[stale2001]

What world is this article living in? I got a job making $100k as a software engineer, right out of college (top-tier I guess). And then I realized that I was worth more than that, and 8 months later I'm now switching over to a job making $150k in total compensation. And TBH, I was middle of the road compared to my classmates.

[acchow]

Software engineering is an exception in the science and engineering camp.

FTA: "Because labor markets in science and engineering differ greatly across fields, industries, and time periods, it is easy to cherry-pick specific specialties that really are in short supply, at least in specific years and locations. But generalizing from these cases to the whole of U.S. science and engineering is perilous."

But, surprise surprise, still higher unemployment than the guild-protected professions.

FTA: "unemployment among scientists and engineers is higher than in other professions such as physicians, dentists, lawyers, and registered nurses"

On a related note, a good read about guilds: http://nplusonemag.com/death-by-degrees

[ethikal]

Doesn't the article specifically point out that software engineering isn't encountering a shortage?...

"It is true that high-skilled professional occupations almost always experience unemployment rates far lower than those for the rest of the U.S. workforce, but unemployment among scientists and engineers is higher than in other professions such as physicians, dentists, lawyers, and registered nurses, and surprisingly high unemployment rates prevail for recent graduates even in fields with alleged serious “shortages” such as engineering (7.0 percent), computer science (7.8 percent) and information systems (11.7 percent)."

[ahomescu1]

> FTA: "unemployment among scientists and engineers is higher than in other professions such as physicians, dentists, lawyers, and registered nurses"

Which is counter-intuitive to me, considering how heavily regulated those other professions are (and their numbers restricted).

[austinz]

It actually makes sense, I think. The bottleneck (bar, qualifying exam) keeps the supply artificially low, so those who pass and qualify are always in high demand (low unemployment). Those who don't pass either try again, or after a while go into other fields and no longer consider themselves prospective doctors, lawyers, etc. It's sort of like the effect where, during a prolonged recession, unemployment numbers 'drop' because some people give up actively looking for a job, and are no longer counted.

[ahomescu1]

Sure, I should have specified that I'm also counting people who have the skills and training, but aren't allowed to practice (such as people who failed the medical or bar exam). It makes sense to me to consider those "prospectives" as unemployed in their profession (especially since those professions take years, in some cases as much as a decade, of specialized education, all before the exam itself).

[acchow]

Curious, what do you think the employment rate among physicians is? I'd be surprised if it wasn't 100%. The issue is regulation - employment only takes a hit outside the protected professions.

There are 13,605 taxi medallions in new york city. What do you think the employment rate among taxi drivers in NYC is?

[ahomescu1]

I'm also considering the people who would be in those careers, if not for the heavy regulations. For example, how many people in NYC would be taxi drivers if they could, but aren't allowed to be?

[jonrimmer]

Why do you think all these silicon valley CEOs are throwing their weight behind schemes to get kids and adults learning how to code? It isn't because they really believe there's some social or personal value in being able to program, it's because they want to flood the job market with developers and so crash wages. What's sad is that many programmers are actually buying it, and volunteering their time to help support and evangelize these schemes.

[voidfunc]

You speak the truth but I don't know how to prevent what is going on. I've also come to the conclusion most developers are too shortsighted to see their own career demise in 20 years.

[devbug]

And every time you try to explain this to those who will be affected (software engineers) they argue that the movement is alturistic, or that they can't be replaced even though they're just maintaining a simple CRUD app...

[jkrems]

CEOs who think just throwing more developers at a problem will solve it are what natural selection is for.

[aviraldg]

More developers might not solve a problem faster, but they will drive down wages (even for skilled developers)

[ranci]

There is a lot of crying and worrying about wages on here right now. If you are from CS or SE, you don't have the right to cry about a saturated job market driving down your wages. They are plenty high. If you want people with real problems, look at the graphic design industry. $10/hr can get you your pick of the litter among several applicants who have over 20 years experience in one of the biggest cities in the United States. Then imagine what it must be like for recent college graduates in the field.

[collyw]

Wages are plenty high in the States, or places like London. The rest of us are not on anything special.

[Spooky23]

You're in a hot market in a hot locale. You probably pay an arm and a leg for housing.

I'm in a second tier city with more limited options. I know folks who successfully start CS grads in the $50-60k range, mostly from state schools. Someone with a good track record is anywhere from $80-105. Sounds awful, but a 2000 ft^2 house can be found around $200k in a nice area. McMansions are $400-500k.

I ended up moving back here from NYC, taking a big salary haircut in the process. My overall standard of living got a little better right off the bat, mostly due to reduced housing and commuting expenses.

[31reasons]

What place that be ?

[a8da6b0c91d]

At many levels the national discussions are distorted by failure to understand regional costs of living and taxes and the matter of finding acceptable schools. People talk about the 1% without realizing that two $150K incomes supporting a few kids are at best "comfortable" by the standards of our grandparents in markets like NYC and SF. My grandfathers with skilled tradesman wages were able to support stay at home wives and send six kids down the street to a totally safe and high quality school, and at the same time take a month off every summer on nice quiet rental beach front property (not some hyper crowded vegas style resort bullshit, we're talking single family home on a large lot on a barrier island).

People just don't seem to understand how little money $150K is relative to what a skilled and competent worker could get out of a remotely comparable sum 50 years ago. OK, you make $150K, can your four or five kids walk down the street to a quite good school? Is it essentially optional whether your wife works or not?

[jordanb]

I was reading a biography about a couple who built a boat in LA in the late 60s and set off on a tip around the world in 1969. It took them three years to build the boat and save up some money to fund their trip.

The husband was a carpenter and the wife was a bookkeeper.

