Tech People Making $100k a Year On the Rise, Again

Nerval's Lobster (2598977) writes "Last month, a report suggested that Austin has the highest salaries for tech workers (after factoring in the cost of living), followed by Atlanta, Denver, Boston, and Silicon Valley. Now, a new report (yes, from Dice, because it gathers this sort of data from tech workers) suggests that more tech people are earning six figures a year than ever. Some 32 percent of full-time tech pros took home more than $100,000 in 2013, according to the findings, up from 30 percent in 2012 and 26 percent in 2011. For contractors, the data is even better: In 2013, a staggering 54 percent of them earned more than $100,000 a year, up from 51 percent the previous year and 50 percent in 2011. How far that money goes depends on where you live, of course, but it does seem like a growing number of the world's tech workers are earning a significant amount of cash."

Comments

$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[bigpat]

Making $100k today is about the equivalent of making $80k in 2004 or $72k in 2000. A decent salary... but making "six figures" ain't what it used to be.

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[Charliemopps]

What?!? According to the whitehouse, inflation's been at 0% since Jimmy Carter!

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[bobbied]

Making $100k today is about the equivalent of making $80k in 2004 or $72k in 2000. A decent salary... but making "six figures" ain't what it used to be.

And it never will again... The Bureau of Engraving and Printing is working 24x7 making sure of that.

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[Anonymous Coward]

Making $100k today is about the equivalent of making $80k in 2004 or $72k in 2000. A decent salary... but making "six figures" ain't what it used to be.

Done in one. Came here to see that, leaving satisfied.

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[gstoddart]

I'm sure anybody not currently making six figure salaries would still love to have one.

And since that includes an awful lot of people, I'm sure there isn't any collective sympathy that "six figures ain't what it used to be".

Because, really, neither is five figures.

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. In 2000 I earned about 1/3rd of what I do now but it sure seems that that money went a lot further then than it does now.

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[Anonymous Coward]

seven figures is the new six figures.

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod Parent Up.

SO TRUE.

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[buddyglass]

You would prefer a fixed money supply?

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[scorp1us]

Oddly, I seem to exemplify this. I was on track up until the financial crisis then chaos ensued. But if we look at where I was in 2004 making ~$80k, then went higher, then back down at the crisis, and comparing my standard of living to now, it's completely the same. I have the same small house, paid-off car (but not the same paid off car) and the same or worse lifestyle. The only real difference is the economy is shakier and anyone can lose their job at any time. I know, it happened to me twice last year, despite stellar reviews. I spend way less money at the bar and I hardly eat out. The only positive is I am 10 years more into a mortgage. But I did get a dog.

Treading water, I'm doing it right.

This is all despite a very energetic attitude, high work ethic, and high work drive. I'm trying to get ahead. Even my dog has a higher work ethic than most people. But I'm still delightfully average. And even less secure than ever.

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, absolutely..???

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[bobbied]

You would prefer a fixed money supply?

Not exactly, but certainly not the extremely loose monetary policy we now have. Perhaps just two shifts at the BPE and stop buying our own bonds with printed (or just made up digital equivalent) dollars? That might be nice...

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[scorp1us]

He's got one. It's called bitcoin. How'st hat coming along?

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[Anonymous Coward]

I would prefer rich assholes paying people what they are worth.

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[Anonymous Coward]

Satisfied meaning "I tell myself this to make myself feel better about my own salary" ?

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[buddyglass]

If someone will do the job for $X and not leave for greener pastures then $X is what they're "worth".

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[buddyglass]

Inflation since QE has not been outside historical levels. QE started around late 2008.

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[Krishnoid]

Well, now that you have the dog, at least you have someone to keep you company in the water as you paddle along.

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[buddyglass]

Well, to argue against myself, I don't necessarily disagree with the claim that QE may end up having negative long-term effects. But I do disagree with this statement: "Inflation has been abnormally high lately and it's largely because of QE."

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[lgw]

The amount of physical currency in circulation is of course totally irrelevant. It's a bad metaphor, since it only encourages the gold nuts. The money supply has fuck-all to do with physical currency.

We haven't seem inflation as a result of QE because it hasn't increased the money supply. We added $2 T by buying our own bonds, but at the same time bank reserves increased by about the same, at about the same rate.

The Fed's trying a new trick to hold bank reserves: they're paying interest rather than increasing reserve requirements (currently 0 for most accounts), but the result is the same.

Is this a wise approach? Time will tell. But they simply aren't heedlessly exploding the money supply.

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[bobbied]

Yes, but inflation will be the result of QE, like it or not.

I understand the hope is that we will return to growth by increasing the money supply, but there will be a down side to this eventually. I just hope the cure is less damaging than the disease. IMHO, QE is a short term tactical ploy with negative long term implications, but politics as they are, we are in a play now pay later game plan. It's all about the election coming up and not what really needs to be done, especially if it takes more than 10 words to explain because that doesn't fit in a sound bite.

But hey, I'm just a lowly software engineer.... What does it matter what I say or think?

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[lgw]

If you're single and have had a professional salary for 10 years, you should be halfway to retirement by now. Your wealth should be at the point where, while's there no way you could get by on it long term, there's simply no short-term financial stress in life.

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[LynnwoodRooster]

Inflation since QE has not been outside historical levels. QE started around late 2008.

A lot of that "consistency" is due to tweaks in the CPI in 1980 and 1990... Adjusting for those calculation tweaks we see that inflation is actually quite high, nearing 9% on the historical record, not the claimed 2%.

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[Aaden42]

At least blame the right faceless government agency. Inflation money hasn’t been actually printed on paper since perhaps before Jimmy Carter. The Federal Reserve just shifts the bits a couple of spots towards MSB on various too big to fail entities’ bank account records. Same effect, just less of that messy ink to deal with...

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[Aaden42]

I’m sure anybody not currently making six figure salaries would still love to have one.

Well... Except for those making seven or eight digit salaries, but they pretty much get what they want anyways.

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's in a 401K, it's hard to get at. Plus, that money is earmarked for retirement, so having to dip into that or take out a home equity loan is borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. I have almost all my equity in my house and my 401K. That's already earmarked and if I were to lose my job for several months, I would have to dip into it.

I would be covered, but that's still falling backwards, and stressful.

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[AuralityKev]

I think the operative word is *should.* I jumped into consulting when I was 24. I'm now 34 and SHOULD be halfway to retirement. Unfortunately they handed lots of cash to 24 year old me. 34 year old me would like to introduce that guy to financial discipline.

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you aware that the way inflation is calculated has been "tweaked" over the years?

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[bobbied]

The amount of physical currency in circulation is of course totally irrelevant.

On that point you are correct, but the physical currency is being expanded. What IS relevant, is the expansion of the total money supply and the artificial lowering of interest rates caused by QE. Not all money is physical these days, much is electronic and only backed by physical currency when it hits the streets in your hands. IMHO Inflation will be the result of QE as it has increased the money supply, both physical and electronic. There is no way to avoid it because we have added more to the currency supply than to our GDP growth.

BTW, I'm not an advocate of buying gold as there are better things to invest in beyond something you cannot legally hold in your hand (unless it's in coin form) and have to pay somebody buy and store. Seems stupid to invest in something like that.

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because china & other corps are stuffing their dollars in mattresses rather than re-investing them. The liquidity isn't getting into the market.

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[bigpat]

Given the trillion dollar or more per year injections of new money into the economy, the fact that there isn't more inflation is a cause of concern. The money injections seem to be happening primarily at the top and only partly trickling down into the wider economy which is showing up as income inequality and growth starting at the very top rather than being spread around which would show up in consumer inflation. I think the real threat in the trickle down way the Federal Reserve and the US government are distributing new money is that it is getting concentrated even more at the top and that is further undermining and diluting democracy and freedom.

Certainly the new money does help to capitalize businesses and that has stabilized jobs, but the real long term sustainability of that "debt" will be premised on using Federal Reserve "profits" to balance the federal debt out over time rather than actually taking money out of the economy to pay it back later.

Bottom line is that with all this new money being concentrated at the top because of the actions of the Federal Reserve and the stimulus, then we are going to need a set of public policies to try and restore the political and economic power of the middle income earners that has been eroding steadily for decades. Which I am arguing has happened as a direct result from the way that new money creation is distributed by the Federal Reserve and US Government.

We need more ways to save income that are tax free combined with lower taxes on both the poor and middle class. And lower taxes or no taxes on job creating businesses. But higher taxes on very high individual incomes.

Deficits and new money creation to support economic reforms to broaden the middle class and strengthen our democracy and freedom are a worthwhile investment in the future.

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[bobbied]

I will take your point... But The Bureau of Engraving and Printing is part of the Treasury Department is it not? And a Federal Reserve bank needs to be ready to cough up the physical cash should an account holder demand to make a withdraw.

