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      With your so-called "big iron" virtualization, mainboards/backplanes and PDUs going south will still fuck up your world. It's also highly esoteric compared to a simpler n+1 solution.

      In contrast, 20 dirt-cheap servers in a highly redundant software environment (ie, designed to withstand multiple hosts dying at the same time) not only costs less, but has more resiliency to multiple failures.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    62. Re:Average by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Reportedly 1% in Boston area.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    63. Re:Average by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      They also take forever to recover when they do go down, usually human error when I have seen it.

    64. Re:Average by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      Things like earthquakes, power blackouts, network outages, etc do happen. It's a lot harder to geographically distribute one big mainframe than 20 commodity crapboxes.

    65. Re:Average by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's 'cuz no one in their right mind wants to live in Boston in the winter...

    66. Re:Average by Cutting_Crew · · Score: 1

      that kind of job requires you to work in a covered bunker with no windows, no internet access, no cell phone and not really having much to say in terms of flexibility in using the best tools to get the job done. its a job but its not the best job(not withstanding the pay)

    67. Re:Average by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. In Hollywood, CA, you are paying $1million USD for mortgage a one bedroom living space, where in rural PA, you could pay $40k USD for a 4 bedroom, 3 story house.

      I don't think either of those things are true.

      Both housing extremes are off somewhat - generally speaking you can get a decent house in PA for less than $150K-$300K and there are places within commuting distance of Hollywood where you can rent for about $1100-1600. A house would probably cost you an extra $500 in rent. But you do realize that nobody you want to associate with or get an autograph from actually *lives* in Hollywood, right?

    68. Re:Average by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He is also completely missing the point when it comes to data center costs. Huge data center literally cost a fortune to maintain. The fastest growing need in companies today is data storage.

      Massive SAN/NAS installations connect via multipathed networks to VM farms. I lived through the world of huge underground rooms full of dirt cheap hardware and I don't really want to go back to it. The big bang from an upgrade doesn't come from a fancy new "faster CPU" anymore and you get that in the VM farm anyway everytime it gets upgraded anyway. I'm convinced the next move for Client/Server based IT is to this big piece of hardware with massive concurrent processing, even more massive shared memory pools and web exposed apps all running in one environment. Oh, I don't know, let's call it a mainframe. Everything old is new agian.

    69. Re:Average by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The big robust machines are great. They save you money by increasing your overall hardware utilization. But sooner or later you have to perform some form of offline maintenance of the "big iron" machine. With many servers on the one frame with different business requirements, getting a window to perform maintenance can become very difficult. You must devise a way to be able to migrate the servers (live or dead) to another piece of "big iron", either a spare one that is sized appropriately or to other ones that have the capacity.

    70. Re:Average by SCHecklerX · · Score: 1

      Why de-virtualize? The real solution is HA clustering for your physical VMs.

    71. Re:Average by sjames · · Score: 1

      That's the ideal move, but rarely happens because it turns out that that highly reliable hot swap everything server costs well more than 20 times as much as the 20 cheap servers even when rackspace and such are considered. The bean counters won't have it because IT is considered a cost rather than a profit center even though sales and marketing grind to a halt without it.

      So what happens is that everything gets virtualized onto a big cheap server (rather that 20 little cheap servers). It saves a bit of money once rackspace costs are considered but if it goes down, everything goes down.

    72. Re:Average by sjames · · Score: 1

      They're close enough to true. It illustrates the point just fine even if the numbers are off by a factor of 3.

    73. Re:Average by sjames · · Score: 1

      However, in common usage average typically means the mean. That usage is so common that many people don't realize it could be anything else.

    74. Re:Average by sjames · · Score: 2

      Well more than half. There's typically a few management types at the top skewing the curve.

    75. Re:Average by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

      They're close enough to true. It illustrates the point just fine even if the numbers are off by a factor of 3.

      But the point is not properly illustrated if it's off by a factor of 3... $120k vs $333k is still a big difference and something to consider when taking a job, but it doesn't $80k/yr from an extravagant lifestyle to an impoverished existence. It's also important to note that utilities and such make up the difference... I moved from Portland, OR to Oklahoma City, OK, and have found that the $500 less I spend on mortgage is overshadowed by the cost of gas (have to drive farther), heating and AC, and food prices.

    76. Re:Average by sjames · · Score: 1

      It is properly illustrated, it's just that your case isn't an example of SV vs. rural PA. Differing cost of living in different places isn't the slightest bit controversial.

    77. Re:Average by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Step 1:
      Consolidate onto virtualized servers.

      Step 2: create multiple VM hosts with high-availability

      Step 3: set up redundant networking (switches, etc)

      Im not seeing the problem, nor the single point of failure. In fact, virtualization is much cooler than those crappy servers, since you can take a server offline without taking the service offline by migrating a guest between hosts. That is, in fact, one of the main reasons you use virtualization to begin with-- to disassociate the service from the piece of hardware.

      ding ding ding, we have a winner

    78. Re:Average by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

      The difference in cost of living for SoCal vs. rural PA is absolutely comparable to the difference between PDX and OKC. You can get a nice house here for $100k, vs the $300k it costs in PDX to live in a neighborhood where you won't get shot. The difference in climate (and thus climate control costs) is also comparable, as is the relative distance from food distribution centers and the amount of extra fuel required to get to work.

    79. Re:Average by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      It seems like the smart way is to have two big iron machines, located in two separate geographic areas but performing replication between the two. That way, if one is hit by an earthquake, the other can take over. And if you need to take one down temporarily, that's no problem too.

    80. Re:Average by crdotson · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if you're being funny or serious, but the moderators seem to think you're serious. You need to look at some of the technologies like VMware HA, powervm hot sparing, etc. it's really a different world out there today and I don't believe virtualization will go away any more than the Internet has.

    81. Re:Average by t0qer · · Score: 1

      I'm not pimping any skills anymore. I'm perfectly happy where I am, not climbing the corporate ladder. I've gotten enough roots planted now where my future looks pretty solid.

      You quote my "fucked" like it's inaccurate. If you had any concept of the world outside of your cubicle, you'd see it's still fucked. Local Silicon Valley cities are tanking. Here's some good reads since it doesn't seem like you see the world outside anymore.

      San Jose City Budget Deficit.
      http://www.sanjoseca.gov/mayor/goals/budget/BudgetDeficit.asp#impact

      In the North bay Vallejo had to declare bankruptcy protection.

      http://www.ci.vallejo.ca.us/GovSite/default.asp?serviceID1=712&Frame=L1

      City of Santa Clara in Deficit.
      http://santaclaraca.gov/index.aspx?page=50&recordid=560

        I live in San Jose, CA.

      Our economy tanked because of this stupid war we've been fighting for the last 10 years. Where we were during the .com would have sustained if we had actually stayed the course, just stuck to going after Osama, and not blown trillions of dollars "liberating Iraq"

      Another reason our economy is tanking is because of the buzzwords uttered left and right by the 1% as our salvation to creating the ultimate world utopia. "Globalization" IT Salaries are increasing, but are the jobs actually increasing? No, they aren't. China has proven to stand on their own when it comes to engineering. I look at my Android HTC phones in awe. My LG microwave runs circles around any GE (which oddly enough, was made in china, and rebranded as GE)

      The investing 1% doesn't give a rats ass about you. At the end of the day, if it's a choice between hiring you or someone overseas to do the same quality of work for cheaper. Guess what? You're nothing more than a sum() function on a spreadsheet to them.

      This is what the OWS people have been fighting for. Sure, you might be making good money, but your "cloud" skills are just going to be used until your product is stable enough to get shipped overseas. Cloud means it doesn't have to be here.. Think about that... Corporations shouldn't be allowed to setup shop overseas unless they're willing to provide the same levels of safety, and workers rights that they would get in the states.

      So enjoy your time in the clouds anon.

    82. Re:Average by t0qer · · Score: 1

      I'm not upset for myself, I'm upset for others. I'm pretty happy where I am in life now.

      If you're doing good, great, but the majority of folks I know have had to get back to the end of the line. I know some of the guys that used to run the ISP arm of Earthlink here in the bay area. They're worth every penny. (I'm not half bad myself as a network admin that knows my way around routers,bgrp, some light coding) Even these guys though got the axe in 2001. I met a few of them when I did a stint of phone support last year (now I remember why I hated it)

      Nobody has outdated skills either. Most of my references died out as 90% of the companies I worked for imploded. Notable examples of places I worked at, Metricom (Ricochet Wireless Modem) and Commerce one. Most of us don't look at the tech as something to make money with either (at least I don't) I learn on my own because it interests the hell out of me. I love building things.

    83. Re:Average by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The single point of failure being your employer not coughing the cash to implement this.

    84. Re:Average by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      >> that kind of job requires you to work in a covered bunker with no windows, no internet access, no cell phone

      Not always.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  3. My Salary by bored_engineer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Now I just wish that *my* salary would move back up to 2008 levels. To be fair, I was laid off in 2009 and needed to change specialties in order to find work. Fortunately, I have an immediate opportunity to move up, and may be able to get myself back where I was within a year.

