5 ms·

"PERCEIVED lack"? Doesn't the fact that salaries are sky rocketing essentially disprove your point? Why are the salaries getting pushed higher and higher? Becau

"PERCEIVED lack"? Doesn't the fact that salaries are sky rocketing essentially disprove your point? Why are the salaries getting pushed higher and higher? Because demand for SWEs is outstripping supply. This to me looks like the same kind of privileged outlook that other professional guilds like the AMA desire. Do you want cheaper healthcare, or doctor compensation to keep going up? Hey, letting nurse practitioners take on some of the load is "flooding the market with n00bs" This just seems like protectionism by another name. Yes, the good times for software engineering will come to an end. I'm a software engineer, this will affect me. But the question is, do I have a natural god given right to have a ballooning salary every year, while fighting attempts to increase labor supply that might cut that growth rate?

vkou 9y ago
> Yes, the good times for software engineering will come to an end. I'm a software engineer, this will affect me. But the question is, do I have a natural god given right to have a ballooning salary every year, while fighting attempts to increase labor supply that might cut that growth rate? Does our owner class have a natural god-given right to a 6% return on their investment every year, for doing nothing? They are certainly spending their energy on fighting attempts to spread the economic pie around. We need solidarity, not shaming people for protecting their means to make a living.
- Apocryphon 9y ago
  Sure. Solidarity to push back against the owner class to take a smaller piece of the pie, so the rest of the workers underneath - whether long-time veterans or recent entrants - may share it. In this, new workers shouldn't be seen as a threat, but an opportunity to create a bigger force to band together against the execs.
- WalterBright 9y ago
  > Does our owner class have a natural god-given right to a 6% return on their investment every year, for doing nothing? You, too, can become an "owner class" by opening an online trading account and buying stocks. Commissions are often under $10 for a trade.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    You're forgetting the part about having enough money to make meaningful investments.
    - WalterBright 9y ago
      If you'd invested $1000 in Boeing in the early 80's, it'd be worth $200,000 today. Sounds meaningful to me.
      - s73ver_ 9y ago
        And if I was a fetus in the early 80s? Or if I got sick and needed to sell that stock early to pay for treatment? Your point still is predicated on the "already having money" part.
        WalterBright 9y ago
        Far and away most people are healthy 20-60 and are not sidelined by disastrous health problems. The point is invest early in your working life, and you'll have the needed results when you're ready to retire. $1,000 is not what people would consider "having money" is. $200,000 is. If you have a car, it surely cost far more than $1,000.
        s73ver_ 9y ago
        A car is a necessity in most of America for getting around. Most people likely do not have a spare $1000 laying around. And knowing what to invest in is another can of worms in itself. And depending on who you're talking to, having a spare $1,000 risk on investment is "having money".
        WalterBright 9y ago
        > Most people likely do not have a spare $1000 laying around. True enough. Because they spend it, like the person who bought a new car. How much do they spend on beer/cigarettes/weed in a year? > And knowing what to invest in is another can of worms in itself. That's true. Apparently investing is more than "doing nothing", and one is taking a risk. But it is within the means of the vast majority of adults.
vonmoltke 9y ago
> Doesn't the fact that salaries are sky rocketing essentially disprove your point? What's your definition of "skyrocketing"? Outside of, maybe, a dozen high-prestiege companies located in a couple specific areas I don't see salaries skyrocketing. Mine hasn't; not saying I'm not well compensated, just not as overpaid or in demand asbsone people make it sound. Further, my experience with the aforementioned high prestige companies is that they are picky as hell. That tells me that either there is no shortage of talent for them or they are choosing beggars.
s73ver_ 9y ago
"Yes, the good times for software engineering will come to an end. I'm a software engineer, this will affect me. But the question is, do I have a natural god given right to have a ballooning salary every year, while fighting attempts to increase labor supply that might cut that growth rate?" Does your employer have a natural, God given right to cheap labor?
- cromwellian 9y ago
  Do I have a right not to have competition from other people in my industry underbidding me? My employer's rights are not the issue, it's whether I have a right to restrain others from entering the market through means like trying to oppose training and educational opportunities.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    Your employer's rights are very much the issue.
    - cromwellian 9y ago
      Are we're talking about a minimum wage for SWEs now? I mean what, specifically, are you suggesting? Employers can't hire people who bid lower? Salary in the tech industry is a function of demand. Right now, for example, people with expertise in Machine Learning are in high demand. You can graduate with an MS or Phd in machine learning, form a startup with no product whatsoever, and get acqui-hired just because of the insane bidding war going on right now. When I moved to SV in the 90s, at the height of the dot-com boom, kids fresh out of college were getting insane signing bonuses worth $10k or more. I knew people who would switch jobs every few months, just to collect freebies. Perhaps it is different elsewhere, but here, tech workers are very highly privileged. Seeing people complain about a desk job that pays $100k+, weeks vacation, great healthcare and benefits, flexible working hours, compared to the utter suffering that's happening in the working class across this country just looks tone deaf to me. Before we worry about the poor suffering tech workers, in their gentrified neighborhoods, in swanky cafes, facing stagnating nominal wages, how bout we consider the masses of people who missed out on the tech-utopia for the upper 10%, people who would like to move up the value chain, and have a right to compete for your job. My mother worked as a cashier at Safeway before she died. Comparing my hourly wage as a SWE to hers is kind of obscene, and for the people I grew up with, seeing tech-bros complain about their current threatened position has got to look like people completely ignorant of how much privilege they have.
swendoog 9y ago
I continue to be thoroughly surprised by the people who are accusing me of things like "protectionism". If you re-read my original post you will notice that I did NOT advocate for artificially restricting worker supply, or any kind of protectionism. I merely warned that what we're seeing in tech WILL bring an end to the "high" salaries, and that those who wish to maintain their current state, should consider PERSONAL GROWTH and advancing their skillset as a means of protection. We can debate all day about whether its a "perceived" lack, or a real lack. I whole heartedly disagree that salaries are, as you put it, "sky rocketing", especially when you account for cost of living in the areas where the "skyrocketing" is happening. And oh, yes, how dare a doctor who spent upwards of $500,000 in medical training, and devoted years to internships, and residency, be worried about a lowered skill cap or regulatory protections (which they counted on) for entering their profession! How dare they! Please. Of all the examples of protectionism you could have given, you chose perhaps the most acceptable and understandable. Yes, people care about their livelihood and the ability to retain efforts and investments they have made, so would you.
- cromwellian 9y ago
  The difference is people saying "I got mine, and I'm going to vote against and oppose any thing that increases opportunities for other people to enter my industry and compete with me." To me, that's unfair and wrong.
rtuulik 9y ago
While it may appear that salaries are rising quickly, in reality, for the average tech employee, they have been standing still for quite a while. In 2003, the average salary in tech was $69,400. By 2017, the average salary had risen to $92,081.[1] While that might seem like a pretty large payrise, after adjusting it for inflation, you come to a clear conclusion that over the last 12 years, salaries have stood basically still. You can point to people getting $120k+ as a first year employee at Google, but salaries like that are massive outliers. Average developer in america earns much less. [1] Dice Tech Salary Survey 2017 https://marketing.dice.com/pdf/Dice_TechSalarySurvey_TechPro_2017.pdf https://marketing.dice.com/pdf/Dice_TechSalarySurvey_TechPro...
- cromwellian 9y ago
  Storage and Networking != SWE, and these surveys cover a much wider ground than particular tech hub job markets, and do not adjust for purchasing power parity/cost of living.
closeparen 9y ago
>Why are the salaries getting pushed higher and higher? Because Bay Area cost of living is getting pushed higher and higher. The median programmer already has roommates, a 2-hour roundtrip commute, and no hope of family-sized housing or (gasp) ownership; if standard of living falls any further, we'll all go do something else. Obviously many people have it worse, but we have alternatives.

