4 ms·

People writing software are generally in the top 5% income level. Why do you feel that they are not being paid what they are worth?

by IpV8 9y ago

randomdata 9y ago
I'm not sure that is generally true. The median software developer salary in the US is $102,280[1]. An income of $100,000 puts you in the top 9.15%[1]. A top 5% income writing software isn't completely unheard of, but it does not seem to be represented by any kind of majority. There are always outliers. [1] https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/software-developers.htm https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_...
- IpV8 9y ago
  Thanks for fact checking me, I should have done my homework first. I still think that the 9.15% stat supports my claim though. I hang out with mostly non-engineers so its a bit comical to be shamed by hacker newsians for proposing that we get paid enough. Most studies on the matter have demonstrated that any income over 75k has no correlation on happiness, so for me I guess I feel more concerned about finding meaningful work than a higher salary. On another note, I am not sure why all of these people claiming to providing value equal to 10x their salary don't simply work for themselves and see if they can really rake in that much without the support of their company.
  - randomdata 9y ago
    I understand where they're coming from. Pay, of course, is a function of supply and demand. Nothing more, nothing less. The greater the demand, relative to the supply, the higher the price. We're constantly told that developers in high demand and that companies cannot find anyone to hire, to the point that the government has even pushed 'learn to code' programs to try and bring more people into this 'future industry', so price should be rising rapidly to close that gap... but it's not happening for the most part. So we have this disparity where the market is not reflecting what the media (et. al.) are reporting. I can see how that is leading to much confusion for those in the industry. In 2014, the median income for software developer, applications was $103,054.85[1] (in 2017 dollars). Today, the median income for software developer, applications is $102,212.06[2] (again, in 2017 dollars). Developer incomes are on the decline. It appears that we're reached equilibrium. If the industry was honest and said "go away, the industry is full" people would have less belief that they're worth more, but that's not the message we continue to hear. [1] https://www.bls.gov/oes/2014/may/oes151132.htm https://www.bls.gov/oes/2014/may/oes151132.htm [2] https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/software-developers.htm https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/...
tboyd47 9y ago
The true programmer-artisan (often called 10xer, guru, ninja, whatever) builds systems that cause money to flow into bank accounts to the tune of 6, 7, 8 figures. Yet if this person wants a raise, they will never be able to get one. They will have to change companies and abandon their code. What do you think a software industry looks like that's full of abandoned code? Much like it does now. On top of that, there are well known cases of illegal wage suppression: https://venturebeat.com/2014/05/23/4-tech-companies-are-paying-a-325m-fine-for-their-illegal-non-compete-pact/ https://venturebeat.com/2014/05/23/4-tech-companies-are-payi... I was once told by a recruiter that "industry standard" was to only expect a 5% raise with a new job. But I once tripled my salary in a single job offer, no lie.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
mindcrime 9y ago
Why do you feel that they are not being paid what they are worth? Because they perceive that there are other people in their organizations making far more money, who don't contribute much value.. or at least certainly not 2x, 3x, 4x, 10x, whatever, more value. Whether that is actually the case or not is tough to say, exactly because it's tough to directly measure the value created by an individual developer (in most cases).
walshemj 9y ago
Not in all countries the train driver that takes me to London has a basic of 60k - for a 4 day week! with OT that's 75 to 80k and they have a DB pension.
SilasX 9y ago
Why do you feel that absolute income is the relevant metric for determining the level of underpaid-ness? You can produce significantly more value than you're paid, even at high income levels.
- tboyd47 9y ago
  I'm just saying that the way compensation is determined currently (primarily per tech stack and years of experience) doesn't seem to have a good effect on the industry as a whole. It encourages rushing into "hot" technologies, and discourages sticking around with a single company and project for more than a couple of years. I think companies have to start taking into account the possibility that the value of certain classes of employees (like software developers, for one) to the organization might drastically increase without that person learning any new skills. If I'm making $50,000 as a developer at Company X, but I know that other developers using the same tech I do at other companies are making $75,000, what are the chances I'm going to get a $25,000 raise from Company X? Probably nothing. But the chances of me getting myself a raise by switching jobs are pretty good. Likewise if I know that developers using Tech Y are making $100,000, I'm going to try and get my company to adopt Tech Y, regardless if it's good for the company or not. Then, once I know enough about it to impress an interviewer, I'm gone. I have a theory that this dynamic is behind the phenomenon of new techs coming out of Silicon Valley suddenly becoming extremely popular and then causing huge waves of buyer's remorse. My observation from working in this industry for 10 years, is that the true potential of software is not unlocked until it's been in production for at least 3 years. This is a bit of an oddball view of mine but I believe it's backed by research. 3-4 years is around the time when the developers are familiar enough with the requirements and the code to make big, bold plans and execute on them. But usually that doesn't happen -- usually, the developers who created it leave before then for greener pastures, and the new folks who come in have zero context on the decisions behind the original system. So they try to rewrite it, repeat all the original mistakes, and maybe even add some new ones. The easiest thing companies can do to fix this is just get more aggressive with counteroffers. If a developer quits, ask them how much they're getting and then match it. Counteroffers happen all the time with new hires, but rarely with existing employees. It should be flipped; companies should try harder to retain than to hire new.
neves 9y ago
Here is my imprecise calculations comparing a Google Engineer nowadays to GM, the biggest company in 1950's Profit GM em 1955: 1 billion http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,807967,.. http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,807967,.... 1955 today: $9,042,397.00 https://www.dollartimes.com/inflation/inflation.php?amount=1.. https://www.dollartimes.com/inflation/inflation.php?amount=1.... GM Employees in 1955: 576,667 http://247wallst.com/investing/2010/09/21/americas-biggest-c.. http://247wallst.com/investing/2010/09/21/americas-biggest-c.... Google employees in 2015: 57,100 https://www.google.com.br/search?q=number+google+employees&i.. https://www.google.com.br/search?q=number+google+employees&i.... Google operating income in 2015: $23 billion http://www.businessinsider.com/alphabet-google-q4-2015-earni.. http://www.businessinsider.com/alphabet-google-q4-2015-earni.... The numbers: * GM profit/employee: 9 Google profit/employee: 403,000 * So a Google employee would have a wage 45,000 times that of a 1955 GM engineer. I couldn’t find an amount for the wage of an engineer in 1955 to get a final result. It is an unfair calculation. Google workforce proportionally has a lot more engineers than GM in the 50’s. Their wages would be way bigger than this.
- gshubert17 9y ago
  Typo? GM's profit in today's dollars is $9 billion, not $9 million. Hence GM's profit per employee is $9,042,397,000 / 576,667 = $15,700, not $9. The ratio between Google and GM is closer to 25 times. Which, I think, is an indication of how much more automation there is now compared to 1955.
  - neves 9y ago
    Sure, my mistake. It shows how much of the profits goes for the labor force or for the Capital owners. We are more productive, but now earning more money.
michaelmrose 9y ago
When almost all the income in the world goes to people that own things instead of do things it seems strange to begrudge developers a payday.

