5 ms·

Anyone who believes 100k is underpaid has serious entitlement issues they need to examine. You need to look around and see how the rest of the country/world liv

Anyone who believes 100k is underpaid has serious entitlement issues they need to examine. You need to look around and see how the rest of the country/world lives. Sure google, apple, and others may generate enough revenue to pay people more than that but they would also do it without you because 100k will buy them good developers. American programmer salaries are so far above the country average that complaining is just ridiculous.

tomjen3 16y ago
If you can get 130k across the street, 100k _is_ underpaid. It has nothing to do with entitlement issues at all: it is simply market economics. How much the janitor makes doesn't figure into the salary for a programmer, except as an indirect consequence.
- flyosity 16y ago
  Also: if you're being paid $100k and, in turn, generating hundreds of thousands of dollars of value for your company, you're undervalued and underpaid. The software industry is one of the few industries where a single person can create mountains of value all by themselves. Comparing software engineer salaries to janitor salaries makes no sense as janitors aren't creating multiples of their salary in value for their employer.
  - us 16y ago
    The only problem with this example is not every software engineer has the ability to be an entrepreneur. Sure, they can create monumental value for their employers, but there are some people that just can't be founders or cofounders or anything more simply because of how they are. I know quite a few people like this. At the end of the day, it takes a variety of personality traits, skills, brains, and a slew of other things to create a well rounded individual who can maximize value. Outside of this, no matter how much value you're adding to your employer, how can you honestly say you're worth more.
    - Dylanlacey 16y ago
      I've been thinking about this, and trying to come up with a solution. The best solution I can come up with is options/stock and salary... That way creating more value DOES help them get more income, subject to the vagaries of the stock market. Unfortunately, as wonderful as it would be for everyone to receive their exact value in return as a percentage, that's HARD... It's hard to quantify and it's hard to justify.
- mlinsey 16y ago
  I agree with you but I'd also agree with redstripe when it comes to the parts of the article that said you "can't live in Silicon Valley" without being part of an IPO, or that you can't pay off student loans, or save for retirement, etc. Those things are definitely well within reach, even in San Francisco, on 100K/year. If you can get 130 instead of 100 and would rather do that job then great, go for it, but don't pretend that your doing out of "necessity" or in order to get by. That's the kind of thinking that gets you into jobs you don't like while being perpetually envious of the lifestyle of your investment banker friends.
- mbesto 16y ago
  Which is why I think California is still in a bubble. When will it actually pop?
- VladRussian 16y ago
  >If you can get 130k across the street, 100k _is_ underpaid. If you're too lazy to cross the street than 100k probably is overpaid for you.
jamesaguilar 16y ago
I wouldn't say that asking a question of fact is necessarily indicative of an entitlement issue. On the other hand, the belief that the profits of your employer should determine your pay is just ignorant.
peripitea 16y ago
Pay is a reflection of your value. Lebron James would be unhappy making 2M/year because his market value is well above 2M/year. Similarly, many Silicon Valley engineers are making, say, 100k, when their employer would happily pay, say, 150k to keep them.
narkee 16y ago
Lots of people seem to think that the specific set of skills they possess is unique, extremely under-valued and completely necessary to the survival of the human race. I shall call this phenomenon occupational narcissism.
- jessedhillon 16y ago
  Name a job that is "completely necessary" to the survival of the human race. The only one I can think of being remotely close to that standard is a farmer.
  - dragons 16y ago
    Do we really need farmers if we can hunt and gather? :)
    - ericd 16y ago
      We do when there are this many people on the planet :(
  - narkee 16y ago
    There isn't one. That was my point, I guess - that people often grossly overvalue themselves. The only thing I can think of is "mother", but that's a cheeky answer.
  - neworbit 16y ago
    Parent
_delirium 16y ago
They're good salaries, but they're middle-of-the-road for a professional, white-collar job. As far as mid-career salaries by profession go, software engineering at ~$100k isn't even midway between history major (~$75k) and petroleum engineer (~$160k). Plus, everyone on all sides could be accused of whining, because the entire technology industry is well off compared to most people. When a VC complains about terms on a deal, you could ask, why are they whining when they're already well off?
- gloob 16y ago
  Out of curiosity, where do you find jobs with the title "history major"? Or are you using that phrase as a stand-in for something else?
  - _delirium 16y ago
    Poor phrasing; it was median mid-career salaries of people with history degrees (versus petroleum-engineering degrees, versus software-engineering degrees). So I guess it's a stand-in for whatever it is that the median history major does.
