Engineering Feeling like I'm working too hard (mentally) for the pay

[Locrian]

Meh, the technical stuff you do doesn't require nearly as much brainpower as you seem to think. Technical smarts is the easy smarts.

Much of the leadership you so frown upon are smarter than you, you're just measuring it wrong. Not that you couldn't improve, but you'd have to first recognize you needed to.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Meh, the technical stuff you do doesn't require nearly as much brainpower as you seem to think. Technical smarts is the easy smarts.

Much of the leadership you so frown upon are smarter than you, you're just measuring it wrong. Not that you couldn't improve, but you'd have to first recognize you needed to.

I do agree with you that business leadership do require more "brainpower", so to speak, than is often appreciated, and it is likely that much of the leadership that the OP frowns upon are indeed smarter than him (from previous posts, I believe Maylis is a man).

That being said, I'm sure you and I (and others) have had experiences working with management who are far less competent in their position than is justified. And my speculation is that this is largely due to the fact that many managers in companies with a technical focus start out as highly skilled scientists/technologists/engineers, and because of their success in their job, get promoted to management, but management itself is a separate skill of its own, and newly promoted managers aren't necessarily trained or mentored to take on management.

 

[CrysPhys]

It's not an issue of "mental labor" vs "physical labor" or "technical smarts" vs "business smarts" . It boils down to the old issue of supply vs demand: (a) what capabilities do you have to offer, (b) what capabilities are employers looking for, (c) how many other people have the same capabilities as you have, and (d) how much are the end customers willing to pay for the goods or services that the employers offer. Remember: you can make big bucks with little education and little intelligence at all ... if you can whack a ball with a stick the right way, if you can throw a ball through a hoop the right way, if you have the right photogenic body, if you have the right photogenic body parts, ...

I once spoke to an exec about the dual-track career option (allowing technical staff to advance in rank and pay in parallel to business staff). He was opposed to it, because he needed motivation for technical staff to become managers. At one time, my company would even send select technical staff to business school for an MBA free of charge. There is a strong need for people with both technical skills and business skills. Not all technical staff can learn business skills. And many of those who can, choose not to (given a choice, they would rather continue in R&D). But it's easier for a scientist with a PhD in physics to learn project management than for a project manager with a BA in finance to learn quantum optics.

 

[Choppy]

That being said, I'm sure you and I (and others) have had experiences working with management who are far less competent in their position than is justified. And my speculation is that this is largely due to the fact that many managers in companies with a technical focus start out as highly skilled scientists/technologists/engineers, and because of their success in their job, get promoted to management, but management itself is a separate skill of its own, and newly promoted managers aren't necessarily trained or mentored to take on management.

See the Peter Principle

 

[Locrian]

It's not an issue of "mental labor" vs "physical labor" or "technical smarts" vs "business smarts" . It boils down to the old issue of supply vs demand:

I think those (different smarts & skills, vs supply and demand) aren't unrelated, and so are both issues.

 

[Vanadium 50]

This seems to have drifted a bit, so let me drift a bit more before tacking back to the OP's gripe.

There seems to be confusion between outsourcing and offshoring. Pretty much every company does some outsourcing. When you buy a car from Ford, it doesn't have Ford tires. It has, perhaps, Goodyear tires. Ford has decided that it's better for them to concentrate on something other than tires, and let Goodyear concentrate on tires. A very common outsourced task is payroll. A huge part of the costs of doing payroll is compliance, and that is a cost that needs to be borne whether you write one check or a million. It's often very cost effective to have your payroll done by a company that specializes in that, in effect sharing your compliance costs with others, rather than to do it all yourself.

Whether to do something in-house or to outsource is a management decision, just like the decision of whether Bob or Mary should do an in-house task is a management decision. If that decision is taken well, the company benefits, and if that decision is taken poorly, the company suffers.