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[axlash]

The Fed's trying a new trick to hold bank reserves...

I don't understand this. Did you mean to say that the Fed is trying a new trick to force the banks to release their reserves and spur a little inflation?

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[buddyglass]

Using Shadowstat's own custom formula, inflation post-QE is not significantly different from inflation in the 2-4 years prior to QE starting.

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[Richy_T]

No. The Fed has printed up a bunch of money, given it to the banks and is paying them interest to not release it into the wild. This allows them to lend out money at cheaper rates and supposedly helps the economy (in a "what could possibly go wrong?" kind-of way).

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[Richy_T]

Doing good so far. Several events that would have destroyed other options and still rolling.

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[Richy_T]

There's plenty of physical cash in vaults lying around.

The "nice" thing about paper money is that as inflation bites in, you just print bigger denominations on the paper. I mean, just take the ZImbabwe trillion dollar bills if you want an example.

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[Richy_T]

Don't worry, the way things are going, they'll get there soon enough.

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm over 15 years into my job and most of my money is in retirement...I resent the fact that I won't be able to spend it all tax-free until I do retire though I understand rules are rules.

With even $50K freely to spend right now, I could go travel the world, climb, skydive, bike, run along the beach...

With $50K freely to spend when I'm 75...I could go travel the world in the airplane bathroom, climb into bed, dive into my oat bran, watch my grandson bike, and run to the doctor's office.

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[lgw]

Very well put! I'm not will to say the Fed is a bunch of fools with this plan, because it is a new thing and sometimes you need to try new things, and thus far it seems to be working, but man it could go so horribly, horribly wrong.

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[defaria]

Apparently they don't love to have one enough to do the work required to actually get one...

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[lgw]

Save more than what your 401K can hold. Seriously. If you're getting a professional salary, you should be saving at least 1/3rd of it. Half if you're single. Investing is a needed skill, and it takes years to develop, and you want to make your mistakes when you're starting and the stakes are low, not scramble after retirement to figure it out.

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[lgw]

America has a massive cultural failing in teaching people about money. I didn't figure it out till I was 29, and apparently I'm ahead of the game. That's abominable. If I had learned all this stuff in school, I would have believed it by 25 and probably be retired now! But it's not just the schools - we need to make a real effort to teach our kids, friends, and co-workers.

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[bobbied]

I'm having unpleasant dreams about wheelbarrows full of German cash being used to buy anything and everything one could find, only to discover the wheelbarrow was stolen while you where in the store..

beep, beep, beep..... BEEP, BEEP, BEEP.... BEEP, BEEP, BEEP .... Can you hit the snooze button please?

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[Anonymous Coward]

And this is why I drained my retirement savings.

I don't care if I die broke at 50.

If I get myself into a debilitating condition I'd rather be put down rather than take a daily gamut of meds or hooked up to a machine, or live a substandard quality of life.

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[jedidiah]

What "facts"?

If I want to know about inflation, I just compare prices.

Land. Gold. Cars. Gas. Milk. Bread. Meat.

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[Arker]

"You would prefer a fixed money supply?"

Not a fixed supply per se, but one that cannot be routinely manipulated to siphon peoples savings into the pockets of the well-connected and already super wealthy would certainly be nice.

The bimetallic standard, for example, did not result in a fixed money supply. New gold and silver are still being mined, after all. But unlike paper money, the expansion was somewhat limited, it takes time, and effort (and money!) to mine precious metals. Supply and demand moderated the expansion as well - when expansion was more desirable the price of the precious metals rose, encouraging mining, and when it was less desirable the price came down, discouraging the same activities.

With fiat money we lost all of those safeguards. The only limitation on inflation is political, not physical or material. And the outcome of that is as predictable as it is tragic - the powerful gain massively (and are happy to send a tiny portion of their windfall out as 'campaign contributions' to those who enable it, of course) while the common people are each 'only' losing a few cents here, a few cents there, not enough to really motivate an effective pushback.

Which means financial collapse is in our future and approaching at a gallop.

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless someone has rigged the game so that there are no greener pastures. Like when they 'import' workers.

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[buddyglass]

Disaster is always just around the corner, right? If that's your default view then, eventually, you'll be right.

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[buddyglass]

I don't see how that invalidates what I said. One could argue that a ban on importing workers is actually the more artificial playing field, rigged to prop up the incomes of domestic IT workers. This also raises an interesting question: how would you propose we calculate the "value" of of a worker's labor if the answer isn't "the amount an employer is willing to pay to acquire it"?

Suppose I were to claim that my 40-hours a week is, in fact, worth $10M/year, even though I'm only getting paid $100k/year. On what basis would you dispute that claim?

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[bhiestand]

When I was around 22 I started using the "save/invest half of every raise you get". Worked out pretty well until I changed careers, but was sure glad I had the savings.

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[Loki_1929]

I'd prefer a money supply pegged to population change + 1/100th of 1% by constitutional amendment. Some economists and Federal Reserve supporters will argue that such a thing ties the hands of those "managing the economy". I would argue that limiting the power of those who proclaim to understand how to manage an economy of the size and scale of any modern industrialized nation can only result in improvement. If the stagflation of the 70s and 80s, the boom of the mid to late 90s, the bust at the tail end of the 90s, the boom of the 2000s (sparked in large part by a shift of investor capital into the housing securities markets combined with absurdly low interest rates), and the worst bust since the Great Depression haven't convinced you that perhaps no human being on Earth can actually do the job the Fed is supposed to do (we've had a couple of the world's best prospects during those periods), then just look back to the Great Depression and the boom/bust/boom cycle that preceded it.

Better yet, look at the US Dollar's value obliteration. That 6-figure salary we're talking about? About the same buying power as $4,000 when the Federal Reserve was founded. So yes, take that power away, abandon this absurd idea that human beings are capable of "managing" a modern industrialized country's economy, and stabilize the value of the currency so that the salary I have today buys the same stuff tomorrow and will actually buy more when I get a "raise".

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[Loki_1929]

Much of that is due to the capital flight toward safety (at one point, even turning US Treasuries into slightly negative-value investments). So long as people with wealth are willing to park it in US Dollars, you won't see any major shifts in the currency. However, provide a viable alternative and I think you'll begin to see some rapid shifts that won't make anyone holding assets denominated in US Dollars very happy. And that could trigger some truly catastrophic investor and sovereign panic as people and banks (including national banks/treasuries) start dumping those assets for anything and everything else to avoid being wiped out by a hyperinflated Dollar.

Obviously this requires some sort of replacement reserve currency. It can't happen until there's something else considered as or more safe. The Euro would have been the best contender had it not been for Europe's debt crisis and hard hits during the downturn. God help us all if precious metals ever fit the bill from large scale institutional investors' perspectives, because those are a known-workable entity. It's merely a matter of perception of safety.

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[AmiMoJo]

If someone will do the job for $X and not leave for greener pastures then $X is what they're "worth".

Only because businesses that don't pay enough are externalizing the cost of wages. If someone doesn't get paid enough the shortfall is made up by things like state benefits, subsidized healthcare, subsidized after-school activities for their children so they can work longer, food banks, debts that will eventually be written off etc.

Eventually it comes back to bite the business in the arse. People on low pay buy less, they might get ill or die, or the government might put up corporation taxes to pay their benefits. In 20 or 30 years time when the company needs new skilled employees those kids who were neglected because their parents were too busy working long hours will be all that's on offer for the price they are willing to pay.

Treating human beings like machines who perform a task is both evil and short sighted.

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[strikethree]

If someone will do the job for $X and not leave for greener pastures then $X is what they're "worth".

Keep on thinking that and see what happens. There may be a reason the person is not leaving such as there being nowhere else to leave to! But keep on paying shit salaries and see what kind of shit work you get.

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[buddyglass]

I'm actually in favor of subsidizing these costs, since it allows for a larger number of unskilled Americans to be employed. If employers had to bear the entire cost of their support many of these individuals would be unemployable. The sad fact is that many peoples' labor isn't worth a wage that would allow them to achieve a reasonable minimum standard of living (in the U.S., using U.S. standards for "reasonable").

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[buddyglass]

Who said anything about shit salaries? If it takes $200k/year to keep someone working for me then that's what I'll pay him or her, but not a penny more. That is, assuming I think his or her output is actually worth $200k/year. You keep on paying people more than their market value and see what happens to your labor costs relative to your competitors.

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[scorp1us]

I used to contribute significantly to my 401k, but what I have learned is that there is no sure thing. One more economic crisis at my retirement age and I am fucked. These days I put more into side entrepreneurial efforts hoping something will pan out. It's higher risk but total reward. You end up running a profitable company and everything clicks then you don't need alt hat retirement. So it comes down to: do you invest in yourself, or in a company managed by some guy who is looking to manipulate the stock price for his gain. Given the shakiness of the economy, it's not a bad idea to have your own business in the wings.