    - knieveltech 16y ago
      Based on a data set of two (I only know two history majors), car mechanics or Windows Server admin.
- bstx 16y ago
  Depending on what SV company you work for, ~$100k isn't a mid-career salary, that's what they pay graduates fresh out of college, not including bonuses. I don't consider that underpaid.
- redstripe 16y ago
  In my city (Vancouver) only 7% of the workforce makes over 100k a year. I don't know what the professional breakdowns are but I would consider myself pretty fortunate if I was in that 7%. Hell, I consider myself fortunate even though I am not in that category.
jorgeortiz85 16y ago
And yet programmers are still paid less than lawyers, doctors, or investment bankers, while providing much more value than any of them. (Yes, even more value than doctors. An extraordinary doctor can only touch so many lives in his career; an extraordinary engineer can touch millions on a regular basis.)
- rfergie 16y ago
  Extraordinary doctors and extraordinary engineers are paid much more than the average
- metageek 16y ago
  I would bet that an extraordinary doctor can indeed touch millions. The best doctors reform the practices at their hospitals, improve the standard of care, and get brought in to do the same at other hospitals.
  - ojbyrne 16y ago
    Programmers work in Medicine too. Specifically medical technology - things like Cat scans, MRIs, PET scans have probably saved many more lives than even the most extraordinary doctor.
    - natnat 16y ago
      Many of these devices were invented by doctors and implemented by programmers. The doctors, in many of these cases, were the ones who created most of the value. When the idea behind a device is more like, "Here's how we're going to use magnets to align the polarization of water molecules in the body, measure those changes, and map those back to construct an accurate image of the inside of someone's body. Now program it for me.", the original inventor creates a whole lot more value than someone who says, "It's like Facebook for dogs. That uses PHP, right? Now program it for me."
- dragons 16y ago
  It's not a matter of "touching" lives, is it? I mean, I think Amazon is great and all, and I'm really glad it's there, and kudos to the engineers who work on it. They've touch a million lives. But I think that Amazon's impact on my life is much less than the impact that a good doctor or surgeon would have, should I become seriously ill.
tastybites 16y ago
The excess value you create but do not claim is not returned to the universe for fair distribution - rather, it is captured by ruthless jackasses that didn't do the hard work work but aren't hampered by meaningless guilt over things they are not responsible for. I make it my mission in my professional life to capture as much of that value as I can and do with it as I see fit. Which usually means spending it in productive ways with businesses that enrich the community.
- jessedhillon 16y ago
  I was with you until you decided to call people who pay you and organize your labor "ruthless jackasses." Just because you can't touch or appreciate their work doesn't mean that they don't add value.
  - tastybites 16y ago
    Just because you can't touch or appreciate their work I can definitely appreciate the work, as I'm a business owner. I know this kind of objectivity is a bit strange, but I have both employees and clients, so I see both sides of the table on a regular basis. I'm just calling it like I see it.
    - jessedhillon 16y ago
      The maybe you can clarify who these ruthless jackasses are?
      - tastybites 16y ago
        Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I try to be one most of the time. It doesn't always work, because I am not a sociopath and I follow the law, but I'm sure there are others out there that don't have these hangups.
  - T-R 16y ago
    I think his point, without the "jackasses" part, is this - value creation is not zero sum, but value claiming is, so if you're creating more value than you're claiming in compensation, it implies that the person on the other side of the table is claiming more compensation than they've created value. This is what you're negotiating when you negotiate salary, benefits, and working conditions, and a lot of that has to do with your BATNA - the pay you could be getting elsewhere, and the others your employer could hire. So if you could be getting more elsewhere, then the others who are splitting up the profits are getting more compensation than they created value - others who are getting far less than their market value aren't part of the negotiation, unless your employer is thinking of hiring them. In short: If you're thinking of working in Finance, and your employer has no intention of hiring a starving programmer from another country, then you're underpaid. If your employer is looking into outsourcing, and you're not searching for jobs, you're overpaid.
kemiller 16y ago
For the level of education and skill needed to make a good engineer, it is underpaid. It's not about entitlement -- it's the real economic forces the article mentions. The most skilled people will be attracted to other careers. Maybe it means engineering isn't as valuable as we think. Or maybe it means engineers aren't as good at wielding their power. I think it means more engineers do it for love of the work. And there's no gating body/cartel to protect it.
greattypo 16y ago
Sorry but I've heard similar arguments made for every salary north of 40k. There's nothing 'entitled' about expecting to be paid relative to the value you bring -- that's the American way.
