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?
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.
As a guy that owns a small IT security startup and has some developers on contract in India and as many full time North Americans as we can afford right now I would say this:
Creativity. Understanding the why as well as the what (aka seeing the big picture), and a general drive to see the company succeed.
None of my contractors give a shit if my company succeeds beyond their next invoice. None of them really seem to care to understand why we are doing what we are doing, they are only focused on their silo of work. And OMG if you don't give them EXACT to the letter specs, the work wont get done. Likely because of the other two things I mentioned, but also I think it might be a culture thing where they are taught both at home and in school to never question, and just memorize and regurgitate to succeed. Yeah they are kinda like human robots in some cases.
I will always pay more for an innovative self-starter that's in my time zone.
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.
For my dollars, I'd much rather work directly with people who are a committed part of a team. It's tough enough to achieve that with direct hires; I don't think you can do it with outsourcing.
I think part of this relates to the nature of software. People always talk about writing software - but that's the easy part. The hard part is *expanding* and *maintaining* software. And generally speaking people who have a history with the code are going to do a better job of it: faster, and more precise. You can also have a much tighter development loop between developers, testers, and users if you have them all in-house. I used to have my developers spend some time using the tools they built with the people who actually used them for the job (I did this myself as well). You learn practical details that are hard to communicate any other way. And speaking of communication: I had a few outsourced workers (forced on me by upper management) and communication was always inferior.
I'm not saying that there's no use for outsourcing, or that it's always the wrong choice. But my experience is that proximity matters. And history matters. And personal familiarity matters. So one needs to factor all that in when making the choice. And yeah, I think I got about 4x the quality and productivity out of my in-house people as my outsourced people.
North American companies are absolutely idiotic about this. They will happily employ remote employees from India who (obviously) never come into the office, ever for a discount. Typically the quality of work output is low as is the knowledge level. At least that's been my experience.
Yet those jobs aren't offered to Americans, and I don't get why not. If you have low skill with computers, but an aptitude to learn, you could do the same quality of work that's being outsourced for $20 - 30k a year. So why not offer the job over here with the same standards? (100% work from home, no expectations that you'll work any standard hours, ever. And if you get the project done early, enjoy the vacation time.) You would be surprised at how many people would take such a job and find it is enough to keep them going and give them the experience they need to enter the field. Sure, if you live in NYC $20k means you'll be dead inside of 12 weeks, but move to Mississippi and it's enough for a single guy to live frugally for the year while he ups his skills.
In fact, honestly, I don't get why companies don't offer work from home for most tech jobs. You get to pay lower salaries for the same work because people don't have to live in extremely expensive cities and you get to save further on not having to have an office.
The United States is known for the hard work of its people. The rest of the world has criticized the US's lack of work/life balance (many say the US spends too much time working, more than anywhere else.) Assuming this is true, it would be a reason that US workers are worth more - in general harder working people are more productive. I would say this is especially true in Information Technology, particularly software development where the amount of time required to stay current and keep up with changing technology is enormous.
As others have posted, the ultimate answer that the marketplace dictates the value, and the labor market place currently values American tech workers highly.
There is simply a completely different type of employment culture in India than in the US. In the US we are used to interacting with a self-selecting group of immigrants who work really hard and often put up with a lot of stuff under H1 or other visa programs that American citizens wouldn't tolerate from employers.
Back in India though, there is a culture of treating employees like shit, and consequently a culture among employees of working as little as possible. Employers also don't screen candidates well for off-shore call centers and the like because if they are working on a large contract, all the accountability is based on metrics that can be manipulated and the US based business that contracted them probably only cares about reducing their costs.
My Indian and other immigrant coworkers work their asses off. The support teams I deal with in India can't even be bothered to show up to a phone call and are usually incapable of anything more than opening up a ticket with the software/hardware vendor directly.
I currently supervise a team in Bangalorre, along with a couple of junior developers here in the US. The US developers, though only a year or two out of college, easily outperform even the "mid-level" developers from India. The price our company pays for Indian developers is about 1/3 the cost of US developers, but so far, we have not been able to make the math work. Even 3 Indian devs cannot produce the same quantity and quality of output as a single junior US developer. This is a pattern I've observed numerous times at different companies.
This disparity has not been missed by accounting departments. Bringing offshore tech jobs back to the US has become so commonplace that it has come to be called "reshoring." I don't think US tech salaries are in any kind of jeopardy.
Forty to fifty years ago, Japan was known for making crappy products. Then they (among other things) revolutionized how cars were built and anything made in Detroit after 1980 or so looked like absolute crap compared to Japanese cars. Only in the last fifteen years or so have the American cars caught up.
India and China has been used largely as "hired hands" for crap work in dev/IT until recently so they didn't "own" the problem. As they become owners of the concept, solution, and problem, they will adapt and learn. As more of their devs have spent 36 hours straight getting a customer around a problem that someone in their organization created, they will push quality in to their work more and more or just go out of business.
Don't be too smug. The US is tiny in population compared to China and India and there is no indication that the random melting pot in the US is genetically better suited for producing quality products. Hence, the center of international development will move to China and India -- it's inevitable just by the numbers. Additionally, many Chinese and Indians kids are striving (at their parent's insistence) to excel and learn to work hard at a very early age to get good grades etc. just as American kids are increasingly being praised for being "special snowflakes" and "the best you you can be" and getting "participation awards" just for showing up. It won't end well for Americans in HW/SW dev or IT unless we wake up (I don't think we will).
I've had good experiences with development teams from China, actually, but that's just one data point. India, however...
It's like the developers out of India simply don't care. Code quality, functionality, deadlines, figuring anything out on their own, the amount of hand-holding I've had to do is extremely frustrating. So, I spent some time one night searching the 'net and looking for information on how the schools work over there.
Turns out that many of the schools in India don't actually teach you much. Their courses are geared towards rote memorization and following instructions. If you want them to do A, and only A, with no changes, they can do A very, very well. Once you deviate from A, even just a bit, they won't know what to do.
They call it "mugging" over in India (and no, not mugging as in attacking someone and stealing their cash - I have no idea how the term came to be). You memorize. You don't deviate. You do not think for yourself. You do not understand a concept and come up with a solution; you only follow the solution that's been provided.
It really does seem to explain all of the issues I've ever had with IT workers out of India. There's limited capability for problem solving because they're not taught how to solve problems in a general sense, they're simply taught the solution to a specific set of problems. Give them a step by step set of instructions and it will be done - but then why not just automate?
In contrast, American schools push students to understand concepts first and then apply them to find a solution. We're trained to solve problems and to think. That seems to be the core difference.
Love sees no species.
Here it goes: "An old man is lying on a bed in his room. It's year 1917, the Socialist revolution is in full swing. His grandson runs excitedly into the room and proclaims: "The Bolsheviks are winning, there won't be any rich people anymore!" To which his grandfather replies: "Weird, back in our day we revolted so that there wouldn't be any poor people, not to get rid of the rich".
Which is a long way of suggesting: maybe a better question to ask is why the non-US programmers are paid so poorly. TBH I don't think US programmers are that well paid, outside of relatively few outliers. They tend to live in the areas with some of the highest cost of living in the world. That's out of necessity: all the high paying jobs are there. I'd say a good fraction of US high tech professionals is what real middle class is supposed to look like. Not rich, but with a roof over their head and non-zero savings. I don't consider that a privilege. I consider that a bare minimum.