[peanut_merchant]

We have a similar problem in Scotland, I know a lot of people would love to have continued living in Scotland but can make >2 times the salary as a developer by making the move down to London. The cost of living in London is higher, but the increase in pay more than makes up for this. Granted, this is a move within the UK so it's not really a drain on the UK's economy but it leads to a more London-centric economy and, with an increasingly devolved Scottish parliament, is not good for Scotland.

[mikekchar]

What's really crazy is that salaries in London aren't that high (unless you are in the financial sector). I am constantly astonished by the low salaries (for qualified programmers) offered in most parts of Britain. I suspect that you could actually get away with building a consulting firm in the country side and getting companies to offshore work from the US.

[zeemonkee3]

In the UK you get ahead by going into management. Tech (or sales, or accounting, or whatever) is just a short term thing you do for a few years until you get promoted into management. We don't like to reward people for being clever; we like to reward people who tell others what to do.

[bpyne]

It's really difficult to generalize the situation in the US due to the size and diversity, in terms of industry and business scales, of the country. In general, I would say that you hit a ceiling in career development within 10 years on a technical track. (Of course, there are exceptions in industry sectors and a small number of geographic locations. But, I'm looking at the aggregate.)

However, management is no panacea. The pay is higher, but you can easily be stuck in mid-level management limbo with no say on budget or technical direction. Of course, you are "empowered" (read the remainder of the sentence with an abundance of sarcasm) to do reviews, deal with resource allocation issues for projects, operations, support work, and not to mention the coveted verification that your team does mandatory training on sexual harassment and the like. My manager is a prime example. He sits in many meetings. Ostensibly, he has a voice at the table with the "big wigs". In reality, he controls nothing and has the boring administrivia to handle. Mid-level management is also the first layer to be cut in a down-sizing.

If you stay on the technical track past 10 years, it really has to be because you love the ability to create something and see it used. I've been on the technical side for 25 years. Much of my job I find boring and intellectually vacuous. But, the times when I can actually create something still thrill me like the first time I wrote a program and saw it run.

[branchless]

Also IMHO management is risky because you become specialised to your companies systems.

One downsizing later you find yourself with 10 years of experience in working around limitations in the stationary ordering system at NowBustCompany. Welcome to the scrap heap.

By contrast in IT you can stay fresh more easily and be in demand should you need to move on.

[taurath]

The same thing can certainly happen in IT. How many IBM folks specializing in lotus notes are being laid off as we speak? Its one of the bigger problems working at BigCo's - you can end up only knowing internal people and internal systems. The only place you can conceivably jump to is companies nearby founded by other ex-BigCo people (in many cases nowadays, the primary competitors are overseas - capital has free trade to move freely but humans do not).

If you don't maintain some semblance of connection with the outside world you can get stuck. The scariest thing in the world to me is a job that is only internal facing.

[branchless]

Agreed. I think this is easier to do in middle management but agree with your general fear!

[JPKab]

I noticed this phenomenon myself. I work in retail data analytics, and deal a lot with both American and British customers, as well as technology companies.

It is mind-blowing to me how huge a disparity there is between the British and US mindsets on technology talent in an identical industry. The American companies, even the more old-fashioned ones, are (or are starting to) treating technical talent the way a sports team treats it's players. The British companies are way, way more 90's style: the techies need to stay in the closet and let the big-boy managers do all the talking. The pay, of course, reflects this. I'm sure there are numerous exceptions in both directions, but within my industry it is pervasively accurate.

[mattlutze]

It works similarly in Germany and other economies with strong social support systems as well, it seems. You're doing really well to break 65,000ish Eur as a developer, but get on the management track and the sky opens up.

[zeemonkee3]

Why would "strong social support systems" be connected to this?

[JPKab]

I have a suspicion how this works:

As an American, when I was early in my career, and had a baby and wife to support, being underpaid was super painful. Medical care, for instance, was expensive. Being able to be easily and quickly fired without a typical European justification process is another factor. You can find yourself unemployed at any time, with any justification.

It all lit a fire under me to demand better pay. In fact, I got very used to doing so, and also got very comfortable with the idea of doing whatever it took to turn myself into a sought-after commodity, with a goal of being able to find a new job as fast as possible "just in case" things went south quickly. I quickly learned to recognize companies where technologists are treated as a cost center. These companies, if they are indeed technology focused businesses, are going to inevitably have terrible products, mediocre employees due to the dead-sea effect, and awful work environments.

I wonder if a strong social support system would have never incentivized me to get comfortable negotiating, to invest in myself as a valuable piece of human capital in a very cutthroat, competitive market. Who knows?

[J-dawg]

I think you're overestimating European social support systems a bit.

Here in the UK, you can be fired quite easily until you've been in a job for 2 years.

After that, you can still be made redundant. IBM are currently laying off a lot of people and only paying them the legal minimum settlement (1 week's pay for every year worked).

Our unemployment benefits are very low. Most professional people wouldn't even bother claiming them when between jobs, the hassle involved is huge.

It's nice to know the NHS is there and I'm not going to go bankrupt if I get cancer, but it's massively overstretched and under-resourced. I'm happier knowing I have private health insurance.

So I still feel pretty damn incentivised to look out for myself, even in this socialist utopia.

[kspaans]

Generally speaking, you don't need to be paid as much if you don't have to pay for your own healthcare, pension, schooling for kids, etc. I believe that's what the parent is alluding to.