- redstripe 16y ago
  Google "Bono piracy" and you will find lots of articles about a man making $100 million a year that likes to complain he is not making enough. I suppose he too is not entitled. The free enterprise system - the American way - is also about bringing down the price of goods. If you work, you just happen to be one of those goods.
jessedhillon 16y ago
The value of a salary is measured by what you can do with that money. Making $120k in Palo Alto means renting a <1000 sq. ft. 1-2 br condo with about 35% of your monthly salary, if you want to live within a few miles of your work. Making $120k in Sacramento means owning a 3000 sq. ft. house (with a big yard) and 20% of your monthly salary going to a mortgage payment. In Sacramento you could probably get away with being the only wage earner in your family too, because the cost of living is just cheaper. In Palo Alto there is simply no way that you could live comfortably on that money if you have a partner and child, unless your partner also works and makes a high income. Now granted, at the end of the day you have live in Sacramento -- which is a cultural backwater, scores R+6 on the Cook PVI, and has 4 ultra-conservative talk radio stations -- to stretch your dollar like that. And it's questionable whether there are any jobs that would even pay so much for a similarly experienced engineer. But the point is that you can't say whether $120k is too much or not enough until you consider all the costs incurred to make that salary.
- mlinsey 16y ago
  I'd wager a significant portion of my (meager, startup-bootstrap level) salary that $120K in any neighborhood of the country (SF, Manhattan, wherever) is more than the national median purchasing power of an American family, which was the point he was making in the first place.
  - jessedhillon 16y ago
    I think the point he was making is that it's well above the median purchasing power, so much so that there's no right to complain. Moreover, so what if people in Kansas or North Dakota have less purchasing power than me? I live in a place that is cosmopolitan, diverse and has a higher average IQ -- and there's a higher cost associated with living here. This is like telling someone who drives a Mercedes that he can't complain about his engine needing service because someone, somewhere else in the world, is driving a Ford.
    - jessedhillon 16y ago
      Wow, anyone care to explain the downvote?
zacharyz 16y ago
That is 100k in the valley though. When you consider the cost of living adjustment compared to else where it isn't extraordinary.
gojomo 16y ago
Hi, redstripe! Is there someplace you can find lots of talented programmers with your mindset, who mainly look at "how the rest of the country/world lives" and think any salary "far above the country average" makes "complaining ridiculous"? Because any such source of programmers would be a gold mine! In fact, you might even want to start a placement agency! On one side, you recruit young starry-eyed talent, and feed them a constant stream of images/rhetoric about how tough everyone but them has it, so their salary expectations stay low. On the other side, you hook them up with "Google, Apple, and others" who "generate enough revenue to pay people more" but are looking for bargains. Everybody wins! (Except the developers.)
- redstripe 16y ago
  I'm having a hard time trying to interpret your sarcasm. Are you saying 100k is a paltry salary and I would have a hard time finding programmers to work for that wage? BTW, I am an employee and not a employer. I would certainly like to make more. But at some point (certainly at 150k) you just become an out of touch complainer if you're still unhappy with your wage.
  - positr0n 16y ago
    I agree with your point. I'm a student and can't dream of making that much money right now. However, the "point at which you become an out of touch complainer" is different for everyone. To use a cliche example, starving African children would look at you crazy if you complained about your $7/hr burger flipping job.
  - gte910h 16y ago
    So if a person, single handedly, year after year makes a company millions, you're a whiner if you want 150-250k? Depending on where you are, 100k barely supports paying for a house to raise a family without a 60 minute each way commute. Many of the places that have very high paying programming jobs just so happen to also have astronomical costs of living. SF? Check. NYC? Check. If you know C++ stupidly well, I know a very high paying job in a relatively low cost of living city (Atlanta) working for a bank. Can they find enough people at those astronomical payouts? Nope. They're constantly looking, less than 1/100th of the applicants can even get through the programming test. People are simply paid what they can get demand given their skills, inclination to negotiate, and a motivated company to hire. Additionally speaking, many of the people who demand the 150-450k salaries have run their own businesses, have skills other than programming that are very valuable to the employer (I know my fees are justified due to lots more than my not inconsiderable programming ability), and could do considerably better than 100k out running a business. If a corporation wants to keep them, they should pay them what it takes. Or are you saying no one should ever make more than 100k, including brain surgeons and law partners? Cause they're whiners?
lanstein 16y ago
You don't live in San Francisco, do you?

