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

[gfd43tg]

Obviously I meant the CEO deserves to be paid less than a junior engineer, of course! Good reading into it! On a serious note, my point is that when customers are billed $200/hour for my time and I get $30 of it, and there are 10 levels of management with a VP of every stupid thing you can come up with that gobbled up that $200, I feel pretty sour about it. And then companies have the gall to figure out how they can minimize that payment and go after the engineer getting the $30 so they can pay someone in India $10, but we can't cut even one layer of management. And I'm producing the services that are actually revenue generating, not just "managing headwinds" or making power point slides. That is why I said I think being a technical engineer is rotten.

 

[Dale]

On a serious note, my point is that when customers are billed $200/hour for my time and I get $30 of it, and there are 10 levels of management with a VP of every stupid thing you can come up with that gobbled up that $200, I feel pretty sour about it.

It is clear that you feel sour about it. It is envy, a very destructive emotion.

You should go out on your own. Offer customers to do the work for $150/hr directly. Maybe you will instantly quintuple your income, or maybe you will get an understanding of the value provided by the rest of the organization. Either way, you can get rid of the envy.

 

[reasonableman]

Hmm, this post seems like a bit of a Rorschach test, different people have seen different things. What I noticed was OPs disappointment, not necessarily with his position, but with the prospects of his position. He noted that even smart engineers, with years of experience were not progressing and in a somewhat precarious position financially. I think he is right, in today's society STEM is not well rewarded; although I think he should try to take a more rational view and prioritise what he wants from his career and plan accordingly.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Obviously I meant the CEO deserves to be paid less than a junior engineer, of course! Good reading into it! On a serious note, my point is that when customers are billed $200/hour for my time and I get $30 of it, and there are 10 levels of management with a VP of every stupid thing you can come up with that gobbled up that $200, I feel pretty sour about it. And then companies have the gall to figure out how they can minimize that payment and go after the engineer getting the $30 so they can pay someone in India $10, but we can't cut even one layer of management. And I'm producing the services that are actually revenue generating, not just "managing headwinds" or making power point slides. That is why I said I think being a technical engineer is rotten.

Maylis, if that is how you feel, why not quit your job and go out and start your own company, or set up your own consulting business, instead of whining about it here on PF about how rotten engineering is? Then you won't have "10 levels of management" to worry out, and you get to keep the $200/hour that you bill customers, and see how far that gets you.

Because I have news for you -- every company in every field (whether it be in engineering, accounting, finance, law, pet food, etc.) works the same way. Deal with it!

Also remember where you were not so long ago:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/getting-an-entry-level-position.858813/

 

[russ_watters]

I've been working for about a year now as an engineer. I find myself thinking that the amount of mental effort that I have to put into my job relative to what I'm paid sucks. By the way, my pay is competitive for my position and years of experience. However, I see that the senior engineers are the smartest people in the company, yet the folks up top are taking the lion's share of the profit. My company is far more generous than most, so it makes me churn to think about how it works at even larger corporations (CEO's with 300x salary of average employee). I shutter the thought of working for the next 30 years to get breadcrumbs and drive a Toyota while the president cruises around in a Porsche. This business practically runs itself. Makes me think again about my career choice. Being in finance sounds way more lucrative. Am I just a spoiled brat who hasn't paid my dues?

Some questions/comments:
1. Do I understand correctly that you have only one year of experience as a working engineer? It is common for the first few years of an engineering career to be somewhat grueling. You have a lot to learn and your value to the company starts off both low and uncertain. But as you prove yourself and become more valuable to the company, you should get fairly large raises for a decade. Like 10%+ on average unless you aren't very good or the company is under-valuing you (in which case a jump to another company can provide a massive raise).

2. The setup of senior engineers vs businesspeople depends on the type of company. You will often see medium-sized engineering firms being run by engineers or at least in a fairly even partnership with businesspeople. But a very large company - even one that is at face value an engineering company - has a lot more going on than just engineering and needs to be run by businesspeople.

3. CEO = 300x salary of average employee is probably on the high side for most engineering companies because they tend to have a high average salary to begin with. But 100x might not seem satisfactory to you either...

4. There is no reason a quality engineer can't drive a Porsche after 10 years experience...though you do have to make choices about what you want to spend your money on that matters to you.

5. I wouldn't exactly call you a "spoiled brat", but if you are only one year in, yes, you haven't paid your dues and you are getting a wake-up call about how the real world works. Few people come into working life understanding it.

