8 ms·

This is another very important article about the difficulties of a career, rather than a stint, in high tech. I've noticed that many health-care related profes

by geebee 12y ago

This is another very important article about the difficulties of a career, rather than a stint, in high tech. I've noticed that many health-care related professionals, such as dental hygienists and registered nurses, have median pay that is close to or exceeds the median pay for software developers [1], and that well paid professionals such as dermatologists or radiologists often earn vastly more. These fields also offer what I'd describe as career flexibility. As a software developer, I can almost always go off and have a cup of coffee when I please. So in that sense, yes, it is "flexible." But one very attractive quality of being a dental hygienist is that you can step back from the field for a few years, work part time (or not at all), and re-enter a few years later. My cousin is a radiologist, and she worked half time while she had kids (collecting a much higher salary than the typical full time developer). I also know an emergency room physician who was able to scale back while she had small kids without badly compromising her career progress. Add in open offices, back visibility, a dave n busters vibe, mass layoffs involving work visas and "knowledge transfer", frequent allegations of sexism and discrimination, an insistence that you locate to a place where the median 3br house is well over a million… and now, as it appears, a situation where you they don't want you if you have kids. At this point, why do we keep acting like there's some mystery why people with choice (i.e., whose professional options aren't limited by the visa process) are avoiding this field? Why does President Obama nod gravely as he stands next to tech CEOs talking about severe shortages of tech workers at press releases? [1] check out US News Best Jobs, which provides a summary of BLS data on median salary by region. In San Francisco, dental hygienists earn $112,970, software developers $114,400, and registered$127,670. Physicians and lawyers, of course earn considerably more.