tomjen3 16y ago

If you can get 130k across the street, 100k _is_ underpaid. It has nothing to do with entitlement issues at all: it is simply market economics. How much the janitor makes doesn't figure into the salary for a programmer, except as an indirect consequence.

flyosity 16y ago
Also: if you're being paid $100k and, in turn, generating hundreds of thousands of dollars of value for your company, you're undervalued and underpaid. The software industry is one of the few industries where a single person can create mountains of value all by themselves. Comparing software engineer salaries to janitor salaries makes no sense as janitors aren't creating multiples of their salary in value for their employer.
- us 16y ago
  The only problem with this example is not every software engineer has the ability to be an entrepreneur. Sure, they can create monumental value for their employers, but there are some people that just can't be founders or cofounders or anything more simply because of how they are. I know quite a few people like this. At the end of the day, it takes a variety of personality traits, skills, brains, and a slew of other things to create a well rounded individual who can maximize value. Outside of this, no matter how much value you're adding to your employer, how can you honestly say you're worth more.
  - Dylanlacey 16y ago
    I've been thinking about this, and trying to come up with a solution. The best solution I can come up with is options/stock and salary... That way creating more value DOES help them get more income, subject to the vagaries of the stock market. Unfortunately, as wonderful as it would be for everyone to receive their exact value in return as a percentage, that's HARD... It's hard to quantify and it's hard to justify.
mlinsey 16y ago
I agree with you but I'd also agree with redstripe when it comes to the parts of the article that said you "can't live in Silicon Valley" without being part of an IPO, or that you can't pay off student loans, or save for retirement, etc. Those things are definitely well within reach, even in San Francisco, on 100K/year. If you can get 130 instead of 100 and would rather do that job then great, go for it, but don't pretend that your doing out of "necessity" or in order to get by. That's the kind of thinking that gets you into jobs you don't like while being perpetually envious of the lifestyle of your investment banker friends.
mbesto 16y ago
Which is why I think California is still in a bubble. When will it actually pop?
VladRussian 16y ago
>If you can get 130k across the street, 100k _is_ underpaid. If you're too lazy to cross the street than 100k probably is overpaid for you.

jamesaguilar 16y ago

I wouldn't say that asking a question of fact is necessarily indicative of an entitlement issue. On the other hand, the belief that the profits of your employer should determine your pay is just ignorant.

peripitea 16y ago

Pay is a reflection of your value. Lebron James would be unhappy making 2M/year because his market value is well above 2M/year. Similarly, many Silicon Valley engineers are making, say, 100k, when their employer would happily pay, say, 150k to keep them.

narkee 16y ago

Lots of people seem to think that the specific set of skills they possess is unique, extremely under-valued and completely necessary to the survival of the human race. I shall call this phenomenon occupational narcissism.

jessedhillon 16y ago
Name a job that is "completely necessary" to the survival of the human race. The only one I can think of being remotely close to that standard is a farmer.
- dragons 16y ago
  Do we really need farmers if we can hunt and gather? :)
  - ericd 16y ago
    We do when there are this many people on the planet :(
- narkee 16y ago
  There isn't one. That was my point, I guess - that people often grossly overvalue themselves. The only thing I can think of is "mother", but that's a cheeky answer.
- neworbit 16y ago
  Parent

_delirium 16y ago

They're good salaries, but they're middle-of-the-road for a professional, white-collar job. As far as mid-career salaries by profession go, software engineering at ~$100k isn't even midway between history major (~$75k) and petroleum engineer (~$160k). Plus, everyone on all sides could be accused of whining, because the entire technology industry is well off compared to most people. When a VC complains about terms on a deal, you could ask, why are they whining when they're already well off?

