[army]

You are wrong about the Dunning-Kruger effect - there is not a negative correlation between perceived and actual ability, just a weaker positive correlation than you might expect. There's plenty of debate about the causes of the effect in the original Dunning-Kruger paper. Moreover, if you look at the actual paper (rather than exaggerated retellings of it), you will see that perceived ability is actually positively correlated with actual ability: most people tend to think that they're above-average - the bottom quartile tends to think that they're in to 50th to 60th percentiles, while more able people tend to think they're in the 70th to 80th percentiles.

See Figure 1 at: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/77/6/1121.html

Also, $100,000-200,000 a year is the range you'd make at those companies and have more job security and income consistency, so I'm not sure what your point is.

[jnbiche]

I regret my initial phrasing about Dunning-Kruger, which was incorrect as you have pointed out (and as I conceded below some 3 hours before you wrote your rebuttal).

Also, my point is that if I'm making $100-$200,000 and am happy with my situation, particularly when I live in a lower cost area than the Bay Area, then I am much less likely to put myself through the pain of one of these interview processes. Unlike lots of workers, software devs actually have a choice.