    1. Re:My Salary by Speare · · Score: 1

      My salary has not quite recovered up to 1998 levels yet.

      --
      [ .sig file not found ]
    2. Re:My Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well my salary is more than double my 2008 salary. Averages are a bitch.

  4. Please... by tak+amalak · · Score: 4, Informative

    Please let my boss know.

    --
    Don't lead me into temptation... I can find it myself.
  5. in-house by alphatel · · Score: 1

    All those employees who were replaced by cloud-sourcing are now getting back to business - smart, simple, administration for less than you pay your average accountant to cook the books.

    --
    When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
    1. Re:in-house by dadioflex · · Score: 1

      All? Those? Employees?

      No. Different employees are getting different jobs. Those other jobs? Those jobs are gone. It's dynamic.

  6. Hmm... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    I really have to relocate to the US.

    Seriously, people, is that figure for real?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Hmm... by russotto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I really have to relocate to the US.

      Seriously, people, is that figure for real?

      Yeah, with two caveats.
      1) That assumes you have a job. Lots of unemployed IT people and IT people working in other professions aren't counted.
      2) A lot of these jobs are in high cost of living areas like New York City or Silicon Valley. When a 1BR apartment costs north of $2000/month, $80k/yr gross doesn't seem like so much.

    2. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      No, these are actually imaginary Canadian dollars, which are worth much, much less than real American dollars.

    3. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I really have to relocate to the US.

      Seriously, people, is that figure for real?

      Yeah, with two caveats.
      1) That assumes you have a job. Lots of unemployed IT people and IT people working in other professions aren't counted.
      2) A lot of these jobs are in high cost of living areas like New York City or Silicon Valley. When a 1BR apartment costs north of $2000/month, $80k/yr gross doesn't seem like so much.

      3) before federal/state income taxes, sales taxes on stuff you buy, taxes on cars, gas (if you need one), cost of living factored into the area those salaries are higher... it's not just 2k/month for the 1BR apartment, its 10 dollar beers if you go out to a bar, more expensive food, etc.

    4. Re:Hmm... by Dragon+Bait · · Score: 1

      No, these are actually imaginary Canadian dollars, which are worth much, much less than real American dollars.

      As of this writing, an American dollar will purchase 1.02 Canadian dollars. I admit that I was surprised. I stopped following it for a while, but I had thought the Canadian was worth more. What did Canada do to screw up their economy?

    5. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canada wants their dollar devalued to keep American citizens crossing the border. When it goes the other way, Canadians flock over here to pay less in prices and taxes.

    6. Re:Hmm... by CTachyon · · Score: 1

      No, these are actually imaginary Canadian dollars, which are worth much, much less than real American dollars.

      As of this writing, an American dollar will purchase 1.02 Canadian dollars. I admit that I was surprised. I stopped following it for a while, but I had thought the Canadian was worth more. What did Canada do to screw up their economy?

      You have it backwards: the CAD per USD ratio hasn't gone much above 1.07 CAD per USD in the last 10 years, and used to swim in 0.75 territory for the longest time. Hence the well-known phenomenon of books and magazines with two list prices, a US price plus a Canadian price that's a good nudge higher. That suddenly became obsolete when the CAD achieved rough parity around 2007 or so, in part because of the USD inflating a bit faster than the CAD.

      --
      Range Voting: preference intensity matters
    7. Re:Hmm... by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Informative

      What did Canada do to screw up their economy?

      The value of the basic unit of currency has little to do with economic strength. (If you doubt this, consider that a Mexican Peso is worth 7 times a Japanese Yen).

      The Canadian dollar, and the Australian dollar, have a correlation to commodities. As commodity prices went up, so did the Canadian dollar.

      That's not the only thing that affects the exchange rate, though. It's a supply/demand thing. Over the last 6 months, demand for the US dollar has jumped, because of the European crisis. So it isn't the Canadian dollar that has dropped so much as the US dollar that has risen.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2000/month is BS. I live in Silicon Valley (San jose area), in a studio apartment and I pay $850/month. Granted, that's about as cheap as you can get when you live on your own, but I know many many people that share HOUSES and pay less than I do. Salary ranges are starting at 80k these days. If you want a nice 1 bedroom in Menlo Park (a very nice area near Palo Alto), it can be had for $1400. The most I know of somebody paying is $4500/month for a 3 bedroom penthouse in a posh neighborhood in the city (there are three people living there).

    9. Re:Hmm... by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      If you are a programmer in the San Francisco area, you can easily pull down $100,000 - $150,000. Cost of living is more expensive too, but you can still save a LOT of money if you are careful.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    10. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Its an average across who knows what range and with what distribution. Executives make a ton more than people that actually work, and consultants skew the scale, also.

      I.e. "average" pay for anything is a worthless statistic. Since nearly all journalists have never taken a stat class, and even fewer understood it (I dare them all to differentiate mean from median without a reference, much less find a standard deviation), and they sure as hell aren't being paid for usefulness, its the thing they always report about.

      Welcome to 21st century journalism. It gets even better when they're reporting on politics and polls.

    11. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly.
      I pay $2600 for a 1BR and .. you could get 1BR that sucks for 2000 (like, really sucks - average for $2400, good for $2600, good and 5min from downtown for $2800.

      That's a freaking huge dent in the budget

    12. Re:Hmm... by NatasRevol · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, no families?

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    13. Re:Hmm... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Only 2?

      3) Higher salary puts you in higher tax bracket as well... I'm actually comtemplating going back to a job that paid half as much as I'm making now, because after increased taxes and higher cost of living, I have very little extra take-home to show for the miserable working conditions.

      It's amazing how housing prices can increase/decrease by more than an order of magnitude within a 30 minute drive.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    14. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I live in Texas and make $120k. Note that Texas has no state income tax. Since I'm renting a (real nice) home (2200 SF house for less than $1,400) I pay no property tax either. So I live really good. I always try to be ahead in open source technologies and stay away from Windows. This worked well for me.

    15. Re:Hmm... by zz5555 · · Score: 2

      And you can make more outside of the San Francisco area (or, at least, I could - YMMV). Don't get me wrong. I loved living in the Bay area, but when I got the offer for more money (and a more interesting job) in a place where I could buy a house twice as big as my Fremont house (and for less money with a much shorter commute), I couldn't pass it up. I always thought that I'd gotten premium pay for working in the Bay area, and putting up with the high prices and long commutes, but it turned out not to be true.

    16. Re:Hmm... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      lol come on, you can't go on with a post like that, talking about what a great place you moved to, and not tell where it is!!

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    17. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you want your neighborhood slashdotted in meatspace? Didn't think so.

    18. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm I"m paying $900 USD for a one bedroom apartment. One of the more expensive places to live in America although hard to believe. It isn't San Diego or Sillicon Valley. It's the east coast. NJ. 40 min for phili, an hour (two maybe if traffic is bad) from Manhattan. Right along the PA/NJ border. 20 minutes into PA I can get a 3 bedroom trailer for what I pay monthly. :)

      I really don't want to drive 20 minutes just to get into the 'city' (decent size town). And then possibly another 20-40 minutes depending on where I have to work. Though most days I work from home and am two blocks from the post office, food, and everything else I could desire. Or a click away.

    19. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I accept the higher cost of living argument, but please tell me you're not failing to understand marginal tax rates. Tax brackets are NEVER a reason to have problems with a higher salary.

    20. Re:Hmm... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Tax brackets are NEVER a reason to have problems with a higher salary.

      Tax brackets cause a salary figure to be highly misleading. And this thread is all about someone reacting to a salary figure that only looks/sounds impressive. Of course it's not a reason to eg. refuse a raise. However, in the real world, a higher salary doesn't come along in a complete vacuum.

      In my case, which I laid out, the COMBINATION of higher tax bracket PLUS higher cost of living, and higher demands of a supposedly higher paying job, conspire together to fully negate what would otherwise appear to be a dramatically higher salary. The higher tax bracket is quite significant... more significant than the higher cost of living. Eliminating (or ignoring) the tax bracket would completely change the equation.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    21. Re:Hmm... by oatworm · · Score: 1

      I live in Reno and I'm paying $850/month for a two bedroom apartment, which is about middling for this market. Plus, I don't have a state income tax to contend with.

      On the other hand, our unemployment rate in Nevada is the worst in the nation (13%+ in Reno, more than that in Las Vegas), starting IT salaries out here are at $25k/year with most people peaking out somewhere in the $50k range after a few years, there are never more than 30 job listings on Dice.com, and the vast, vast, vast majority of IT jobs here are roughly help desk level. So, it kind of balances out.

      The mountains are nice to look at, I guess.

    22. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bangalore, Wisconsin.

    23. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if you have a family you move to Tracy and drive 2 hours each way, but, hey, at least you can have a house with a yard.

