Interns at Facebook, Google Out-Earn the Average American (axios.com)

Alayna Treene, writing for Axios: Long gone are the days of unpaid internships, at least at these 25 companies who are paying interns more than what the average American earns. Tech and finance interns in particular -- including at Google, Bloomberg, BlackRock, and Facebook -- earn more per month than the average American, according to data released by Glassdoor Tuesday.

Comments

They make the *median* income of SV

[garcia]

There are plenty of fields where employees, interns or otherwise, outpace the salaries of the vast majority of Americans; however, put into context, interns at companies based in Silicon Valley are making just about the median income for the area and about 1/3 above the Californian median.

I am not sure what this is supposed to tell us, honestly. Companies wanting to attract top talent need to pay decent wages. Clearly the marketplace is competitive, even pre-graduation, especially for those coming out of top-tier schools with advanced degrees.

I mean, it's very nice that everyone wants to have income equality; however, let's dispel with the notion it's going to happen anytime soon and move along.

Re:They make the *median* income of SV

[__aaclcg7560]

It tells us that at least half of all people in Silicon Valley don't work as software engineers or management. :-D

That's a popular misconception about Silicon Valley. Not everyone here is a newly minted millionaire, billionaire or zillionaire. You got minimum wage people taking out the trash, virtual ditch diggers like myself cleaning up the messes, and everyone else who isn't management or engineering.

Re:They make the *median* income of SV

[garcia]

I worked for a company based in Santa Monica and I never felt like it was all that nice in the majority of the town there. There were plenty of townhouses, run down homes, and homeless people wandering around. Comparing SM to Beverly Hills there's a noticeable gap in wealth but SM looks like any other suburb to me.

That said, when they were looking to relocate me to their SM office, even at a six-figure salary, I was going to have to live 45 minutes away (90-160 minute commute time) in Huntington Beach to get into what I considered affordable.

Re:They make the *median* income of SV

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that's Minecraft

Re:They make the *median* income of SV

[ShanghaiBill]

I think it just brings attention to how insane and dysfunctional California is.

Median income in California is well above the national level. Rising housing prices are actually a benefit if you already own your house, as most people do.

It also begs the question ...

No it doesn't. It raises the question. Begging the question means something completely different.

... why the hell would anyone want to live like that.

1. High salaries that more than offset the high housing cost.
2. Making even more money as your house appreciates.
3. The best public schools in the country are in Silicon Valley
4. Lots of very interesting work

Re:They make the *median* income of SV

[sound vision]

That's because most fast food workers live locally.

The GP's point was that they wouldn't be able to live locally, due to the rent. What might be happening is that these jobs are being filled by youngsters - students and other people who don't have to pay rent. In most of the country, those people are simply getting pushed out of the job market; the workforce participation rate is dropping among young people faster than any other age group. The middle-aged uneducated guys who take the fast food jobs in the rest of the country have been pushed out. Kids with rich parents haven't.

Maybe there's simply less of that type of job, too. Perhaps Silicon Valley types rather spend their money at a full-service restaurant, where proportionally higher tips would make housing more in reach. Maybe some of the cities in question have raised the minimum wage within their borders, to accomplish the same thing without praying to the Invisible Hand.

I can think of a bunch of scenarios, but seeing some hard data on any of these points would be even more interesting.

Seriously...

[mongothesecond]

And some of these interns have masters degrees or better.

outcome vs opportunity

[magarity]

The article's main point seems to be complaining about income inequality in general which is a complaint of equality of outcomes. Focusing on outcomes never seems to work. The war on poverty has killed too many poor people. More focus on opportunity and let people work out their own outcomes.

Re:outcome vs opportunity

[bill_mcgonigle]

The war on poverty has killed too many poor people.

Huh?

GP is right - being poor is strongly correlated with poor health outcomes. Diabetes, etc. lead to death very prematurely, especially without management. Availability of healthcare isn't the primary factor; people who are in poverty tend to seek care less often and are less compliant on average, regardless of healthcare availability.