6. Yes, finance is more lucrative. It's competitive, but I haven't gotten the impression that it is more intellectually challenging than engineering. But "competitive" often means a poorer work-life balance.

Going into the working world has been a reality check. I found out very quickly that being smart is not a strong function of how rich you are. I wish I could have a job using business euphemisms in meetings like "we're facing headwinds" and talk about profitability charts. Then I see people making millions selling make-up or some other terrible product. I shouldn't hate the player, just hate the game instead. Or better, figure out how to be better at the game.

7. You have a warped/immature sense of what businesspeople do. If it really were that easy, then everyone would do it and the pay would suck. In reality, a ton of people do it and the pay sucks (more than yours) unless you are really, really good - then the pay is awesome.

When I see senior engineers doing the same work I'm doing...

8. Senior engineers are most certainly not doing the same work you are doing. Some self awareness is in order.

 

[russ_watters]

OK, I'm not supportive of the OP's rant (which is about $, not career development, as another poster suggested). But I worked for many years at a Megacorp in which the supply chain managers went rampant and started outsourcing everything like crazy, including R&D [much of this backfired and crippled the company, but the supply chain managers got great bonuses for cutting costs]. What's missing in this discussion is the substantial difference in the cost of living between the US and other countries, such as India and China. Engineers there can live comfortably at much lower wages than in the US. If the corporate ledgers are balanced in US$, then it's more profitable to outsource the work to lower cost-of-living countries where feasible. But that doesn't mean that $20K/yr worth of work supplied in India can be supplied for $20K/yr in the US.

I think businesspeople sometimes get seduced by the idea of outsourced labor being cheap and don't often properly take into account the difference in value (quality, efficiency, local presence), which can be difficult to calculate but hugely impacts the bottom line. But most at least do recognize that they can't swap a $60k American for a $20k Indian; it isn't that simple.

 

[russ_watters]

My goal is to be a shareholder of a company since I now know that BY LAW companies have to maximize profits for their shareholders, which involves minimizing payment of the workers. Why do I need to stay in a situation where the goal is to pay me as little as they can possibly get away with when I can get into a silent role where the goal is to make me as much money as possible.

That's a goal*, not a career plan. How will you make that happen?

Can I ask you this; what was your expectation about the kind of salary and life being a quality engineer would provide, at mid career? Is there really an expectations gap here or is this really just envy?

*Most upper half American adults are shareholders of hundreds of companies, so as stated, that is vague and not very profound.

 

[CrysPhys]

I think businesspeople sometimes get seduced by the idea of outsourced labor being cheap and don't often properly take into account the difference in value (quality, efficiency, local presence), which can be difficult to calculate but hugely impacts the bottom line. But most at least do recognize that they can't swap a $60k American for a $20k Indian; it isn't that simple.

No, the problem is that the business managers who make the decision to outsource don't need to live with the consequences. They are rewarded based on meeting or exceeding a short-term objective; e.g., cut expenses by X% by the end of the fiscal yr to meet objectives, cut expenses by Y% to exceed objectives and get a bonus, and cut expenses by Z% to far exceed objectives and get a bigger bonus. These are quantifiable metrics. Other parameters such as efficiency, as you mentioned, are more difficult to quantify and are not factored into their objectives; and, even if they were, the negative hit on these parameters don't show up until much later, and by that time, the people who made the bad decisions have received their bonuses, received their promotions, and moved on. I ended up being the team leader of a technical team with members from the US, 5 European countries, India, and China. The overhead from differences in language, culture, time-zone difference, and geographic separation was substantial. It meant that I had to work a lot harder to get the job done on time and on budget, while meeting quality metrics ... but I'm not the guy who got the big bonus.

 

[Dr Transport]

No, the problem is that the business managers who make the decision to outsource don't need to live with the consequences. They are rewarded based on meeting or exceeding a short-term objective; e.g., cut expenses by X% by the end of the fiscal yr to meet objectives, cut expenses by Y% to exceed objectives and get a bonus, and cut expenses by Z% to far exceed objectives and get a bigger bonus. These are quantifiable metrics. Other parameters such as efficiency, as you mentioned, are more difficult to quantify and are not factored into their objectives; and, even if they were, the negative hit on these parameters don't show up until much later, and by that time, the people who made the bad decisions have received their bonuses, received their promotions, and moved on. I ended up being the team leader of a technical team with members from the US, 5 European countries, India, and China. The overhead from differences in language, culture, time-zone difference, and geographic separation was substantial. It meant that I had to work a lot harder to get the job done on time and on budget, while meeting quality metrics ... but I'm not the guy who got the big bonus.