People writing software are generally in the top 5% income level. Why do you feel that they are not being paid what they are worth?

by IpV8 9y ago

People writing software are generally in the top 5% income level. Why do you feel that they are not being paid what they are worth?

randomdata 9y ago

I'm not sure that is generally true. The median software developer salary in the US is $102,280[1]. An income of $100,000 puts you in the top 9.15%[1]. A top 5% income writing software isn't completely unheard of, but it does not seem to be represented by any kind of majority. There are always outliers. [1] https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/software-developers.htm https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_...

IpV8 9y ago
Thanks for fact checking me, I should have done my homework first. I still think that the 9.15% stat supports my claim though. I hang out with mostly non-engineers so its a bit comical to be shamed by hacker newsians for proposing that we get paid enough. Most studies on the matter have demonstrated that any income over 75k has no correlation on happiness, so for me I guess I feel more concerned about finding meaningful work than a higher salary. On another note, I am not sure why all of these people claiming to providing value equal to 10x their salary don't simply work for themselves and see if they can really rake in that much without the support of their company.
- randomdata 9y ago
  I understand where they're coming from. Pay, of course, is a function of supply and demand. Nothing more, nothing less. The greater the demand, relative to the supply, the higher the price. We're constantly told that developers in high demand and that companies cannot find anyone to hire, to the point that the government has even pushed 'learn to code' programs to try and bring more people into this 'future industry', so price should be rising rapidly to close that gap... but it's not happening for the most part. So we have this disparity where the market is not reflecting what the media (et. al.) are reporting. I can see how that is leading to much confusion for those in the industry. In 2014, the median income for software developer, applications was $103,054.85[1] (in 2017 dollars). Today, the median income for software developer, applications is $102,212.06[2] (again, in 2017 dollars). Developer incomes are on the decline. It appears that we're reached equilibrium. If the industry was honest and said "go away, the industry is full" people would have less belief that they're worth more, but that's not the message we continue to hear. [1] https://www.bls.gov/oes/2014/may/oes151132.htm https://www.bls.gov/oes/2014/may/oes151132.htm [2] https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/software-developers.htm https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/...