    24. Re:Hmm... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      What's that "real" American dollar you talk about? My salary is in Euros. I should ask my boss to pay me in USD, I'd get a raise every month!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    25. Re:Hmm... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The numbers on the paper are just numbers. My former currency (before we went for the Euro) was 22:1 to the USD for the longest time, dropping to about 14:1 before the advent of the Euro, now it's 1:1 with the Euro. Did we suddenly get 14 times as powerful as an economy by fiat Euro? Of course not. It's a number on a piece of paper. But at least now I don't mistake the service phone number for the amount due on my power bill anymore.

      What matters is how these numbers change towards each other over time. The Yen is like 100:1 to the Euro, but I doubt anyone thinks the EU-area economy is a hundred times more powerful than the Japanese. If anything, we should watch whether those 100:1 become 110:1 or 90:1, that would actually say something about the development of the economy.

      For the record, the USD:EUR started out at about 1:1, now we're at 1:0.78...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    26. Re:Hmm... by dremspider · · Score: 1

      $900 a month? That is cheap to me! I live in DC and am paying not quite double that and I know that there are some areas that are even more! I think $900 a month is about average for most major metropolitan areas.

    27. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      . The higher tax bracket is quite significant... more significant than the higher cost of living. Eliminating (or ignoring) the tax bracket would completely change the equation.

      No, it's not, and no it wouldn't. When you enter a new tax bracket, only income above that mark is taxed at a higher rate; at least in the USA. I don't know the tax brackets, but for the sake of example, lets say

      00,000 - 10,000 is taxed 0%
      00,001 - 20,000 is taxed 10%
      20,001 - 40,000 is taxed 20%
      40,001+ is taxed 30%

      You would be taxed 10% for everything, 10% more for everything -20k, and 10% more for everything -40k.

      a $40,000 salary would pay 4,000 + 2,000 + 0, or $6,000
      a $40,010 salary would pay 4,001 + 2,001 + 1, or $6,003
      a $45,000 salary would pay 4,500 + 2,500 + 500, or $7,500

      Your tax "bracket" increased 10% in the latter 2 examples, but your actual total went from %15 to %15.003 to %16.666

        These are all examples, and real world taxes are much harsher, plus you have social security (which is a flat % up to a certain amount) and state taxes, but this is how it works for Federal, and at least Arizona.

    28. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exchange rates are meaningless without considering purchasing power. The EUR:JPY exchange rate might be 1:100, but in purchasing power the rates might be 1:50. Your income would only be worth half in Japan, so Japan would be bad holiday destination spending wise.

    29. Re:Hmm... by Provocateur · · Score: 1

      Consider that when you move here, as an expat, there will be your own 'startup' costs: getting a car with little to no-credit history, finding a place to rent, furnishings for your new place, getting online, and so on. Probably stuff you take for granted now, but some of the 'rules' are new.

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    30. Re:Hmm... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      My former currency (before we went for the Euro) was 22:1 to the USD for the longest time, dropping to about 14:1 before the advent of the Euro, now it's 1:1 with the Euro.

      Tripe. If it joined the Euro then legally and logically it no longer exists. Ergo, its exchange rate is undefined.

      Hmmm. 22 to the dollar would have been 30-something to one of Her Majesty's Finest Pounds, I'm trying to work out what tinpot dukedom you're from.

      What matters is how these numbers change towards each other over time.

      Send me a postcard from Stockholm. I suspect Dragon Bait (997809) remembers the time a few years back where the CAD was worth more than one USD.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    31. Re:Hmm... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Hey, somewhere far, far back in history (beyond my date of birth, IIRC somewhere in the 60s) the exchange rate was 70:1 to the pound sterling.

      Oh yeah, that were the days... today we're getting close to 1:1 for EUR:GBP.

      And yeah, it no longer exists. But at the point of inception, there had to be some kind of exchange rate. I somehow didn't wanna start over with NOTHING in my bank account, ya know?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    32. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'm trying to work out what tinpot dukedom you're from."

      There is only 1 country at 14:1
      Austria: 13.8 ATS : 1 EUR

    33. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No such place you fucker.

    34. Re:Hmm... by xero314 · · Score: 1

      There are no families in Silicon Valley. It usually takes at least one female to make a family, and SV is a little short on people without a penis.

    35. Re:Hmm... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      No, it's not, and no it wouldn't.

      You're utterly and totally wrong. That my higher taxes are costing me more money than my increased cost-of-living, and that the two together are almost completely eliminating what appears to be a very large pay increase, is a very simple fact, a couple line items I can point to on my paycheck and bank statement. It is not open to debate or opinion, and your saying "Nuh uh" like a child is massively idiotic.

      What's worse than that, though, is that in the process you admit you really don't know WTF you're talking about, with statements like: "I don't know the tax brackets," and " These are all examples, and real world taxes are much harsher," yet you prattle on and assert how wrong I am, with my piddly little facts...

      Try to be less of a moron in the future.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    36. Re:Hmm... by Cutting_Crew · · Score: 1

      i live in the Tampa area and make around 85K which is pretty good money. I live close to the beach, warm weather pretty much year round, entertainment, parks, wildlife, great food and lots of other stuff. Why in the world do people from San Francisco keep calling me for "great opportunities"????

    37. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't know Rick Santorum posted on Slashdot.

  7. The Orwellian Truth by msobkow · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And my compensation package in 1999 was roughly $80,000/year. Things have improved how? Those numbers are still LESS than I made 13 years ago!

    Wasn't it in 1984 that someone was told to say the government increased the chocolate ration to a lower number than previously?

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:The Orwellian Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1999 was in the middle of the dot com bubble. You might as well be a real estate agent complaining you aren't making as much as 2006.

      Also, I have no idea what technology you worked on then compared to now to assess your statement.

    2. Re:The Orwellian Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it matter that you're underemployed as long as unemployment is down? That's what "they" are counting on us forgetting to stay in office.

    3. Re:The Orwellian Truth by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

      We have managed to increase the decline of productivity!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:The Orwellian Truth by bieber · · Score: 1

      You do realize that average statistics aren't based solely on your individual salary, correct?

    5. Re:The Orwellian Truth by msobkow · · Score: 2

      As a staff manager, I knew what other people were being paid. My salary was very typical across a pretty broad range of experience levels.

      And so what if it was the tail end of the Y2K bubble? That means people should still be getting paid less after 13 years of inflationary pressure on their actual disposable income?

      Drink that government Koolaid. All is right with America. Just trust The Great Leader.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    6. Re:The Orwellian Truth by dadioflex · · Score: 1

      And my compensation package in 1999 was roughly $80,000/year. Things have improved how? Those numbers are still LESS than I made 13 years ago!

      Wasn't it in 1984 that someone was told to say the government increased the chocolate ration to a lower number than previously?

      Ah. This article isn't about you. It's about average IT professionals, in the real world. When the Narnia survey hits we'll let you know.

      Seriously though. I am concerned about people who think that average salaries going up is a good thing. Imagine a system where if YOUR pay goes up, everyone's pay goes up and suddenly you're paying ten dollars for an apple. Who's better off? There's the world now.

    7. Re:The Orwellian Truth by Dragon+Bait · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Does it matter that you're underemployed as long as unemployment is down? That's what "they" are counting on us forgetting to stay in office.

      They don't care if you don't have a job ... as long as you've given up looking. Then you're not counted in the unemployment figure. The "unemployment" rate is meaningless without also looking at the Labor Force Participation Rate.

    8. Re:The Orwellian Truth by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Which is one of the reasons why it's good to be in a country with a guaranteed standard of living and why it sucks to be poor in America.

      We spend so much money ensuring that people won't get more than they've earned that we end up ensuring that most people end up getting a lot less than they've earned. What's worse is we don't pay any attention to people plundering the economy when they do it via white collar crime.

    9. Re:The Orwellian Truth by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I'd like to live in such a system as it's better than what we have currently. What we have currently is a system where most people's income goes up less slowly than inflation and the various costs of living and a tiny minority's income sky rockets during a recession.

      Compared to your alternative where ones income would be going up at roughly the same rate as inflation, I know what I would take.

    10. Re:The Orwellian Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe you mean "less than" or "slower than."

    11. Re:The Orwellian Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I mean what I wrote, if you're going to be a grammar nazi at least spend some time and get it right.

    12. Re:The Orwellian Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. They also "increased" production of shoes and other items to a lower number. It didn't matter, because all the numbers were made up anyway.

    13. Re:The Orwellian Truth by msobkow · · Score: 1

      The "bubble" was a sham and an excuse to cut everyone's pay. Nothing more.

      The only people who weren't needed after Y2K were the mainframe programmers who'd upgraded the old systems. I and all but two people on a team of twenty were on projects that had NOTHING to do with Y2K and were kept on LONG after that.