maudineormsby 12y ago
Dental hygenists also only work 3-4 days a week. I'm told this is just the way the job works (usually they are 3 days at one office and 1 day at another if they desire). There's also the wear and tear on your body from crouching over someone with vibrating tools.
- geebee 12y ago
  I usually add this to my comment above: I have absolutely no doubt that dental hygienists and registered nurses work hard, and deserve their compensation. In SF, they are well paid, and nurses tend to poll high in occupational prestige.
Alex3917 12y ago
Unlike with radiologists, being a software developer isn't really a career, so looking at BLS numbers doesn't make much sense. Asking how much a software developer should make in a year is like asking how much a telephone user should make in a year; it's a nonsense question, because clearly there is almost nothing in common between someone doing low-level tech support and someone selling stock for an IPO or whatever. The reason most software jobs pay less than most radiology jobs is because developing your radiology skills doesn't come with a potential billion dollar upside, so people aren't willing to do it on unsustainable terms.
- emodendroket 12y ago
  That's not a good explanation. Very few employees will ever see billions of dollars and clearly the people taking jobs at big, established companies aren't doing it out of some hope that they'll suddenly become billionaires (how would that even happen?).
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- sjg007 12y ago
  There is also a shortage of radiologists by design.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- leothekim 12y ago
  Your comment represents everything that is wrong about a monoculture. Bias against employing parents is bad enough, but any notion of hostility against an "other" is unwarranted. Surely the tech industry has enough room for people who have kids and people who don't?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
    - leothekim 12y ago
      Definitely not. But you said you preferred working in an industry that is hostile towards people with kids. Here's a thought experiment: substitute "people with kids" with the word "homosexuals" or "immigrants", and maybe you can see how someone can find your viewpoint problematic.
- Pinatubo 12y ago
  And in another post you accused someone else of bigotry ...
bkjelden 12y ago
The similarity between pay for Software Engineers and RNs in the bay area is a bit of an anomaly nationally. My wife is a RN and before we moved here I was making twice what she did. Now our incomes are roughly equal - before factoring in any bonuses/stock I get. It is kind of refreshing to see how the nursing industry hires and treats its professionals compared to software, though. No "10x ninja" BS just to get hired as a rank-and-file employee. Hourly pay, as well as unions, prevents anything comparable to the long hours and hero stunts that are rewarded at tech companies. There are days where I do think it'd be nice to have the flexibility that they have, but then I remember that I could never do that job. Just like software engineering, nursing has attributes that make it only desirable to certain people. Patient is actively refusing care, shouting racial slurs at you, trying to assault you, etc? They still need to be cared for. It's still your job to take care of them.
- devonkim 12y ago
  In enterprise software and consulting anywhere near customer-facing engagements, the work hardly seems that much better than wiping excrement from aging people incapable of taking care of themselves. The job security is certainly much better for nurses where you get paid and everyone knows you're supposed to be helping the patient, but keep recommending something to a client they just don't like even if it's one that will actually solve their problems and you'll get fired probably. Much like being a doctor to patients unwilling to change their lifestyle in so many different ways, there's a massive industry of people making money off of people that want change but just want to spend money (and do almost nothing else) to make their problems go away. They'll still keep opting for something marketed via mass media (CIO magazine or whatever) and better-looking Powerpoints than the more carefully-thought-out solution made by people that really want a sound solution.
- ageek123 12y ago
  It should also be noted that health care costs are astronomical and have been increasing much faster than inflation for many years. There may be a correlation there. Moreover, as "medical tourism" continues to grow due to unaffordable health care costs in the US, US-based RNs are going to start losing jobs, just like the auto workers who negotiated contracts so generous that they literally killed their employers.
Kalium 12y ago
> At this point, why do we keep acting like there's some mystery why people with choice (i.e., whose professional options aren't limited by the visa process) are avoiding this field? Why does President Obama nod gravely as he stands next to tech CEOs talking about severe shortages of tech workers at press releases? At a guess, because the people who make that choice are generally not in a position to consider those factors or know about them firsthand. You have to be careful, or you'll wind up concluding that wet streets cause rain.
nilkn 12y ago
To be fair, becoming a radiologist is so much harder than becoming a software developer that I'd sure hope it would come with some perks. Your cousin might be working half time now, but she almost surely worked quadruple time for a long time before that just to get to where she is. Dermatology and radiology are some of the most competitive medical specialties in the world. Most doctors are neither dermatologists nor radiologists, and frankly if you did a truly detailed cost benefit analysis I'm not so sure the numbers would be so clear cut for the average doctor. As a very hard-working programmer, at age 25 I was making $120k base salary far away from Silicon Valley -- my friends in medicine were neck deep in coursework still with an income of approximately -$50k/year and another ~4 years on average before they'd match what I was making already. And I assure you that not every physician is able to just "scale back". Yes, some can, but that's not the norm. Plenty of ER doctors work nights for decades. My best friend growing up is a resident physician right now and works 80 hour weeks. I haven't even talked to him for a year because he's so busy.
- geebee 12y ago
  Responding to you a bit late… I certainly didn't intend to compare radiologists and dermatologists to median software developers. I bring these fields up as a reminder that career flexibility exists at a level that is considerably more elite than dental hygienist. In short, if you are a very ambitious and academically talented person, there are high earning and high prestige professions that will still yield considerable career flexibility . I also think you may be selling "developer" a little short here. Part of the problem here is that "radiologist", "registered nurse", and "dental hygienist" all mean something very standardized and specific. Software developer, on the other hand, means very little. It can range from someone who just finished reading a book on php and myql (or didn't read it but claims to have) to someone with a PhD who is doing mathematically intense programming on genomics (though I suppose that person would probably have a different title). A lot of jobs I'm interested in these days say "MS required, PhD preferred." These grad degrees require majoring in a STEM field, degrees that even at the undergrad level have a very high attrition rate, perhaps even higher than pre-med coursework (which doesn't honestly require the same difficulty in math). To get into a top school, you need to score at the top percentiles on standardized tests. In spite of this, elite PhD programs typically have an attrition rate between 35%-50% attrition rate (engineering is best, pure science is worst). MD programs at elite schools, by contrast, have vanishingly low attrition rates (UCSF, for instance, is below 0.5%). No joke, attrition rates at elite PhD programs are between 75 and 100 times higher than elite med schools. Of course, as people have pointed out to me in the past, it's not apples-to-apples. If you can even realistically apply to a PhD program in CS, you probably can already work in industry for a fine salary. If you leave with an MS, as I did, you have a valuable degree. MD tends to be more all-or-nothing, and (as you have reasonably pointed out), highly selective residencies in lucrative fields are hardly guaranteed. It will never be apples-to-apples when comparing fields. But considering that when you go by pay, your typical programmer is between dental hygienist and registered nurse (in San Francisco), we should probably recognize that we need to compare outcomes for a comparable educational path. But I wouldn't say that becoming a radiologist or other medical specialist is so much harder than getting a PhD that the comparison is useless. Especially if we're going to take seriously the talk among silicon valley CEOs and congress about a critical shortage of PhDs in STEM fields. Overall, I'd say that the career stability, pay, and flexibility of health care fields may win out over tech at a high level as well as a low one. This doesn't mean there are no good reasons to want to be a programmer, but I do think it's relevant when the US president stands next to tech CEOs at press conferences and agrees that there is a shortage of STEM workers.
matwood 12y ago
A friend of mine was an RN. He worked 3 nights/week (by choice b/c it pays more), and had more free time than anyone I know. He would "quit" and travel for a couple months and come back and be hired right back into his job. He just finished grad school and is now a nurse anesthesias making more than he did before and working roughly the same. Whether or not the trend keeps up it is hard to know.
BrainInAJar 12y ago
I honestly wish there were a job track for people who want to work part time for a while. I'd be more than happy being a bugfix monkey, not given any of the sexy projects, at 25h/wk and half the average tech salary because it'd let me pursue school or other hobbies
malandrew 12y ago
I wonder how much of the median salaries for those industries are driven up by licensing and accreditation to practice. If you were to implement a license to practice software engineer (thereby eliminating many jobs at the bottom performed by people who wouldn't be able to earn a license, how much would the median income for software engineers go up? Conversely, if you eliminated licensing for dental hygienists and let each practice determine the criteria for hiring, how many people would be employed handling dental hygienist roles and responsibilities that you don't need licensing to perform? How much would increased employment by less qualified individuals bring down the median income?

