4 ms·

> There's a whole bunch of smart people right now who won't go into tech because they can make more elsewhere. Is that really the case? Software developers are

> There's a whole bunch of smart people right now who won't go into tech because they can make more elsewhere. Is that really the case? Software developers are one of the most highly paid professions.

torgian 8y ago
Not necessarily. Look at them outside of the United States. Software engineers typically make anywhere between 20-60k a year depending on location (east Asia being the worst).
- NTDF9 8y ago
  > Not necessarily. Look at them outside of the United States. Software engineers typically make anywhere between 20-60k a year depending on location (east Asia being the worst). But almost everything is highly paid in the US as compared to east Asia. Even minimum wage is higher in the US as compared to east Asia. To me, it looks like the median is higher in the US and so is the cost of living.
  - dunpeal 8y ago
    > Even minimum wage is higher in the US as compared to east Asia. Cost of living is also way lower in most of East Asia.
dunpeal 8y ago
We are talking about the lack of senior engineers right now. That means we need to look at the market 10 years ago to see why there aren't enough senior engineers right now. While the entry-level wages for engineers straight out of college were already high 10 years ago, wages after that tended to stagnate. Typical course for a talented engineer was to start somewhere near $100k, which is great comp for a fresh graduate. However, after 6-7 years that talented engineer would be somewhere around $150k or so, while typically having a lot more responsibility, stress and workload (compared to a fresh graduate, who earns $50k less to basically learn the ropes). After that, you completely stagnate. Very few engineers were making much above $150k, and practically nobody was making over $200k. Meanwhile, your peers who went to medicine, finance, or business would be seeing a steady rise that routinely soared far above $200k, especially if they were successful. Meanwhile, an engineer could launch multiple successful products and not make much more than $150-200k. The situation is changing a bit nowadays, but the shortage of senior engineers in particular dates back to these times. There's no guarantee that the current positive trend will continue. The entire industry seems obsessed with the question of how to pay engineers less. Even this specific article about engineer shortage focuses on whipping them to be "more productive" and getting rid of engineering positions through "outsourcing", that old reliable threat that's been used to keep engineer wages down for almost two decades now. If we go back even further than 10 years, engineering was that low, dirty profession reserved for unwashed foreigners with thick accents and other smelly nerds. Companies were grabbing a fresh batch of them every year for $70-80k and they were expected to be thankful for getting that much, and were lucky if their pay peaked at $150k, while mid-level managers who couldn't write a line of code got much more than that. If you were among the lucky ones to earn $150k you were definitely some sort of semi-manager yourself, "team lead" / "technical lead" etc who was expected to work 16 hour days when it was necessary (often) and take on a ton of stress and responsibility.
- galaxyLogic 8y ago
  Good points. I think part of the problem is that software development is still seen as cost-center not as a profit center. Developers are the working men an women of today who "do things" where as managers are are the people who take the credit for benefits and revenue from software. The work that developers do is hidden inside the code and outside world does not see it. No matter how great code you write your manager does not understand it and external world does not see it. Therefore you get less of the profits from the thing you build, people who can say they "managed" to make it come about take the credit and the profits. I think the whole idea behind the article is that because developers are getting more expensive the managers and sales-guys can no longer claim so much of the benefits from the software for themselves. Therefore it is a crisis for them. Developers are a resource for them just like oil is for the transportation industry.
  - dunpeal 8y ago
    > Developers are the working men an women of today who "do things" where as managers are are the people who take the credit for benefits and revenue from software. A key difference is that managers of the original "working men" understood every aspect of their work. The work was not intellectually challenging. Typically the manager was promoted for being one of the best "working men". The tech industry got into the habit of hiring managers with some degree (such as an MBA) but zero technical aptitude. An entire generation of engineers was managed by the infamous Pointy Haired Boss who didn't have a clue what his subordinates were doing or producing. > I think the whole idea behind the article is that because developers are getting more expensive the managers and sales-guys can no longer claim so much of the benefits from the software for themselves. Where does that article say that?
- toomanybeersies 8y ago
  > Meanwhile, your peers who went to medicine, finance, or business would be seeing a steady rise that routinely soared far above $200k, especially if they were successful. I've always considered my peers to be physical engineers (e.g. civil, mechanical, electrical), not finance or medicine people. I get paid a good amount more than my mechanical and electrical engineering friends, for a job that (for me) is easier and also took me 1 less year at university so I have a lower student loan and an extra year of earnings and experience (3 year B.Sc, vs 4 year B.Eng). In terms of absolute numbers, I'd guess that there are actually a lot less people who got a B.Com in finance or business who are earning more than what software engineers earn. Most people who get a degree in finance don't end up working in finance, at least that's the case in Australia and New Zealand from the people I know.

torgian 8y ago

Not necessarily. Look at them outside of the United States. Software engineers typically make anywhere between 20-60k a year depending on location (east Asia being the worst).

