
Why You Make Less Money - fecak
http://jobtipsforgeeks.com/2013/03/29/less/
======
mnicole
An issue we've talked about here before that I've experienced myself is that
recruiters often don't understand that titles in this industry are often
meaningless and don't know enough about the lingo and the languages to
competently place someone somewhere where they should be making the money they
deserve based on their skillset.

I met with a local recruiter that claimed to be the best at what it did --
working with technical people -- and they couldn't parse my résumé except to
say that they didn't see anything that said "senior" and therefore they
couldn't help me. Given the fact that the types of jobs they were bragging
about placing for was icanhascheezburger and other equally worthless entities,
I'm fine with the fact that _they_ don't get it, but experiences like that
could be damaging to someone that doesn't understand their worth to begin with
and would be willing to settle for less because people paid to help them don't
actually understand what they can do.

~~~
AlexDanger
Oh god yes.

You want to know the best job in the IT world?

 _Solution Architect_

Enterprise Architect also works. Those two magical words can mean any of the
following (I've seen them all):

1.) Network infrastructure design. Varies between handing over a Visio diagram
to Cisco sales team vs detailed component level design .

2.) Server hardware guy who decides server/nas/vm requirements for the
company. Deals with hardware vendors.

3.) Some combination of 1 and 2, but does 90% vendor management.

4.) Software engineer who does integration.

5.) Another visio guy, but this time highish level application workflow
design. No programming. More like technical business analyst.

6.) Like the above, but presales focus and client facing. Gets a commision.
Like this: <http://bit.ly/YlsaWu>

7.) Lead software engineer with 20+ years experience designing $10M+ software
for use in critical real time distributed applications. Delegates coding jobs
to different teams. Defines APIs. Defines design patterns. Does coding
reviews. Understands entire code base. Excellent knowledge of concurrency and
parallelisation design considerations.

To put it mildly, there is some ambiguity in the title. But what makes this
'solution architect' so special is recruiters consider it a very senior
position that is remunerated accordingly. And here is the kicker that
illustrates how poorly some recruiters understand IT roles:

 _Sometimes its not clear if a solution architect role is a software or
hardware job. So long as you've got experience as a solution architect you'll
tick the recruiters box and your resume will make the short list_.

Think about that for a second. Dont believe me?

[http://www.seek.com.au/Job/solution-architect-finance-
perman...](http://www.seek.com.au/Job/solution-architect-finance-
permanent/in/brisbane-brisbane/24262600)

So to all IT people out there, I'd suggest if you ever find your job role
shifting towards work requiring Visio, try and get a title change to the
coveted Solution Architect or Enterprise Architect. It shouldnt be a problem
unless you have a very senior person with the same title. Dont demand a pay
rise. You'll be well compensated the next time you look for a job.

\- Alex, Aspiring Solution Architect

~~~
fecak
'Solution Architect' is one title that should actually scare more recruiters
than it attracts, but that isn't always the case. I would discourage any
client from using solution architect, enterprise architect, or anything
architect as job titles. The architect title means well, but the implications
seem to be mostly negative today.

------
jhartmann
One thing that is not mentioned is stressing exactly how valuable your skills
have been to previous employers. Stating exactly how you saved X amount of
money or added X amount of new revenue is a really powerful reason that some
get paid more then others. patio11 has a really great post about this:
[http://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/10/28/dont-call-yourself-a-
pro...](http://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/10/28/dont-call-yourself-a-programmer/)

Remember businesses are about making money. The way to get paid more is to
demonstrate you can make them more money.

~~~
nandemo
It's not nearly as simple as that. That might work for a freelancer, but it's
not so easy if you're getting a regular job. Even if you could prove you
saved/added $X in your last job (how?), most companies will not pay much above
what they're paying employees in a similar position.

~~~
icelancer
>most companies will not pay much above what they're paying employees in a
similar position.

And most companies are not worth working at. If you are in a position to
negotiate in such a manner as described by the parent post, you aren't hurting
for work.

------
sps_jp
I recently updated my resume on linkedin and dice and I am shocked by the
response. I haven't actively searched for a new job for about 10 years so I
didn't really know what to expect both in terms of available positions in my
geographical area, Tampa, FL, and salary. In the last 3 weeks I've received
5-10 phone calls and/or emails per day from recruiters with salaries that are
all over the board, but higher than my current salary. I have several years of
.NET experience, but switched to ROR about a year and a half ago. 90% of the
available positions I am contacted about are for .NET, which I don't really
want to go back to. However, this makes me wonder if the wise career move
would be to go back to .NET and just keep ROR as my side project language. Any
advice for someone not living in a start-up or technology hub?

~~~
pekk
With that .NET experience, outside a startup hub to drive a lot of Rails
demand, it seems like you will earn more with .NET than with Rails, doesn't
it?