by geebee 12y ago

maudineormsby 12y ago

Dental hygenists also only work 3-4 days a week. I'm told this is just the way the job works (usually they are 3 days at one office and 1 day at another if they desire). There's also the wear and tear on your body from crouching over someone with vibrating tools.

geebee 12y ago
I usually add this to my comment above: I have absolutely no doubt that dental hygienists and registered nurses work hard, and deserve their compensation. In SF, they are well paid, and nurses tend to poll high in occupational prestige.

Alex3917 12y ago

Unlike with radiologists, being a software developer isn't really a career, so looking at BLS numbers doesn't make much sense. Asking how much a software developer should make in a year is like asking how much a telephone user should make in a year; it's a nonsense question, because clearly there is almost nothing in common between someone doing low-level tech support and someone selling stock for an IPO or whatever. The reason most software jobs pay less than most radiology jobs is because developing your radiology skills doesn't come with a potential billion dollar upside, so people aren't willing to do it on unsustainable terms.

emodendroket 12y ago
That's not a good explanation. Very few employees will ever see billions of dollars and clearly the people taking jobs at big, established companies aren't doing it out of some hope that they'll suddenly become billionaires (how would that even happen?).
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
sjg007 12y ago
There is also a shortage of radiologists by design.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

leothekim 12y ago
Your comment represents everything that is wrong about a monoculture. Bias against employing parents is bad enough, but any notion of hostility against an "other" is unwarranted. Surely the tech industry has enough room for people who have kids and people who don't?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - leothekim 12y ago
    Definitely not. But you said you preferred working in an industry that is hostile towards people with kids. Here's a thought experiment: substitute "people with kids" with the word "homosexuals" or "immigrants", and maybe you can see how someone can find your viewpoint problematic.
Pinatubo 12y ago
And in another post you accused someone else of bigotry ...

bkjelden 12y ago

The similarity between pay for Software Engineers and RNs in the bay area is a bit of an anomaly nationally. My wife is a RN and before we moved here I was making twice what she did. Now our incomes are roughly equal - before factoring in any bonuses/stock I get. It is kind of refreshing to see how the nursing industry hires and treats its professionals compared to software, though. No "10x ninja" BS just to get hired as a rank-and-file employee. Hourly pay, as well as unions, prevents anything comparable to the long hours and hero stunts that are rewarded at tech companies. There are days where I do think it'd be nice to have the flexibility that they have, but then I remember that I could never do that job. Just like software engineering, nursing has attributes that make it only desirable to certain people. Patient is actively refusing care, shouting racial slurs at you, trying to assault you, etc? They still need to be cared for. It's still your job to take care of them.

devonkim 12y ago
In enterprise software and consulting anywhere near customer-facing engagements, the work hardly seems that much better than wiping excrement from aging people incapable of taking care of themselves. The job security is certainly much better for nurses where you get paid and everyone knows you're supposed to be helping the patient, but keep recommending something to a client they just don't like even if it's one that will actually solve their problems and you'll get fired probably. Much like being a doctor to patients unwilling to change their lifestyle in so many different ways, there's a massive industry of people making money off of people that want change but just want to spend money (and do almost nothing else) to make their problems go away. They'll still keep opting for something marketed via mass media (CIO magazine or whatever) and better-looking Powerpoints than the more carefully-thought-out solution made by people that really want a sound solution.
ageek123 12y ago
It should also be noted that health care costs are astronomical and have been increasing much faster than inflation for many years. There may be a correlation there. Moreover, as "medical tourism" continues to grow due to unaffordable health care costs in the US, US-based RNs are going to start losing jobs, just like the auto workers who negotiated contracts so generous that they literally killed their employers.