      But not before we all got raped into taking a forced pay cut. My staff were NOT happy when I presented them with their pay packages, renegotiated on an entirely one-sided basis: take it or leave.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    14. Re:The Orwellian Truth by msobkow · · Score: 1

      Every single employer in the region did this. Not just J. P. Morgan. Everyone. Even "new" industries that had no legacy systems.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    15. Re:The Orwellian Truth by msobkow · · Score: 1

      Shortly after I said "Fuck the US" and moved back to Saskatchewan. Thank God I left before the TSA started groping people on subways at random.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    16. Re:The Orwellian Truth by msobkow · · Score: 1

      Here's another few points to consider:

      • Delaware has a relatively low cost of living, so people doing the same job in some districts were getting paid $120K+
      • My staff covered the full range of technologies in use in the industry at the time: C, C++, Sybase ASE, Oracle, Encina, PegaSystems, AS/400, Powerbuilder, Java, Web -- the full gamut
      • Only two mainframe programmers were laid off. They were the only ones working on Y2K projects.

      I had to move back to Saskatchewan for health reasons, but not until I got screwed over for another year. I was glad to come home, and swore I'd never take another US contract in my life.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    17. Re:The Orwellian Truth by msobkow · · Score: 1

      No one ever seems to get away without being screwed by American greed. Personally. No matter where they come from. No matter how skilled they are. No matter their ethics. Anything to feed the executive and shareholder payroll.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    18. Re:The Orwellian Truth by SnapShot · · Score: 1

      A friend of mine trusted the Great Ladder this holiday season trying to hang Christmas lights. He spent the Christmas weekend in the hospital with three broken ribs.

      --
      Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
    19. Re:The Orwellian Truth by SnapShot · · Score: 1

      Really? People's income goes up "less slowly than inflation"? So they are earning more after inflation? That sounds like a good thing.

      --
      Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
    20. Re:The Orwellian Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only to idiots and pedantic assholes.

      American's income is failing to keep up with inflation because it isn't growing quickly enough to keep up. Being a deliberately obtuse twit doesn't really change that fact.

    21. Re:The Orwellian Truth by SnapShot · · Score: 1

      Isn't "less slowly" the same thing as "faster"?

      --
      Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
    22. Re:The Orwellian Truth by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      Is reading comprehension so difficult? TFS says "putting overall compensation back at January 2008 levels." It says nothing on how 2008 levels compare with 1999.

    23. Re:The Orwellian Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was singing along with the choir you are preaching to... until I took a little trip through time. I set the starting year on the Labor Force Participation Rate chart to 1974, and suddenly, your point made a lot less sense.

      I was certainly shocked at the change in the chart...

    24. Re:The Orwellian Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the executives...

    25. Re:The Orwellian Truth by Dragon+Bait · · Score: 1

      I was singing along with the choir you are preaching to... until I took a little trip through time. I set the starting year on the Labor Force Participation Rate chart to 1974, and suddenly, your point made a lot less sense.

      I was certainly shocked at the change in the chart...

      There are several factors at play pre-1974: Viet Nam (serviceman aren't counted in the civilian labor force) and women generally stayed at home with the kids. Once women's liberation and two income families took hold, the labor participation rate took off.

      Women are still in the work force (we have not reversed that trend) and the 2.5 wars are winding down with the downsizing of the military. The downsizing of the military means that the civilian labor participation rate should be going up -- not down.

  8. YOU must let your boss know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Your boss isn't going to go out of his way to pay you more than he thinks he needs to in order to retain you. The only person who will always have your best interests at heart is you. YOU must ask your boss for a raise and present evidence that your market value has risen to justify it.

    If he doesn't pay up, jump to a new job that will. Apparently, there are some openings now.

    1. Re:YOU must let your boss know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In most big companies, your boss has little or no control. Assuming your company isn't under a pay freeze, he has to wait until the next annual review period and then he is only allowed to give you a raise in accordance to your review score. Even if you're the top of the review pyramid, there's only so many percentage points he can raise your salary by - and it comes at the cost to other employees. And, of course, since it's all on a curve, *someone* has to be the bottom fifth - even if they're great. Because if you have 10 employees, two of them have to be at the bottom. Even if they're all awesome.

      When the power to give raises and adjustmeents is out of your boss' hands, the whole idea of "just go ask for a raise durpa durp" is kind of silly.

      Also, big deal. 2008 levels. Hurrah. We're only four fucking years behind, now. Well, 8, because you would have had the increses during those four years, too.

    2. Re:YOU must let your boss know by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because if you have 10 employees, two of them have to be at the bottom. Even if they're all awesome.

      When the power to give raises and adjustmeents is out of your boss' hands, the whole idea of "just go ask for a raise durpa durp" is kind of silly.

      Exactly. This is why, if you want a raise, you just need to quit and go find another job. Companies will give higher salaries to new employees to get them in, but their dumb HR policies prevent them from giving substantial raises to existing employees, so you'll do better switching companies every 3-4 years.

    3. Re:YOU must let your boss know by evilviper · · Score: 1

      you'll do better switching companies every 3-4 years.

      That's probably so, but what are the odds that you're going to find multiple companies in your area needing the exact skills you possess, and happen to be hiring right when you are looking?

      I may be making good money, but I've also done large moves, 3 times in the past 4 years following different jobs. How much of a pay cut is it worth to live in the city/county/state you like, and being able to stay in one home for several years at a time?

      How many years can you keep it up? ...and then what? Will you have enough money to retire then? If not, you've got the same problem.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    4. Re:YOU must let your boss know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "This is why, if you want a raise, you just need to quit and go find another job. Companies will give higher salaries to new employees to get them in, but their dumb HR policies prevent them from giving substantial raises to existing employees, so you'll do better switching companies every 3-4 years."

      This.

      I got hired into a position a couple of years ago and was incredibly underpaid. I accepted the position with a caveat - I expected to get a performance review and a salary increase after a year. I got the performance review, but got nothing extra for breaking my back. So I politely asked for a raise. Several months later, nothing. I made my displeasure known to my supervisor who said there was nothing they could do. At this point, I gave up asking for a raise and pretending that doing extra work and/or complaining would get me one, and instead, channeled all of my effort outside of a 9-5 to getting another job. I let it be known that I was looking for another job and got dinged on my 2nd performance evaluation, which just made the decision to leave that much easier.

      I start for my new job in a week, making double what I'm currently making. I should have started looking for a new job the instant I took the old one.

    5. Re:YOU must let your boss know by mrbester · · Score: 1

      What is this "annual review period" thing you speak of? If you mean the time just before you tick over a year of employment where you get dropped to save redundancy payment amounts then I'm familiar with it. If it has anything to do with pay rises then this is an alien concept that only executives seem to get.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    6. Re:YOU must let your boss know by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 1

      you'll do better switching companies every 3-4 years.

      That's probably so, but what are the odds that you're going to find multiple companies in your area needing the exact skills you possess, and happen to be hiring right when you are looking?

      Depending on the area, it can be fairly easy or highly difficult. I just started in IT, and the job market here (D.C. area) is fairly strong. Further south in VA, and the pickings become slim.

      --
      SSC
    7. Re:YOU must let your boss know by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      That's probably so, but what are the odds that you're going to find multiple companies in your area needing the exact skills you possess, and happen to be hiring right when you are looking?

      If your specialty is something that isn't too obscure and is in demand, and you move to an area where there's a lot of jobs in that specialty, you should be fine. Certain industries tend to cluster in certain geographic areas. If you move to Fargo, ND, however, don't expect there to be more than one or two employers needing your skills. This is why large metro areas are the place to be for tech workers. Yeah, that sucks if you really hate big cities, but if that's the case you need to find a career doing something else (non-tech) IMO, or get a job telecommuting.

      And it's not just wanting more pay that'll cause you to want to or need to seek a new job; jobs go bad all the time: upper management disbands your department and lays everyone off to save money or "concentrate on core products", a bad boss takes over in your group, etc.

    8. Re:YOU must let your boss know by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Good for you. Don't give those fuckers anything more than you have to, and refuse any requests for an exit interview (though I've found those seem to have gone out of style, but maybe that's just my limited experience). Maybe you could also post a review of that company on glassdoor.com, to warn any potential new hires about what it's really like working there.

    9. Re:YOU must let your boss know by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      Chicago, New York, LA, SanFran, Boston, Houston, Austin, ect. Live in a city. Or dont work.

    10. Re:YOU must let your boss know by evilviper · · Score: 1

      f your specialty is something that isn't too obscure and is in demand, and you move to an area where there's a lot of jobs in that specialty, you should be fine.

      Maybe that's true if we're talking about low and medium-paying jobs. When you're talking about the really good-paying jobs, recruiters aren't looking for just anyone. They want someone that basically been doing almost the exact same job for the past 5 years straight. Just because what you do is generally in-demand doesn't mean you're a candidate for even a fraction of the companies trying to hire someone that perfectly fits their environment.

      Being in a big city isn't really a solution. Just commuting from one end of Los Angeles to the other (for a new job) can be a much longer drive than commuting from one suburban city to the next. And make no mistake, when you're living in LA and looking at jobs for a year or so, all the good jobs will be in San Diego. And living in San Diego, you'll likely find all the good jobs are in LA, or OC, or San Jose.