vkou 9y ago

> Yes, the good times for software engineering will come to an end. I'm a software engineer, this will affect me. But the question is, do I have a natural god given right to have a ballooning salary every year, while fighting attempts to increase labor supply that might cut that growth rate? Does our owner class have a natural god-given right to a 6% return on their investment every year, for doing nothing? They are certainly spending their energy on fighting attempts to spread the economic pie around. We need solidarity, not shaming people for protecting their means to make a living.

Apocryphon 9y ago
Sure. Solidarity to push back against the owner class to take a smaller piece of the pie, so the rest of the workers underneath - whether long-time veterans or recent entrants - may share it. In this, new workers shouldn't be seen as a threat, but an opportunity to create a bigger force to band together against the execs.
WalterBright 9y ago
> Does our owner class have a natural god-given right to a 6% return on their investment every year, for doing nothing? You, too, can become an "owner class" by opening an online trading account and buying stocks. Commissions are often under $10 for a trade.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  You're forgetting the part about having enough money to make meaningful investments.
  - WalterBright 9y ago
    If you'd invested $1000 in Boeing in the early 80's, it'd be worth $200,000 today. Sounds meaningful to me.
    - s73ver_ 9y ago
      And if I was a fetus in the early 80s? Or if I got sick and needed to sell that stock early to pay for treatment? Your point still is predicated on the "already having money" part.
      - WalterBright 9y ago
        Far and away most people are healthy 20-60 and are not sidelined by disastrous health problems. The point is invest early in your working life, and you'll have the needed results when you're ready to retire. $1,000 is not what people would consider "having money" is. $200,000 is. If you have a car, it surely cost far more than $1,000.
        s73ver_ 9y ago
        A car is a necessity in most of America for getting around. Most people likely do not have a spare $1000 laying around. And knowing what to invest in is another can of worms in itself. And depending on who you're talking to, having a spare $1,000 risk on investment is "having money".
        WalterBright 9y ago
        > Most people likely do not have a spare $1000 laying around. True enough. Because they spend it, like the person who bought a new car. How much do they spend on beer/cigarettes/weed in a year? > And knowing what to invest in is another can of worms in itself. That's true. Apparently investing is more than "doing nothing", and one is taking a risk. But it is within the means of the vast majority of adults.