Offshoring is a specific case of outsourcing - going overseas for the work. Ford might decide to use Michelin tires instead of Goodyear. Or they might decide to use "Bob's B-Grade Burmese Tires". High-quality and high-cost have pros and cons, as does low-quality and low-cost. Again, this is a management decision, and if that decision is taken well, the company benefits, and if that decision is taken poorly, the company suffers.

Making these decisions is not easy, and it is surely not as easy as the OP claims. I really like the advice, paraphrasing, "stop complaining - if it's so simple, just start your own business and become a zillionaire".

At the risk of drifting again, back when only blue collar workers were losing their jobs because their work could be done cheaper overseas, the reaction from most of the white-collar workers I know was "well, it's a competitive world, supply and demand and all, we all benefit from lower prices, blah blah blah." Now that it's white collar workers that are getting displaced "this is a national tragedy! We need protection!". Indeed.

Fundamentally, your salary depends on the value you provide to the company. If you want more salary, provide more value. If your job can be done by someone making a third as much, and if focusing on work for eight hours a day is too much for you, are you providing a lot of value to your company?

 

[Wminus]

Yeah life's not fair and there are allot of people in management/business, though far from all I think, who get "unfair" salaries. But instead of getting depressed about it, why not work hard, get noticed, move into management, get MBA and then drive that porsche yourself?

This seems to have drifted a bit, so let me drift a bit more before tacking back to the OP's gripe.

There seems to be confusion between outsourcing and offshoring. Pretty much every company does some outsourcing. When you buy a car from Ford, it doesn't have Ford tires. It has, perhaps, Goodyear tires. Ford has decided that it's better for them to concentrate on something other than tires, and let Goodyear concentrate on tires. A very common outsourced task is payroll. A huge part of the costs of doing payroll is compliance, and that is a cost that needs to be borne whether you write one check or a million. It's often very cost effective to have your payroll done by a company that specializes in that, in effect sharing your compliance costs with others, rather than to do it all yourself.

Whether to do something in-house or to outsource is a management decision, just like the decision of whether Bob or Mary should do an in-house task is a management decision. If that decision is taken well, the company benefits, and if that decision is taken poorly, the company suffers.

Offshoring is a specific case of outsourcing - going overseas for the work. Ford might decide to use Michelin tires instead of Goodyear. Or they might decide to use "Bob's B-Grade Burmese Tires". High-quality and high-cost have pros and cons, as does low-quality and low-cost. Again, this is a management decision, and if that decision is taken well, the company benefits, and if that decision is taken poorly, the company suffers.

Making these decisions is not easy, and it is surely not as easy as the OP claims. I really like the advice, paraphrasing, "stop complaining - if it's so simple, just start your own business and become a zillionaire".

At the risk of drifting again, back when only blue collar workers were losing their jobs because their work could be done cheaper overseas, the reaction from most of the white-collar workers I know was "well, it's a competitive world, supply and demand and all, we all benefit from lower prices, blah blah blah." Now that it's white collar workers that are getting displaced "this is a national tragedy! We need protection!". Indeed.

Fundamentally, your salary depends on the value you provide to the company. If you want more salary, provide more value. If your job can be done by someone making a third as much, and if focusing on work for eight hours a day is too much for you, are you providing a lot of value to your company?

Trouble is that that in many companies, the real value a worker provides is less important than the value he provides to the guys at the top.

 

[infinitebubble]

To add to this discussion... starting salaries for engineers are in the $50-75K a year based on many factors including where you graduated, top of the class, GPA, etc. This is a rundown of the engineers at our company.

Entry engineers: Level 1 with salaries in the $45-75K range (0-2 years experience)
Level 2 engineers: salaries in the $60-85K range (3-6 years experience)
Level 3 engineers: salaries in the $75-95K range (6-10 years experience)
Level 4 engineers: salaries in the 95-115K range (12-15 years experience)
Level 5 engineers: salaries in the $115-140K range (15 years and on experience)
Technical Fellow: salaries in the $150K and on (usually Level 5 and up) ... no cap till you decide to stay in engineering role or move into management (most do).
I started FSU graduate into Pratt & Whitney Aircraft at starting salary of $24K year back in 1978... Today currently a Technical Fellow at Boeing/NASA and do very well salary wise but took me 39 years to get to this point... sure I envied the senior engineers back when I had 2-5 years and making peanuts compared to those guys driving nice cars/boats/homes... but eventually I got there myself... We all do this at some point in our careers.