tboyd47 9y ago

The true programmer-artisan (often called 10xer, guru, ninja, whatever) builds systems that cause money to flow into bank accounts to the tune of 6, 7, 8 figures. Yet if this person wants a raise, they will never be able to get one. They will have to change companies and abandon their code. What do you think a software industry looks like that's full of abandoned code? Much like it does now. On top of that, there are well known cases of illegal wage suppression: https://venturebeat.com/2014/05/23/4-tech-companies-are-paying-a-325m-fine-for-their-illegal-non-compete-pact/ https://venturebeat.com/2014/05/23/4-tech-companies-are-payi... I was once told by a recruiter that "industry standard" was to only expect a 5% raise with a new job. But I once tripled my salary in a single job offer, no lie.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

mindcrime 9y ago

Why do you feel that they are not being paid what they are worth? Because they perceive that there are other people in their organizations making far more money, who don't contribute much value.. or at least certainly not 2x, 3x, 4x, 10x, whatever, more value. Whether that is actually the case or not is tough to say, exactly because it's tough to directly measure the value created by an individual developer (in most cases).

walshemj 9y ago

Not in all countries the train driver that takes me to London has a basic of 60k - for a 4 day week! with OT that's 75 to 80k and they have a DB pension.

SilasX 9y ago

Why do you feel that absolute income is the relevant metric for determining the level of underpaid-ness? You can produce significantly more value than you're paid, even at high income levels.

tboyd47 9y ago
I'm just saying that the way compensation is determined currently (primarily per tech stack and years of experience) doesn't seem to have a good effect on the industry as a whole. It encourages rushing into "hot" technologies, and discourages sticking around with a single company and project for more than a couple of years. I think companies have to start taking into account the possibility that the value of certain classes of employees (like software developers, for one) to the organization might drastically increase without that person learning any new skills. If I'm making $50,000 as a developer at Company X, but I know that other developers using the same tech I do at other companies are making $75,000, what are the chances I'm going to get a $25,000 raise from Company X? Probably nothing. But the chances of me getting myself a raise by switching jobs are pretty good. Likewise if I know that developers using Tech Y are making $100,000, I'm going to try and get my company to adopt Tech Y, regardless if it's good for the company or not. Then, once I know enough about it to impress an interviewer, I'm gone. I have a theory that this dynamic is behind the phenomenon of new techs coming out of Silicon Valley suddenly becoming extremely popular and then causing huge waves of buyer's remorse. My observation from working in this industry for 10 years, is that the true potential of software is not unlocked until it's been in production for at least 3 years. This is a bit of an oddball view of mine but I believe it's backed by research. 3-4 years is around the time when the developers are familiar enough with the requirements and the code to make big, bold plans and execute on them. But usually that doesn't happen -- usually, the developers who created it leave before then for greener pastures, and the new folks who come in have zero context on the decisions behind the original system. So they try to rewrite it, repeat all the original mistakes, and maybe even add some new ones. The easiest thing companies can do to fix this is just get more aggressive with counteroffers. If a developer quits, ask them how much they're getting and then match it. Counteroffers happen all the time with new hires, but rarely with existing employees. It should be flipped; companies should try harder to retain than to hire new.

neves 9y ago

Here is my imprecise calculations comparing a Google Engineer nowadays to GM, the biggest company in 1950's Profit GM em 1955: 1 billion http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,807967,.. http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,807967,.... 1955 today: $9,042,397.00 https://www.dollartimes.com/inflation/inflation.php?amount=1.. https://www.dollartimes.com/inflation/inflation.php?amount=1.... GM Employees in 1955: 576,667 http://247wallst.com/investing/2010/09/21/americas-biggest-c.. http://247wallst.com/investing/2010/09/21/americas-biggest-c.... Google employees in 2015: 57,100 https://www.google.com.br/search?q=number+google+employees&i.. https://www.google.com.br/search?q=number+google+employees&i.... Google operating income in 2015: $23 billion http://www.businessinsider.com/alphabet-google-q4-2015-earni.. http://www.businessinsider.com/alphabet-google-q4-2015-earni.... The numbers: * GM profit/employee: 9 Google profit/employee: 403,000 * So a Google employee would have a wage 45,000 times that of a 1955 GM engineer. I couldn’t find an amount for the wage of an engineer in 1955 to get a final result. It is an unfair calculation. Google workforce proportionally has a lot more engineers than GM in the 50’s. Their wages would be way bigger than this.

gshubert17 9y ago
Typo? GM's profit in today's dollars is $9 billion, not $9 million. Hence GM's profit per employee is $9,042,397,000 / 576,667 = $15,700, not $9. The ratio between Google and GM is closer to 25 times. Which, I think, is an indication of how much more automation there is now compared to 1955.
- neves 9y ago
  Sure, my mistake. It shows how much of the profits goes for the labor force or for the Capital owners. We are more productive, but now earning more money.

michaelmrose 9y ago

When almost all the income in the world goes to people that own things instead of do things it seems strange to begrudge developers a payday.