      I've worked with plenty of top-rate people, and I don't know a one who has worked for more than two companies without having to move, or otherwise commute over an hour each way for a few diehards.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    11. Re:YOU must let your boss know by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      It's all about specialization. I'm a mid-level Linux device driver programmer, and I have zero trouble finding work. Granted, it's not as easy as getting a job as a barista where there's a coffee shop on every corner, but there's a lot of jobs for my skillset out there, and no, I don't have to have done the exact same job for the past 5 years, just relevant work experience is all that's necessary (i.e., my last job was working on touchscreen drivers and some other point-of-sale things; my current job is Wi-Fi drivers even though I had no wi-fi exp before this).

      Yes, if you become highly specialized in one little field, an expert, then the number of openings for you is going to be pretty small because no one wants to pay expert-level pay rates for something you're not an expert in. This is, in fact, one reason to think about avoiding becoming an expert, because while the pay may be good for a while, when work dries up you'll be unemployed for a while, whereas someone who's more versatile (a generalist) will have a much easier time moving into something else.

    12. Re:YOU must let your boss know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I do which helps:

      I have a big skills section because I've worked with a lot of stuff, but I subdivide my skills section by level of experience.

      That allows a foot in more doors for the dumb keyword match type recruiting, but it gives hiring managers a useful idea of what I can bring.

      The combo is both more interviews and fewer bad interviews than if I had selected a small subset based on where I was strongest / what I thought was most marketable and given no further information.

    13. Re:YOU must let your boss know by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Fucking Amen, this is truth, at least, from my experience.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  9. Except for inflation... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Informative

    According to the inflation rate calculator I used, the consumer price index (one measure of inflation) has increased 5.08% from 2008 to 2011.

    So, on average, IT pro's are effectively paid about 5% less than in 2008.

    1. Re:Except for inflation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It could be worse. I'm a teacher and our pay was cut by 7% with the last contract. That comes out to 12% less than staying even.

    2. Re:Except for inflation... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      According to the inflation rate calculator I used, the consumer price index (one measure of inflation) has increased 5.08% from 2008 to 2011.

      Sounds like it's based on CPI, so it doesn't account for food doubling/tripling or the cost of energy.

      'Cause real people don't have those expenses...

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  10. Oversupply *and* higher wages? by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've noted two trends in the job market lately: the jobs are paying a good deal more, but there are a lot fewer of them. It seems counter-intuitive because an oversupply of candidates would tend to drive wages down. However, what I see happening is companies almost *want* to pay top dollar...but only because they want absolutely stellar, walk-on-water, can-do-no-wrong, all-that-and-a-bag-of-chips candidates. I'm making *more* than I was during the dot com bubble. I'm also working my ass off managing projects that would've taken a team of people to do a few years ago. They're certainly getting their money's worth, but I have no room to complain because I'm making top dollar. And that's just how they want it: I have no incentive -- and no opportunity -- to jump ship for something better paying because I'm already way above the average wage, and a less stressful position would pay me so much less that it's not worth searching for.

    --
    In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    1. Re:Oversupply *and* higher wages? by Nethead · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm making about a third of what I was making in 2001. Back then I was a stressed out asshole. I was responsible for keeping A large "bookseller" connected to the Internet and making 6 figures. After a string of jobs doing much the same, I burnt out. I'm glad I put my money into a fixer-upper in a good neighborhood. Sold that for a nice profit and now own a smaller home with no mortgage. Now instead of sitting at a desk playing George Jetson I'm out in the field fixing problems for people. Not big problems, more of the get the credit card machine working again or upgrade the VPN router type. 2-4 jobs most days, just drive there in my car. I get to meet all sorts of folks, save the day and on to the next job. Sure, I could make much more but my sanity and well being is worth than the pay cut. I'm happy, my wife is happy, and I don't get calls at night when something breaks.

      Prisoner, I hope you're still young and have time to save money so you don't have to stress all your life. The cubical can eat your soul. Plan so you can have a way out someday.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    2. Re:Oversupply *and* higher wages? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ain't that the truth. I've worked 8 straight years, 3 people have retired or left, 0 new people hired. The remaining crew just has to do more.

      I have devised an 'exit' strategy. It isn't really 'retirement', I will still work or volunteer for projects that I find interesting, not because of money. I'm in my 30s and have enough money to survive a simple, back to nature lifestyle.

      I want to do this in 2-3 years, but could do it now if on unemployment...

    3. Re:Oversupply *and* higher wages? by Ambiguous+Puzuma · · Score: 1

      It makes sense that companies would want to pay top dollar for stellar software developers, given that (I would assert that) the variance in developer quality is generally greater than the variance in developer pay. Presumably this extends to other positions and fields too.

      It's all about bang for the buck, and if you can get someone three times as productive as an average developer (for some reasonable definition of "productive" and "average") by paying that person two average developers' salaries, it's the logical path to take, setting aside potential pitfalls such as putting all your eggs in one basket.
      Not to mention this point: "The real trouble with using a lot of mediocre programmers instead of a couple of good ones is that no matter how long they work, they never produce something as good as what the great programmers can produce."
      http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/HighNotes.html

    4. Re:Oversupply *and* higher wages? by mini+me · · Score: 2

      I've written about this before. There is no incentive for companies to hire anyone except the very best. If the best are too busy, the companies can just wait it out until they become available. Unlike sectors that have been major employers in the past, like agriculture and manufacturing, where the is a physical demand to get the job done now, information-based jobs have no such limitations.

    5. Re:Oversupply *and* higher wages? by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      I see a similar thing here. We're a small software company and we're providing top notch enterprise-scale solutions as fast as we can bang them out. It almost seems that our attempts to slow things down by raising prices only increases demand and we're gasping to keep up.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    6. Re:Oversupply *and* higher wages? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I have no incentive -- and no opportunity -- to jump ship for something better paying because I'm already way above the average wage, and a less stressful position would pay me so much less that it's not worth searching for.

      And with all that extra money you can buy Maalox, Tums, Excedrin, and sleeping pills for the stress.

      If you value money above all else, it's what you'll get.
         

    7. Re:Oversupply *and* higher wages? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know.

      I live in the bay area and I manage a team of engineers, system engineers, developers, architects. I just hired a couple of Junior guys and we had to pay them over $120K. I don't know the salaries of people exactly outside of my team but I know there is noone in my team who makes less than that.

      So I would say the average salary does not mean anything. It really depends on where you live. I used to live in New York and there it was often over $100K. It does seem that in the bay area people are getting paid more in average than even in New York.

      I have looked in some other states and most other places I see salaries that are way lower than here so sure it averages, but that average here means nothing, too out of context, state, different type of jobs.

      To put it in context, I moved to New York in 98 from Europe. I was making $50K at the time. I was told I was underpaid (but doubled what I would have been paid in Europe) so I was happy. I ended up hiring people who were making over $100K. It was the crazy dot-com boom. crazy how much people were paid then.

      Now 14 years later my salary has progressively increased, in 2011 I have made over $250K (base + bonus + RSUs). 2012 is looking to be a little bit more. But I have been lucky I know it. I know a lot of friends from 98 that are still stuck in the low $100k salaries.

    8. Re:Oversupply *and* higher wages? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Well, that's it exactly. It's a bit of a problem, though I don't think companies realize it.

      The pay is 30%-60% more, but you're expected to do the work of 3 (and work 60+ hours as well). Meanwhile, their financial return on your work is substantially higher than if they'd hired 2-3 other people to do the same work due to less costs. Sure, you can't really complain (or look for lesser-paying work because there isn't any, ironically),

      This will probably shoot them in the foot. It's short-term thinking. You (or others like you) will burn out in a couple years and need to change positions, and since there are no "junior" people working in IT right now (from what I can see, really) with just a couple years of experience, there will be nobody when you leave with the tenured resume and experience to take over where you left off.

      Then they'll go back to teams of people to do your job, and/or outsource. Thus goes the Empire...

      Companies are foolish in their short-term thinking about IT. Just because cycles are short does not mean that IT does not have an existential importance to their business (as power and utilities do). It bankrupts everyone to the benefit of the few at the top.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  11. Quick! get Bill Gates before Congress! by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    Quick! corporations need more cheap foreign labor to suppress wage increases, Call Bill Gates to testify before congress again!

    1. Re:Quick! get Bill Gates before Congress! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whew, I was worried slashdot wouldn't be able to fit an anti-Microsoft comment on this one. You sure proved me wrong! Pip pip good lad

  12. need to hire people who went to tech school not CS by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    CS is not a different way of saying Software Engineering. CS is about how computing works and more efficient ways to do it (like improving the algorithmic efficiency of sorting), not about how to efficiently and effectively produce 1 000 000 lines of code dedicated to special case X (e.g. flying a plane). Some fields are like that, there's a difference between being a physicist (perhaps a mathematician might be more accurate even in some contexts) and an engineer too.

