1-3). Citation needed. Especially for Google salaries. I personally know a number of Google engineers, one of whom has been in software since 1994, and they've told me what they make.
3a) - 3b). True, but I was comparing the top bankers/consultants to the top programmers. Remember that Google is the very top, #1 software company to work for - it's only fair to compare Google engineers to, say, mid-level bankers at Goldman Sachs. If you want to compare average people, you'd have to look at, say, programmers at Wells Fargo or something.
4). That's essentially luck. If it isn't luck, please explain why the median VC loses money. Either a). average programmers must be better at picking winners than average VCs, who (if not as smart) have decades of experience and spend hundreds of hours on it rather than ten minutes deciding between job offers, or b). an average programmer shouldn't exercise their startup stock options, because they'll expect to lose money on net.
5). Definitely true, and it's why I'm a programmer myself. But it doesn't address my points.
Firstly, if you disagree, that's fine. But saying my arguments are "entitled whining" isn't disagreement, it's name calling. DH0, to use Paul Graham's phrase.
Secondly, some of my arguments might be wrong, but I provide numbers and evidence to back them up.
"Likewise, programmers who define their goals economically (which broadly includes creating value for users) have nearly unparalleled earning potential."
Evidence? If you're talking about startups, I already covered that. Read the post.
"and incidentally, American programmers are paid better than in almost any other country."
This is sophistry. American Xs are paid better than non-American Xs because America has a high GDP per capita, pretty much regardless of X.
"First, computer programmers are certainly among the most respected trades."
Citation? And, adjusted for IQ, skill, hours worked, degrees earned, and so on?
"If it's not, enjoy the fact that you're in a trade where even untrained, mediocre practitioners reach the top 10% of American incomes."
But saying my arguments are "entitled whining" isn't disagreement, it's name calling.
Actually it's not. Name calling would be if I called you an entitled whiner. There's a difference between attacking your argument and attacking you. (And if we're sticking to the taxonomy, that part of my comment would be DH2, "responding to tone".)
Evidence?
That was the crux of my post. Programmers do get filthy rich (usually via starting tech companies). You're right that at that point they're not programming, but that's because programming in isolation has limited economic value. Using the skills one acquires as a programmer and aiming them at value creation has created a large chunk of America's billionaires. And while that phenomenon is not unique to programming in the least -- in fact, it holds across almost any skilled trade (i.e. soft-skills begin to dominate hard-skills) -- the upper bound is demonstrably higher for programming (as evidenced by the list of richest Americans) than it is for almost any field.
American Xs are paid better than non-American Xs because America has a high GDP per capita
No, I meant relative to GDP per capita. I live in Germany where programmer salaries are about 50% above the GDP per capita, whereas in the US it's about 75%. From what I've gathered, in the UK, it's closer to 25%.
Citation?
It's nigh on impossible to measure "respect" in some sort of meaningful way, but here's a list from a couple seconds of Googling on the "Best Jobs in America":
1: Software Architect
7: Database Administrator
18: Software Engineering / Development Director
20: Information Technology Manager
21: Telecommunications Network Engineer
24: Network Operations Project Manager
26: Information Technology Business Analyst
30: Test Software Development Engineer
31: Information Technology Network Engineer
33: Information Technology Program Manager
38: Applications Engineer
Your citation for the average programmer salary is from 2005. Salaries have gone up significantly since then. Even just adjusting for inflation (and ignoring the recent IT boom) puts it above the 10% ($82,500) bar. I have no idea what percentage of programmers hold computer science degrees, but it's certainly not "all" and I wouldn't be surprised if it's not "most".
One of the things that's somewhat endemic to your case is shifting back and forth between comparing the median with the top tier. Average doctors, bankers and lawyers aren't making the salaries you suggested. Median programmers aren't particularly impressive.
Let's split it out:
Elite programmers do things like start software companies, work at corporate research labs, work in financial engineering or work on high-profile open source projects. Those folks command respect and have high earning potential. (Though interestingly, among the elite of these groups, programmers probably have the lowest percentage of completed formal training.)
Elite investment bankers are measured heavily on their returns and a large portion of their compensation is bonuses. Elite lawyers are measured on their returns (wins) and compensated to a significant extent relative to their non-legal social skills (i.e. their network).
Median programmers write intellectually trivial code that solves uninteresting problems. Training is optional and there are virtually no systematic hurdles to cross to enter the trade. They still make relatively high salaries relative to societal norms.
Median lawyers work on intellectually trivial cases. Formal training and certification is required and compensation is relatively high, but nothing that will generate notable wealth. Median investment bankers (my father would have been in said category) mostly convince a handful of clients they've been given by their organization to invest in a 90% cookie cutter portfolio and are compensated reasonably well -- varying largely on their ability to source their own clients. (But first year run of the mill stock brokers probably make less than first year run of the mill programmers.) Formal training is theoretically optional (though there's a de facto requirement of a degree in something) and formal certification is required. Again, no notable wealth is generated in this category.
At the low end, the gap isn't particularly wide between these groups. At the high end, folks from finance and programming backgrounds comprise a disproportionately large percentage of the economic ultra-elite and lawyers of the political ultra-elite. It still bewilders me that given that demonstrable fact, that you'd brand our profession as not getting any respect.
Let's be honest here. It's hard to define respect, but an overwhelming majority of parents would rather have their daughter marry a lawyer or a doctor, than a programmer. That right there gives you a strong indicator of society's take on the issue. I'm not arguing that programmers get no respect (they do pretty well among non-prestigious trades). I'm arguing that programmers are not perceived as belonging to the same professional elite that lawyers and doctors belong to.