The "Great Society" programs in the US have locked people into cycles of poverty. Look at the data for Eastern Kentucky, for instance: before the "Great Society" the net outflow of population was much higher. In prospective studies/experiments children who left with their families (subsidized to do so) at an early age did far better than their peers who stayed, and their life outcomes were much improved. But that's not how these programs work.

Before the "Great Society" if an area was overpopulated for its industries, the lack of work would cause people to leave. With these so-called "War on Poverty" programs, they are incentivized to stay put and collect welfare checks instead of seeking opportunity. There are multi-generational families in Appalachia who have never known a typical work environment.

Since the Green Revolution nobody is going to starve in a first-world country (obesity is our problem now). But the current Welfare State system definitively locks people into poverty and that turns out to be deadly.

Re:outcome vs opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

"There are multi-generational families in Appalachia who have never known a typical work environment."

Citation needed -- you can't collect welfare for more than 5 years of your entire life. About the only benefit you can get that's not time limited is disability or food stamps.

Re:outcome vs opportunity

[gfxguy]

As you already pointed out (with food stamps) there's more than one "welfare" system people are using. Subsidized housing, free day care programs, school breakfast and lunch programs... all take the sting out of not having a steady (or having low) income. There's also the EITC every year - perhaps the most direct income redistribution program we have (in the U.S.).

Re:outcome vs opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

The "Great Society" programs in the US have locked people into cycles of poverty.

My test for "locked in poverty" is whether a person of ordinary ability who is willing to work an honest 9-5 can find good meaningful work that pays enough to support a small family simply but comfortably (i.e. no one in the family is going to bed hungry, everyone on the family has basic medical care, the children in the family have access to decent schools, etc.).

The question of whether the government is providing such generous welfare that it's preferable to not work and simply collect welfare even though good jobs are available is somewhat orthogonal.

But clearly not everyone in the USA is working in good jobs. So the one explanation is that such jobs exist but people choose welfare instead. The other explanation is that such jobs don't exist - well at least not enough for everyone. This second explanation is problematic because it indicates that some fraction of the population must necessarily be trapped in poverty.

Myself, I'm sufficiently cynical that I can totally believe that in most countries in the world (including the USA but possibly include a small number of countries like Denmark), some fraction of the population is locked in poverty. But if you can't face the truth then live your fantasy of a perfect world where the only people who are poor are those who truly deserve to be poor.

Re:outcome vs opportunity

[swillden]

So the one explanation is that such jobs exist but people choose welfare instead. The other explanation is that such jobs don't exist - well at least not enough for everyone.

A third explanation is the one the GP alluded to: such jobs exist, but not locally. Because welfare is (barely) good enough and moving seems like such a risky endeavor, people stay put and get by on welfare.

Re:outcome vs opportunity

[dj245]

The war on poverty has killed too many poor people.

Huh?

GP is right - being poor is strongly correlated with poor health outcomes. Diabetes, etc. lead to death very prematurely, especially without management. Availability of healthcare isn't the primary factor; people who are in poverty tend to seek care less often and are less compliant on average, regardless of healthcare availability.

The "Great Society" programs in the US have locked people into cycles of poverty. Look at the data for Eastern Kentucky, for instance: before the "Great Society" the net outflow of population was much higher. In prospective studies/experiments children who left with their families (subsidized to do so) at an early age did far better than their peers who stayed, and their life outcomes were much improved. But that's not how these programs work.

Before the "Great Society" if an area was overpopulated for its industries, the lack of work would cause people to leave. With these so-called "War on Poverty" programs, they are incentivized to stay put and collect welfare checks instead of seeking opportunity. There are multi-generational families in Appalachia who have never known a typical work environment.

Since the Green Revolution nobody is going to starve in a first-world country (obesity is our problem now). But the current Welfare State system definitively locks people into poverty and that turns out to be deadly.