  13. everything was going fine until the revolution by decora · · Score: 2

    i dont know what happened! we payed like 1000 guys top dollar to run society, and then all of a sudden these unwashed masses show up, screaming about 'food' and 'medicine' and 'water'. the fuck? maybe if we just payed them MORE, they would do a better job, and all the masses would shut up.

  14. The tech / IT feld needs apprentice systems. by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    The tech / IT feld needs the apprentice systems so people can get the skills to do the job and so we have people who know what they are doing. Tech school is a good starting point but for most tech jobs 4 years CS is not.

    1. Re:The tech / IT feld needs apprentice systems. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I have to agree and disagree with the need for an apprentice system. I keep trying both CS students and tech apprentices and neither are working out.

      CS students have the knowledge but never take the effort to apply that knowledge -- always waiting for someone to specifically give specific directions to specifically complete the task; they have no appetite for implementation. CS students are smart enough to know the implications of their tasks and will discuss all the possible variations to to end; but never get the work done.

      Tech apprentices will jump in to do the work which needs completed; but have no understanding of the functioning or implications of their work. Apprentices expect unchanging factory work when a properly operating computing infrastructure is anything but immutable factory work.

    2. Re:The tech / IT feld needs apprentice systems. by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      well that shows the need for some kind of middle ground as the Tech apprentices don't have understanding of the functioning But some of that only comes from doing real work. And on the other side CS students have the high level knowledge but not the implementation skills.

      Now maybe some kind of mixed 1-3 year tech school / apprentice system will be a big help to get people the understanding but more of the needed skill then CS + doing real work.

    3. Re:The tech / IT feld needs apprentice systems. by xero314 · · Score: 1

      Apprenticeship is exactly what we need in the IT industry. Inters are also a reasonable approach, but with the cost of education skyrocketing, apprenticeships will be the only solution.

  15. Federal workers could sure use that raise by spiffmastercow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Arg.. Just pisses me off even more about the federal pay freeze. I'm a lead developer and project manager making $10k less than the average developer, who has no management responsibilities. It's getting harder and harder to justify staying in the public sector..

    1. Re:Federal workers could sure use that raise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Raise? What raise? The OP states that wages are just now getting back to 2008 levels. That means, of course, that between then and now they actually WENT DOWN! Did that happen to the public sector? No? Everybody I know has seen wages fall or at best stagnant for at least the last four years. If your pay freeze hasn't been at least that long, you have nothing to complain about.

      But go ahead and explore your options in the private sector. I think you'll be shocked at what passes for "benefits" on this side of the line.

    2. Re:Federal workers could sure use that raise by 1stpreacher · · Score: 1

      Having worked in the educational sector for almost a decade (still have friends in it), I can see your dilemma. I used to LOVE my educational benefits (and I'd still like them), but once I moved to the private sector I've been much happier with the pay. There is a lot more stress though.

    3. Re:Federal workers could sure use that raise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you probably get a pension which is worth at least 20k a year....

      Many "highly compensated" developers in the private sector don't even get matching 401ks anymore, so you can estimate salary - $17,000 (max 401k contribution).

    4. Re:Federal workers could sure use that raise by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

      But you probably get a pension which is worth at least 20k a year....

      Many "highly compensated" developers in the private sector don't even get matching 401ks anymore, so you can estimate salary - $17,000 (max 401k contribution).

      Nope. After 1980-some-odd all federal employees get a 401k with 3% matching. There's a modest pension if you stick it out 30 years, but you gotta make it the full term.

    5. Re:Federal workers could sure use that raise by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

      Raise? What raise? The OP states that wages are just now getting back to 2008 levels. That means, of course, that between then and now they actually WENT DOWN! Did that happen to the public sector? No? Everybody I know has seen wages fall or at best stagnant for at least the last four years. If your pay freeze hasn't been at least that long, you have nothing to complain about.

      But go ahead and explore your options in the private sector. I think you'll be shocked at what passes for "benefits" on this side of the line.

      Actually I worked in the private sector until 2010, and took a 20% pay cut for those very same benefits as well as the annual raises I was expecting. The benefits have been good, but not good enough to outweigh the lack of raises for 2 years.

    6. Re:Federal workers could sure use that raise by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Rush Limbaugh has been blowing his horn claiming Fed workers get almost double private sector pay, making conservatives froth at gov't workers. People in gov't won't get any love anytime soon.

    7. Re:Federal workers could sure use that raise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Total myth that federal workers make less than private sector employees. Federal salaries are public data, and I know IT people who work in the govt, hence I know what they make. I was looking for a job last year and know the range that private sector companies pay - it's lower than the govt range. (I was looking in the same area as the govt IT people I know, and I have approx. the same amount of experience as them.)

      Here's a question for you - if private sector employees really do make $10K more than you, and have less responsibilities, why don't you apply for one of those jobs? You'd be happier (since you say you are pissed off). But the answer must be... that that higher-paying job with fewer responsibilities in the private sector doesn't exist.

    8. Re:Federal workers could sure use that raise by spiffmastercow · · Score: 2

      Total myth that federal workers make less than private sector employees. Federal salaries are public data, and I know IT people who work in the govt, hence I know what they make. I was looking for a job last year and know the range that private sector companies pay - it's lower than the govt range. (I was looking in the same area as the govt IT people I know, and I have approx. the same amount of experience as them.)

      Here's a question for you - if private sector employees really do make $10K more than you, and have less responsibilities, why don't you apply for one of those jobs? You'd be happier (since you say you are pissed off). But the answer must be... that that higher-paying job with fewer responsibilities in the private sector doesn't exist.

      If you're not making shit up, then why don't you apply for a federal job, since it pays so much more? The truth is that only people who have been feds for 30+ years get the top range of their salary band. I make the absolute minimum for my pay band, and most of my peers aren't much better off. And since they no longer give step increases in the FV system, I'll never get anywhere near that top range.
      as for why I stay, well, there's a number of reasons, and most of them don't have anything to do with money. I took a $17k pay cut to become a fed, and have turned down several offers for more money. I like the challenge of my job. I like my coworkers. And I also need to wait another year before my 401k is vested.

    9. Re:Federal workers could sure use that raise by spiffmastercow · · Score: 2

      getting harder and harder to justify staying in the public sector

      As someone working paying taxes in the private sector to pay public sector salaries, two points: glad to hear it and welcome to my world.

      That's a very ignorant stance. First off, I pay taxes, same as you. SSI, Medicare, income taxes, the whole deal. Second, by paying low wages you sqeeze all of the talented workers out and leave only incompetent employees. Then you force agencies to hire contractors. Guess what? Contractors cost twice as much, because you're paying the same pay or higher, and then the contracting company has to get its cut. The right way to handle government bloat is to stop punishing efficiency, allow managers to fire permanent workers who don't do their job, and audit contractor agreements. Employee pay is a drop in the bucket compared to that.

    10. Re:Federal workers could sure use that raise by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Even worse for some of us state workers. NJ had a hiring/raise freeze -at least for my dept- since about 2006; it's only now loosening up, but not a whole lot. The benefits are getting whittled away too. (Hours are good though)

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  16. Underpaid IT worker... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yaay, I make half what i'm supposed to...

    1. Re:Underpaid IT worker... by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      no, you're the hero who balances out the person making 150% of average. I don't feel good either, I'm making less than 10% above average. ah well, beats zero and lately the work is really fun because I get to create new things.

  17. Re:need to hire people who went to tech school not by JimboFBX · · Score: 1

    odd, my cs degree had a software engineering class

  18. Unemployed averaged in? by NoKaOi · · Score: 1

    Since we're talking averages, this would really only be meaningful if unemployed salaries ($0) were averaged in.

    1. Re:Unemployed averaged in? by rubycodez · · Score: 2

      could also factor those forced out of IT altogether since the massive downtown around 2002....imagine a government shooting half the poor people. then saying, yay average income just went up!

  19. These Surveys Can't Be Taken Seriously by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

    Salary surveys suffer from the worst of all maladies that surveys can suffer from. Everything from self-selection bias to mis-reporting. Face it: compared to other kinds of surveys, NOBODY reports their salary accurately. Even worse, many who have low salaries never even participate.

    I'll believe it when it hits my own pocketbook.

    1. Re:These Surveys Can't Be Taken Seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but the fudge factor due to self-selection bias and mis-reporting is probably pretty similar year-vs-year, so even if the absolute number is BS, it can still be a useful to compare to relative to prior years.

    2. Re:These Surveys Can't Be Taken Seriously by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Yeah, but the fudge factor due to self-selection bias and mis-reporting is probably pretty similar year-vs-year, so even if the absolute number is BS, it can still be a useful to compare to relative to prior years."

      Not a bad point, but I don't know of any cases where it was done that way.

    3. Re:These Surveys Can't Be Taken Seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TFA?

    4. Re:These Surveys Can't Be Taken Seriously by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "TFA?"

      Um, no. TFB.

  20. Good for them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Capitalism is working.

  21. This will sound insensitive by melted · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But do heed the advice: get off your ass and change jobs every now and then. I changed jobs twice during the crisis. Good people are always in demand. If you want more than sub-inflation raises (or no raises at all), get off your butt and see if you can find something better. With luck, you will. If you don't try, you definitely won't. As simple as that.