gloob 16y ago
Out of curiosity, where do you find jobs with the title "history major"? Or are you using that phrase as a stand-in for something else?
- _delirium 16y ago
  Poor phrasing; it was median mid-career salaries of people with history degrees (versus petroleum-engineering degrees, versus software-engineering degrees). So I guess it's a stand-in for whatever it is that the median history major does.
  - knieveltech 16y ago
    Based on a data set of two (I only know two history majors), car mechanics or Windows Server admin.
bstx 16y ago
Depending on what SV company you work for, ~$100k isn't a mid-career salary, that's what they pay graduates fresh out of college, not including bonuses. I don't consider that underpaid.
redstripe 16y ago
In my city (Vancouver) only 7% of the workforce makes over 100k a year. I don't know what the professional breakdowns are but I would consider myself pretty fortunate if I was in that 7%. Hell, I consider myself fortunate even though I am not in that category.

jorgeortiz85 16y ago

And yet programmers are still paid less than lawyers, doctors, or investment bankers, while providing much more value than any of them. (Yes, even more value than doctors. An extraordinary doctor can only touch so many lives in his career; an extraordinary engineer can touch millions on a regular basis.)

rfergie 16y ago
Extraordinary doctors and extraordinary engineers are paid much more than the average
metageek 16y ago
I would bet that an extraordinary doctor can indeed touch millions. The best doctors reform the practices at their hospitals, improve the standard of care, and get brought in to do the same at other hospitals.
- ojbyrne 16y ago
  Programmers work in Medicine too. Specifically medical technology - things like Cat scans, MRIs, PET scans have probably saved many more lives than even the most extraordinary doctor.
  - natnat 16y ago
    Many of these devices were invented by doctors and implemented by programmers. The doctors, in many of these cases, were the ones who created most of the value. When the idea behind a device is more like, "Here's how we're going to use magnets to align the polarization of water molecules in the body, measure those changes, and map those back to construct an accurate image of the inside of someone's body. Now program it for me.", the original inventor creates a whole lot more value than someone who says, "It's like Facebook for dogs. That uses PHP, right? Now program it for me."
dragons 16y ago
It's not a matter of "touching" lives, is it? I mean, I think Amazon is great and all, and I'm really glad it's there, and kudos to the engineers who work on it. They've touch a million lives. But I think that Amazon's impact on my life is much less than the impact that a good doctor or surgeon would have, should I become seriously ill.

tastybites 16y ago

The excess value you create but do not claim is not returned to the universe for fair distribution - rather, it is captured by ruthless jackasses that didn't do the hard work work but aren't hampered by meaningless guilt over things they are not responsible for. I make it my mission in my professional life to capture as much of that value as I can and do with it as I see fit. Which usually means spending it in productive ways with businesses that enrich the community.

jessedhillon 16y ago
I was with you until you decided to call people who pay you and organize your labor "ruthless jackasses." Just because you can't touch or appreciate their work doesn't mean that they don't add value.
- tastybites 16y ago
  Just because you can't touch or appreciate their work I can definitely appreciate the work, as I'm a business owner. I know this kind of objectivity is a bit strange, but I have both employees and clients, so I see both sides of the table on a regular basis. I'm just calling it like I see it.
  - jessedhillon 16y ago
    The maybe you can clarify who these ruthless jackasses are?
    - tastybites 16y ago
      Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I try to be one most of the time. It doesn't always work, because I am not a sociopath and I follow the law, but I'm sure there are others out there that don't have these hangups.
- T-R 16y ago
  I think his point, without the "jackasses" part, is this - value creation is not zero sum, but value claiming is, so if you're creating more value than you're claiming in compensation, it implies that the person on the other side of the table is claiming more compensation than they've created value. This is what you're negotiating when you negotiate salary, benefits, and working conditions, and a lot of that has to do with your BATNA - the pay you could be getting elsewhere, and the others your employer could hire. So if you could be getting more elsewhere, then the others who are splitting up the profits are getting more compensation than they created value - others who are getting far less than their market value aren't part of the negotiation, unless your employer is thinking of hiring them. In short: If you're thinking of working in Finance, and your employer has no intention of hiring a starving programmer from another country, then you're underpaid. If your employer is looking into outsourcing, and you're not searching for jobs, you're overpaid.

kemiller 16y ago

For the level of education and skill needed to make a good engineer, it is underpaid. It's not about entitlement -- it's the real economic forces the article mentions. The most skilled people will be attracted to other careers. Maybe it means engineering isn't as valuable as we think. Or maybe it means engineers aren't as good at wielding their power. I think it means more engineers do it for love of the work. And there's no gating body/cartel to protect it.

greattypo 16y ago

Sorry but I've heard similar arguments made for every salary north of 40k. There's nothing 'entitled' about expecting to be paid relative to the value you bring -- that's the American way.