Well, if you want potential mothers-in-law to gaze lovingly, consider that they have interacted with physicians and attorneys and know what their value is, as has our society for centuries. Stand up straight, offer eye contact and a warm smile, and if you're every bit as smart and dedicated as the average finance dude, what is left to prove? Be confident that you can quickly educate anyone on the nobility of your professional choice. Any doc or lawyer can lay it on thick. ;)
In all seriousness...I don't altogether get this gripe. I guess because I went to art school and will never, ever have any "power," let alone money. But it was _my_ choice. I'd rather be doing something fun that I'm good at.
It has nothing to do with respect. Parents in most cases do not understand technology, much less programming whereas they can understand what an attorney or doctor does. The lawyer can keep you out of jail. The doctor can keep you from dying. What the heck does a programmer do that's so important? Note - I'm a programmer. I'm just look at it from their position. Then again, I live in Silicon Valley. When I say I write iPhone apps nobody looks down on me --- in fact quite the opposite.
I concur with this sentiment. When I meet new people, and they ask me what I do and I say I 'make and market websites' they stop - chin drops - and they say 'wait... you MAKE websites?! Like you MAKE them? Give me your number'.
Sure, moms don't romanticize their kids becoming a programmer. However by people who understand what value you can bring, you are greatly respected - almost as if you are a magical being capable of things beyond mere mortals.
Actually it's not. Name calling would be if I called you an entitled whiner. There's a difference between attacking your argument and attacking you.
The difference is very minor.
Median programmers write intellectually trivial code that solves uninteresting problems. Training is optional and there are virtually no systematic hurdles to cross to enter the trade.
A median programmer has BS in computer science, understands basics of computer hardware architecture, OS administration, networking and database management. Keeps current with the latest industry trends, has familiarity with a number of complex development tools and, in addition to all that, specializes in some area of programming.
What I listed above are the implied prerequisites for almost any mid-level developer position out there.
> That was the crux of my post. Programmers do get filthy rich (usually via starting tech companies).
There is a big problem with this argument. It is true that there is a good number of rich programmers. However, this doesn't mean anything for the broad class of people working in the same occupation. For example, this is similar to saying that being a singer is a good job because there are a lot of rich singers in the world. However, the average singer can't even put food on the table.
Similarly, the fact that there are some rich programmers doesn't mean that the category is doing well. In fact, pointing to these successes is unhelpful, because it can mask the problems found by normal people.
Imagine if someone made the statement:
"This is a tinfoil hat argument." Or, more directly: "This is an idiotic argument". How about "that argument is positively pedophiliac!"
Any time you take a pejorative term and apply it to the argument, it is always going to sound like you're applying it to there person. In most cases, that's the way it reads as well. It seems a way to engage in personal attack while being able to pretend to have only been characterizing the argument.
If you said "this argument has logical fallacy X because Y is Z" that would be a characterization of the argument of a totally different color. That would be addressing weaknesses in the argument, rather than anthropomorphizing it.
I have no opinion or position on your intentions, and presume that it wasn't your intention to characterize the person making the argument. I'm just trying to show why that form of characterizing the argument comes off as a personal attack.
Many of the top programmers at Google are making much more than you mentioned in your post. The amount you mentioned is more in line with a ~20 something there, in total compensation.
A Bachelors degree does not compare to medical school + residency (they also have to get a bachelor's before starting those two). While you're making money for 8 years at a comfortable 9-6, they're spending over 100k to train themselves and performing physically and mentally exhausting work.
Also, in the medical profession, those in primary care don't make the huge amounts you posted - many are below 200k, some far below. It's the specialists that you're thinking of.
Yeah, I don't have any stats at hand but docs-in-training I know seem to see themselves as being somewhere around $200k in hock for all the training. And med. reimbursement is going to a scary place in the US. I worked in a medical practice and the dual specialist MD lost money on every patient due to insurance and overhead and abysmal medicare reimbursement. Clinical trials provided the practice's profit. Programming / engineering seems much more free.
Also don't forget debt. Most MDs and DDSs I know in the US have 350K+ of debt. On top of that, they have to worry about malpractice suits. The work is very demanding physically and emotionally. While I can work from home on a rainy day, a doctor can't.
"Entitled whining" is a bit harsh I agree, but I have to say that my reaction was along those lines as well. What do you suggest be done about the situation? The abstract "respect" term is not very useful. The investment bankers that you mention make a lot of money but they don't have a lot of respect right now, at least for some definition of the word.
You could say that we deserve higher salaries but in my opinion the free market works perfectly there. And in fact, the same applies to respect. It's not something you can force, people respect those who earn their respect. It's not adjusted for IQ, skills, worked hours etc.
3a) - 3b). True, but I was comparing the top bankers/consultants to the top programmers. Remember that Google is the very top, #1 software company to work for - it's only fair to compare Google engineers to, say, mid-level bankers at Goldman Sachs. If you want to compare average people, you'd have to look at, say, programmers at Wells Fargo or something.
4). That's essentially luck. If it isn't luck, please explain why the median VC loses money. Either a). average programmers must be better at picking winners than average VCs, who (if not as smart) have decades of experience and spend hundreds of hours on it rather than ten minutes deciding between job offers, or b). an average programmer shouldn't exercise their startup stock options, because they'll expect to lose money on net.
5). Definitely true, and it's why I'm a programmer myself. But it doesn't address my points.