Slashdot Mirror
Developers, IT Still Racking Up (Mostly) High Salaries
Nerval's Lobster (2598977) writes Software development and IT remain common jobs among those in the higher brackets, although not the topmost one, according to a new study (with graph) commissioned by NPR. Among those earning between $58,000 and $72,000, IT was the sixth-most-popular job, while software developers came in tenth place. In the next bracket up (earning between $72,000 and $103,000), IT rose to third, with software development just behind in fourth place. As incomes increased another level ($103,000 to $207,000), software developers did even better, coming in second behind managers, although IT dropped off the list entirely. In the top percentile ($207,000 and above), neither software developers nor IT staff managed to place; this is a segment chiefly occupied by physicians (in first place), managers, chief executives, lawyers, and salespeople who are really good at their jobs. In other words, it seems like a good time to be in IT, provided you have a particular skillset. If those high salaries are in Silicon Valley or New York, though, they might not seem as high as half the same rate would in Omaha, or Houston, or Raleigh.
$39,000 per year as a Computer Programmer/Analyst here. If you were ever thinking of going into local government just to "get your foot in the door", DON'T. You might not have a leg to stand on.
It's precisely because of that fact that you see some silicon valley companies open up show in middle america, when they can get the senior people for the $120-$130 range
I'm in systems, not in dev, but the two groups have similar payscales. Dev tends to get paid a little more, especially in positions that require a high level of skill. However, I've seen huge variations in salaries, quality of work environment and skill level of employee that contribute to some of the trends in the data. Offshoring and visa programs also do really cut into the low end of IT and development...we're having trouble finding good junior sysadmins simply because ITIL and stuff has killed any real learning that can be done on a helpdesk job in a large company.
I would think that the fact that devs are better represented in the higher bracket is due to a couple factors:
- If you're some "rockstar developer" working in a niche specialty doing stuff that only a few people know, you're going to be paid well. We're talking stuff like embedded systems, fields with crazy business requirements that only a few people understand, etc., not necessarily the latest buzzwords and fads.
- If you work in investment banking as a quant, you're going to be paid very well. Your life will most likely suck because you'll be working all the time.
- Companies who have outsourced a lot of their basic devs are going to keep their most valuable ones in house, so average pay will go up for them.
- Also, it's not popular to mention, but there is a HUGE market for consultants to parachute in and fix the messes that outsourcers and offshore dev teams have made. Those guys get paid very well indeed.
My advice to anyone who wants to work in IT is this -- there will ALWAYS be downward pressure on salaries. People who live within their means and save aren't going to be as badly affected by the shifts we're seeing. In systems, we're seeing this in the form of cloud computing taking away routine admin jobs or making them less lucrative. The solution for those who can make the shift is to move into a systems engineering and architecture job where you can tell the developers what's not going to work with their cloud implementation. I don't know what the answer is for development, but in both "career tracks" the bottom rungs are getting hollowed out and it's not good for long term succession planning!
Also, don't forget that those high salaries are offset by California and New York cost of living. I live outside of NYC, and my salary would be considered amazing in, say, upstate NY or the Midwest, but it's just comfortable here.
I find more amusing that some software developers are making $104,000, and there are more of them than managers making $200,000, therefor there are more software developers in the $103,000-$203,000 range than there are managers in said range.
Software development, like (i guess) medicine, law, finance, etc., values expertise, skills, experience, and deep analytical ability. More so than many others where analytical ability is less valued. Besides, this leadership skills, client management skills, and project management skills are also valued, but they are equally valued in other industries as well.
That is, IMHO, we see the pattern we see. Highly skilled software developers, like highly skilled financial analysts/traders - transcend traditional salary and "perceived value" bands, and can often make far more money than even very senior counterparts in their company. However, conversely, other counterparts - i.e. software development managers with well rounded analytical and managerial skills are also very well regarded and paid accordingly.
There really is no reason why one has to feel snarky about either of these options. One can feel snobbish about individual skills (and being a non-manager), just as one can feel snooty about being high up in the corporate chain. And both positions are boorish, IMHO. Pride about individual skills is fine, and good, but do remember, there are very highly skilled craftsmen and blue collared workers and armed forces personnel by the thousands who get paid diddly squat compared to what software and financial guys get paid. We just got lucky and are enjoying the ride in the gravy train - and all because of the completely messed up way in which the market works (and assigns relative value to skills).
If you consider that poverty level then there is something wrong with you. I don't care where you live, $100k is enough money that you don't have to worry about your day to day life. Maybe you can't buy a second sports car or live in that sweet downtown loft, but you won't have the kind of financial insecurity that the majority of people in the US do.
1) Why do teachers always rank as an all important metric? There are good teachers and bad teachers.. even lousy teachers, there's nothing that special about their profession compared to many others. They are not beneficent deities, shaping our future via our children, though the rhetoric would have you believe that. It's just another angle for the whole, "think of the children" routine.
2) My sister-in-law is a teacher for a high school in NJ, and makes over $80k a year. And that's for 9 months out of the year. I just don't see public school teachers who belong to the NJEA doing all that badly. Private catholic school teachers maybe, but public teachers in a union have it pretty good around here.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
I was more interested in the wide and volatile range chosen. $100k is considered a big line to cross; to cross it twice is an immense step. It is as if we compared people making $20,000-$60,000 and found that more McDonalds workers are in that range than small business accountants--with McDonalds workers making $22k on average, and accountants making $58k.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
There certainly is something special about programmers - market demand. Every business in the world is becoming more and more dependent on using computers in their never-ending quest for productivity gains. Who is it who knows how to make those computers do what businesses want them to do? Programmers. Should the people who know how to provide those productivity gains be compensated with a share of said gains? Absolutely. Or did you think that businesses have some special dispensation from God that should give them this thing they want (e.g. more profits) without paying for it?
You seem to have the idea in your head that people should make what they "deserve", as if there were some almighty agent who says, "This person should make this much and no more but give that person a raise". If there is such a thing then it is called "the free market" - suck it up.
There is a big difference between teachers and programmers. I know because I've done both jobs. Teaching is the more difficult one to do well. Good programming requires rare skills and an ability to concentrate more than most people can imagine. Good teaching does not need any unusual technical skill. The material you are teaching is really quite easy compared to what programmers have to contend with. The tricky bit is turning around lives that have been destroyed by circumstance and incompetent parents. Excellent programming requires a top notch mind and a devotion to learning. Excellent teaching requires a damn near miracle of people skills and good judgement.
Here's the kicker. If you staff your programming team with poor performers, chances are (sooner or later) your business will die because of them. The complexity that bad programmers add to a problem when they are coding eventually becomes so heavy that you just can't move forward. If you staff your school with poor performers, the students still graduate. The schools still operate. In fact, you can cut the budget of a school just about as far as you want, driving out any teacher that cares about money. The students still graduate. The school suffers in that it becomes a center for incarcerating delinquents, but the students still graduate. You just keep lowering the standards and society pays the hidden price.
A gifted programmer can name his price. A gifted teacher? Gets lost in the shuffle. His only reward is what he makes of it.