The consensus so far seems to be "no, not for good developers, but it's affected everything else." Does that imply that good developers were accepting pay too low before?
Or is it just the way people are measuring? A good programmer should get better over time, so their work should be more valuable each year. Taking a new job is often similar to a salary renegotiation, so do the people reporting the same pay imply that either they're not a good developer (because they didn't get better), or that the economy has in fact affected the going rate of good programmers?
good developers were accepting pay too low before?
Yes, or rather: good programmers aren't always going for top dollar, but for interesting work. That prior behavior gives them two kinds of insulation from downward salary pressures:
- at an established job, they are already recognized as especially valuable, so less likely to be affected by compensation or job cuts
- if seeking new employment, they can marginally maintain income by sacrificing interestingness, if desired
On the other hand, a mercenary whose only criteria for accepting work was that it pays top dollar is especially vulnerable to economic pressure. Because of the winner's curse in auction processes, such mercenaries are likely to have been overpaid even before a downturn (and the companies overpaying them, likely to have been bubble creatures).
Or is it just the way people are measuring? A good programmer should get better over time, so their work should be more valuable each year. Taking a new job is often similar to a salary renegotiation, so do the people reporting the same pay imply that either they're not a good developer (because they didn't get better), or that the economy has in fact affected the going rate of good programmers?