Also, since I am paying on a mortgage, when that is paid off in 17 years, I'll have a crap ton of equity and no mortgage payment. And since money doubles around every 17 years, My mortgage payment gets easier to pay year by year, financial crises excepted.

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[Bengie]

Deflation seems great until a car is worth $0.01 and you have a hard time renting a movie because we can't represent values smaller than a cent, so renting a movie costs as much as purchasing a car. With digital money, we could allow for smaller fractions of a dollar, but the human brain is not good at working with lots of zeros. The alternative is to increase the money supply, which is what we're already doing. Lesser of the evils. The problem is who has control and are they printing too much?

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[Bengie]

That only applies if there are no collusions, direct or indirect, and the worker has perfect information and perfect mobility, allowing them to work anywhere. Hi theory, meet practice.

In the real world, desperate people HAVE to take a job, even if it's not paying fairly.

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[cthulhu11]

Sure, you've done okay. All depends on factors including where one bought on the housing price / interest rate rollercoaster. Me, my divorce and other timing stabbed me in the neck :-/

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[lgw]

If you think of investments as a black box into which you put money over time, and take out a big pile of money at retirement, you've entirely misunderstood wealth. You become wealthy by accumulating wealth over time (wealth: ownership of the means of production). Very little that happens to the economy should change the micro-% of all the worlds corporations that you own (assuming you don't fall for investing in individual companies or something). The exchange rate between micro-%-of-everything and dollars is really quite volatile, but that only matters a little, because you're not going to just sell everything one day. Keep accumulating until retirement is a given, then maybe you're slowing drawing down principle over time, but you're getting the average of 30 years of prices, not the price on the day you retire.

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[buddyglass]

Mobility and information availability are built into the equation. If you aren't mobile then you're "worth" less than someone who can relocate at will. Collusion is a problem, yes, but historically it's happened in both directions. Unionization is essentially employee collusion. I'm all for regulations that limit the ability of employers to collude and for their rigorous enforcement. I'm against the idea that I can put a price tag on what I'm "worth" without basing that number to a large extent on "what employers are willing to pay for my services".

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[david_thornley]

Alternately, what they bring in for the employer is what they're worth (minus additional expenses and some profit - I usually figure a factor of 2 in here). There's often a pretty big gap between what a job is worth (cost to keep somebody doing it) and what it's worth (revenue from somebody doing it), and that is determined by circumstance. (That's why minimum wage increases typically have much smaller effects on employment than you'd expect: if a job is worth $25/hr to the employer, and the employer can always get somebody else for minimum wage, increasing minimum wage from, say, $7 to $10 means the guy doing it makes $3 more an hour and still has a job.)

Re:$100k today the equivalent of $80k in 2004

[Anonymous Coward]

The Federal Reserve understands that QE is a second-rate policy. The preferred policy in a recession is to bolster government spending in a progressive form (where the bulk of spending is initially given to the low- and middle- classes), but populist conservative politics demanded cutting programs for the low- and middle-classes. (Remember when the GOP got pummeled--or pummeled themselves, really--for Bush's bailout? The artificial, one-time inflation of budget expenditures caused a bunch of people to freak out about the budget deficit, resulting in a reigning in of all spending.)

That left the Federal Reserve with no choice. Its mandate is to maintain a steady economy with steady growth. The Congress refused to follow sound economic management, and the only tool left at the Federal Reserve's disposal was monetary policy. So it's what they used.

ha!

[Charliemopps]

That's most likely due to "Tech" being considered more and more important in corporations and therefor leading clueless Directors and VPs to change their titles to include some tech sounding title to further their carers.

Geographical concentration of tech workers

[Anonymous Coward]

Tech workers live in places it is expensive to live as a natural consequence of their profession. Of course they're going to get paid more.

Illustrates the need for more H1B visas

[Anonymous Coward]

There obviously is a demand/supply imbalance here, if salaries are heading north this quickly. Dramatically increasing the number of H1B visas would help to rein in these runaway salaries and would be great for businesses that have to compete on a world stage.

Re:Illustrates the need for more H1B visas

[Tablizer]

The problem is that the H1B's are not sent home if the economy or IT crashes. When the econ crashes, H1B's will often work for desperate wages/hours so they won't be sent home while trying to find a better gig, clogging up the limited jobs for citizens.

Further, I doubt most H1B's are paid the higher salaries, for the very reason most companies use them is for cheaper labor that have no families and work long hours.

Re:Illustrates the need for more H1B visas

[Aaden42]

What exactly do you think paying non-citizens less to do the same work Americans could do accomplishes in terms of net positive?

I don’t dispute your assertion that allowing more H1B’s would drive down tech salaries, but as a tech worker NOT among the six-digit salary range myself, I can’t conceive of a possible way that’s a good thing.

That said, having interviewed a number of H1B candidates, I’m of the impression that adding more marginally skilled labor to the labor pool doesn’t help anything at all. Highly skilled people demand high salaries. At least for the H1B candidates who have come my way, they’re no better in aggregate than the “average” non-H1B candidate. Quite a few of them are significantly less skilled in the areas we’re looking for.

Opening the floodgates to throw more “resources” at the problem doesn’t help the fact that exceptionally skilled programmers are (well...) exceptional and generally difficult to find. Compensating them commensurate with their skill is good business sense since if you lose them, your odds of finding more are slim.

Re:Illustrates the need for more H1B visas

[Anonymous Coward]

C'mon Mark Zuckerburg, don't post anonymously!

factor in contractors? Then...

[jaymz666]

If you factor in contractors then you need to factor in all the extra benefits of salaried workers. Such as 401k matches, medical insurance premiums, the other half of social security, etc.

Contractor Vs. Employee

[wjcofkc]

As someone who has done a lot of contracting but has also done long stretches as a full-time employee, I would take less pay for a full-time position any day. As a contractor, insurance generally costs more and covers less. You also miss out on a lot of corporate perks. Further, contracts are usually defined as 3-months, 6-months, one-year with an unknown possibility of being hired on at the end of your contract. So as soon as you get cozy, poof! Then, if the contract does not specify a time limit, you never know when the ax will fall. There are misc. other downsides as well. So yes, I always made a lot more money as a contractor, but being a real employee is always better.

Re:Contractor Vs. Employee

[gstoddart]

As someone who has done a lot of contracting but has also done long stretches as a full-time employee, I would take less pay for a full-time position any day.

I'm in the middle ... I'm a consultant, which means I'm a full-time employee who is contracted out.

Which means the people who engage my services likely end up paying about 3x my salary to have me as a consultant.

Fortunately, I've been on the same contract for almost 4 years, which means I get the stability of being like an FTE.

I also work with people who are independent contractors. Judging by the number of times one of them has been to Vegas, Jamaica, and Hawaii since I've known him, he's doing pretty well. And, again, he's been around on the same contract for several years as well.

I guess if you get to be a contractor on what turns into a long-term gig, you can get the best of all possible outcomes. There are some markets where all of the companies are using consultants and contractors for most of the work, and those can be quite lucrative for the right people.

Re:Contractor Vs. Employee

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're at all competent at what you do, the contracting route is generally much better.

Group insurance plans aren't that much better than private anymore, and now many companies are charging their employees more and more for insurance. A typical company pays out about $12,000/year in health insurance, while the employee still contributes about $2500/year. Rates for private insurance for high-level "platinum" policies are generally less than that and afford the same coverage now -- even if not going through the ACA (Obamacare). So companies are actually getting screwed by insurance providers and ACA is actually a good deal relatively. Large companies will start dropping health insurance or compensating employees more to sign up for Obamacare in the coming years.

Then take into account the fact that many employee benefits you simply don't need (e.g. a man doesn't need maternity leave, you may not want long-term disability, etc.). You can pick and choose your own benefits as a contractor and not have to pay into the pool (via reduced compensation) of what everyone else wants.

So, even if you account for a large benefits package of about $20k/year, then take into account a little extra work on taxes, you can still easily come out ahead as a contractor vs. full-time employee.

If you're not good at what you do and can't get another job easily, living outside your means, not saving, don't enjoy vacation (time in between contracts is great!), have a family you can't afford, or other issues, then maybe the stability of full-time is better.

I prefer contracting by far.

Re:Contractor Vs. Employee

[Matheus]

I have a different best of both... I'm a contractor who is a W2 employee of the consulting company I'm currently contracted through. I'm getting billed out at something like 2-2.5 of what I get paid but I'm still getting paid more like a contractor. Since I am W2 they are also covering my employment taxes just no bennies otherwise (PTO/Health/401K/etc)

When this contract is done there's no guarantee of anything beyond (from me or from them) but it's in their best interest to keep me feeding them money so I'm on the upper hand for next contract. Saves me the trouble of doing sales and in exchange I'm making less but honestly making nice $ so not concerned at the moment.

