4 ms·

This data seems pretty useless for the most part. Median salary without taking into account the location is meaningless. On page three, they try to separate reg

This data seems pretty useless for the most part. Median salary without taking into account the location is meaningless. On page three, they try to separate regions but "Pacific" is certainly way too wide a region to get anything from it.

joshsegall 14y ago
Agreed. And in the "what matters most" question they didn't include anything about making something useful for the customer, users, world, society, etc. Doing something meaningful is the most important factor to me.
west1737 14y ago
It's pretty useful if you're looking for an overview of the US; it's pretty useless if you're just looking for info about silicon valley.
flyinRyan 14y ago
No, this is wrong. Location is meaningless. A position is worth the value it creates, not "cost of living * N". Companies are capitalist entities and understand fully how value works in a capitalist system but trick workers into accepting some kind of Marxist "from him according to his ability, to him according to his need" idea of salary value. Go tell BMW you only want to pay 40% of the sticker price because you only plan on driving in Nowhere, AR. The only reason salaries would be depressed in backwoods places would be if the cost of living was drawing in so many workers that it drove salaries down. So is that the case? If you live in some low cost of living midwest spot in the road, do you get a thousand CVs before you finish writing a job description? If not, if you have trouble hiring in these areas then the salaries are too low. Nearly everyone in the US is a firm believer in capitalism but they don't generally practice it with their most valuable resource: their time.
- 3pt14159 14y ago
  When you set up a company in Toronto or New York there are clients at every corner, lots of industry meetings, and a large pool of developers to draw from as you grow. When you set up a company in Timbucktoo you get none of those things. That means that a company at the margin is happier to pay for a developer out of NY, so there is increased demand in NY than there is in Timbucktoo. This drives up salaries in NY. > The only reason salaries would be depressed in backwoods places would be if the cost of living was drawing in so many workers that it drove salaries down. Remember there are two curves, supply AND demand, and they resolve simultaneously. Workers could be leaving the region and salaries could still be going down, provided demand was decreasing as well.
  - flyinRyan 14y ago
    Well done, you spotted the only thing my post didn't address: immobile workers. If the workers are so desperate to stay in a given area that they're willing to work for those wages then that could cause salaries to drop in the area. This is why I have no fear of a future of mostly online work: because we all become instantly mobile. If Timbucktoo wants to pay low rates then they'll simply not fill the positions at all. We'll all be working for NY companies that pay better. At least that's how I want it to work out. :)
- kabdib 14y ago
  Location is NOT meaningless. It is common practice for companies who have offices in many locations to vary salary by location (I used to get a 25 percent boost because I was working in Silly Valley). Go the "we pay everyone the same, regardless of location" and you'll end up with either (a) a bunch of workers who are artificially dispersed, and less effective as a team, or (b) fewer good people, because your competitors are paying much more in desirable areas. [A dispersed team is not necessarily bad, but it's a /skill set/ and it doesn't work for all types of projects, for all types of people].
  - flyinRyan 14y ago
    My point is; the employees in those other locations should be demanding that 25% boost as well and if they don't get it they should continue looking for positions. I'm assuming you're a capitalist, right? Do you think what you do is worth 25% more than what they do? Obviously you don't because you just admitted this was because of location (i.e. otherwise they're the same). So what is the market justification for paying these other employees 25% less? Are there more people willing to work in those locations? Of course not. The companies are manipulating those people into thinking that paying them less for creating the same value because their cost of living is lower.
    - kabdib 14y ago
      > Are there more people willing to work in those locations? In this case (and others I am aware of), yes.

joshsegall 14y ago

Agreed. And in the "what matters most" question they didn't include anything about making something useful for the customer, users, world, society, etc. Doing something meaningful is the most important factor to me.

west1737 14y ago

It's pretty useful if you're looking for an overview of the US; it's pretty useless if you're just looking for info about silicon valley.

flyinRyan 14y ago

No, this is wrong. Location is meaningless. A position is worth the value it creates, not "cost of living * N". Companies are capitalist entities and understand fully how value works in a capitalist system but trick workers into accepting some kind of Marxist "from him according to his ability, to him according to his need" idea of salary value. Go tell BMW you only want to pay 40% of the sticker price because you only plan on driving in Nowhere, AR. The only reason salaries would be depressed in backwoods places would be if the cost of living was drawing in so many workers that it drove salaries down. So is that the case? If you live in some low cost of living midwest spot in the road, do you get a thousand CVs before you finish writing a job description? If not, if you have trouble hiring in these areas then the salaries are too low. Nearly everyone in the US is a firm believer in capitalism but they don't generally practice it with their most valuable resource: their time.

3pt14159 14y ago
When you set up a company in Toronto or New York there are clients at every corner, lots of industry meetings, and a large pool of developers to draw from as you grow. When you set up a company in Timbucktoo you get none of those things. That means that a company at the margin is happier to pay for a developer out of NY, so there is increased demand in NY than there is in Timbucktoo. This drives up salaries in NY. > The only reason salaries would be depressed in backwoods places would be if the cost of living was drawing in so many workers that it drove salaries down. Remember there are two curves, supply AND demand, and they resolve simultaneously. Workers could be leaving the region and salaries could still be going down, provided demand was decreasing as well.
- flyinRyan 14y ago
  Well done, you spotted the only thing my post didn't address: immobile workers. If the workers are so desperate to stay in a given area that they're willing to work for those wages then that could cause salaries to drop in the area. This is why I have no fear of a future of mostly online work: because we all become instantly mobile. If Timbucktoo wants to pay low rates then they'll simply not fill the positions at all. We'll all be working for NY companies that pay better. At least that's how I want it to work out. :)
kabdib 14y ago
Location is NOT meaningless. It is common practice for companies who have offices in many locations to vary salary by location (I used to get a 25 percent boost because I was working in Silly Valley). Go the "we pay everyone the same, regardless of location" and you'll end up with either (a) a bunch of workers who are artificially dispersed, and less effective as a team, or (b) fewer good people, because your competitors are paying much more in desirable areas. [A dispersed team is not necessarily bad, but it's a /skill set/ and it doesn't work for all types of projects, for all types of people].
- flyinRyan 14y ago
  My point is; the employees in those other locations should be demanding that 25% boost as well and if they don't get it they should continue looking for positions. I'm assuming you're a capitalist, right? Do you think what you do is worth 25% more than what they do? Obviously you don't because you just admitted this was because of location (i.e. otherwise they're the same). So what is the market justification for paying these other employees 25% less? Are there more people willing to work in those locations? Of course not. The companies are manipulating those people into thinking that paying them less for creating the same value because their cost of living is lower.
  - kabdib 14y ago
    > Are there more people willing to work in those locations? In this case (and others I am aware of), yes.