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

[gfd43tg]

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?

 

[Spinnor]

The guy driving the Porsche may have started out like you and wanted to be the guy driving the Porsche. Do the best you can while at work and someone will always want you on their team. Or start your own team?

Good luck!

 

[Independent]

That's a feature, not a bug. A company is supposed to make the shareholders wealthy, not the workers.

 

[Choppy]

Yep - life's not fair.

It's best not to compare yourself too much to other people though. There will always be someone who is better off. The CEO of your company can look at other CEOs and think that he or she is underpaid compared to what he or she has accomplished at the helm.

And remember that there are a lot of people who might look at you with envy. You've got a not just a job, but a professional career. You're in a stable country with a reasonable standard of living where the rule of law, though not perfect, tends to prevail in most situations. You don't have to worry about paying off the right people to keep your job (or worse).

If you don't like where you are, you can try to figure out how to change it. The trouble with getting those well paying CEO positions is that they tend to come with a lot of risk, and your stars have to be aligned just right for you to have a shot in the first place. Remember you're not normally looking as someone who came from an average background and just worked a little harder. You're looking several standard deviations out on the curve.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Two thoughts: one is that if you are truly underpaid, a different employer will pay you more. The problem is that many people who think they are underpaid discover that there are plenty of people willing to do the same work for the same or less.

The other is that I seem to remember a post of yours where you said you couldn't keep focus for an entire eight hour day. That may have an effect on Thought #1.

 

[Dale]

By the way, my pay is competitive for my position and years of experience.

Then you are being paid fairly.

 

[marcusl]

Maybe you aren't cut out for the working world. Working for yourself might help, since you'll be the one on top (and on the bottom, so you won't see factors of 300x). Otherwise try changing careers--try being a musician or artist if you want to really know what it's like to be taken advantage of.

 

[RJLiberator]

Yeah, with all due respect OP, if you have no debt, are able to afford a Toyota, have a job and the needed things in life you are much richer than a strong most of the world. I think you need less of a pay raise and more of a reality check on life. You don't need that Porsche, just find what you enjoy doing.

 

[gfd43tg]

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.

When I see senior engineers doing the same work I'm doing, I am totally afraid that my life will fly past me doing the exact same thing for 30 years, and at the end hope that I don't get cancer and a third of my 401k savings don't get gobbled up in 6 months of medical bills.

I can't compete with some guy in India (where they churn out engineers like US universities churn out liberal arts degrees) who will work for $20k a year and the company can bill customers for engineering time at $20/hr. I think engineering is a rotten profession unless you can get into some protected industry (aerospace, military, etc).

I can totally see how the ideas for socialism and communism came to be, especially in the early industrial age with robber barons making single digit percentages of the entire country's GDP at the time. Some people were breaking their back 15 hours a day and the fat cat at top was raking in millions.

 

[Logical Dog]

Watch Alain de Bottons status anxiety(the 2 hour or so video, not TEDtalk) if you are getting depressed or angry about it...I hope it can help bring some new perspective. Cannot link it here.

 

[Dale]

Sounds like you are getting consumed by envy, @Maylis

 

[marcusl]

I recommend seeing a therapist to work on your fears, anxieties and issues.

 

[CrysPhys]

If (a) you work as a scientist or engineer at a corporation, (b) the corporation is sufficiently large, and (c) you do well at your job, then at some point you will need to decide whether to continue in a technical role or switch to a management role. Some corporations have introduced dual-tracks, in which ostensibly you can stay in a technical role and get as high a pay, as fancy a title, and as big an office as you can in a managerial role. But often the opportunities in the technical track are limited. So, if you want to advance in pay and prestige, you often need to switch to the management track; if that is where your priorities lie, then switch.

I'm personally not a fan of exorbitant CEO salaries (especially for the ones who screw up and walk away with mucho severance). But note that a CEO has a much greater effect, for good or for bad, on the overall success of the company. If an engineer screws up, he makes only a relatively small impact on the company; if a CEO screws up, he can bring the company down. So the burden on a CEO's shoulders is much greater.

If you don't like life in the corporate world, you are free to start your own company, or become an independent consultant. Then rant about the head hauncho all you like.

 

[Charles Link]

@Maylis I recommend you do your best to broaden your horizons, both in a technical sense and otherwise. Having a broader engineering background will put you in a better position to compete for new opportunities when they arise, and if you try a couple of other endeavors on weekends and/or after work, you might find something that is better than the daily grind of the workaday world. Meanwhile, do your best to hang in there. Engineering is normally not a route that will get you rich in a hurry, but it can be a steady source of income. $\\$ And an additional input: I found being in front of a computer screen for 8 hours a day would make for a very long day. Oftentimes, I would get out with a couple other engineers for about 15 minutes during lunch time to throw a baseball around and get a little exercise. It helped make the day go a whole lot smoother. :)

 

[Vanadium 50]

I can't compete with some guy in India (where they churn out engineers like US universities churn out liberal arts degrees) who will work for $20k a year and the company can bill customers for engineering time at $20/hr.

