Hacker News Reader

You and the IEEE are sampling different universes. Specific parts of the universe of "devs and related trades" currently have high demand and rising wages.

However, as a Ph.D. holder in quantum optics and semiconductor manufacturing, I would be happy to introduce you to a dozen physicists and EEs who are unemployed or who work for half my salary. There is no apparent shortage of physicists. My impression is that the biologists have it even worse.

The problem in this conversation is the notion that (e.g.) "web and mobile software development" is a subspecies of STEM. This premise gets sillier by the year, as more and more babies grow up teething on their parents old iPhones. Many of the best developers I know have no training in science or engineering: They're musicians or historians or artists, or they have no formal schooling beyond high school. Web development is as much about project management, self-direction, self-education, patience, consistency, pattern recognition, memory, design sense, decisiveness, experience, practice, persistence in the absence of immediate positive feedback, equanimity when faced with a thousand distractions, and – above all – communication as it is about scientific or mathematical knowledge.

And, while the combination of skills that make a great developer is evidently rare – or so the market conditions seem to say – it doesn't serve anyone to pretend that this represents a shortage of physicists or biologists or even of computer scientists. [1] It's a shortage of developers, and a particular subspecies of developer at that.

---

[1] Well, anyone who doesn't run a school for STEM, anyway.

>In the 4 years I've been on HN the quotes I hear for "generic CS undergrad from Stanford" are up more than 25% (80k to 110k or so, starting salary offer).

Just looking at Stanford grads is far from representative. In fact Stanford is possibly the most extreme outlier!

The US median salary for a fresh CS grad in 2013 was $59,221 [1]. Adjusted for inflation, that's $41,323 in 1998 dollars [2], which at that time was a pretty unremarkable salary for a fresh CS grad (or anyone who just knew HTML, for that matter).

Barring a more methodical argument, I think it's more likely that your perception of the market is skewed by "generic CS undergrads from Stanford" you rub shoulders with than it is that the widely cited averages of the entire market are skewed by a sudden youthfulness of the workforce.

1) http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2013/01/11/starting-s...

2) http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

Is starting salary the best thing to look at though? We are all aware of the 'non-programming programmer' problem, and therefore graduate salaries will be accordingly risk adjusted from the employer's POV. Maybe a better indicator would be salaries for roles requiring 5 years of professional experience, where the danger of hiring someone completely inept should be more remote. Or maybe you need to look at a more sophisticated measure like the range of salaries being on offer for programmers in the same age group.

Wow, really? That median was $65k/year when I graduated in 2011.

It sounds to me as if you are saying average wages are not increasing because of the influx of young developers. Isn't that exactly the point the article makes, that the non-increasing wages indicate that there is no shortage of tech workers?

It also seems unlikely that the decreasing averages don't affect the wages of older tech workers. They compete with the young, cheap tech workers after all - why should companies continue to pay high salaries to old tech workers if they could replace them with cheap young tech workers?

why should companies continue to pay high salaries to old tech workers if they could replace them with cheap young tech workers?

Because young workers are not a substitute for old workers.

You could argue that four fresh graduates are a substitute for a single good senior dev, but in many cases even that is not true. Thus, old guys continue to find good jobs for good money.

This worry is as old as software. The cheap hordes will replace you. It used to be cheap hordes from overseas, and now it's cheap hordes fresh out of school. They're on there way. But somehow they never seem to arrive.

They're on there way. But somehow they never seem to arrive.

I wonder if that's because the demand keeps increasing. Software is eating the world. Sure, supply is increasing from overseas, and young people, but demand is growing more.

Not really, influx does not automatically imply lack of shortage. I think there is a common impression of quite the contrary: a demand bubble, at least in my local SFBA tech scene. Replacement may not be happening because of a demand spike and/or other reasons having to do with cheap young tech workers not being the right fit, or not being perceived as a right fit, etc.

Non-increasing wages is a statistical mirage, not a statement which is a truthful depiction of on-the-ground reality. The overwhelming experience of actual, countable persons is that their wages have increased substantially. The only reason this does not raise the aggregate wage is because too many people have increased from $0 to a number which is, relative to the average, low. (You occasionally see this in larger economy statistics, often as a result of immigration, by the way. "Wages are frozen since the 70s!" is not all that true -- wages are way up for Mexicans who are now Americans, mildly up for Americans who are still Americs, etc.)

Although your argument could be correct, I am unconvinced:

Everyone sees their wages increase substantially, as they gain experience. This does not mean that wages are increasing.

Inflationary effects should be taken into account - wages should at least increase with inflation. Everyone seems satisfied to receive a 5% pay increase, even if that is a freeze in real terms.

If wages were indeed frozen since the 70s, your actual countable people may not notice due to the above two effects. I gather that you understood that, but I thought it worth making clear.

Your argument boils down to the idea that wage figures are biased by the fact there are more new entrants into STEM careers than there were in the past. Do you have evidence for that? I suggest (based on the graduate figures) this may not be the case.

On your point about Mexicans creating low paid work: I would assume that immigrants are now doing jobs that Americans used to do - so it's not that they have created additional low paid work that biases the statistics, it's just that they have taken over a portion of the low paid work. So, I think this should not be taken into account in the stats.

It's unclear whether immigrants are doing jobs that Americans used to do, or whether additional low paid work was created. I lean towards the latter, but I don't know how to prove it.

However, the data does show that when you restrict the data to Americans with American parents, incomes have risen for everyone outside the top quintile.

http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2011/immigrants_simpsons_p...

There are many factors at play, but wages I've seen in the US have remained flat, or even dipped once one factors in inflation. I make less than I did in 1999, in spite of the fact that I've been promoted. Part of this is the use of offshore talent, and H1-B visa workers. I've got people from both camps on my team now.

It might be in your best interests to secure an opportunity to renegotiate the wages you receive, either with the firm you currently work for or any of the numerous ones which would be happy to take your call.

Thanks for the suggestion. In fact, I've already done that, and am aware of what talent can charge for my line of work.

I severely question your conclusion that offshore talent and H1-B visa workers lower your personal salary by a huge amount.

It might be just pretty argument which is very useful for politicians and labor unions (or the like).

Actually the opposite can be argued. If those workers get a lot less, the team's cost as a whole drops, making room for paying you raise. Except for external factors like management just taking the cost savings and put them somewhere else. But then again, these savings could have been taken out of your paycheck ...

People aren't paid based on what their companies can afford to pay them though, they're paid what the market will bear.

I think there are a couple of factors at play. Labor markets especially for highly skilled jobs tend not to be exactly the best examples of "free market" and "perfect competition". There seems to be a lot going on... imperfect information, differentiation, "cartels" on both sides...

Agreed, but wouldn't those factors also affect your scenario in which lower paid workers free up cash to raise salaries? I only meant to argue that the "what the market will bear" model is closer to reality than the scenario your presented, not that it is a perfect fit.

No. This is simply supply and demand. The more workers available for positions, especially ones who are willing to work for less impacts the supply and prices I can charge for my work go down. Management isn't going to give me a raise because they saved a buck on someone else. In fact, they're more likely to try and find a way to get rid of me and replace me with someone who charges less.

On the other hand, as you age, your salary increases and as you compare with 10 years ago, you omit inflation.

Averaging same-age, same-years-of-experience, inflation-adjusted developer salaries across years would make better sense.

Anecdotal evidence, and looking at outliers like Standford grads (not even 15yr vets mind you) should be tossed aside.

Neither represent the overall technology picture. Wages have stagnated, so "Boo, got to take a pay cut" won't happen, but you may not get a raise for 1-2-3 years which in effect is a pay cut.