NTDF9 8y ago
> Not necessarily. Look at them outside of the United States. Software engineers typically make anywhere between 20-60k a year depending on location (east Asia being the worst). But almost everything is highly paid in the US as compared to east Asia. Even minimum wage is higher in the US as compared to east Asia. To me, it looks like the median is higher in the US and so is the cost of living.
- dunpeal 8y ago
  > Even minimum wage is higher in the US as compared to east Asia. Cost of living is also way lower in most of East Asia.

dunpeal 8y ago

We are talking about the lack of senior engineers right now. That means we need to look at the market 10 years ago to see why there aren't enough senior engineers right now. While the entry-level wages for engineers straight out of college were already high 10 years ago, wages after that tended to stagnate. Typical course for a talented engineer was to start somewhere near $100k, which is great comp for a fresh graduate. However, after 6-7 years that talented engineer would be somewhere around $150k or so, while typically having a lot more responsibility, stress and workload (compared to a fresh graduate, who earns $50k less to basically learn the ropes). After that, you completely stagnate. Very few engineers were making much above $150k, and practically nobody was making over $200k. Meanwhile, your peers who went to medicine, finance, or business would be seeing a steady rise that routinely soared far above $200k, especially if they were successful. Meanwhile, an engineer could launch multiple successful products and not make much more than $150-200k. The situation is changing a bit nowadays, but the shortage of senior engineers in particular dates back to these times. There's no guarantee that the current positive trend will continue. The entire industry seems obsessed with the question of how to pay engineers less. Even this specific article about engineer shortage focuses on whipping them to be "more productive" and getting rid of engineering positions through "outsourcing", that old reliable threat that's been used to keep engineer wages down for almost two decades now. If we go back even further than 10 years, engineering was that low, dirty profession reserved for unwashed foreigners with thick accents and other smelly nerds. Companies were grabbing a fresh batch of them every year for $70-80k and they were expected to be thankful for getting that much, and were lucky if their pay peaked at $150k, while mid-level managers who couldn't write a line of code got much more than that. If you were among the lucky ones to earn $150k you were definitely some sort of semi-manager yourself, "team lead" / "technical lead" etc who was expected to work 16 hour days when it was necessary (often) and take on a ton of stress and responsibility.

galaxyLogic 8y ago
Good points. I think part of the problem is that software development is still seen as cost-center not as a profit center. Developers are the working men an women of today who "do things" where as managers are are the people who take the credit for benefits and revenue from software. The work that developers do is hidden inside the code and outside world does not see it. No matter how great code you write your manager does not understand it and external world does not see it. Therefore you get less of the profits from the thing you build, people who can say they "managed" to make it come about take the credit and the profits. I think the whole idea behind the article is that because developers are getting more expensive the managers and sales-guys can no longer claim so much of the benefits from the software for themselves. Therefore it is a crisis for them. Developers are a resource for them just like oil is for the transportation industry.
- dunpeal 8y ago
  > Developers are the working men an women of today who "do things" where as managers are are the people who take the credit for benefits and revenue from software. A key difference is that managers of the original "working men" understood every aspect of their work. The work was not intellectually challenging. Typically the manager was promoted for being one of the best "working men". The tech industry got into the habit of hiring managers with some degree (such as an MBA) but zero technical aptitude. An entire generation of engineers was managed by the infamous Pointy Haired Boss who didn't have a clue what his subordinates were doing or producing. > I think the whole idea behind the article is that because developers are getting more expensive the managers and sales-guys can no longer claim so much of the benefits from the software for themselves. Where does that article say that?
toomanybeersies 8y ago
> Meanwhile, your peers who went to medicine, finance, or business would be seeing a steady rise that routinely soared far above $200k, especially if they were successful. I've always considered my peers to be physical engineers (e.g. civil, mechanical, electrical), not finance or medicine people. I get paid a good amount more than my mechanical and electrical engineering friends, for a job that (for me) is easier and also took me 1 less year at university so I have a lower student loan and an extra year of earnings and experience (3 year B.Sc, vs 4 year B.Eng). In terms of absolute numbers, I'd guess that there are actually a lot less people who got a B.Com in finance or business who are earning more than what software engineers earn. Most people who get a degree in finance don't end up working in finance, at least that's the case in Australia and New Zealand from the people I know.