    1. Re:This will sound insensitive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably good advice. I've managed 5% raises for most of the last 10 years, but got 20% raises on two occasions when I a) switched to a new company, and b) got an in-house promotion to a new position. Of course I had to work hard and learn a lot to get those two new jobs, but it was worth it.

    2. Re:This will sound insensitive by evilviper · · Score: 3, Informative

      I changed jobs twice during the crisis. Good people are always in demand. If you want more than sub-inflation raises (or no raises at all), get off your butt and see if you can find something better.

      I agree with this part. I've drastically increased my pay by switching jobs in the past few years.

      With luck, you will. If you don't try, you definitely won't. As simple as that.

      Big word of warning... If you post a resume to job sites, expect an absolute FLOOD of horrendous and useless calls from Indian "recruiters". If a single word in your resume matches any keywords for a job, expect a couple calls about it. Doesn't matter what job you say you're looking for, doesn't matter if you checked that you aren't willing to relocate.

      I averaged a dozen calls every day for over a month after updating my resume on a couple job sites. I've gotten hundreds and hundreds of e-mails, and all of a handful have even been possibilities (right job title, not two states over). Large states are the worst (California), because these useless foreign idiots that call themselves recruiters don't check a map, and just assume if it's in the same state, it's a reasonable driving distance, and that's even the ones who are (barely) trying... I get spammed about jobs all over the country.

      This is a new phenomenon to me, and seriously risks making posting your resume a fool's errand, or worse. It's so bad that just posting your resume with a cell phone number runs the real risk of causing you to lose your current job as you are inundated with calls.

      Worse, employers are getting flooded by insane numbers of resumes from completely unqualified applicants. The weapon of choice seem to be requiring a recruiter to meet candidates in person before submitting them for consideration, which is quite the nightmare when your recruiter could be located 200 miles away... suddenly you need to take a day off work just to be allowed to SUBMIT a resume for consideration, which is the case with a number of companies. And just watching job sites doesn't work, as a huge number of jobs aren't ever listed on such job sites.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    3. Re:This will sound insensitive by CadentOrange · · Score: 1

      I agree with this whole heartedly. I left university back in 2008 just when the job market started heading south. I stuck at my first job for 3 years, and while the workload increased significantly over that period but the company refused to promote me. I left in early 2011 as the economy started picking up, for a job that paid me 60% more. Moral of the story, employers do not value loyalty. They see that as a weakness to be exploited. The best way to look after yourself and ensure you're earning what you're worth is to move jobs.

    4. Re:This will sound insensitive by happyhamster · · Score: 1

      So, once again, we have a lottery winner brag and advice everyone to play. This might sound insensitive, good for you that it worked out, but it was not because you were "good", and other people may be much less lucky. Given the way most companies treat employees nowadays, if, God forbid, they get a wind of you looking for another position, through either posting your resume on the jobs site, or just expressing your interest on social network or privately, you will be on their shitlist and be dropped like hot potato at first opportunity. So you may very well end up without a job in the middle of a depression. Not an enviable place to be in. A better advice might be to stick it out until (if?) the economy picks up significantly.

    5. Re:This will sound insensitive by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      This is great - and similar to what I did in the 1990's... ...but later you will find you have priced yourself high. It is not a terrible problem to have - as long as you are employed.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    6. Re:This will sound insensitive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Luck is frequently the result of preperation, talent, and persistence. You can choose to whine about the luck of others or you can focus on the things you actually have some control over and try to succeed yourself. Life is not a zero sum game and your lack of success is not the result of someone else's "luck".

    7. Re:This will sound insensitive by melted · · Score: 1

      Yeah, stick it out if you'd like, but then don't whine that you get reamed in the ass during the yearly performance review. And for the love of god, don't post your resume to the "career sites". Do your research instead. Employers nowadays like employees who are picky. In my last job search, I only sent out resumes to two places. Got interviews from both, got offers from both (actually two offers from the first one, for different positions), with paying being 30% higher than the other. Easy. Lottery? I don't think so. I worked hard for 15 years to build the reputation and chops I have.

  22. Not just one number by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Salaries going "back to 2008 levels" does not take into account the benefits that you have all lost. Every one of you is paying more for health care, higher deductibles, higher co-pays. Your employers don't contribute as much to your measly 401ks that won't be nearly enough to retire on anyway.

    Don't get me wrong, it's good that there are signs of life in the economy, but we've got 2 percent growth and 4 percent continual federal stimulus. If the federal government should stop the stimulus, you're going to lose ground in a hurry. This isn't going to change in 2012 or 2013 or 2014 no matter who is elected. There are structural problems in the US economy, in the WORLD economy that aren't going to change and there really isn't any path to improvement as long as a relative handful of transnational corporate entities and bank holding companies continue to act as a self-appointed world government.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Not just one number by oatworm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are structural problems in the US economy, in the WORLD economy that aren't going to change and there really isn't any path to improvement as long as a relative handful of transnational corporate entities and bank holding companies continue to act as a self-appointed world government.

      Oh, it's much worse than you think. Much worse.

      If the companies you're thinking of actually acted as a self-appointed world government, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in - they'd at least try to make sure their own backs were scratched, if nothing else. The trouble is, nothing any of those banks own is actually worth anything. To use a programming analogy, our entire financial sector is abstracted into oblivion. Every single "asset" on the books is tied to some value extracted from another "asset", which in turn is tied to some value extracted from yet another "asset", that, 15-20 links later, eventually leads to actual collateral. This is due to our banking sector deciding at some point that it could get better returns reselling every scrap of paper they bought among themselves to each other than they could by investing their money into capital creation.

      To better explain this, pretend you're on an island with two other people. One of you is good at hunting pigs. Another one is good at harvesting coconuts. A third is good at fishing. Between the three of you, you all make enough food to feed everyone, frequently with a bit left over. However, each of you gets bored with what you get, so everyone decides to trade with one another. Trouble is, nobody can decide, say, how many pounds of pig a coconut is worth. So, the three of you decide to use a small shell on the island as money. It's colorful and thus easy to identify, it's rare, and it's portable. Perfect!

      One day, you decide you want a week off from your pig hunting duties. So, you start hoarding shells to save up for your week-long vacation. You charge a bit more for your pig than usual, you buy a little less fish and coconut than usual, and you spend more time between pig hunts looking for shells. Finally, you decide you have enough saved up where you can take the week off, so you do so. You stop hunting pigs and immediately start using your hoarded shells to buy coconuts and fish.

      Sounds good so far, right? Well, here's the thing - since you're taking the week off, food production just went down 33%. On top of that, the number of shells being exchanged between the three of you is the same as it was before you took your week off, only there's much less to buy. In short, everyone on the island - yourself included - is screwed.

      So, what does any of this have to do with the banking sector? Well, instead of investing in, say, fish preservation techniques, salted pork, better fish hooks, or a longer stick to whack the trees bearing coconuts with (i.e. capital improvements that benefit everyone), they've been investing in shells for the past generation or so and now we're all paying for it. Fun times, eh? But don't worry - maybe if we replace the shells with "sound money", maybe some shiny rocks, this sort of thing won't happen again. We promise.

    2. Re:Not just one number by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not everyone. My pay is not great but my benefits are out of this world -- the best I've ever had in my life. Top tier health plan for free, 401k matching, company stock for free (fully vested from day 1), starting with 4+ weeks of time off per year and going up over 7 weeks for those that stick around, free life insurance, etc... and they threw another 5% of my annual salary this year into my 401k this year just because they're awesome. The trick is to work for a company whose biggest assets are their employees. Even if another company offered me a much larger salary, I don't think I'd take it. There's simply too much benefit to working for a company that treats their employees right.

    3. Re:Not just one number by 9jack9 · · Score: 1

      Where do you work?

    4. Re:Not just one number by mhelander · · Score: 1

      So on this island no-body can ever have a week off from hunting pigs or their other duties?

      What if the pig hunter produced some extra pigs along with saving up extra shells so that the other two could still buy pig during the week off?

      And if the pig hunter can have a week off, does that imply the economy at large also isn't screwed?

    5. Re:Not just one number by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      What if the pig hunter produced some extra pigs along with saving up extra shells so that the other two could still buy pig during the week off?

      If the other two don't have any money, it's not going to work.

      After enough weeks, there will be one pig hunter with two employees. Eventually, the two employees will have to rent their huts from the one big pig hunter. Their standard of living will fall. The one big pig hunter will buy the concession for coconut shells and water. Then comes the downward pressure on the wages of everyone but the one big pig hunter.

      Eventually the one big pig hunter is beaten to death with clubs. Is that what you want? Are you happy now? You've gotten one of the nice pig hunters killed.

