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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

$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"

[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!