 

[CrysPhys]

To add to this discussion... starting salaries for engineers are in the $50-75K a year based on many factors including where you graduated, top of the class, GPA, etc. This is a rundown of the engineers at our company.

Entry engineers: Level 1 with salaries in the $45-75K range (0-2 years experience)
Level 2 engineers: salaries in the $60-85K range (3-6 years experience)
Level 3 engineers: salaries in the $75-95K range (6-10 years experience)
Level 4 engineers: salaries in the 95-115K range (12-15 years experience)
Level 5 engineers: salaries in the $115-140K range (15 years and on experience)
Technical Fellow: salaries in the $150K and on (usually Level 5 and up) ... no cap till you decide to stay in engineering role or move into management (most do).
I started FSU graduate into Pratt & Whitney Aircraft at starting salary of $24K year back in 1978... Today currently a Technical Fellow at Boeing/NASA and do very well salary wise but took me 39 years to get to this point... sure I envied the senior engineers back when I had 2-5 years and making peanuts compared to those guys driving nice cars/boats/homes... but eventually I got there myself... We all do this at some point in our careers.

That's an informative post. You have salary bands based on years of experience. How is the degree (BS, MS, PhD) held by the engineer at time of hiring taken into account?

"We all do this at some point in our careers." Not necessarily. Career trajectories are not always monotonically increasing, especially for those who undergo industry-wide meltdowns and need to retrench. Fortunately, I prefer Subarus to Porsches.

 

[CrysPhys]

Trouble is that that in many companies, the real value a worker provides is less important than the value he provides to the guys at the top.

Well, yes, "value" is that which is perceived by the managers with input to your performance and salary review. Furthermore, personal and corporate-political issues come into play.

 

[infinitebubble]

That's an informative post. You have salary bands based on years of experience. How is the degree (BS, MS, PhD) held by the engineer at time of hiring taken into account?

These are basic salaries and there is a bell curve with the salaries based on years of experience since out of college and then based on merit so a Level 2 engineer can actually make more than what is posted and if they choose to get a higher degree then a higher salary, and stock options are added to the bennies.

"We all do this at some point in our careers." Not necessarily. Career trajectories are not always monotonically increasing, especially for those who undergo industry-wide meltdowns and need to retrench. Fortunately, I prefer Subarus to Porsches.

Agree many of my coworkers were hit back in the 90's and after 9/11 that basically put them out of the market, they chose to get into other careers or other ventures outside of the industry. The ones that held on are now senior level engineers or into management. Agree... I drive a Jeep and always have while my coworkers are in Corvettes, Porches, Benz, BMW, etc... modestly of course is how I got here in life.

 

[Anding]

Maylis, ignore the suggestions to the effect that you are envious or don't understand economics, your observations are entirely correct. 30 years ago I was an apprentice engineer and noticed exactly the same things. I am now the CEO of a successful company in the financial services sector. Oddly enough I greatly regret not sticking with the engineering - the work is far more interesting and fulfilling than business and management. That said if you're not feeling content you should look for a new direction. Perhaps in an engineering job for the government (LIGO, etc?), as you say, where you'll love the work for its own sake and have the protection of lifetime employment and a pension (...if such jobs really do exist). Or perhaps you could work in a fast growing company or a start-up - but this is high risk and might lead to a dead end. If you enjoy the work you do then don't jump too soon to the other side just for the money. Good luck.

 

[stefanbanev]

Yep - life's not fair.

This is one of the most popular excuses losers love to make. Another category of folks who used to use such "motto" - who exploits fist one to make them do not feel too screwed. In fact, in my opinion, life is ultimately fair on the long run. Surely there are statistical flukes but if "you" shoot enough number of shots then your capabilities are getting close to objective.