Re:Contractor Vs. Employee

[seigniory]

Which means the people who engage my services likely end up paying about 3x my salary to have me as a consultant.

So if assuming your normal yearly rate is a respectable $100k, and you're on a consulting gig where your annual is effectively 3x that, or $300k, your hourly rate comes out to roughly $144 /hr.

For a short-term engagement, that's not bad at all, but it's awfully high for a 4-year stint. I'd love to learn more about how you came into the position, what it entails, etc. Would you be willing to share here, or at least privately?

Re:Contractor Vs. Employee

[Anonymous Coward]

Once upon a time, you could recoup some of those costs (of being a private contractor) by founding your own corporation of which you were the only employee. That gave you several legal instruments by which you could significantly lower your tax burden.

In fact, in most industries that lend themselves to contract work, contractors do precisely that.

You can't do that in software development, however, because of a law passed in the 90's that specifically targets software developers, and disallows this.

Well...technically you still can...but the IRS can arbitrarily decide to enforce the law and use it to take away basically all of your money after you have earned it.

"Fostering innovation" my ass.

Re:Contractor Vs. Employee

[DogDude]

So as soon as you get cozy, poof!

If you're getting cozy at you're job, you're not progressing in skills, pay, or responsibility. Stay a "permanent" employee if you want to get "cozy". Those who want to quickly advance should contract. I went from phone jockey to database application developer in 8 years, during which time, most "permanent" employees I knew were still doing the same job the entire time.

Re:Contractor Vs. Employee

[gstoddart]

For a short-term engagement, that's not bad at all, but it's awfully high for a 4-year stint. I'd love to learn more about how you came into the position, what it entails, etc. Would you be willing to share here, or at least privately?

I can tell you in broad generalities ... there are some cities, especially ones with a large amount of companies who do oil and gas, where all of the companies mostly use consultants as the majority of their workforce. So almost all of the IT stuff is contracted out and overseen by employees.

The people who can sign contracts and who oversee things are generally employees. Everybody else is a contractor. There is no "us and them" mentality, since most people are in the same boat, so you tend to get treated with some respect. Everybody plays nicely, and if the company likes your work, there's a good chance they'll keep renewing your contract. It's not uncommon for a contractor/consultant to be in a position of recommending options and driving projects or to have been around for years.

It also has the benefit of being private sector and big money industries, which means when a decision is made, and the company accepts that the cost is necessary and beneficial, things actually get done.

Since it's a mobile, contractor work force, there's always opportunities, and sometimes you get a very strange sense of collegiality among companies as the people who are there have likely worked at several others and still have good ties, and periodically check in to see how the other guys are doing things. IT is there to enable to people who do the real work of the company, so you get a really good service/results oriented culture. If you're competent, play by the rules, and do your job well ... well, who doesn't like that?

In my case, due to a limited amount of people with experience with a specific piece of software, I actually live and work in a completely different city ... in fact, it's about a 4 hour flight. But, I've brought my expertise to the table, and people have responded well.

And since they've been happy with my work, I've gotten renewed several times and am one of the people who makes the technical decisions about the stuff we maintain.

But, everything from storage, to networking, to the sys-admins are contractor based workforce. And there's multiple companies all vying for the same workforce.

So, honest answer, do some looking, see if you can identify a large city with a lot of presence of the headquarters of oil and gas companies, and check if they have the same kind of mostly-contractor work force. There may be other industries which have similar effects on cities.

Maybe start looking in the Denver area. And, depending on your citizenship and mobility, maybe look a little North to something similar.

It's not true in all cities, but there are certainly a few where the consulting market is quite lucrative and stable.

Re:Contractor Vs. Employee

[Anonymous Coward]

Fortunately, I've been on the same contract for almost 4 years, which means I get the stability of being like an FTE.

If you've really been at the same "contract" position for 4 years in a row, the company hiring you is going to get reamed by the government if they ever get audited. Typically, you have 1 year before you either need to be a FTE or hit the road. There are laws to protect the "temps" of the world who get paid jack, and are never hired full-time. Unfortunately, it applies to contract positions as well, even if it has a negative effect in this case, but a positive effect in the "temp" case.

Re:Contractor Vs. Employee

[Anonymous Coward]

"Then take into account the fact that many employee benefits you simply don't need (e.g. a man doesn't need maternity leave, you may not want long-term disability, etc.). You can pick and choose your own benefits as a contractor and not have to pay into the pool (via reduced compensation) of what everyone else wants."

Nope. Not anymore. Obamacare insures that you pay for the majority of benefit categories now (pediatric dental, maternity, substance abuse, etc.) regardless of need. Enjoy.

Re:Contractor Vs. Employee

[defaria]

You have no business sense. Insurance as a business owner can be had cheaply if you know what you are doing. Miss out on a lot of corp perks? They are really overrated. The perks of getting to keep more of your money by reducing taxes far out weighs these corp perks in most cases.

And if you think a full-time position as a real employee offers you any sort of security or permanence then you got another thing coming.

Re:Contractor Vs. Employee

[defaria]

Hate to tell you this dude but you're in the worse situation there is. A W2 with no benefits! What's the point? Oh I see you like them taking out taxes. Well if you were a real business you could easily pay a service to do that for you (I use Wells Fargo) for about $0.15/hr. Oh the 7.5% you need to pay in "employment taxes". Hmmm. I see. you're bad at math aren't you. If they are billing out at 2-2.5 times what you make that'd be about 100-150% more right. So if you subtract 7.5% off of 100% you could be making 92.5% more than you are now you idiot!

Saves you the trouble of doing sales? Really? You think that this consulting company will get you another contract down the line? You are new here aren't you? In the some 25+ years of contracting I've never, I repeat, NEVER had the same consulting company place me a second time. Extend me? Yeah that happens but another contract from the same consulting company - NEVER.

You sir are just the sucker these consulting firms thrive on.

Re:Contractor Vs. Employee

[Anonymous Coward]

this is the truth!

contracting companies love this situation. currently my contracting company tries to convert me to W2 every 6 months or so - I'm 1.5 years into a no-end-in-sight contract. in my situation, they're already making 30% (or more) of my hourly wage and want to take another 15% or more just to cover self-employment tax. the smart move (which the parent implies) is for me to be 1099 and pay the 7.5% myself.

Austin, great but not my kind of town...

[bobbied]

Y'all can have Austin. It's a beautiful place with lots of fun things to do, but not my kind of town. Parts of Austin are really great, but there are better places in Texas for me. If you are young looking to have lots of fun, Austin would be great. It's a little weird at times (too weird for me) but some folks like it.

So, if you can stand the weird (or even like it) give Austin a try. Don't let the fact that it's part of Texas fool you, if you like Cali, you will fit in well. Just please let me visit ever now and then, even though it's not my kind of place, there are some excellent places to eat, wonderful places to go and beautiful places to see and I have friends who still live there.

Re:Austin, great but not my kind of town...

[gstoddart]

If you are young looking to have lots of fun, Austin would be great. It's a little weird at times (too weird for me) but some folks like it.

LOL ... so, it's not unlike the rest of the world, but entirely unlike Texas?

I've never been to Texas, but this sounds like the rest of Texas is quite boring, and not someplace most of the rest of the world would enjoy.

Kind of like Deliverance or something.

Re:Austin, great but not my kind of town...

[bobbied]

If you are young looking to have lots of fun, Austin would be great. It's a little weird at times (too weird for me) but some folks like it.

LOL ... so, it's not unlike the rest of the world, but entirely unlike Texas?

Well, I've lived in Texas nearly 20 years in three different places, Austin was one of them. And to answer your question, yes, Austin is vastly different than just about any other place I've been in Texas. In fact, it reminds me more of the west coast (where I've lived too) than Texas. I'd warn you, that Austin has it's own special kind of weirdness, mostly because of the University that sits right next to the capital building, but some folks like it.

Austin has some really unique things in it, starting with the pinkish marble capital building all the way down to the people that wonder around on South Congress watching the bats and beyond. It's something to experience, to be sure, but it wasn't my cup of tea.

Re:Austin, great but not my kind of town...

[gstoddart]

I'd warn you, that Austin has it's own special kind of weirdness

LOL ... all these fancy city slickers with their fancy weird haircuts and their fancy weird rock and roll music driving their fancy weird imported cars. People had wires sticking out of their ears for some reason.

Why I saw guys not wearing plaid shirts, belt buckles or hats, and sipping on some kinda weird foamy coffee things ... and they was holdin' hands! Bubba was practically beside himself when he saw the girl with the blue hair and the safety pin through her nose.