      And do you really believe that the purpose of supply-side economics is to give everyone "a week off"?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:Not just one number by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course the pig hunter can save up extra pig. That's the point - pigs are capital. The shells are just money, which isn't the same thing. In fact, the pig hunter could exclusively save pig (salt it, hunt more of them, use better tools) and be just fine - he'd still have something to sell for shells, which he could use to buy coconuts and fish. The problem these days is that too many people that should know the difference between money and capital are either willfully ignoring it or have truly forgotten it. Thus, we have people with lots of shells (1%) and nowhere near enough capital to back it up with.

  23. Less than half the average.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm making $35k doing programming and data work....Looks like I should find a new job.

  24. Which, by the 80/20 rule means.... by mark-t · · Score: 1

    ... that the average income of everyone excluding the top 20% is approximately $48,936, and unless you are in the top 20%, this is more in line with the salary that you can expect to see.

  25. 8 year cycle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have been an IT managed services sales guy coming up to about 6 years and although my career in sales and IT is relativley short to some of the IT folk on here I cant help but notice Enterprises move there platforms in and out of house over a 6-10 year cycle?

    Fromt the sounds of things the days of Managed Services is over atleast for another few years before Enterprises get comfortable with outsourcing various slices of there environmens off again?

  26. mine's bigger boys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    9 inch dick and a 9 figure salary !

    lock up your wives and daughters !

  27. Re:need to hire people who went to tech school not by Hadlock · · Score: 1

    Then CS and SE need national level organizations and professional licencing associations in every state like medical doctors, lawyers, architects and electrical engineers do. Because every time someone says "I'm a CS major" or "I'm a SE major" half the people (particularly the non-technical ones) mentally roll their eyes and think "computer programmer" or "web master".

    --
    moox. for a new generation.
  28. It's *crucial* to switch companies *regularly* by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    Asolutely spot on:

    Barring bubbles popping. Credit typically grows ~9% per year. So given just 3-4 years your salary will be lagging market rates by around 30%. More as more time passes. You're fighting exponential growth.

    Switching more regularly than around 3 years will be seen as suspicious.

    --
    Deleted
  29. Maybe a bit better in Atlanta by Tangential · · Score: 2

    IT jobs and pay seem to be booming in the Atlanta area and it seems to be a market where corporate jobs are paying as much as riskier consulting jobs. Folks with average to good skills are finding work easily and companies are loosening the purse strings on long delayed IT projects. Our small consulting firm of 75 has brought on 8 people in the past 6 weeks. This observation is based on what we see on the job boards and in the hiring process and what we hear colloquially from other firms.

    --
    Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
    1. Re:Maybe a bit better in Atlanta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really do tell. I see the same jobs posted on every jobsite and 3 recruiters call me for the same job. Some of them waste my time interviewing me for 15mins while they could have read my resume and gotten what supposedly is a legitimate job offer? They are doing thier Quota.

  30. Want a better survey? by link-error · · Score: 1

    Setup a survey here on /. We can get, hopefully, more accurate information, calculate mean, median, whatever. Setup options in 10-20k increments.

    --
    -Unresolved symbol? Byte me!
  31. Internship hacks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a question, does any one know any "hacks" to get into an internship after one has already gotten 5 years experience? For example, enrolling in one college class to gain "student" classification?

    The reason I ask is that almost EVERY developer at our company complains that they made significantly more as interns in college. (Ohio) Some guys were even getting upwards of $20/hour(!!!) just for EASY coding tasks way simpler than what they do full time now at our company.

  32. Inflation and other issues by DaveGod · · Score: 2

    Did I miss whether these are "real" (inflation adjusted) figures? It's the critical factor as the salary squeeze is coming from inflation reducing the value of money which has not been offset by salary increases.

    The article also errs significantly by using inconsistent terms for almost every single figure. "average boost", "average total increase", "total pay", "salary increase", "earn more", "total average compensation", "total salary", "take home", "make". I suspect the author is trying to avoid being repetitive with words but all of these words either mean different things or are vague and could mean many things.

    Sure, I'm an accountant and maybe most people are quite reasonably going to interpret as intended, but it shows the author does not have knowledge of what he is talking about. "Salary" means the top number on the payslip, "take home" means the bottom figure in your payslip that goes into the bank, while "compensation" is the top number plus all benefits and bonuses. The differences on the basis used can be substantial, especially when you're analysing small movements of around 5%, never mind the 0.81%. A 5% salary increase could easily be wiped out by cuts in non-salary compensation and is a cut in real terms if not adjusting for inflation.

    The relevant consideration is remuneration or compensation, in real terms. These account appropriately for benefits in kind, deductions and bonuses. You can get away with ignoring that in normal times by assuming there isn't much movement, but in current times it's a widespread way to cut payroll costs without hurting the headline salary rate.

    Even then, if your pension is a money purchase scheme we're only looking at pensions in terms of the employer contributions. You personally are very likely still much worse off due to the fall in the current value of your plan and the fall in it's expected growth rate. Usually this will be through no fault, action or inaction of your employer, but nevertheless you're losing out due to the economic conditions. Furthermore this should put upward pressure on salaries as workers seek to increase contributions while maintaining their take-home pay. Even if all else was equal except that salaries were increased to exactly offset increased contributions which were set at a level to exactly offset the pension plan decline, the figures would arguably be misinterpreted because while yes they would accurately show an increase in compensation offered by employer, there would be a nil change in compensation enjoyed by the employee. This matters when you start calling people "winners" when actually they just lost less than the others.

  33. I'm making 20% less... by billybob_jcv · · Score: 2

    ... than I did in 2008. I left a good, but boring job to go to a company that hired me to manage a big ERP project, then a week after I started they canceled the project and 7 months later I was laid-off. I was an idiot that let a weasel of a CIO completely fool me. It took me almost 5 months to find a new full-time gig and a 20% lower salary was the best I could find in Southern California.

    Companies are using contractors and temps more than ever before, and because of the number of people still out looking for jobs, they are paying less for those resources than they have in many years. So, the placement firms are offering much less to the contractors - with absolutely zero insurance & benefits. From the perspective of your average CIO, he doesn't need to invest in his internal staff - he can just bring in contractors that he can swap in and out based on the specific tech skills he needs. When the project goes wrong (which it will when it is staffed by people who know nothing about your business) he can blame the contractors and the project manager.

    Even the small internal IT staff that is kept for maintenance & local sysadmin duties is not immune - there is no reason to invest in their training and career path - you can just swap them out whenever you decide to change technologies. If you are replacing Goldmine with Salesforce.com, don't bother training your current staff (that has given you many years of excellent work) on Salesforce - just lay them off and hire people who already know Salesforce.com, then repeat & rinse in a few years when the next shiny new toy is released.

    Bottom line: Now, more than ever before, IT employees are considered tech monkeys that can be swapped out and "traded-up" (a term used by my last weasel of a CIO) just like the HW & SW they work on. That might be OK for young, single IT geeks - but not for people who are trying to provide for their family. Get out now, while you can!

  34. Try some real-world numbers by tomhudson · · Score: 1
    You need to include both federal and state/prov tax, as well as sales tax on the money you spend (after all, you ARE going to spend it at some point - why earn it otherwise?) The highest taxes in North America - and still an out-of-control deficit (unlike the rest of the country) thanks to language laws that chase away business..

    Summary:
    $20,000 a year income, $5382.03 ($5,349.70) in taxes at all levels
    $40,000 a year income, $14,252.96 (13,783.42) in taxes at all levels
    $60,000 a year income, $24,447.55 (23,995.66) in taxes at all levels

    Crazy, isn't it?

  35. shadowstats.com -- inflation is 12% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as measure by how they originally measured it. Even that first CPI was designed to minimize inflation, many changes since produce 2 - 3% rather than the 12%.

    So salaries are NOT attaining previous levels, except in devalued dollars.

  36. Re:DB servers not be good virtualization guests by zootie · · Score: 1

    I use to think the same: I would recommnend to virtualize everything but SQL and maybe Exchange and Terminal Services (depending on how they were used), but as hardware assisted virtualization has become prevalent, it's many times possible to virtualize even the more demanding loads, as long as you take special care.

    It depends on the design. By virtualizing, you could afford to use a good disk controller (with a large enough cache and BBU), and use separate LUN(s) -with high speed disks and preallocated space- for performance demanding VMs. This is specially true if you use a SAN with really good disk controllers (and VMDq capable network cards). You can use better and more complex hardware more and better, and at the same time, hide the complexity from the guest systems (so the abstraction seems simple).

    There is also the fact that guests have become more cooperative (ie, Xen and Hyper-V "enlightened") and can help the host to perform better, and that OS virtualization (Virtuozzo) can also make a considerable difference (ie, knock down the overhead of virtualization so you get near native performance).

  37. Re:need to hire people who went to tech school not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you know that, at least since the 1980's, lobbyists for big staffing and consulting firms have been actively preventing this from happening? The absolute last thing that corporations want is organized labor in the IT world.

  38. Still a lot of money by TheSkepticalOptimist · · Score: 1

    For telling people to turn their computers off and then on again.

    --
    I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.