4 ms·

Other fields also pay well and can draw top talent away from software engineering. Take a look at "US News Best Jobs" and drill down by salary in top paying reg

by geebee 8y ago

Other fields also pay well and can draw top talent away from software engineering. Take a look at "US News Best Jobs" and drill down by salary in top paying regions for each job. The information is a roundup of BLS data. https://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/rankings/the-100-best-jobs https://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/rankings/the-100-... Some examples: The top paying market for software developers (the #1 job, apparently) is San Jose, at $133k a year median pay. Here's the top pay/region for the next few jobs: #2 Dentist, Peabody MA, $285k/year #3 Physician Asst, Yuba City, $149k/yr (and $138k a year in Santa Rosa CA) #4 Nurse Practitioner, $180k/Yr in Altoona PA ($158k/yr in San Francisco, CA). A bit further down the list, a registered nurse (#18) earns a median of $138k/yr in San Francisco, CA. Lawyers (#33) make a median of $193k/yr in San Jose (top market) I think national pay for software developers may be skewed by how many of them work in the valley. When you compare them to what other well educated and skilled professionals earn in those markets, you'll see that their compensation is ok, but nothing notable. There are lots and lots and lots of jobs that pay better, and may offer more fulfilling work. My point isn't that software developers deserve to make more money. Maybe the deserve to be paid less because their work matters less, but that's hardly a selling point. It's never an apples-to-apples comparison. But overall, I'd say the market is working just fine. There's no "shortage" of software developers, any more than there's a shortage of any other skilled professional in a high cost area. IN fact, there are probably considerably more software developers at the current price point, because of 1) government and industry PR programs designed to convince young people that they are desperately needed in software, and 2) work visa programs that put Silicon Valley companies in control of who is allowed to work in the US and the conditions under which they are allowed to remain. In fact, I'd say as long as non-market mechanisms (such as visa programs that allow Facebook to decide that immigrants should be engineers but not florists) are used to suppress wages, we should expect an almost permanent "shortage", as people who have the freedom to be florists (or anything else they might wish to pursue as free people) go into fields where wages and working conditions don't reflect the negotiation power of people who can be deported if they lose their jobs.

dunpeal 8y ago
> When you compare them to what other well educated and skilled professionals earn in those markets, you'll see that their compensation is ok, but nothing notable. There are lots and lots and lots of jobs that pay better, and may offer more fulfilling work. Really important comment. People tend to overlook how engineers aren't actually paid that well compared to many other professions. Especially considering the amount of learning and training and skill-building it takes to earn anywhere near what that Nurse Practitioner in Altoona PA makes. Also note that there are plenty of engineers who make low wages in SFBay. Sure, they make 6 figures, which sounds high to a lot of people working low-paying jobs outside the valley. These people aren't aware that $100k in SF means you probably have roommates.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
sanderjd 8y ago
So where does the idea that developers are highly paid come from? I think it's because very young people can get a six figure job right out of school, or even without a degree. That's pretty rare. But then it turns out that compensation doesn't scale with experience as quickly as in other fields, and that a lot of people have to switch to management to progress in their careers, so the overall median across all experience levels ends up seeming low. In general, software development seems like a really good field to get into, but a mediocre one to be in for the long haul. This same phenomenon underlies our perennial debate about interviewing: it's actually great that you can get an amazing job just by doing some artificial programming puzzles on a whiteboard, but it sucks that after ten years building expertise, with a long string of successful projects under your belt, you have to do artificial programming puzzles on a whiteboard to get a job. The other fields you mention have the opposite setup. It's quite hard to become a nurse practitioner, but once you're certified, employers pay well and don't constantly question your basic level of competence.
- dunpeal 8y ago
  > I think it's because very young people can get a six figure job right out of school, or even without a degree. DING DING DING! It was a clever scheme, and it even worked for a while. "We need a lot of people to study CS, but we don't really want to pay them so much and cut into our fat bonuses. Whatever shall we do?! Oh, let's offer eye-popping entry-level salaries, that will get them to choose the CS major and learn to program. Once they do, they're committed, so we can just freeze their wages indefinitely. What are they going to do, go to medical school at 35?!" > it sucks that after ten years building expertise, with a long string of successful projects under your belt, you have to do artificial programming puzzles on a whiteboard to get a job. That's an artifact of the unfortunate fact that references are worse than useless in the US. There's no real way for a new employer to objectively tell how well you performed on a particular project in the past. Casual references don't work and are typically misleading. I'll give you an example. One startup I worked with had two very different developers. One guy was totally incompetent. Multiple years of "senior" experience on his resume, but couldn't complete a single feature. However, he was great at socializing, so when he got kicked out, several developers were happy to get on the phone and tell prospective employers how great he was. Another guy was quiet, socially awkward, and introverted. However, he was among the top 2-3 programmers on the team. Completed some of the most critical parts of the project. I guarantee that he had a lot more difficulty getting any references. In fact, I guarantee the first guy had a much easier time getting his next job. Most employers who just speak to both and check references would get the highly inaccurate picture that the first guy was far more crucial and competent than the 2nd.