You're missing a huge factor- quality education. Somehow we have managed to tie the quality of primary education completely to where one lives. The good schools are in areas with a good tax base, and the poorer areas get schools that reflect the reduced tax base. Just a quick look around Beattyville, KY (poorest white town in the USA) shows a lot of schools with GreatSchool ratings under 5/10. Multiple schools rated 2/10. The rating system may have some flaws but that is an indication that these schools have problems. Unfortunately, it is sometimes difficult to determine if a school is bad because of the management, the funding, the teachers, or the parents. Nevertheless, without a decent education, those kids have little hope of doing better than their parents.

Re:outcome vs opportunity

[swillden]

Because welfare is (barely) good enough and moving seems like such a risky endeavor, people stay put and get by on welfare.

Moving isn't easy but it's not that hard. Either your argument is that poor people are trapped in ignorance (like someone blinded by smoke in a burning building who can't see the open door to safety)

It doesn't have to be ignorance. It can also be apathy, or fear of the unknown, or any of a dozen other reasons. Note that I'm not actually claiming that any of this is the case, just that it's possible and the possibility shouldn't be ignored when trying to understand why people stay in bad situations.

Re:outcome vs opportunity

[virtig01]

if I move to eastern Kentucky how much welfare can I expect to get?

That depends on what you're eligible for, and how efficient you are at converting non-monetary entitlements into cash:

https://theweek.com/articles/452321/appalachia-big-white-ghetto

Re:and the cost of liveing in the bay area is very

[__aaclcg7560]

I make $50K+ per year doing IT Support in Silicon Valley by living a modest lifestyle. If you want to live the American Dream of having it all (big house, big cars, big wife and big kids), living here gets expensive in a hurry.

How the dollars fly over time...

[__aaclcg7560]

When I did my six month software testing internship at Fujitsu, I got paid $10 per hour on a six-contract because they didn't have enough money in the budget for a full-time staffer.

Re:and the cost of liveing in the bay area is very

[kangsterizer]

100k usd in SF was considered low incoming recently (thats a little over 8k/mo), according to another slashdot linked article. and it's probably true.
4500usd/mo housing for a small 1 bed room
35%+ taxes
8.75% tax on purchases

so.. 100k-54k = 46k.. - 35% (and thats a low estimate) = 30k left over of utilities, food, car, insurance, etc.

Same goes for law firm summer associates

[ErichTheRed]

These are arguably in the top 5 of companies at the center of a massive Second Dotcom Bubble. Of course they're going to pay their interns a lot:
- Cost of living in SV, even temporarily, is more than just about anywhere else in the country
- Google and Facebook do most of their hiring from Stanford and other top 10 private-school computer science and engineering departments. People who can afford to go there on their own will expect at least what an investment bank or management consultancy is willing to pay them for an internship. People who are smart enough to get into a private school on an academic scholarship are also probably worth paying that kind of money for.

Two other industries, law and investment banking, are famous for internships that pay handsomely.
- Big law firms will recruit interns from the top of the class of only the Top 14 law schools in the country. They put them up in New York City, pay them a comparatively large salary, and basically spend the summer shuttling them between parties and events while giving them some token work to do. And if they find they like you, starting salary is $180K nowadays. Too bad you have to be at the top of your class at Harvard, Yale or Stanford to get "drafted" like this.
- Investment banks take on "associates" either while they're getting their MBA or just after. Again, only the top business school grads need apply. The difference is that they work their associates 100-hour weeks doing menial processing tasks for years. If you work out you're in the "cannot fail" club for life, but the route there is quite different from the law firm crowd.

So, I wouldn't get too bent out of shape over this. Plum internships at hot companies aren't the norm. Media and publishing interns often get _nothing_ for a huge amount of very menial work.

Re:This is why they need H1b

[ShanghaiBill]

Internships are really extended multi-month job interviews. That is how my company sees them, and that is how interns should see them. We never offer an internship to someone that we would not want to hire as a permanent employee. After graduation, we offer jobs to about 60% of our former interns, and most of them accept. We make NO job offers to any other graduates.

So the competition for the best interns is really a competition for the best future employees. The competition is fierce, and the best students usually have multiple internship offers.

Students that don't intern, and expect to just magically find a job after they graduate, are idiots.

