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."
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.
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.
Please let my boss know.
Don't lead me into temptation... I can find it myself.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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..
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.
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.
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?
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.
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."