I went into a Japanese bait shop, and the guy kept rolling it up with rice ... fish don't eat rice! I have no idea how I was supposed to catch a fish with two sticks.

Then I went to this Eye-talian place, and they kept grating something that smelled like my daddy's socks over my food.

I keed, I keed ... I know Texans usually carry guns.

Suddenly Austin sounds like an interesting place.

Re:Austin, great but not my kind of town...

[Anonymous Coward]

Where do you get any of that? Austin is part of San Francisco relocated to Texas.

Re:Austin, great but not my kind of town...

[Grishnakh]

AFAICT, the "equal pay for women" thing is basically a BS political issue; they already DO get equal pay. The reason women make 77 cents to every dollar a man earns (or whatever the ratio is, I think that's close to the latest soundbite) is because women take lower-paying jobs than men, on average. This article is about tech people making 6 figures; how many female software developers have you met? A few perhaps, but they're a tiny minority. How many male schoolteachers have you met? While teaching is obviously important to society, K-12 teachers aren't paid 6 figures. Women can't expect equal pay for unequal jobs, and any laws to address this "problem" are going to be ineffectual since, just like any other discrimination, it's really hard to prove in court. Most people don't openly advertise their salaries, except for government employees (who have known pay grades).

Re:Austin, great but not my kind of town...

[jedidiah]

Austin and the surrounding area has been culturally distinct from the rest of Texas since civil war times. It's by no means a new thing. It's not just people that have recently fled high prices in Silicon Valley.

Re:Austin, great but not my kind of town...

[Anonymous Coward]

pay attention -- the question is why does a woman get less for the same work. the question you are talking about is something they made up to deflect the question.

I have met many female software developers. You don't have any idea what you are talking about, but you seem very certain. good luck with that.

Re:Austin, great but not my kind of town...

[hambone142]

I tried to talk my niece in to going in to engineering. She was a pretty bright person. One semester after taking chemistry (not engineering) and she commented "it's really hard, the math is too difficult for me". What did she end up doing? She got a teaching credential and is now teaching algebra. I'm disappointed. She (frankly) took the easy way out and is making about half what an engineer could have made. She's been "laid off" three times with various government cutbacks in California. If she just stuck with it (and she could have) she'd have a good job.

Re:Austin, great but not my kind of town...

[Grishnakh]

I'm no expert on the teaching profession, but my understanding is that the salaries are highly variable by state, and that some states/districts are strong recruiters, going out-of-state to recruit good teachers. Obviously, this doesn't work out for someone who refuses to leave their hometown, but for someone who doesn't mind relocating, it can be quite lucrative. Also, job stability is something that teaching is usually well-known for, so California is probably an anomaly that way. Maybe she should look at relocating to a better state where the pay is higher and the stability much better.

Lay-offs in engineering are a fact of life, BTW. At least there, you can usually expect to get another job pretty quickly, depending on where you live, but if you think engineers enjoy highly stable jobs, you're sadly misinformed. As an engineer, you need to be able to relocate every 2-5 years, unless you stick to a very high cost-of-living metro area like Silicon Valley where your particular skills are in high demand and where there's lots of jobs in that area.

Re:Austin, great but not my kind of town...

[Grishnakh]

pay attention -- the question is why does a woman get less for the same work

Where is the proof of this? I haven't seen any. These numbers come from nationwide surveys of everyone in all professions, all lumped together.

Re:Austin, great but not my kind of town...

[hambone142]

I've been in engineering all of my career. I stayed in the same company (a good one I'll add) for my 35 year career. I only moved when I wanted to move. I worked in the Bay Area and later Colorado and moved (my choice) back to California. I spent most of my career outside of the Bay Area FWIW. As I mentioned, my niece was laid off 3 times in her 5 year teaching career (and reinstated each time). I am not "sadly misinformed".

Re:Austin, great but not my kind of town...

[Grishnakh]

You're a rare exception if you managed to avoid lay-offs, plus staying in the same company (these days) generally means you're being woefully underpaid, because they'll give new hires better salaries than existing employees. Things were very different in the 70s than now.

Re:Austin, great but not my kind of town...

[painandgreed]

LOL ... all these fancy city slickers with their fancy weird haircuts and their fancy weird rock and roll music driving their fancy weird imported cars. People had wires sticking out of their ears for some reason.

Why I saw guys not wearing plaid shirts, belt buckles or hats, and sipping on some kinda weird foamy coffee things ... and they was holdin' hands! Bubba was practically beside himself when he saw the girl with the blue hair and the safety pin through her nose.

I went into a Japanese bait shop, and the guy kept rolling it up with rice ... fish don't eat rice! I have no idea how I was supposed to catch a fish with two sticks.

Then I went to this Eye-talian place, and they kept grating something that smelled like my daddy's socks over my food.

I keed, I keed ... I know Texans usually carry guns.

Suddenly Austin sounds like an interesting place.

Except for the first line, I'd joke about you having met my father. It's not that Texas is all rural (like Kansas, hell even Kansas City is in Missouri), but most of Texas that is not Austin is Texas. Your city slicker business men will be there with expensive Western suits complete with cowboy hat and boots. It's fairly conservative including the hispanic population which has their own clothes and social mores. If you've ever watched King of the Hill, that's about as realistic as Texas is going to get on the TV. As for guns, I have actually seen AKs in the rifle racks in the back of pickup windows before.

Re:Austin, great but not my kind of town...

[hambone142]

Dang! You did it again! Incorrect assumption. Have you ever thought that I was well-paid? If you look up my other post regarding technical workers being paid over 100K, you'll notice I was in that bunch. New hires were paid about 40% less than I. Come on now! Stop making such uninformed comments. Stop jumping to conclusions. You don't know what you're talking about.

Re:Austin, great but not my kind of town...

[Grishnakh]

If you think lifelong employment with the same company is normal for tech workers today, then you really don't know what you're talking about.

Contractors skew that number...

[ErichTheRed]

If you look at the percentages, contractors are much higher than FTEs. They also have much higher costs and less stable working conditions, which the higher rate compensates for. Given the...uneven...quality of contractors I've seen who are nevertheless well compensated, I've often considered jumping into that lifestyle. After all, if idiot hustlers can bill $150+ an hour on a project and tank it, imagine what someone who knows what they're doing can do! Having a family really does make you stop and think about that though.

Advantages to contracting:
- Never the same job twice
- Absolutely every cent you spend on anything is a deductible business expense, so you pay much less in taxes
- Flexibility

Disadvantages:
- Constantly moving, never getting a chance to see something all the way through
- You're a one man/one woman sales force
- Future work never guaranteed

Re:Contractors skew that number...

[DogDude]

Constantly moving, never getting a chance to see something all the way through - You're a one man/one woman sales force - Future work never guaranteed

- Moving is good. Staying the same place, career-wise, is generally considered to be bad.
- A contract IT person doesn't do sales and more than a "permanent" IT employee does sales. I think you're confused between contracting and consulting.
- Your future work is never guaranteed as a "permanent" employee, either. Contractors will generally have much better job prospects, though.

Re:Contractors skew that number...

[Singularitarian2048]

Can you get into contracting if your specialty is scientific computing?

Is it possible, as a contractor, to work only part of the year?

Re:Contractors skew that number...

[Grishnakh]

- Moving is good. Staying the same place, career-wise, is generally considered to be bad.

That depends on who you talk to. Here in the Northeast, it seems to be a huge negative on your resume if you haven't stayed in your previous jobs for 5+ years.

Also, the quality of work seems to suck in contracting; you mainly just work at crappy defense contractors or large companies like Qualcomm doing BS busywork. The really interesting jobs all seem to be permanent-only. Again, this may be a regional thing.

Re:Contractors skew that number...

[DogDude]

Here in the Northeast, it seems to be a huge negative on your resume if you haven't stayed in your previous jobs for 5+ years.

It's that way in the SE, too... if you're looking for a "permanent" job. If you're a contractor, there's no penalty to jumping between jobs because that's what contractors are expected to do.

Re:Contractors skew that number...

[Grishnakh]

Sorry, I mis-typed, I meant to type "NE" (northeast USA).

Re:Contractors skew that number...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're confused on what he's selling, which is himself.

Re:Contractors skew that number...

[cthulhu11]

I'd been at my previous job for longer than 5 years, and more than once it was seen as a negative. Maybe there's east/west variance there. Jobs that insist on physical presence mean relocating, naturally, and these days few of those offer much in the way of relocation. Figuring selling a house costs 10% of the selling price, buying means pulling 20% of the purchase price in cash out of your butt. Plus all the complications of those of us with families. Contracting AFAICT is for young, single renters. Someone above wrote about $150/hour rates, yet the rates I see offered are more typically in the $50-60/hour range.

