Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Why Are American Tech Workers Paid So Well?
Slashdot reader davidwr is "an American-born, American-educated mid-career IT professional." But he's still curious about why American geeks earn more than their IT counterparts overseas:
If I'm a mid-career programmer looking for a job, why should I expect to be paid a whole lot more than my peer in India when applying for a job that could easily be outsourced to India? If I do get the job, why should I expect to keep it more than a year or two instead of being told "your job is being outsourced" before 2020? Is my American education and 5-25 years of experience in the American workplace really worth it to an employer?
Should we, as an industry, lower our salary expectations -- and that of students entering the field -- to make us more competitive with our peers in India and similar "much cheaper labor than first world" economies? If not, what should we be doing to make ourselves competitive in ways that our peers overseas cannot duplicate?
What's the secret ingredient that justifies those higher salaries? Leave your answers in the comments. Why are American tech workers paid so well?
Should we, as an industry, lower our salary expectations -- and that of students entering the field -- to make us more competitive with our peers in India and similar "much cheaper labor than first world" economies? If not, what should we be doing to make ourselves competitive in ways that our peers overseas cannot duplicate?
What's the secret ingredient that justifies those higher salaries? Leave your answers in the comments. Why are American tech workers paid so well?
Employers wouldn't be paying it if we weren't worth it.
Obviously this is not applicable to all tech workers, but...
In many cases, there's a fairly substantial difference in expectation of work product, both in terms of quality of work produced, and in ability to execute anything more than rote work. While it's true that those qualities may not matter for those organizations who choose to outsource tech labor, there can be a very quantifiable increase in product quality from workers who are more vested in and capable of producing a higher quality product, which can be translated into demand for higher compensation.
It's kinda the same as the difference between a certified general contractor, and a guy you pick up at Home Depot to do some work for you. You don't expect to pay the general contractor a small amount of cash under the table, and he doesn't have any need to make his rate "competitive", because he'll be able to find people willing to pay for a higher quality of skill, knowledge, and ultimately work product. There's a reason that most tech companies who outsource their high-skill labor to inexpensive countries don't stay competitive long...
That's my experience, anyway.
Sometimes outsourcing to lower cost countries might work, but often it just doesn't work as expected. My employer tried India outsourcing 10 years ago and it was a failure. First, while the direct employment costs are cheaper, there is overhead that is complicated and expensive: protecting intellectual property, management from 12 hours away, project planning, code culture and standards.
IT and software engineering pay well especially in Silicon Valley and other major areas because it's worth it to pay that. Proximity has its own intrinsic value. I work with 50% Indian workers, but they are here in SV and paid well, most 100k+ because that's what the work is worth.
Wages are not proportional to profit you generate. The profitability question is binary. If you generate profit above your cost, you may be employed. How much you are paid depends only on supply of labor and the demand for that labor.
OK so I don't live close to the bone, but contracting means moving around a bit even within the same sate as contracts change. Renting, cost of living, etc takes my "higher" salary. I could cut out my humble bundles and loot crates, but frankly it's a drop in the bucket compared to general living costs.
Cost of living in places where tech workers in North America are forced to live largely cancels out the higher salary. When it comes down to it, apples for apples, they end up being paid less.
I've worked in tech companies in 3rd world countries. The salary I was earning was like a kings ransom in local terms. I work in North America now and I get a normal salary in local terms but, boy, it doesn't add up to a kings ransom and my quality of life is, if anything, lower. There are plus sides to working in 1st world countries but at the end of the day it feels like you make less.
What it comes down to is that a dollar in one place isn't worth the same as a dollar in another place which anyone with any international experience should already know.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
And it isn't surprising. You can outsource product development, sure. But most tech workers aren't just prepping files for a factory. Most of the work is in constant customization, and understanding the needs of the client/user is just as critical to success as the actual programming skills.
It is highly unlikely that some random programmer in India with a masters degree is going to have a better understanding than I do of the business needs in my community. Just like, as a foreigner I wouldn't be able to offer as good a service to somebody in India, because I don't understand the business needs in their community.
It's cheaper for a two big reasons:
1. India's Rupee is considered less valuable than the USD because the USD is the world reserve currency amongst other currency manipulative tactics.
2. India neglects basic protections we take for granted in the US. No unemployment insurance, crappy schools, and a lack of a requirement to pay for "pensions". Hence it is more "expensive" to pay a US worker.
American companies want to pay workers Indian salaries with a massive currency disparity while not bothering to pay for the things that make America great such as a highly educated work force, paved streets, social welfare, food/drug safety, and other items.
You made a good point.
> but it hardly explains the idea of American exceptionalism in the 20th century.
American Exceptionalism does NOT mean "America is better." Somewhat the opposite, in fact. If the US government and the govetnment Spain both spy on their citizens, the US has failed to live up to it's responsibilities, while Spain has not necessarily failed, according to American Exceptionalism. AE says that due to certain historical facts, the US has responsibilities that other nations don't have.
Most states are also nations, the borders of France (the state) define the area controlled by the French people, the ( ~ ethnic) nation. American Exceptionalism is the historical fact that the US is a state (country) founded not based on a nation (ethnic group), but rather on a set of ideals; and that fact creates different responsibilities. Japan (the state) is basically the area controlled by ethnic Japanese, so they would be expected to preserve and defend Japanese culture. Germany is the area controlled by Germans, so they would be expected to preserve and protect German culture. The US is not a state, not an ethnic group; it was explicitly founded on the ideals that each person is endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, etc. The US claims to be "the brightest beacon of freedom", therefore the US should be expected to defend and preserve freedom and liberty. Spain wasn't founded as a bold experiment in individual freedom, so they have no special responsibility to do that- Spain is supposed to be Spanish, that's all. The US government, being founded for a particular purpose, has a special responsibility to honor that purpose. When we fail to preserve and protect freedom, we fail at our national identity, at our national purpose. That's American Exceptionalism.