[simonbarker87]

£35,000 salary in the UK has the same buying power (for want of a better expression as a $60,000 US salary. Adjust for "because London" and you're looking at £45/55K (not hard in London) equating to $75K - $100K.

Thinking about it, I know a dozen or so people in the "poor deprived" north east of England earning over £40K who are under 30 years old so we're not all badly paid.

[buserror]

Well 45/55k is /cheap/ for a senior dev. Unless you work for a bank/inner london (or google) all you can hope for is perhaps 65k, at the top... So yeah, if you want more, the only way is to sell off and 'manage', or go off contracting. There's many junior 'managers' who can barely lace their own shoes who get quite a bit more than 65k.

[tomp]

The difference is that Brits feel poor when they come to the US, whereas Americans feel rich when they come to the UK.

Sure, PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) comparisions are important (e.g. it's easier to live in Thailand with $1000 per months than in NYC), but absolute values matter as well.

[totalrobe]

Very wrong. American here, was in the UK last summer and it physically hurt me to buy anything.

UK and American prices are around the same number but in pounds which meant ~1.6x USD at the time.

[kspaans]

That's probably the 20% VAT that's included in the price. If you are coming from a state with no sales tax, this could explain your surprise. Hell, coming from Canada where I was paying 13% sales tax (never included in the sticker price), I found UK prices shocking.

[raverbashing]

> The difference is that Brits feel poor when they come to the US, whereas Americans feel rich when they come to the UK.

Are you sure about that? For a start, converting USD to GBP will make their money go not as further

Might be just general British negativity, they probably feel miserable at Disneyland.

[toyg]

I live in one of the most "miserabilist" parts of the UK (where Morrissey grew up, just to mention one celeb), and everyone goes crazy for Disneyland. We don't have direct flights to SF but we get dailies to Vegas and Florida. 'nuff said.

[tomp]

> Are you sure about that?

No. I was just going off what parent said. I've seen way too little UK (mainly only London) and US (mainly only NYC) to judge myself.

[avar]

Sure they matter, but only to the extent that foreign expenditures are a part of your costs.

I.e. sure when you go to the US and have to buy USD with GBP you'l be at a disadvantage, or when you buy some electronics priced in USD, but how big a portion of your spending is that compared to food/rent/commuting/hobbies etc., all of which are priced in your local currency.

[simonbarker87]

Wrong way round, when I go to the US I generally don't bother looking at the price of things as it's all so cheap. Even if the exchange rate was 1:1 it would be cheap (decent clothes are amazingly cheap, petrol/diesel is laughably cheap and eating out is great) but with the exchange rate being the way it is it's even better. The was a time before the crash when the exchange rate was $2 to the £, so long as you could afford the flights over you could have the best holidays in the US.

This is only true when being a tourist though as you are thinking in your native currency and basing purchasing decisions in that frame of reference, when you actually live and work in the respective country then (ie if you move to another country) then that stops being an issue as you are earning in the new currency.

[pwm]

I'm not familiar with how things in the US are, but in the UK and specifically in London a lot of senior tech people do contract work which pays considerably more than permanent positions.

[kspaans]

Contracting rates != salaried rates. You have to charge more because you don't get any benefits (vacation, sick leave, pension), and have little job security.

[pwm]

Re job security - In reality as long as you produce value it is just as secure as a perm job. Also, psychologically I think it is more "secure", ie. there are no surprises. Companies hire you for a reasonably well defined task and term, hence you are fully aware how much you will earn during this period as well as when you will have to find your next gig.

[branchless]

This is changing. The other week every LN contractor at my company was told they are getting a pay cut.

Contractors have also been first to be let go. The last 10 years, yes. The next 10, not so sure.

[pwm]

What is LN?

What I've said above is of course anecdotal based on my circle's and my own experience, but when looking I was never without a new contract longer than a couple of weeks in the last 7 years. The next 10 years... I don't know, however another advantage being a contractor in my opinion is that you have more opportunity to be exposed to and learn new stuff, which helps staying current.

[cmdkeen]

Odd - I'm ~6 years out of a Scottish university with a CS degree. Everyone of my class who stayed in Scotland owns their own property and has a much higher disposable income than those in London. They're in Edinburgh mind you, why anyone would choose to live in Glasgow is beyond me...

Edinburgh recently topped the stakes for average disposable income in the UK - £800 per month compared to £300 in London.

[dvdcxn]

>why anyone would choose to live in Glasgow is beyond me

Glasgow is a really fun city though. I'm staying here cause I like it, I don't really care that I could earn more living in that other city.

[nerfhammer]

What's wrong with Glasgow? Just curious

[fiftyacorn]

Londons great when you are young, but in my experience people eventually leave when they realise they cant afford property even though they are well paid. Plus they realise quality of life is important too, and that the work centric culture in London isnt for them

[peanut_merchant]

I'm coming to that realisation pretty quickly

[pwm]

I'm in the camp who moved out to the green belt but commute to the city. Best move ever :)

[pjc50]

The cost of living in London is higher, but the increase in pay more than makes up for this

Are you sure? I made the opposite move for reduced cost of housing (and commuting).

[peanut_merchant]

This definitely depends on the specific job, but in general there are more opportunities for high paying positions and a higher salary ceiling. It also depends on where you want to live within London and the kinds of activities you want to take part in. For me, I've found I have way more disposable income since the move to London as I had a huge salary increase from my previous job in Edinburgh. Although I have much, much less free time and would say I'm generally more unhappy

[branchless]

London banks can pay more because whilst other companies have to make products banks make fiat money. This acts as a tax on the rest of the uk.