Re:Contractors skew that number...

[Grishnakh]

I'd been at my previous job for longer than 5 years, and more than once it was seen as a negative.

Really? What region/metro area have you encountered this attitude? I've got several less-than-2-year terms in permanent jobs, and I always get grilled on why I left those jobs. I'm in the NYC area (northern NJ, CT, etc.). All the companies here seem to have a big problem with anyone who doesn't stay at jobs for a really long time. The pay here isn't very good either, even though the cost of living is among the highest in the country. I'm looking forward to moving out.

Re:Contractors skew that number...

[cthulhu11]

West coast. Through two acquisitions I was there for ~18 years, maybe consider it two different roles but doing the same sorts of things on different scales. Time and again it was all "Oh wow that's a long time. Why are you leaving?". On at least one occasion I was denied out of fear that I couldn't adapt to someplace new. I'd always been told in the past that short-term jobs were a red flag, and when I was younger I had to explain why I had a few of those -- small companies whose fortunes declined. The irony is that I was bullied out of my last job by a Silicon Valley asshole with a long string of 1 year jobs.

Re:Contractors skew that number...

[david_thornley]

Contractors have to sell themselves. They have to go out and find somebody willing to give them lots of money to do stuff. That isn't easy, particularly for an introvert (which many programmers are).

In 1970...

[Anonymous Coward]

My father paid cash for a fully tricked out Mustang (approx 1 month salary) and got a new 3000+sqft home on a large lot (125x175) for a mortgage equal to 12 months of earnings.

Now, roughly equivalent cars cost* 3 month salary and similar homes are 5-10 years of my income - even well north of 100k.
* on-the-road price post taxes/fees etc

I'm doing OK, but I have MUCH less disposable income that he did AND I'm working 25% longer hours in a far higher stress environment.

Re:In 1970...

[jeffb (2.718)]

My father paid cash for a fully tricked out Mustang (approx 1 month salary) and got a new 3000+sqft home on a large lot (125x175) for a mortgage equal to 12 months of earnings.

Your dad was doing pretty well for the time -- close to $40K, assuming something like $3200 for the car. (Not sure how "fully tricked out" you mean.) By this inflation calculator, that equates to about $240K today.

Today, one month of an equivalent salary will get you a reasonably nice new car, and one year of an equivalent salary will get you a nice house, unless you live in Silicon Valley, DC, Boston, or another hyperdeveloped area. I'd say that the inflation calculator reflects what's going on with car prices; real-estate prices have outstripped it in many places, but not all. (If he bought a house in Detroit in 1970, you probably wouldn't be seeing a good return on that investment today.)

But, as the Fed inflation-metric apologists always point out, a 1970 car is not the same as a 2014 car. Compare fuel efficiency, safety equipment, reliability, and you can make the case that you get a lot more for the same money today. Real estate? Meh, a third of an acre in 1970 is about the same as a third of an acre today, and I'm not sure the superior insulation and wiring of a 2014 new house compensates for the generally inferior workmanship compared to 1970.

Re:In 1970...

[Grishnakh]

I lived in a mid-70s house; the workmanship was crap. If you want quality workmanship, you need to get something pre-war.

Whats the take home?

[BrookHarty]

After taxes, medical and 6% retirement, what about 55k (or more depending if you have state taxes, local taxes, house taxes, etc).. .

4.5K a month. Nice apartment close to work will cost 1500 bux, insurance/gas/car payment 500 bux, leave you 2500 a month, basic utils 500 bux.
2K a month. After food, eating out, pub, movies. Comfortable life but I wouldnt say rich.

And you'll need around 200K to live in the Bay area to make up for the Rent, state taxes, etc.

Go ahead and correct me, I just guestimated.

Re:Whats the take home?

[buddyglass]

$100k, the minimum needed for one to be in the "six figures" bucket, is more than ~80% of U.S. households earn, many of which have two incomes. A household with two developers both earning $100k/year would be in the top 4% of all households.

As for the cost-of-living adjustment for the Bay area, relative to Austin, I used a number of online calculators and $100k in Austin seems to be the equivalent of about $162k in San Jose.

Re:Whats the take home?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

4.5K a month. Nice apartment close to work will cost 1500 bux, insurance/gas/car payment 500 bux, leave you 2500 a month, basic utils 500 bux.

I knew Texas was kind of more independent in the past, but not that they had their own currency...? What's the current exchange rate between bux and US dollars?

a total non-story

[slashmydots]

Yes and the cost of living in each of these places is about triple so they're making $33,333 in my money which means I'm making more than them. This is such a non-story.

Re:a total non-story

[gstoddart]

Not really. Things you buy like cars, TVs, and groceries and the like don't triple, and they represent a good chunk of what you'll spend money on.

If you're spending more than half of your income on housing you're probably pretty screwed.

That $100K might be something you could have a similar standard of living as someone making $60K elsewhere, but I highly doubt it's ever something you can meet with $33K.

I think you're numbers are flawed.

Re:a total non-story

[Anonymous Coward]

It's quite telling when you have an interview in NYC and realize "I'd have to get double my salary just to cover the added commute costs, quadruple it if I was actually going to live there." And then they offer you 4% more than your current and stock options.

Nope.

Re:a total non-story

[Grishnakh]

Commuting to NYC (Manhattan) is cheap. They have trains running to NJ, CT, and NY (north of the city); you can get monthly passes and it's pretty cheap, certainly much cheaper than gas + car maintenance + insurance. Of course, the trick is living near a train station, or having someone who can drive you to one. The stations have parking lots/garages, but these have reserved spaces and are quite pricey, so if you don't live close enough to walk/bike (and biking in this area isn't really safe, plus the weather sucks for part of the year), and you don't have someone who can drive you, that's going to change the equation greatly. You can also take a bus to the train station, but that adds a lot of time usually because the two don't coordinate well. You can also take buses directly to Manhattan from many places, but these are slower than trains and much less comfortable.

The thing that really affects what you need for salary, commuting to NYC, is housing costs. While obviously not as astronomical as Manhattan, the areas around it are still very expensive, at least on par with Silicon Valley prices from what I've seen, at least if you're renting. On top of that, property taxes are the highest in the country. Expect to pay over $10k/year on a $400k house (which is a pretty modest house, maybe 1500sf). We have school superintendents in every municipality who all need to get $250k, and every little high school needs a brand-new football field with artificial turf, and cops and firefighters all need to be able to retire at 55 with a full pension, so that money's gotta come from somewhere.

Re:a total non-story

[bored]

On top of that, property taxes are the highest in the country. Expect to pay over $10k/year on a $400k house (which is a pretty modest house, maybe 1500sf)

That sounds about the same as Austin, maybe a little more. Houses selling here for ~500k, with an appraised value of ~400k are ~$9k a year in taxes, more if you can't claim the homestead exemption.

Although, you _CAN_ get pretty nice houses on the outskirts of town in the areas with bad schools for ~200k. If you want one of the better schools $400k is sort of the starting point for anything over 1200 square feet. Moving farther out doesn't help much. The house prices in Leander and Georgetown are getting expensive too and can often mean commutes > hour depending on where your commuting to/from.

A big part of the commute problem isn't the distance but rather that the roads all seem to move at 10 miles an hour during rush hour due to the fact that Austin hasn't really upgraded any of the core transportation infrastructure since the 1970's. Both mopac and 35 (the two north south roads) haven't had any major work since the 1970's. Recently they started adding an additional toll road to mopac, but that probably won't alleviate the extra traffic added by the toll road extension just a couple years ago. Then there is the problem that there isn't actually an E-W corridor between 183 in the north and SH 71 in the south leaving all E-W traffic on the surface roads.

Better metric

[Katatsumuri]

How many of them are happy?

Re:Better metric

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the Dice survey, 3 of them are happy.

Re:Better metric

[Anonymous Coward]

Found the poor person (aka someone who makes under $100k)

Bouble, Bouble, Toil and Trouble

[Tablizer]

Save up guys, it smells like a bubble and quacks like a bubble. It may not be, but better to be safe than sorry. Those who don't learn from history live in the back of 1992 Honda Civics.

It happens since know-nothings

[Anonymous Coward]

Paying payrolls aren't able to do actually DIFFICULT work that takes thought & skills + tech folks aren't stupid anymore, & wait out until the dolts at the top realize that. How they are "superiors" has always boggled my mind. How on earth can they be that, when they aren't able to do the job of their subordinates? Oh, "yes, yes - we make important decisions so we get paid more" well, you wouldn't be able to make those without techies assisting you. Especially coders who develop analysis tools for you. Everyday, EVERYONE MAKES DECISIONS THAT ARE IMPORTANT (you're not alone, know-nothing numbskulls). We wait "your kind" (leeches of the world, related to top shareholders or part of a clique, religious = Jews, or Masons, or you were part of the right 'frat' in college - THIS is how scumbags get those jobs in mgt. or on boards of directors, period). We wait you out, & then, WE get PAID commeasurate with the amount of skills, degrees, & experience the art & science of computing demands - that "execs" clearly, don't possess a shred of (especially coding - without which those exec dumbos and even network admins + techs cannot do their jobs without).