They had a boat probably worth $10,000 in 1969 dollars and a further $5,000 in cash saved up. I looked that up in the inflation calculator and found out that $5,000 in 1969 dollars is about $30,000 today.

Can you imagine a carpenter and a bookkeeper building up assets of $90k dollars in LA today through a few years fastidiousness and hard work?

[waterlesscloud]

"two $150K incomes supporting a few kids are at best "comfortable" by the standards of our grandparents"

No. This is a gross exaggeration and extremely out of touch with economic reality.

[mjn]

That was my reaction; I'm not sure how someone could have any historical knowledge and think that. My grandparents were, I think, fairly typical middle-class Americans. They raised 2 kids in a ~1200-sq-ft house in the Los Angeles suburbs, which was considered pretty big. Ate out only on special occasions, maybe 8-9 times a year, never just because they didn't feel like cooking. Did not have "help" to mow their lawns, clean their house, or watch their kids. Bought new devices rarely: it was a big deal to get a TV, and a big deal to get a washing machine. Owned one car, bought used. They sure as hell didn't take extended beach vacations.

I would wager the couple making $300k in SF are not living like that. Hell, I used to live a lifestyle much better than my grandparents did back when I lived in the Bay Area, on a lot less than a six-figure salary. I didn't have kids, but I also didn't even make $50k, and yet I still ate out multiple times per week, not per year.

I know nobody making over $80k in the SF Bay Area who I would not be comfortable calling at least upper-middle-class. The people who think otherwise mostly live in an insane bubble in which they only know people in the top 10% of the income distribution, and have absolutely no idea what a middle-class American lives like.

[a8da6b0c91d]

> I didn't have kids

> sq-ft

Well this sort of thing is the crux of the matter. If you give a shit about restaurants and ipads, well yes now is better. If the idea of having a handful of grandkids appeals to you, well now is worse.

[mjn]

I acknowledged that I didn't have kids, but I also made <$50k. I could've paid for kids, and lived quite well doing so, if I had an extra $250k/yr!

[eli_gottlieb]

There has been a large divergence in purchasing power between consumer goods, permanent assets, and lifestyle/durable goods. Everything that is a mere consumer good or lifestyle good (computers, meals out, washing machines, some cars) has gotten much cheaper. Everything that is at least partially an asset or lifestyle/status good (some cars, almost all real-estate, vacation time, health insurance, possibly a boat) has gotten much more expensive.

The result is a society in which people find it quite easy to obtain what their parents would have called frivolous luxuries (sushi), but quite difficult to obtain what their parents would have called basics (an affordable house in a good neighborhood).

[a8da6b0c91d]

No it's not an exaggeration. Find me a market today where four weeks off and a sub one hour drive to a truly nice rental beachfront single family home is a realistic expectation. Also, the home neighborhood is totally safe and good schools are in walking distance. This is the stuff that really drives the cost of living, not square footage and eggs and ipads per dollar.

[mjn]

Find me a market today where four weeks off and a sub one hour drive to a truly nice rental beachfront single family home is a realistic expectation. Also, the home neighborhood is totally safe and good schools are in walking distance.

How about Silicon Valley? Cupertino is safe and has good schools. And it's <1 hr drive to Santa Cruz or Half Moon Bay if you want beaches. Or you could do the other direction, and live in SC and commute to Cupertino (or wherever). Google even runs shuttles if that's your thing. I lived in Santa Cruz for years on a 5-figure salary, and felt quite comfortably well off. Actually I sort of wish it were further from Silicon Valley, because the only bad thing about living in SC was that the rich techies with 6-figure salaries were driving up prices...

[ericd]

Can you buy a house easily? Take off work and rent a beachfront place in Santa Cruz for a month?

[enewc]

First of all your, viewpoint is restricted to EE/CS. Any of the other pure sciences: biology, chemistry, physics, etc. do not enjoy the same luxuries.

Another important distinction to make is that there are almost no science (i.e. research) jobs any more. Most technology jobs are just run of the mill programming, not actually investing in research.

[unknownian]

And yet everyone wants to equate the two. Personally I don't even think webdev should count as STEM at all.

[hmsimha]

Good for you. I graduated from a college that was not top tier over a year ago, as a below-average student, and have yet to find any kind of development work that pays as much as I made delivering pizza while working my way through college.

Not everyone has the same experience as you. Furthermore, this article is talking about the entire STEM domain.

[ranci]

What major?

[hmsimha]

Computer Science

[ranci]

What are you doing now and where do you live? I'm just curious. I am studying CS right now.

[hmsimha]

I'm living in Portland, OR now, though I'm about to move to Canada. I graduated from a school in Memphis, TN. Right now I'm taking a little break, but for most of the last year I've been reading about different programming languages and frameworks, doing a part-time internship using Ruby on Rails, and basically developing my skill-set to (hopefully) make myself a more desirable candidate for entry-level positions.

If you're reading hacker news, you're already probably doing better on that front than I was during my entire undergrad. I'd highly recommend getting an internship and building a personal project before you graduate too, as I believe my failure to do both of those things (in addition to a sub-3.0 GPA) were the factors that have prevented me from getting a job thus far.

[firstOrder]

You said you went to a top-tier college. Most of them charge over $40k a year. So that $150k pays for less than your tuition costs. You are worth $150k a year (which means your boss is making $160k, $165k etc. off of you, they hire you to be profitable). So your four years of study were in a sense $600k down the drain in that.

So it will be at least five years before you start to break even. Minus the housing and living costs over that five years.

You spent over $150k and four years ($600k) worth of your time training for this job.

Also remember the market is hot. In 2000/2001 air went out of the bubble. Also in 2008/2009. Right now is the peak of a go-go time like 1998/1999 was. It is not the norm.

[duochrome]

I think top-tier college graduate is the shortage.