You've said right there that you're providing $20K a year of value to your company. Yet you want to earn more because you're smart. Is this smart?

If you want more money, you should be looking for a way to provide more value to the company, rather than to argue that you're entitled to more because you're smart. That would be smart.

 

[Choppy]

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.

Well, why not enroll in an MBA?

One of the realities that you're likely to learn though is that even though on the surface it may seem like the management types are making more money, their positions are often less secure. People that aren't contributing anything of real value to a company are often the first ones on the chopping block when it's time to tighten the company belt. Then imagine searching for a job with lines on your CV like "assessed company headwinds" and "printed 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.

Again - remember that we tend to notice people on the tail end of the distribution. Most entrepreneurial ventures fail.

And the world doesn't need any more crap. You can make money, lot's of money, doing good things and doing them ethically. There's no reason to game the system.

When I see senior engineers doing the same work I'm doing, I am totally afraid that my life will fly past me doing the exact same thing for 30 years, and at the end hope that I don't get cancer and a third of my 401k savings don't get gobbled up in 6 months of medical bills.

That's totally understandable. No one wants to just turn the crank for 30 years and feel as if their career is not making any difference.

But you don't have to tie your happiness to your job (in fact it's best not to). Many people do what they do to put food on the table and pay the bills. Their fulfillment comes from other dimensions in their lives: family, sports, volunteering, teaching, community service, etc.

Something else that can help is developing a career plan. Where would you like to be in 5 years? 10 years? In developing a plan you figure out where you want to be and what you need to do to get there. Break it down into smaller steps and then climb those. If you just sit and do your job day in and day out, after 30 years, it's quite likely that you could be in the same spot. But if you want to progress into a management position in the next 10 years, start by figuring out what's required to do that. Advanced education, corporate education, experience, project leadership?

 

[gfd43tg]

Two thoughts: one is that if you are truly underpaid, a different employer will pay you more. The problem is that many people who think they are underpaid discover that there are plenty of people willing to do the same work for the same or less.

The other is that I seem to remember a post of yours where you said you couldn't keep focus for an entire eight hour day. That may have an effect on Thought #1.

you are right, I was misinformed about the value of an engineer. I should be a scientist at a national lab that can't be outsourced because of government (do they have pensions too like other government workers??).

 

[Dale]

I was misinformed about the value of an engineer

Really? You were actually informed by someone that an engineer has as much value to a company as a CEO? I am calling "BS" on that.

 

[gfd43tg]

Really? You were actually informed by someone that an engineer has as much value to a company as a CEO? I am calling "BS" on that.

No, in response to the $20,000/year comment.

 

[reasonableman]

I think it is odd you are now getting jealous of other technical jobs, also national labs also hire engineers...

Back to your original point, in this society the people that are remunerated the best are those that decide on the allocation of capital, if you want a high salary you need to get into a position where you can do that. Most technical jobs do not allow this. It is possible to get such a position from an engineering background (indeed apparently 33% of CEOs have an engineering background) but the skill set is very different so you'll need to start developing those skills.

 

[Charles Link]

I think some of the responses are missing the message that the OP is attempting to convey. I had been in the engineering field myself for 25+ years, and there were times where it was very hard sitting at a computer for 8 hours a day. (I am retired now.) I think I fared better than most, but I also worked at trying to make the job an adventure as well try to get some recreation in at lunch time (as mentioned in a previous post.) I saw many engineers over the years get rather frustrated at times, (stuck at a computer monitor for long periods of time), and it is important to have healthy interaction amongst the employees so that the job doesn't become unenjoyable.

 

[Dale]

No, in response to the $20,000/year comment.

That was your comment.

If you are doing a job that can be outsourced to India for $20k/yr then your job is only worth $20k/yr. None of the engineers on my team fit that description.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I should be a scientist at a national lab that can't be outsourced because of government

First of all, you can't just "be a scientist at a national lab". These positions are extremely competitive, comparable to a university professorship.

Second, you really need a better reason to try for one of these jobs than perceived job security.

Third, the jobs are not nearly as secure as you think. Projects begin and end. When a project ends, you need to find a new one soon. So you are constantly hustling to get work - either by being a PI or appealing to the PI's. Depending on your skill set and work ethic, this can be relatively easy or difficult. The same advice I gave about industry applies here - provide a lot of value to your employer. One cannot expect to get a $60K salary by doing work that someone else can do for $20K and count on citizenship to protect you.

The suggestion of going into management was made. If you want more money, this is the way to do it. I caution you that it is not as easy as it looks and that there is a lot more to it than putting buzzwords on slides.

