compensation argument

[AtTheWall]

Once established in a career Im not sure how having a degree or not has any bearing. I know a lot of people who have worthless degrees when applied to the general job market.

There is a point where, years of experience in a specific "job field" equates to having a degree.

A computer science degree, basically the 4 year degree, without any real experience in the field = an entry level worker with an education to me.

A "hands-on" Information Technologist, with consecutive years of experience (8 years +) = Masters Degree in experience...no degree required. It would be nice to have a degree....only if you opt to pursue Management down the road but....it has not bearing on the experiences required to sit in the hot seat, and manage the day to day complexities of a well connected Corporate Information Technology network.

My reasoning for experience degree in IT is simply.....those pursuing a degree at an institution of higher learning will never ever have the "hands on experience" with servers, networks, applications and peripherals that drive the industry today. College campuses are not Corporate networks.....or networks that run business etc. The software and equipment used to run Corporate America is not cheap and setting up labs and such, to train college kids....is never going to happen. It's simply way to complex and expensive to do so.

Using this theme....it's easy to understand how some job fields relate to those with "hands on experience" versus those with a "general understanding of how it all works = degree" but they have no practical knowledge and or experience to cover the outside world's latest industries in this particular job sector.


I've seen guys in the technology sector, myself included, nail well over 100 - 200k annually but......the industry drivers that warrant higher than average incomes, are very specific in niche areas...where hands on technical experience, with years of operational knowledge in the industry is way more important to a potential employer than a degree with no real world experience.

[Bily Lovec]

And it's rising, by the day. I've had some 6 year pipers asking for $45/hr+. They may have been worth it, and they will get it, somewhere ... at least for now.

.

if they are PDS, they can get $60

we have another boom heading our way, let's not pizz this one away

[bigmike77]

Loving the OilField

I do not have a degree or HS Diploma, but with bonus at the end of the year, i do 175K-180K and i get a raise each year of a minimum of 3% and max of 10%

[Snakelover]

I have no idea. There are so many variables and each situation is unique. All I would say is employment should be a mutually beneficial arrangement. And if the employer and employee can't come to an agreement, the employee is always free to seek another job where he can make what he thinks he's worth and the employer is always free to seek another employee who will do the job for what he's willing to pay. We had an employee leave just the other day. He wanted more money. We weren't willing to pay him more. He walked. No hard feelings and I wish him well. It's strictly business.

[txdukklr]

i'm not communicating my question well

but the conversation is interesting non the less. My post was really about the philosophy of 100k being a solid place to be . . . not comparative value, education or any of that. It was really a post about being thankful and that 100k is the upper tier.

I've no issue with someone getting what they are worth or making more then 100k . . . .anyone who knows me would know that I'm a fan of the hard working entrepreneur

[hammer63]

well another point to be considered is: if the work/employment is cyclical (such as construction and engineering) the pay should be at a rate that considers low rates when times are hard and ppl work for next to nothing

[BIG IRON]

i'm not communicating my question well

but the conversation is interesting non the less. My post was really about the philosophy of 100k being a solid place to be . . . not comparative value, education or any of that. It was really a post about being thankful and that 100k is the upper tier.

I've no issue with someone getting what they are worth or making more then 100k . . . .anyone who knows me would know that I'm a fan of the hard working entrepreneur

I hear what you are saying. I was there around that range when my job went away a year ago (commercial project manager). I was happy with what I was getting. I knew guys that made more and less doi g the same thing. Now I am not able to find the same job description making half that.

[J McCoy]

Anyone want to hire me for one of those measly 70k a year jobs + benefits and only work 40hrs a week local and home every night with my family please shoot me a pm. Ill be your huckleberry.

[Codie]

i'm not communicating my question well

but the conversation is interesting non the less. My post was really about the philosophy of 100k being a solid place to be . . . not comparative value, education or any of that. It was really a post about being thankful and that 100k is the upper tier.
I've no issue with someone getting what they are worth or making more then 100k . . . .anyone who knows me would know that I'm a fan of the hard working entrepreneur

my answer would be YES, if your making $100k/year you should be thankfull for the financial blessing the lord is providing you and I would consider $100k/year to be an upper tier income looking at the big picture. I know I would be incredibly blessed to make $100k/year, but I know and accept that the chances of it happening at any point of my life are slim and none as I am more interested in my time with my family than I am any amount of $ that is out there available for me to earn. That I know of, there are not many (if any at all) small town bank loan officers making $100k/year even if they have been there for 30yrs. I could be wrong though

[Split_Brow]

Sean,
I understand your question, and agree, that yes, 100k total would be upper tier for the scenario presented. What you have to look at is the bell curve of salaries across the board. There are always outlyers on both sides of the curve, and I would believe that he would fall into the skewed right side, for making what he does, as with all the rest of the guys on here that are making 100k+ for working up through the ranks without post education. The majority, being the top of the bell curve would be making somewhere in the 25k-70k and on the far left, least making salaries, -25k for the same type of work.
Taking the bait on where this conversation led too, I have a cousin that works on survey crews all over and is a high school drop out, making 100k+. That sounded good until I found out that he works 7 days a week, 10-12 hour days and doesn't come home but maybe a week or two every three to four months. And he lives out of a hotel room. Now I know that not all the jobs posted above are not like that, with exceptions to the rule, but some of the higher paying jobs come with sacrifices that are not for everyone.

[JW]

my answer would be YES, if your making $100k/year you should be thankfull for the financial blessing the lord is providing you and I would consider $100k/year to be an upper tier income looking at the big picture. I know I would be incredibly blessed to make $100k/year, but I know and accept that the chances of it happening at any point of my life are slim and none as I am more interested in my time with my family than I am any amount of $ that is out there available for me to earn. That I know of, there are not many (if any at all) small town bank loan officers making $100k/year even if they have been there for 30yrs. I could be wrong though

Thankful yes. Satisfied? Uh uh!!! Keep burnin n churnin!