Its a TRAP!

[nimbius]

I mean sure man you get a six figure salary but i mean...TEXAS...you'd be living in a state that prays for rain and endorses creation science! its secession threats are so regular you could set your watch to them. And that doesnt even count the governor who compares gays to alcoholics. I mean its fine so long as you're cool with theocracy.

Re:Its a TRAP!

[LordNimon]

Yes, you're absolutely right! Austin sucks! Please don't move here.

Re:Its a TRAP!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's horrible in Austin. All those stupid Texas stories, they're all TRUE!

(Austin is nothing like the rest of Texas. In fact, every time 'Texas' talks about secession, everyone in Austin reminds the Governor if the state can do it, so can Austin, and then he'd have to go find a new capitol. We just try to discourage others from moving here. It's not working so far, but we're hoping some day it will.)

Re:Its a TRAP!

[FearTheDonut]

Yes, but most of the secession threats are from people outside of Texas. We'd be happy for them to leave.

The difference is Cost of Living

[T.E.D.]

I'd bet if you could look into those numbers, a lot of those higher earners are living in places where the Cost of Living is ridiculous. The prime example is Silicon Valley, which is gaining thousands of tech jobs a year, but there is simply no housing to be had for reasonable prices anywhere within an hour's commute. (And if you try living that hour away, you'll find locals picketing your horrible commute).

It would be interesting to see numbers "normalized" for cost of living differences.

Re:The difference is Cost of Living

[Anonymous Coward]

Atlanta and Austin have ridiculous costs of living?

Re:The difference is Cost of Living

[Anonymous Coward]

The ridiculous cost is having to live in Atlanta or Texas.

Re:The difference is Cost of Living

[Anonymous Coward]

They said they accounted for this.

Re:The difference is Cost of Living

[Mooga]

I think the truth is that most people don't actually foresee buying a house any more. I know many professionals in the Valley who still live with their parents because it's cheaper than dumping half their paycheck on an apartment. Most people also end up with several room mates. 100k sounds like a lot until you take out taxes and 2k a month for rent. Plus, if you want to be social, you can't eat out for less than $25 a meal. And those are the cheap places. Other required items are also much more expensive out here. Many professionals sacrifice a LOT to live in the valley. Making 100k doesn't hurt, but all that means is that when your TV breaks, you can buy a new one without having to worry about eating. You are still stuck in renting hell. You are still living month to month, just with a little extra money in pocket.

Cost of Living?

[Anonymous Coward]

This needs to be weighted against the cost of living to be of any use. Making 6 figures as a tech worker in San Fran or New York isn't exactly living large. Making 6 figures as a tech worker in a small rural community is a big deal. The difference may be that more tech jobs are moving into big cities where the cost of living is significantly higher. Yes, the pay is higher, but the take-home isn't.

Re:Cost of Living?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Cost of living" comes out of "take home",

salary - (taxes + deductions + benefits + etc.) = take home (your check or deposited funds)

cost of living = housing + utilities + food + transportation (i.e the necessities)

take home - cost of living = discretionary funds

$100K is not "living the life"

[schlachter]

Sure, agreed. But, I think the point is that 6-figures (as in $100K+/-) used to be associated with living the good life. Now it will buy you a nice modest home in a safe area with reasonably good schools while allowing you to afford health care and vacations and 401K contributions.

Similarly, 7-figures (as in $1M+/-) used to be associated with being super rich. Now it means you're very well off and well positioned in life, but you still have to work, and you still have to budget if you expect to keep growing that money for retirement.

Re:$100K is not "living the life"

[Drethon]

I had that at under 65k, I could do a lot at 100k+

Re:$100K is not "living the life"

[dimeglio]

Depends where you live, you taxation level, your debts, and many other factors. Personally, I would like to see China and India IT workers get 100K salaries as well. It would likely mean less off-shoring.

Re:$100K is not "living the life"

[Khoa]

you still have to budget if you expect to keep growing that money for retirement.

This never stopped being true. It's true at $20k a year and true at $1M a year.

Re:$100K is not "living the life"

[bigpat]

Yes, $100k used to mean you had made it... not just to the middle class, but to the upper middle class and maybe with some additional savings you could save up enough to start your own business. Now, especially in many of the more expensive metropolitan areas, $100k simply means you are in the middle of the middle class. $150k or even $200k is closer to the old $100k threshold in terms of a threshold to the upper middle class. And a lot depends on how much wealth you have already and which area you live in. Because $100k in salary if you have $500k in savings or a fully paid off house is like having a $2k to $3k per month increase in salary.

Re:$100K is not "living the life"

[s.petry]

As said, it depends on the location. Making 100K in Silicon Valley will not get you a nice house and good schools unless you commute an hour to work and another hour home.

6 figures has always been misleading, but today I fear it's more misleading. Those that live in middle class are in 6 figures even if barely. The low end of 6 figures is generally a 2 family income now, which means that a parent could be a stay at home parent. You are not out buying houses and boats on that (at least not without accumulating lots of debt) and not really living the "good life". You are going to be "middle class" with the trimmings of 'middle class'.

That same 6 figure bracket holds the guys making 990K. The difference a middle class 2 person family income and being just shy of a millionaire is huge!

Re:$100K is not "living the life"

[schlachter]

Agreed. For me, I'd say "the good life" threshold is solid at $200K/yr. That's where the upper middle class sit.

Re:$100K is not "living the life"

[LWATCDR]

But in Atlanta or Denver it is really good. Not sure about Austin.

Re:$100K is not "living the life"

[Anonymous Coward]

I could own my house and be 100% debt free at 100k+ in 4 years tops(conservative estimate that accounts for 'bad things' happening, as they often do in real life). Not bad for a 25 year old(would then be 29 year old).

Re:$100K is not "living the life"

[cthulhu11]

Based on my research a few months ago, $100k wouldn't come close to getting that even an hour away, esp factoring in taxes and other CA relative expenses. I had people offering me positions there making not all that much more than I was elsewhere, yet the COL was substantially higher.

Re:$100K is not "living the life"

[s.petry]

I beg to differ because I live in the area. There are areas you can go close if you make less than 100K, but probably not neighborhoods you want to live in or raise kids in. Fremont is cheap and a cesspool, East Palo Alto is better but not great, or Oakland.

Re:$100K is not "living the life"

[cthulhu11]

You're not differing, you're agreeing.

Re:$100K is not "living the life"

[s.petry]

Based on my research a few months ago, $100k wouldn't come close to getting that even an hour away

I was differing, really. East Palo Alto is near Milpitas so not an hour drive from SF, or San Jose. Fremont is also in the bay, but with traffic it depends on where you want to go how long it will take. San Jose is short, SF and Oakland are nasty.

Re:$100K is not "living the life"

[cthulhu11]

" Making 100K in Silicon Valley will not get you a nice house and good schools unless you commute an hour to work and another hour home" "but probably not neighborhoods you want to live in or raise kids in"

Re:$100K is not "living the life"

[s.petry]

Doh, my bad!! thanks for pointing that out. Yes, we agree!! haha

and ur just doing a single person calc

[schlachter]

Add in a stay at home mom and a kid and you really have to be frugal to make ends meet at $100K (which is about $60K take home after taxes/deductions/insurance/etc).

I feel bad for the average American family who is making $55K/yr.

Due to end of anti-poaching agreements?

[GameboyRMH]

Does this the crackdown on anti-poach agreements have something to do with it?

And of course it's VERY region-dependent...try making half that much outside of SF, NYC or Austin...all the places with sky-high real estate costs, what an odd coincidence.

Re:Due to end of anti-poaching agreements?

[LDAPMAN]

I'm based in Oklahoma, one of the least expensive places to live in the country, and I've been over $100K for many years. Location has something to do with it but your capabilities, experience, and reputation have a lot more to do with it.

Re:Due to end of anti-poaching agreements?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I may ask, what do you do?

Re:Due to end of anti-poaching agreements?

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't realize LDAP was so lucrative...

Re:Due to end of anti-poaching agreements?

[viperidaenz]

Move countries then. I'm making over $US150k in a city where houses only cost $360k

Re:Due to end of anti-poaching agreements?