redstripe 16y ago
Google "Bono piracy" and you will find lots of articles about a man making $100 million a year that likes to complain he is not making enough. I suppose he too is not entitled. The free enterprise system - the American way - is also about bringing down the price of goods. If you work, you just happen to be one of those goods.

jessedhillon 16y ago

The value of a salary is measured by what you can do with that money. Making $120k in Palo Alto means renting a <1000 sq. ft. 1-2 br condo with about 35% of your monthly salary, if you want to live within a few miles of your work. Making $120k in Sacramento means owning a 3000 sq. ft. house (with a big yard) and 20% of your monthly salary going to a mortgage payment. In Sacramento you could probably get away with being the only wage earner in your family too, because the cost of living is just cheaper. In Palo Alto there is simply no way that you could live comfortably on that money if you have a partner and child, unless your partner also works and makes a high income. Now granted, at the end of the day you have live in Sacramento -- which is a cultural backwater, scores R+6 on the Cook PVI, and has 4 ultra-conservative talk radio stations -- to stretch your dollar like that. And it's questionable whether there are any jobs that would even pay so much for a similarly experienced engineer. But the point is that you can't say whether $120k is too much or not enough until you consider all the costs incurred to make that salary.

mlinsey 16y ago
I'd wager a significant portion of my (meager, startup-bootstrap level) salary that $120K in any neighborhood of the country (SF, Manhattan, wherever) is more than the national median purchasing power of an American family, which was the point he was making in the first place.
- jessedhillon 16y ago
  I think the point he was making is that it's well above the median purchasing power, so much so that there's no right to complain. Moreover, so what if people in Kansas or North Dakota have less purchasing power than me? I live in a place that is cosmopolitan, diverse and has a higher average IQ -- and there's a higher cost associated with living here. This is like telling someone who drives a Mercedes that he can't complain about his engine needing service because someone, somewhere else in the world, is driving a Ford.
  - jessedhillon 16y ago
    Wow, anyone care to explain the downvote?

zacharyz 16y ago

That is 100k in the valley though. When you consider the cost of living adjustment compared to else where it isn't extraordinary.

gojomo 16y ago

Hi, redstripe! Is there someplace you can find lots of talented programmers with your mindset, who mainly look at "how the rest of the country/world lives" and think any salary "far above the country average" makes "complaining ridiculous"? Because any such source of programmers would be a gold mine! In fact, you might even want to start a placement agency! On one side, you recruit young starry-eyed talent, and feed them a constant stream of images/rhetoric about how tough everyone but them has it, so their salary expectations stay low. On the other side, you hook them up with "Google, Apple, and others" who "generate enough revenue to pay people more" but are looking for bargains. Everybody wins! (Except the developers.)

redstripe 16y ago
I'm having a hard time trying to interpret your sarcasm. Are you saying 100k is a paltry salary and I would have a hard time finding programmers to work for that wage? BTW, I am an employee and not a employer. I would certainly like to make more. But at some point (certainly at 150k) you just become an out of touch complainer if you're still unhappy with your wage.
- positr0n 16y ago
  I agree with your point. I'm a student and can't dream of making that much money right now. However, the "point at which you become an out of touch complainer" is different for everyone. To use a cliche example, starving African children would look at you crazy if you complained about your $7/hr burger flipping job.
- gte910h 16y ago
  So if a person, single handedly, year after year makes a company millions, you're a whiner if you want 150-250k? Depending on where you are, 100k barely supports paying for a house to raise a family without a 60 minute each way commute. Many of the places that have very high paying programming jobs just so happen to also have astronomical costs of living. SF? Check. NYC? Check. If you know C++ stupidly well, I know a very high paying job in a relatively low cost of living city (Atlanta) working for a bank. Can they find enough people at those astronomical payouts? Nope. They're constantly looking, less than 1/100th of the applicants can even get through the programming test. People are simply paid what they can get demand given their skills, inclination to negotiate, and a motivated company to hire. Additionally speaking, many of the people who demand the 150-450k salaries have run their own businesses, have skills other than programming that are very valuable to the employer (I know my fees are justified due to lots more than my not inconsiderable programming ability), and could do considerably better than 100k out running a business. If a corporation wants to keep them, they should pay them what it takes. Or are you saying no one should ever make more than 100k, including brain surgeons and law partners? Cause they're whiners?

lanstein 16y ago

You don't live in San Francisco, do you?