by geebee 8y ago

dunpeal 8y ago

> When you compare them to what other well educated and skilled professionals earn in those markets, you'll see that their compensation is ok, but nothing notable. There are lots and lots and lots of jobs that pay better, and may offer more fulfilling work. Really important comment. People tend to overlook how engineers aren't actually paid that well compared to many other professions. Especially considering the amount of learning and training and skill-building it takes to earn anywhere near what that Nurse Practitioner in Altoona PA makes. Also note that there are plenty of engineers who make low wages in SFBay. Sure, they make 6 figures, which sounds high to a lot of people working low-paying jobs outside the valley. These people aren't aware that $100k in SF means you probably have roommates.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

sanderjd 8y ago

So where does the idea that developers are highly paid come from? I think it's because very young people can get a six figure job right out of school, or even without a degree. That's pretty rare. But then it turns out that compensation doesn't scale with experience as quickly as in other fields, and that a lot of people have to switch to management to progress in their careers, so the overall median across all experience levels ends up seeming low. In general, software development seems like a really good field to get into, but a mediocre one to be in for the long haul. This same phenomenon underlies our perennial debate about interviewing: it's actually great that you can get an amazing job just by doing some artificial programming puzzles on a whiteboard, but it sucks that after ten years building expertise, with a long string of successful projects under your belt, you have to do artificial programming puzzles on a whiteboard to get a job. The other fields you mention have the opposite setup. It's quite hard to become a nurse practitioner, but once you're certified, employers pay well and don't constantly question your basic level of competence.

dunpeal 8y ago
> I think it's because very young people can get a six figure job right out of school, or even without a degree. DING DING DING! It was a clever scheme, and it even worked for a while. "We need a lot of people to study CS, but we don't really want to pay them so much and cut into our fat bonuses. Whatever shall we do?! Oh, let's offer eye-popping entry-level salaries, that will get them to choose the CS major and learn to program. Once they do, they're committed, so we can just freeze their wages indefinitely. What are they going to do, go to medical school at 35?!" > it sucks that after ten years building expertise, with a long string of successful projects under your belt, you have to do artificial programming puzzles on a whiteboard to get a job. That's an artifact of the unfortunate fact that references are worse than useless in the US. There's no real way for a new employer to objectively tell how well you performed on a particular project in the past. Casual references don't work and are typically misleading. I'll give you an example. One startup I worked with had two very different developers. One guy was totally incompetent. Multiple years of "senior" experience on his resume, but couldn't complete a single feature. However, he was great at socializing, so when he got kicked out, several developers were happy to get on the phone and tell prospective employers how great he was. Another guy was quiet, socially awkward, and introverted. However, he was among the top 2-3 programmers on the team. Completed some of the most critical parts of the project. I guarantee that he had a lot more difficulty getting any references. In fact, I guarantee the first guy had a much easier time getting his next job. Most employers who just speak to both and check references would get the highly inaccurate picture that the first guy was far more crucial and competent than the 2nd.