 

[symbolipoint]

You've said right there that you're providing $20K a year of value to your company. Yet you want to earn more because you're smart. Is this smart?

If you want more money, you should be looking for a way to provide more value to the company, rather than to argue that you're entitled to more because you're smart. That would be smart.

A company paying 20000 dollars per year for an engineer does not actually want or honestly need an engineer. The company really is paying for a technician of some kind. If a person, engineer needs a job and is offered and is expected to take some particular job at 20 000 dollars per year, then taking it is better than not having a job; and the person should look for other opportunities when the time fits.

 

[CrysPhys]

That was your comment.

If you are doing a job that can be outsourced to India for $20k/yr then your job is only worth $20k/yr. None of the engineers on my team fit that description.

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.

 

[gfd43tg]

A company paying 20000 dollars per year for an engineer does not actually want or honestly need an engineer. The company really is paying for a technician of some kind. If a person, engineer needs a job and is offered and is expected to take some particular job at 20 000 dollars per year, then taking it is better than not having a job; and the person should look for other opportunities when the time fits.

You know many major companies off-shore their engineering work to India nowadays. This isn't some uncommon thing.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Maylis, what exactly is the point of your rant? You are employed full-time, paid competitively, but hate the fact that senior management earns more? Or the fact that engineers can be outsourced? (btw, there are many reasons companies outsource their work, and it isn't always because of cost considerations -- many work is outsourced to Asian countries because of the desire to be closer to a growing market in those countries).

I think what you need is to take things in perspective. You are early in your career -- what you should be thinking about, as Choppy has suggested, would be to think about a career plan -- how do you want to see your career as an engineer progress, and work towards that goal.

 

[Dale]

But that doesn't mean that $20K/yr worth of work supplied in India can be supplied for $20K/yr in the US.

I agree, that is precisely why such work gets outsourced.

 

[gfd43tg]

Maylis, what exactly is the point of your rant? You are employed full-time, paid competitively, but hate the fact that senior management earns more? Or the fact that engineers can be outsourced? (btw, there are many reasons companies outsource their work, and it isn't always because of cost considerations -- many work is outsourced to Asian countries because of the desire to be closer to a growing market in those countries).

I think what you need is to take things in perspective. You are early in your career -- what you should be thinking about, as Choppy has suggested, would be to think about a career plan -- how do you want to see your career as an engineer progress, and work towards that goal.

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.

 

[Dale]

My goal is to be a shareholder of a company

Good goal!

which involves minimizing payment of the workers

Not always. It depends on the business model of the company. Maximizing profits is not the same as reducing costs.

 

[StatGuy2000]

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.

Maylis -- anyone can be a shareholder of a company that is publicly traded (I'm a shareholder in various companies). It's called investing -- when people buy stocks or mutual funds (say, for your retirement savings), you are essentially buying shares in companies. You could be doing this right now with your savings as you work as an engineer. So I don't see how this goal is somehow incompatible with working at your job right now.

 

[CrysPhys]

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.

<<Emphasis added>>

This is not true. See, e.g.,

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordeba...rations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits?mcubz=0

 

[CrysPhys]

I think some of the responses are missing the message that the OP is attempting to convey. I had been in the engineering field myself for 25+ years, and there were times where it was very hard sitting at a computer for 8 hours a day. (I am retired now.) I think I fared better than most, but I also worked at trying to make the job an adventure as well try to get some recreation in at lunch time (as mentioned in a previous post.) I saw many engineers over the years get rather frustrated at times, (stuck at a computer monitor for long periods of time), and it is important to have healthy interaction amongst the employees so that the job doesn't become unenjoyable.

<<Emphasis added>>
I don't think that's the case at all. The OP is carping that he's not raking in the big bucks that senior business execs are ... and the OP's only worked as an engineer for about a year. The OP's message, pure and simple, is: "I deserve more money than those guys."

 

[symbolipoint]

<<Emphasis added>>
I don't think that's the case at all. The OP is carping that he's not raking in the big bucks that senior business execs are ... and the OP's only worked as an engineer for about a year. The OP's message, pure and simple, is: "I deserve more money than those guys."

This suggests the need for a career plan. Still, having a job means the gaining of experience, which later may/might be a qualifying way to find another job for a higher salary.

 

[Charles Link]

<<Emphasis added>>
I don't think that's the case at all. The OP is carping that he's not raking in the big bucks that senior business execs are ... and the OP's only worked as an engineer for about a year. The OP's message, pure and simple, is: "I deserve more money than those guys."

I tried to be as optimistic and as encouraging as I could about the OP's inputs. The OP needs to accept his position at this time and try to make the most of it. He at least needs to really try to give it his best, or he's likely going to be a rather unhappy worker and certainly won't have much chance for advancement and/or getting good assignments.

 

[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.