Kalium 12y ago

> At this point, why do we keep acting like there's some mystery why people with choice (i.e., whose professional options aren't limited by the visa process) are avoiding this field? Why does President Obama nod gravely as he stands next to tech CEOs talking about severe shortages of tech workers at press releases? At a guess, because the people who make that choice are generally not in a position to consider those factors or know about them firsthand. You have to be careful, or you'll wind up concluding that wet streets cause rain.

nilkn 12y ago

To be fair, becoming a radiologist is so much harder than becoming a software developer that I'd sure hope it would come with some perks. Your cousin might be working half time now, but she almost surely worked quadruple time for a long time before that just to get to where she is. Dermatology and radiology are some of the most competitive medical specialties in the world. Most doctors are neither dermatologists nor radiologists, and frankly if you did a truly detailed cost benefit analysis I'm not so sure the numbers would be so clear cut for the average doctor. As a very hard-working programmer, at age 25 I was making $120k base salary far away from Silicon Valley -- my friends in medicine were neck deep in coursework still with an income of approximately -$50k/year and another ~4 years on average before they'd match what I was making already. And I assure you that not every physician is able to just "scale back". Yes, some can, but that's not the norm. Plenty of ER doctors work nights for decades. My best friend growing up is a resident physician right now and works 80 hour weeks. I haven't even talked to him for a year because he's so busy.

geebee 12y ago
Responding to you a bit late… I certainly didn't intend to compare radiologists and dermatologists to median software developers. I bring these fields up as a reminder that career flexibility exists at a level that is considerably more elite than dental hygienist. In short, if you are a very ambitious and academically talented person, there are high earning and high prestige professions that will still yield considerable career flexibility . I also think you may be selling "developer" a little short here. Part of the problem here is that "radiologist", "registered nurse", and "dental hygienist" all mean something very standardized and specific. Software developer, on the other hand, means very little. It can range from someone who just finished reading a book on php and myql (or didn't read it but claims to have) to someone with a PhD who is doing mathematically intense programming on genomics (though I suppose that person would probably have a different title). A lot of jobs I'm interested in these days say "MS required, PhD preferred." These grad degrees require majoring in a STEM field, degrees that even at the undergrad level have a very high attrition rate, perhaps even higher than pre-med coursework (which doesn't honestly require the same difficulty in math). To get into a top school, you need to score at the top percentiles on standardized tests. In spite of this, elite PhD programs typically have an attrition rate between 35%-50% attrition rate (engineering is best, pure science is worst). MD programs at elite schools, by contrast, have vanishingly low attrition rates (UCSF, for instance, is below 0.5%). No joke, attrition rates at elite PhD programs are between 75 and 100 times higher than elite med schools. Of course, as people have pointed out to me in the past, it's not apples-to-apples. If you can even realistically apply to a PhD program in CS, you probably can already work in industry for a fine salary. If you leave with an MS, as I did, you have a valuable degree. MD tends to be more all-or-nothing, and (as you have reasonably pointed out), highly selective residencies in lucrative fields are hardly guaranteed. It will never be apples-to-apples when comparing fields. But considering that when you go by pay, your typical programmer is between dental hygienist and registered nurse (in San Francisco), we should probably recognize that we need to compare outcomes for a comparable educational path. But I wouldn't say that becoming a radiologist or other medical specialist is so much harder than getting a PhD that the comparison is useless. Especially if we're going to take seriously the talk among silicon valley CEOs and congress about a critical shortage of PhDs in STEM fields. Overall, I'd say that the career stability, pay, and flexibility of health care fields may win out over tech at a high level as well as a low one. This doesn't mean there are no good reasons to want to be a programmer, but I do think it's relevant when the US president stands next to tech CEOs at press conferences and agrees that there is a shortage of STEM workers.

matwood 12y ago

A friend of mine was an RN. He worked 3 nights/week (by choice b/c it pays more), and had more free time than anyone I know. He would "quit" and travel for a couple months and come back and be hired right back into his job. He just finished grad school and is now a nurse anesthesias making more than he did before and working roughly the same. Whether or not the trend keeps up it is hard to know.

BrainInAJar 12y ago

I honestly wish there were a job track for people who want to work part time for a while. I'd be more than happy being a bugfix monkey, not given any of the sexy projects, at 25h/wk and half the average tech salary because it'd let me pursue school or other hobbies

malandrew 12y ago

I wonder how much of the median salaries for those industries are driven up by licensing and accreditation to practice. If you were to implement a license to practice software engineer (thereby eliminating many jobs at the bottom performed by people who wouldn't be able to earn a license, how much would the median income for software engineers go up? Conversely, if you eliminated licensing for dental hygienists and let each practice determine the criteria for hiring, how many people would be employed handling dental hygienist roles and responsibilities that you don't need licensing to perform? How much would increased employment by less qualified individuals bring down the median income?