~~~
danielweber
I've asked before: has anyone compiled a list of how various skillsets get
paid in our world?

If I could get a job doing X or Y, and be happy at either, but X is $20,000
more than Y, I'd love to know that so I can work on those opportunities more.

~~~
mason240
I am in my first year of web dev after college. I started out doing PHP stuff
when I was in school, and now I work using ASP.NET MVC4.

I can't help but wonder if I am sabotaging myself by spending time on ASP
instead of PHP, and would love some hard numbers to help me make a more
informed decision.

~~~
dpritchett
.NET MVC is a great first step on the corporate dev path. You'll mostly work
in cost center departments (see article). It'll pay pretty well for a day job,
but you'll have limited market leverage as a cost center. You'll have to go
where the .NET jobs are, and that's mostly big companies that treat IT as a
necessary evil.

PHP is a great first step on the indie dev path. You'll work in smaller shops,
pay can fluctuate wildly, but at least you'll be a profit center. It takes a
bit more hustle to manage your career but you'll be better positioned to hang
out your own shingle later if you're interested in doing so.

A few years of enterprise work can be a fine starting point for transition
into more indie dev, but you'll have to be honest with yourself about the
trajectory you're on from one year to the next.

~~~
euroclydon
Entry level .NET (web) jobs may well be in IT departments, in a so called cost
center, but I've have four web development jobs, all using .NET, and all of
them have been for product companies, working on the core product, which was
either sold on a SAAS model or DVD.

------
chrisbennet
"As a recruiter I typically handle salary discussions for my candidates, and I
know that for most engineers that particular service is considered most
valuable. "

When I've worked with recruiters I appreciated the fact that they would
negotiate on my behalf. That said, don't forget that when it comes to salary,
a recruiter's interest and yours are not really aligned. They don't care about
how high a salary they get for you as long as they you get hired.

~~~
yellow
Same logic with Real Estate agents. My friend's agent tried to get him to sell
his house with every low-ball offer that came in...

~~~
the_watcher
Only a bad real estate agent would do this. Their commission is percentage
based, so a good agent will try to get you the most possible for your home.
Also, it's unconventional, by try an agent who is open to dual-agent sales
(represents both the buyer and seller). Their interest in that case is to get
the most fair deal to each party.

~~~
potatolicious
> _"Their commission is percentage based, so a good agent will try to get you
> the most possible for your home."_

That discounts the value of time. If it takes, say, 40 hours of work to sell
your home for $300K, and another 40 hours of negotiations to bump that to
$400K, it is not in the realtor's interest to pursue the $100K - he/she can
simply pursue _another_ $300K sale in the same time.

A commission based structure tends to have weird cliffs like this subject to
the details of the field.

~~~
btian
+1. Freakonomics a chapter on this topic.

------
dmourati
This article misses several key points that help explain why a "geek" might
make less than his/her peers:

1\. Failure to research the industry. This is the main reason people are
underpaid. Sure, talking to friends is great but go broader than that.
Glassdoor.com provides anonymized salary information on a per-company basis.
Job sites like indeed.com contain salary ranges. LinkedIn can also be
consulted. Finally, the stalwart salary.com provides a bell cure of salary for
a specific title.

2\. No B.A.T.N.A.[a] Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement. Leverage. Fall
back position. Multiple irons in the fire. Call it what you will. Having a
good "plan B" gives you the upper hand. Even if the recruiter is negotiating
for you, you need to negotiate with the recruiter.

a. [http://www.pon.harvard.edu/freemium/batna-basics-boost-
your-...](http://www.pon.harvard.edu/freemium/batna-basics-boost-your-power-
at-the-bargaining-table/)

~~~
fecak
I thought my mention of the bullet point 'Market knowledge' addressed that,
but I didn't mention research specifically. Most geeks should have that
instinct to seek more data, regardless of what kind of data they get from
friends.

I never have seen BATNA before, interesting. I'd lump that in with
negotiation. If you have multiple irons in the fire, that should be part of
your negotiation tactic. If you know what you are worth and you have value
above what you are being paid, you should make that clear and negotiate based
on those facts.

A recruiter negotiating on your behalf mainly serves as a buffer - to prevent
either side from souring a deal that should happen. If my client tells me they
are going to offer 80K as a first pass to someone making 100K, I'll encourage
them to make a better offer for fear of ruining their chances to present a
higher offer later. If a candidate tells me to ask for 150K even though they
will accept 100K, I'll educate the candidate that this tactic may prevent an
offer from ever being made.

------
tmoertel
The actual reason you make less money is that you were offered less money and
said yes. So why did you say yes? Pondering that question will reveal a lot
about yourself and what you value, and it will also suggest what you should do
if you're not happy with your current situation.

~~~
nilkn
You're missing half of the equation.

> So why did you say yes?

The other question, which is just as important, if not more so, is this: Why
were you offered less?