[Shados]

Dont forget the Cambridge/Boston area. Pretty much the best salary to cost of living ratio for IT devs (not if you live next door, but if you live within 15 minutes of work prices drop drastically)

Sounds about right

[dave562]

I have been doing IT for 15 years and broke the six figure mark two years ago. Last year after factoring in bonuses I made a little over $150k.

I had to move into management to make that salary.

Re:Sounds about right

[viperidaenz]

Sucks to be you then. I'm still writing code and trolling slashdot

Re:Sounds about right

[dave562]

Sucks to be you. You're actually working. I am giving people direction to write code and trolling slashdot while they work.

Re:Sounds about right

[viperidaenz]

Writing code is the best part. Why would you give that up? Age?
15 years ago I was in "high school"...

Re:Sounds about right

[dave562]

I never really got enthusiastic about coding. The first language I learned was BASIC. That was an interesting introduction into IF,ELSE logic. After that I taught myself x86 ASM. That was useful because I could understand virii, crack copy protection and write trainers for games. I work with relational databases a lot so I can write decent TSQL. I have some experience with .Net and recently I have been working with PowerShell. PS is not really a language, but understanding functions and variables helps make it more useful.

I have always enjoyed systems administration. My knowledge of programming is useful there. Often times it helps when resolving application performance problems. One of our largest vendors and I are at odds over their code. For the longest time I told them that the application is slow because they have a few functions that could be better optimized, and they refused to acknowledge it. I finally convinced my company to invest in dynaTrace. Now I have full process information, from the API, down to the method and function, including the execution timings. The vendor is having a hard time denying the code problems now that I have return values from the stack that are detailing application crashes due to poorly defined arrays or invalid syntax.

Now that I think about it, I have been doing IT for 18 years (since 1996). Management is where I belong. I am tired of technology cycle, but understand it well enough to mentor others and help them find success in their own careers. I also understand the technology well enough to keep the vendors in line. At the same time, I can advise the executive leadership on where they should be going with the business and what technology to be involved with. I am working for a mid-sized firm, running a 60 node VMware cluster with ~1400 VMs. It is large enough to keep me engaged with challenging projects. I have over 4PB of data with a 10%+ annual growth rate.

I have to admit that managing people is a lot more difficult than running systems. With systems, when I want things done a certain way, I can do it exactly that way. People have their own ways of doing things, and often times the more experienced they are, the less receptive they are to taking direction. Dealing with direct reports is easy. You can give them direction, check in every once in a while to make sure they are on track, and help them out when they run into problems. Dealing with peers on the other hand requires a whole different set of skills. It is hard for me to not treat people with contempt when they want to call in consultants to do their jobs. Or to be patient with having to write up business cases and risk analyses, then wait 6 months for the risk to materialize and blow up in someone's face before they finally acknowledge that there really is a better way to do something.

Re:Sounds about right

[jimmyfrank]

I've been in a bit longer, 20 years and my rates range between 85-125/hr depending on the gig. I'm still coding though but that's by choice :)

Re:Sounds about right

[jimmyfrank]

I think you need a lot of patients to do that, I think I'd be a terrible manager always wondering why the fuck my employees are so stupid lol.

Re:Sounds about right

[Anonymous Coward]

... The vendor is having a hard time denying the code problems now that I have return values from the stack that are detailing application crashes due to poorly defined arrays or invalid syntax.

What kind of applications are you using that can even compile/run with invalid syntax???

Re:Sounds about right

[dave562]

They are web apps. There are some outliers where the queries being passed to the web tier for processing are invalid. The good news is that the vendor is limiting those and throwing exceptions, as opposed to just taking them.

"Buy you a nice modest home"

[Nova Express]

Well, it will buy you a pretty nice home in Texas, anyway. California? Not so much.

Especially with California's much higher tax rates, including a rate of 9.3% that kicks for all those millionaires making more than $49,774 a year.

Re:"Buy you a nice modest home"

[AmiMoJo]

Dude, the average house price in the UK is around 9-10x the average wage. Income tax for the over £32k bracket (similar to $50k) is 40%.

Lived in OK for many years

[Anonymous Coward]

I lived in Oklahoma for 25+ years, it's not worth it.

Pfft... The Whitehouse...

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the same guys who are so detached from reality that they don't know how to drive or shop any more?

Don't forget self-employment tax...

[Anonymous Coward]

...which could easily cost you an extra $5k-10k, depending on your contract income. Deducting a couple hundred square feet of your house or the rent for your office doesn't begin to make up for that.

Downside: Self-employment tax

[Anonymous Coward]

You could easily pay $5k more in tax to cover the employer portions of FICA and Medicare. Never accept a consulting gig unless they're paying you 20-25% more than they're paying their (equivalent) salaried workers.

depends

[Anonymous Coward]

$100,000 in San Francisco and I'm a homeless person; in Milwaukee I live like a king.

and yet the only jobs on Dice

[Anonymous Coward]

Are the same 10 recruiters hawking the same 20 jobs that have been filled 9 months ago which all pay $50-90k, require 20 years experience but must be college aged, must use a HipsterNamed-Framework and not native language features, must have experience with Jenkins and a few more buzzwords they read, etc.

Re:and yet the only jobs on Dice

[viperidaenz]

recruiters just rattle off the buzzwords and acronyms the HR person told them to, who got those from talking to a manager.

cost of living fails in urbanism

[Anonymous Coward]

I never understand these cost of living adjustments. Yes I live in one of the densest parts of one of the densest cities in the world, but then again I get the privilege to be car-free. No car insurance. No gas. 20 minute commute, or 40 if I walk/jog. You tell me it's cheaper in Atlanta or another car-driven sprawl-and-smog-town? Please. Walking places means I'm healthy even when on a break from the gym.

Re:cost of living fails in urbanism

[Anonymous Coward]

do you have to rent a car every time you want to escape the hive of human scum and enjoy nature?

source

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never heard about this and I'd like to research it further, but my google-fu is failing miserably at finding the actual law.

Link please?

Keep Austin Weird

[jelwell]

Keep Austin Weird!

Doesn't have to be Austin

[hambone142]

I just retired recently. EE degree with a "big computer company" and had no problem making the proverbial "six figures" in California (peaked out at about 130K). Fortunately, I moved out of the Bay Area a bit East to lower cost of living. Housing costs dropped to about one third. Better living environment too. It can be done with perseverance and without going in to "management" if one has good technical skills. In my case, I just love technology but it doesn't run my life. It is fun though :-) It started out a "hobby" and later became the "big thing" of the future. I was lucky my fun became my profession. Now I get to play again on my own time. Life is good.

"world" is not equivalent to "US"

[psymastr]

"world" is not equivalent to "US", unless you are in the US of course.

I've been contracting for 25 years.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your disadvantages sound like advantages to me. The life skills that I've had to learn, as well as the high salary allowed me to comfortably retire before 50.

Depreciation?

[Anonymous Coward]

The dollar loses value each year, so $100,000 is not what it used to be.

The higher you rise, the harder you fall

[Anonymous Coward]

Six figures is the firing trigger, too. How many people making $100+k today are still employed a year later? There's churn right now, but how many of these well-paid people are in the same job after their names and salaries get to the top of the spreadsheet management uses to decide who to fire? Even being valuable or doing well at your job or having co-workers like you doesn't seem to matter any more. Management decides how big they want their bonuses to be, and works backwards to decide who to fire.

I didn't get a chance to comment on this story yesterday because slashdot was down, and no one will see this now because there are too many comments and people have moved on to newer stories. Otherwise I'd say more.

Skepticism

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot was down yesterday, so I never got to record my skepticism... these are just random numbers. What do they mean?

Are they counting true independent contractors who keep all the money they make, or people who work for body shops?

Are they counting the billable rate the body shop charges the client, or are they counting what the contractor takes home after the body shop skims their cut off the top?

Isn't the move to independent contractors a sign that a career in the computer industry is impossible, and workers are just disposable? Companies don't even want them full time any longer. So if you happen to have a hot skill you can make six digits for a year or two, but the industry moves on. Can anyone make a career out of chasing hot skills? How do you do mobile development one year, "big data" statistics the next, and cloud admin the one after that? Has anyone ever hopped from hot skill to hot skill?

What about the split between niche skills versus commodity skills?

What about location? Do these numbers ever get adjusted for cost of living?

What about longitudinal tracking? Are the same people making six figures year in and year out?

7-figure income is super rich

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have a 7-figure income, you are super rich. Maybe not personal jets and private islands hyper rich, but certainly Italian supercars and tropical vacation homes super rich.

Now, 7-figure net worth isn't all that special anymore. If you're upper middle class and you don't have $1M net worth by retirement, you're may be in for a tough time.

A $100k went a lot further then than it does now.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm.. the people who brought you this story must have flunked economics. Epic fail on their understanding of inflation.

$136k in 2006 = $100k today.