Re:and the cost of liveing in the bay area is very

[__aaclcg7560]

Not sure how many people want a big wife

You can't have big kids without a big wife. There are always exceptions to the rule. My parents were skinny as can be when they had me as a ten-pound bowling ball and brought me home in a bowling bag.

Re:This is why they need H1b

[Serge_Tomiko]

Students that don't intern, and expect to just magically find a job after they graduate, are idiots.

I wouldn't call them idiots necessarily. Depending upon the circumstances, some students just don't know. I'm old enough to have been from the age when college was still seen as a place for learning rather than a trade school. I had to work crap jobs during college, and was only vaguely aware that well-paying internships even existed. Or at least, they were for kids with better grades than myself.

All that said, I know some college students who are doing much better these days. The pressure seems positively enormous. I really feel for these kids today.

Re:and the cost of liveing in the bay area is very

[__aaclcg7560]

Middle-aged, living by yourself and spending half your income to rent a studio apartment is not "a modest lifestyle".

Compared to a lot of other folks in Silicon Valley, this is a modest lifestyle. I know of few people in similar circumstances who still have money left over at the end of each month to save.

It's pretty much rock-bottom.

Rock-bottom is paying half your income on rent for a room in a house and living with roommates. For an extra $200 per month, I could get an extra wall to have a one-bedroom apartment.

Re:This is why they need H1b

[Anonymous Coward]

Students that don't intern, and expect to just magically find a job after they graduate, are idiots.

And during the great recession the sources of interships dried up so bad that a lot of fellow engineering students (including myself) took months if not a year to find their first job in their chose field after leaving college. Some never did get into their field as they were out of school for too long and seen as "untouchable." Of course some of us got blamed by professors for being "lazy" but the truth was that there simply were not enough internships and co-ops to go around for all of us during those years as companies were buckling down so much that they didn't want to hire much of anyone, even interns.

ACA says you're wrong

[rsilvergun]

when poor people had access to health care due to the medicaid expansion they used it.

That "Cycle of Poverty" bullshit you're spouting comes from right wing "Think Tanks" set up to justify abandoning the poor. If you track back who's telling you that and look at who belongs to those tanks you'll find industry lobbyists all the way down.

People moving around out of desperation isn't how you end poverty. It's how you shuffle the poor around. And you have no idea how bad things were before the Great Society. Or you're actively choosing to ignore it. Or those "Think Tanks" are doing it for you. The outcomes the same.

Poverty ends first with food. Women need food while their kids are gestating so those kids don't have mental problems. It goes on to clean, lead free air & water. Again, prevent mental problems. Next is education. Lots of it. All the way to college. That won't stop poverty, since we're running out of work (Automation & productivity increases for the win) but it will create a population smart enough to solve those problems. All that takes money, and if you think the 1% is going to pay for it by choice you haven't been paying attention to the last 1000 years of human civiliazion.

People aren't starving because of food stamps and other welfare programs. Those programs are mostly allowed to exists because agribusiness lobbies for them. But even they've been losing to the "Cut my Taxes" lobby.

At the end of the day everything you wrote is something you're telling yourself to feel better about cutting your taxes while abandoning the poor. I sincerely hope you're better than that, will realize what you're doing and stop it. Keep in mind, when the 1%ers are done with the poor, you're next.

Re:This is why they need H1b

[Trondheim]

Should you MAJOR in history or English literature? Not unless you have rich parents.

I graduated with a B.A. in English, and now I'm an enterprise architect. Uninformed comments like this make engineers look foolish.

Re: This is why they need H1b

[Anonymous Coward]

Genuine question, what's an enterprise architect?

They design starships, except during rush hour when they drive for Uber.

Re:This is why they need H1b

[Tuidjy]

This is hardly a new thing in the tech industry. It was certainly the case in the late Nineties. We do real work, even as interns, and get paid real money.

It's political (lobbyists, canvassers, whathaveyou...) interneships that were unpaid, and as far as I know still are. They learn vital skills like trading semi-legal favors, selling the common good to the highest bidder, etc. Paying them would be counterproductive - poor people may get in... better keep those open for people who have rich, connected parents, and can spend the Summer without income.