~~~
tmoertel
Isn't the answer to that question always going to be that you were offered
what you were offered because that was the least amount they thought you might
accept?

That is, _nobody pays you what you're worth to them._ If they did, their
profit from hiring you would be zero. Therefore, they pay you the least amount
they can get you to accept.

~~~
nilkn
> Isn't the answer to that question always going to be that you were offered
> what you were offered because that was the least amount they thought you
> might accept?

That would be an answer, albeit a very vacuous one.

From a game-theoretic perspective, you want the most they are willing to pay
and they want the least you are willing to accept. But those two values
delineate a range, sometimes a pretty big one, and what's really interesting
here is where the final number falls in that range.

In real life, the game of negotiation does not have perfect information, which
means you can fool the opposing party as to what the endpoints of that range
are. That's the main way of pushing the final landing point closer to where
you want it.

So there's a lot more to questions like this than these vacuous answers. It's
a psychological game, and if their offer was actually the minimum you were
willing to accept, you have to ask what else you could have done, either now
or in the past, to set yourself up in a position where you could have
"tricked" them into paying more than you were willing to accept.

~~~
fecak
I coach clients to pay not just what it will take to hire talent, but also
what it will take to retain talent. This is a key difference particularly when
talking about hiring unemployed candidates that may be inclined to accept less
than market rate, or when considering candidates that are obviously underpaid
by a significant amount. Market rate isn't an exact science but knowing what
competitors offer candidates (generally speaking) is useful information that
recruiters could potentially provide.

------
redmattred
Great article. Stepping back, I love the approach Dave is taking as a
recruiter where he is sharing real career advice that technologists can
benefit from without any hard pitches.

Great recruiters are few and far between, but the best ones out there can add
a huge amount of expertise and value to your job hunt.

~~~
fecak
Dad? :) Thanks for the kind words. It can be depressing to be in an industry
that is so hated, and I'm generally trying to give candidates actionable
advice and insight into conversations that many are simply not privy to. I use
the word transparency a ton when discussing recruiting - secrecy seems to be
one way recruiters try to make money, but transparency and sharing ideas is
another way to really differentiate yourself in the recruiting business.
Thanks!

~~~
suyash
#recruiterSPAM

------
just2n
The taboo about discussing let alone being open about salary information has
no impact here?

I believe most people are reasonable. If I see that the people I work with
make more or less than me, a decision was made by someone. If that decision is
reasonable, the difference is reasonable. I wouldn't be upset, but I would
then know what I could do to improve my value, which would make me a better
employee.

On the other hand, if employees remain clueless about the compensation of
others in their company, they don't know when they could be worth more, and
won't be motivated to make it happen. Perhaps companies like this, but they
shouldn't, because it removes a very key motivator from your employees. Saving
$20k on a few employees isn't worth much if those employees could earn that
$20k by providing more of what you want (especially if that nets you
significantly more in business value than the difference in their salary).

This is why I don't understand keeping salaries private. Sure, some people are
being severely under or over paid, and they'd have to regress closer to the
norm or risk upsetting happiness levels of others, but I don't see any serious
issues with this.

~~~
spitfire
If you try to regress people closer to the norm you're going to lose those
star performers - the ones who have outsized, convex effects on the company.

A fictional example. If you squeeze everyone into a narrow band, you'll loose
your patio11 star A/B tester. and with him, millions of dollars of easy
profit.

~~~
just2n
But then he's clearly doing something to warrant the discrepancy in pay.
That's what I'm saying.

If I see he makes $250,000 and I make $150,000, and I ask "why?" and get an
answer along the lines of "he provides us with x, y, and z, and those are
extremely valuable to the business." Now that's fine, and I am empowered to be
treated as a business partner. I can improve myself and provide something more
valuable to the company to warrant better compensation with an understanding
of what I can look to receive by providing more business value.

But if I have no clue, why would I want to engage with my company on that
level? It doesn't even feel appropriate to make such an approach with this
nonsensical taboo.

The point isn't to regress people that earn their difference in pay, the point
is to regress people who don't earn their difference. An ancillary benefit is
to provide everyone with a better understanding of their value and what value
they provide the company, which makes it easier for people to grow
professionally.

------
auctiontheory
"Long tenure at big companies" can result in higher _or_ lower compensation
than the market.

~~~
fecak
Agreed. My theory on this one was based on some large companies in my area
that had engineers with 20+ years of experience making 150K, that were
horrified to learn that they were worth only 100K based on their skills. They
became 'valuable' to their own company, but didn't have that value to anyone
else due to specific skills that didn't necessarily transfer (think
proprietary langs and frameworks).

Long tenures can work both ways.

------
davidvaughan
I think the chief reason why some people make more than others is because they
want more.

The reasons given in this article are interesting but they strike me as rather
technical embellishments to the fundamental variable: the desire for money.

I make no moral judgement about that desire; I simply recognise that some
people have it more than others.