Welcome to the real world, I know you aren't the OP, but that is how businesses are run now. Even in DoD work within the US, that is what is happening, cut to the bone and squeeze every cent of profit out of every move and decision.

 

[Charles Link]

Welcome to the real world, I know you aren't the OP, but that is how businesses are run now. Even in DoD work within the US, that is what is happening, cut to the bone and squeeze every cent of profit out of every move and decision.

This dates back a few years, (I'm retired now), but in a discussion with my supervisor, he was explaining his "modus of operandi" and telling us that he is trying to keep the stockholders happy. (The gist was that the needs of the workers are of secondary importance). I responded, "Those stocks could fall like a runaway elevator!" :) :) $\\$ I think that the needs of the workers should be part of the equation for how a company conducts its business. Keeping the employees happy is important if the company wants to have good long-term success.

 

[CrysPhys]

Welcome to the real world, I know you aren't the OP, but that is how businesses are run now. Even in DoD work within the US, that is what is happening, cut to the bone and squeeze every cent of profit out of every move and decision.

I don't understand your comment. That was not a hypo, I was relating my real-life experience, in response to a comment that companies wouldn't be stupid enough to outsource blindly. I know what the real world is; I'm not a newbie (close to 24 yrs in industrial R&D before I got fed up with weekly round-robins of layoffs and switched careers). Key business decisions brought what was once one of the top hi-tech companies to the verge of bankruptcy, salvaged only by a merger with another company.

Before the merger, the stock fell from $80/share to $0.80/share. A reverse split was needed to keep it from being delisted on the NYSE.

<<Edited for clarification>>

 

[Charles Link]

I don't understand your comment. That was not a hypo, I was relating my real-life experience. I know what the real world is; I'm not a newbie (close to 24 yrs in industrial R&D before I got fed up with weekly round-robins of layoffs and switched careers). Key business decisions brought what was once one of the top hi-tech companies to the verge of bankruptcy, salvaged only by a merger with another company.

The stock fell from $80/share to $0.80/share. A reverse split was needed to keep it from being delisted on the NYSE.

@CrysPhys Your input is interesting. I stuck with it for 26 years, getting called back for 6 more years after getting laid off after 20+ years. After 6 more years I got laid off again. The axe was so often ever present. And it can really be a nerve-racking experience when you've got an entire plant full of people and everyone is afraid that massive lay-offs are pending. The job, just the same, was an adventure, but there were some times that were very difficult.

 

[symbolipoint]

This dates back a few years, (I'm retired now), but in a discussion with my supervisor, he was explaining his "modus of operandi" and telling us that he is trying to keep the stockholders happy. (The gist was that the needs of the workers are of secondary importance). I responded, "Those stocks could fall like a runaway elevator!" :) :) $\\$ I think that the needs of the workers should be part of the equation for how a company conducts its business. Keeping the employees happy is important if the company wants to have good long-term success.

An argument can also be made focusing on the responsibilities of the workers

 

[CrysPhys]

Keeping the employees happy is important if the company wants to have good long-term success.

<<Emphasis added>>

That's the key assumption. It was true when I first started my career in industrial R&D. But at the end, what mattered to the execs was meeting the quarterly projections they had given to Wall St. analysts.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

One of the benefits of working as a scientist or engineer is that one gets paid for working with one's mind rather than the strength of one's back. My fourth grade math teacher (God bless Mrs. Kates) explained that if we didn't do our math homework, we'd be "digging ditches." Salary is usually very good in the private sector (much better than humanities degrees on average), but public school teaching is a common exception, and there are some employers who take advantage.

But I worked harder for a salary in the $20ks for teaching math in a public high school in NC as I worked for a six figure income as an engineer at a private company. At the end of the day, I have no real complaint about the teacher's salary, since I agreed to it (though I can see how it contributes to difficulty hiring and retaining good teachers.) My complaint about that teaching job was that the school district lied when they hired me: they didn't really want me teaching the North Carolina Standard Course of Study, they really wanted me making all the students and parents happy which meant gifting grades to students unwilling to work or learn. Perhaps no man can really be sure his integrity does not have a price tag, but at least I proved mine isn't in the $20ks.

When you take a full time job, you have to realize that the salary commands your full attention and effort for 40 hours per week (or whatever is standard for the position. Some academic jobs are less.) I've usually been happy enough if the job did not eat into my family time week after week, and if the job did not require me to do anything dishonest. You should grow up and realize that although engineering jobs can pay fairly well, there is often a lot of real work involved.

 

[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.