Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
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
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.
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.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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.
$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.
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.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
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.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Sucks to be you then. I'm still writing code and trolling slashdot
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.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Writing code is the best part. Why would you give that up? Age?
15 years ago I was in "high school"...