~~~
fecak
You could potentially distill all of these reasons to desire. Someone desired
more money, so they decided to go into consulting and learned a rare skill
while negotiating better and speaking at conferences and so on. No argument
here.

------
amykhar
They forgot one. Gender.

~~~
fecak
Yes. I probably could have mentioned race/ethnicity, age, and even citizenship
status as well.

~~~
aridiculous
Don't forget conventional attractiveness

~~~
s_baby
Don't forget Marital Status + Gender. Big indicator, statistically.

~~~
reinhardt
Marital status? Meaning there's a bias towards singles or the other way
around?

~~~
s_baby
Single women make more than their male counterpart. Married men make more than
their female counterpart. Several reasons for why this might be true including
married men are more likely to work overtime while married women are more
likely to work parttime. A married man is committed to his job in the same
sense that he is committed to his family since he is more likely to play the
provider role. He is a dependable presence in a company.

------
ritchiea
He left out communication skills and ability to get along well with your co-
workers.

~~~
fecak
Yes he did. I lumped those in my mind with 'similarly skilled', thinking of
both hard and soft skills. But I certainly could have parsed that out.

------
jiggy2011
No mention of price-pressure from outsourcing?

~~~
potatolicious
That wouldn't really make sense. The hypothetical engineer of questionable
skill is just as susceptible to outsourcing pressures as you are.

If said engineer is able to compensate for that outsourcing pressure and you
cannot, it is better explained by the points made in the article - negotiation
savvy, domain knowledge, externalities like goodwill, etc.

~~~
jiggy2011
Yes, that's true. I skipped the opening paragraph and interpreted it as "why
don't programmers as a whole get paid more".

------
ninjakeyboard
pretty good article. I've seen some strange things with money and disparity.
The one thing that I've always found, though, (common to urban myth) is that
effort is reciprocated with more money - I find people have always looked out
for me from the higher layers even when everyone around me who worked half as
hard complained about no raises. At that time I was a little underpaid
relative to my peers. So good resources will get the money balanced out over
time if they are really truly good imho. Good will aside - that's a separate
issue of course.

~~~
rhizome
Lucky you, but the rest is a hasty generalization.

------
michaelochurch
We're smack in the middle of an uncanny valley between two economic periods.
The industrial era gave everyone a mediocre income through repetitive work.
The technological era brings much more income volatility and (when it reaches
maturity, probably late in this century) will inevitably require a Basic
Income. It's about concavity versus convexity:
[http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/gervais-
macle...](http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/gervais-
macleod-9-convexity/)

Concave work is that where the difference between top-notch stuff and
mediocrity is small-- maybe 1.2x or 1.5x. Convex work means that excellence is
so far superior over mediocrity (10x, maybe more) that mediocre work has
almost no value.

What we do is convex because we automate all the concave processes. If the
work can be commoditized, a good programmer will automate it away. That leaves
the hard, creative stuff. So we have a convex input-output profile. That's
part of the fun-- you can add 20% more value by being just a little better--
but it's also pretty terrifying to realize how close we are to a "natural"
celebrity economy where a few stars are extremely well-paid and most get
nothing.

We, however, have a few things that play differently. First, no one except a
superior programmer (who become rare as one moves along) can evaluate us. Most
CEOs are not only in the dark themselves, but unable to evaluate a CTO, who's
unable to evaluate VP/Eng, who's unable to evaluate programmers. It's a
classic Design Paradox. I think it's pretty random whether a non-technical CEO
gets a decent CTO. Second, even _we_ are in the dark about what makes a great
programmer. Is it talent, or experience? Obviously, it's a mix of both... but
the rarity of great programmers suggests that either few have the talent, or
quality work experience is thin on the ground. We're unlike most people in the
corporate world in that we deeply want to get better at our jobs (independent
of being more rewarded) and yet the path to that is _very_ opaque. How do you
become a great programmer? Get great projects. How does one do that? It's not
easy.

The complete opacity of programmer skill and development helps and hurts us.
No one knows what we're worth. We don't even know.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
Oh, I don't know how hard it is to get better. All you have to do is point
yourself at challenges that are harder than what you've previously done, and
then do them. Sure, that's a local optimization process that _will_ be prone
to reaching local maxima, but you can always broaden your view to find a
larger challenge.

~~~
dpritchett
Most of us spend more time on our day job and its dev problems than we do on
extracurricular learning. Finding a job (or academic post) that is set up to
help you push yourself consistently is the trick.

Most dev jobs don't inherently scale difficulty up to match your constant
skill growth. "Good" work (at least the metered, someone-else-is-paying-for-it
kind) is subject to a lot of competition.