vonmoltke 9y ago

> Doesn't the fact that salaries are sky rocketing essentially disprove your point? What's your definition of "skyrocketing"? Outside of, maybe, a dozen high-prestiege companies located in a couple specific areas I don't see salaries skyrocketing. Mine hasn't; not saying I'm not well compensated, just not as overpaid or in demand asbsone people make it sound. Further, my experience with the aforementioned high prestige companies is that they are picky as hell. That tells me that either there is no shortage of talent for them or they are choosing beggars.

s73ver_ 9y ago

"Yes, the good times for software engineering will come to an end. I'm a software engineer, this will affect me. But the question is, do I have a natural god given right to have a ballooning salary every year, while fighting attempts to increase labor supply that might cut that growth rate?" Does your employer have a natural, God given right to cheap labor?

cromwellian 9y ago
Do I have a right not to have competition from other people in my industry underbidding me? My employer's rights are not the issue, it's whether I have a right to restrain others from entering the market through means like trying to oppose training and educational opportunities.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  Your employer's rights are very much the issue.
  - cromwellian 9y ago
    Are we're talking about a minimum wage for SWEs now? I mean what, specifically, are you suggesting? Employers can't hire people who bid lower? Salary in the tech industry is a function of demand. Right now, for example, people with expertise in Machine Learning are in high demand. You can graduate with an MS or Phd in machine learning, form a startup with no product whatsoever, and get acqui-hired just because of the insane bidding war going on right now. When I moved to SV in the 90s, at the height of the dot-com boom, kids fresh out of college were getting insane signing bonuses worth $10k or more. I knew people who would switch jobs every few months, just to collect freebies. Perhaps it is different elsewhere, but here, tech workers are very highly privileged. Seeing people complain about a desk job that pays $100k+, weeks vacation, great healthcare and benefits, flexible working hours, compared to the utter suffering that's happening in the working class across this country just looks tone deaf to me. Before we worry about the poor suffering tech workers, in their gentrified neighborhoods, in swanky cafes, facing stagnating nominal wages, how bout we consider the masses of people who missed out on the tech-utopia for the upper 10%, people who would like to move up the value chain, and have a right to compete for your job. My mother worked as a cashier at Safeway before she died. Comparing my hourly wage as a SWE to hers is kind of obscene, and for the people I grew up with, seeing tech-bros complain about their current threatened position has got to look like people completely ignorant of how much privilege they have.

swendoog 9y ago

I continue to be thoroughly surprised by the people who are accusing me of things like "protectionism". If you re-read my original post you will notice that I did NOT advocate for artificially restricting worker supply, or any kind of protectionism. I merely warned that what we're seeing in tech WILL bring an end to the "high" salaries, and that those who wish to maintain their current state, should consider PERSONAL GROWTH and advancing their skillset as a means of protection. We can debate all day about whether its a "perceived" lack, or a real lack. I whole heartedly disagree that salaries are, as you put it, "sky rocketing", especially when you account for cost of living in the areas where the "skyrocketing" is happening. And oh, yes, how dare a doctor who spent upwards of $500,000 in medical training, and devoted years to internships, and residency, be worried about a lowered skill cap or regulatory protections (which they counted on) for entering their profession! How dare they! Please. Of all the examples of protectionism you could have given, you chose perhaps the most acceptable and understandable. Yes, people care about their livelihood and the ability to retain efforts and investments they have made, so would you.

cromwellian 9y ago
The difference is people saying "I got mine, and I'm going to vote against and oppose any thing that increases opportunities for other people to enter my industry and compete with me." To me, that's unfair and wrong.

rtuulik 9y ago

While it may appear that salaries are rising quickly, in reality, for the average tech employee, they have been standing still for quite a while. In 2003, the average salary in tech was $69,400. By 2017, the average salary had risen to $92,081.[1] While that might seem like a pretty large payrise, after adjusting it for inflation, you come to a clear conclusion that over the last 12 years, salaries have stood basically still. You can point to people getting $120k+ as a first year employee at Google, but salaries like that are massive outliers. Average developer in america earns much less. [1] Dice Tech Salary Survey 2017 https://marketing.dice.com/pdf/Dice_TechSalarySurvey_TechPro_2017.pdf https://marketing.dice.com/pdf/Dice_TechSalarySurvey_TechPro...

cromwellian 9y ago
Storage and Networking != SWE, and these surveys cover a much wider ground than particular tech hub job markets, and do not adjust for purchasing power parity/cost of living.

closeparen 9y ago

>Why are the salaries getting pushed higher and higher? Because Bay Area cost of living is getting pushed higher and higher. The median programmer already has roommates, a 2-hour roundtrip commute, and no hope of family-sized housing or (gasp) ownership; if standard of living falls any further, we'll all go do something else. Obviously many people have it worse, but we have alternatives.