[m8002?]

Originally Posted by AirbusCapt

Very interesting thread, especially the last few pages. Good discussion all around i must say!
For those who say the entry level pay is exploitative, all I ask is: if so, why do almost all fresh graduates want to join IT companies? Why some of them go so far as to fake degrees, experience letters and competence to join the software world? Im sure not for only Rs 25,000 per month? Even a cab driver makes that much and more.
If you want an answer peg the exchange rate to read one rupee as one dollar and see how many truly love to code. Its the national obsession of dollars, a "settled in the US", NRI tag which makes most of the youth aspire to work in the IT sector.

Well said.
To add to those telling 25-30K per month is bad, have you checked what a fresh grad "Duty Doctor" earns in a hospital that too working for 8-10 hours night shift? This after slogging for more years and paying higher fees.

It is the same with other professions like lawyers or CA. The juniors work under seniors for low/nil wages in many cases. People are willing to undergo that in pursuit of experience and learning so that they reap the rewards later.

[am1m]

Originally Posted by AirbusCapt

The day we start doing what we truly love, thats the day we shall start developing as a nation.

While agreeing with this as an overall concept, and certainly more of our students should be encouraged to pursue fields that they are interested in and have an aptitude for; is this practical with a population like ours?

Can we all become astronauts, entrepreneurs, cricketers, fighter pilots...? So I really see nothing wrong with mass employment. Obviously the business model works, even with a majority of people who don't have a "passion" for IT. That's why despite bitching and moaning so much about "unemployable grads with unreasonable demands", the IT companies still go after freshers in the thousands.

Nothing wrong with just doing a job professionally and going home to your real life later. Works for most of us. Over the years, the sector(s) offering mass employment will change and people will gravitate towards that. That's the way it's always been, hasn't it?

[sdp1975]

Originally Posted by m8002?

Well said.
To add to those telling 25-30K per month is bad, have you checked what a fresh grad "Duty Doctor" earns in a hospital that too working for 8-10 hours night shift? This after slogging for more years and paying higher fees.

A fresh MBBS doctor earns about 50K in the South. Salaries are better up North. A fresh PG doctor earns about 10lpa. The "floor" salary of a MBBS doctor is definitely better than that of an engineer although a well paid IT engineer will surpass most doctors in the long run. In fact, with 15 lacs engineers passing out every year and only 2.5 lacs getting jobs, the rest go unemployed or choose other professions. That's not the case with doctors. I was reading a post on r/developersindia on reddit where MTechs from IIIT and NIT are having a hard time finding jobs this year.

MBBS fees in a State govt college in Karnakata is 60K per annum. In a govt seat in a private college it's 1.4 lpa. Private seats are a lot more expensive at 10lpa, but it's possible to get a govt seat in Karnataka with a NEET rank of 40000, which I think is achievable for an average student willing to work hard.

In fact the number of JEE candidates have been declining over the years whereas the number NEET candidates have been steadily rising, roughly doubling in the last 7 years. Most of my relatives in T2/T3 cities actually target NEET and not engineering these days due to a job assurance in NEET.

[am1m]

Originally Posted by sdp1975

A fresh MBBS doctor earns about...

Actually, I'm not really sure why we're comparing what doctors earn with IT salaries, on an IT-related thread.

No one disputes that what doctors do is far, far more important than what IT folk do.

But is it the fault of fresh IT engineers that they get paid more than xyz profession? And because of that should they just not accept better offers when they come their way?

Does anyone on this thread follow that principle? "I get paid more than xyz noble profession, I will not seek better salaries, refuse my next promotion? Not complain about my salary? Not buy xyz big car/fly on an airline because those other professionals who do so much more than me can't afford the same?"

Then why the virtue signalling?

(@sdp1975 obviously not a response to whatever you posted, just quoted to make this point.)

[JediKnight]

Originally Posted by m8002?

To add to those telling 25-30K per month is bad, have you checked what a fresh grad "Duty Doctor" earns in a hospital that too working for 8-10 hours night shift? This after slogging for more years and paying higher fees.

A doctor's job will get more lucrative with time, where as an average IT joe will probably be un-employed by 45. A doctor does not have to constantly worry about getting layed-off. A doctor does not need to be in a corporate structure to remain employed. An average IT joe is more or less useless outside a company.

[m8002?]

Originally Posted by am1m

Actually, I'm not really sure why we're comparing what doctors earn with IT salaries, on an IT-related thread.

No one disputes that what doctors do is far, far more important than what IT folk do.

But is it the fault of fresh IT engineers that they get paid more than xyz profession? And because of that should they just not accept better offers when they come their way?

Does anyone on this thread follow that principle? "I get paid more than xyz noble profession, I will not seek better salaries, refuse my next promotion? Not complain about my salary? Not buy xyz big car/fly on an airline because those other professionals who do so much more than me can't afford the same?"

Then why the virtue signalling?

(@sdp1975 obviously not a response to whatever you posted, just quoted to make this point.)

The comparison was not to tell one profession gets more and the another gets less. Its just to highlight that in the market for any profession, the salaries are all over the place. Unless you are in the govt. where the salaries are public, there will always be one set of people doing the same work as you getting paid 2X and another set getting paid 0.5X. You have the option to quit and join the company paying 2X and everyone does that. What will not work is asking 2X at your current company just because another company pays that salary.

Originally Posted by JediKnight

A doctor's job will get more lucrative with time, where as an average IT joe will probably be un-employed by 45. A doctor does not have to constantly worry about getting layed-off. A doctor does not need to be in a corporate structure to remain employed. An average IT joe is more or less useless outside a company.

"Average" IT guy being unemployed by 45 is a first. Do you have any data to prove that or do you know many 45+ people in your circle out of jobs? Being in IT for 20+ years, I havent come across people getting kicked out once they turn 45. Of course, if they don't upgrade their skills to match the market and industry, they can be unemployed at any age. But I am sure that can happen in any line of work - medicine, CA, law or whatever.

Regarding the corporate structure, whats stopping an IT guy to not freelance and keep all the big bucks to himself? A doctor setting up a clinic is actually freelancing ( or equivalent to small entrepreneur ) and taking the risk of not having patients. I know of multiple clinics/hospitals that have closed down due to lack of patients. How is it different from another IT company?

[shipnil]

Originally Posted by JediKnight

A doctor's job will get more lucrative with time, where as an average IT joe will probably be un-employed by 45.

So true. Experienced first hand for me and my friends. Some 20 years back my doctor friend was barely earning a decent salary while I got a good break in Finance/IT. At 45, I am constantly worried for the job and in fact came very close to getting laid off couple of months back while the doctor is earning multiples of what I am earning and the gap would continue to grow till retirement. In fact there is no retirement to a doctor if it is a self practice.

[SLK]

Originally Posted by am1m

Actually, I'm not really sure why we're comparing what doctors earn with IT salaries, on an IT-related thread.

No one disputes that what doctors do is far, far more important than what IT folk do.

Exactly, wrong comparison. The traditional professions are not for employable skills alone, they are also for what they call 'practice'. They can practice a profession because of the importance and place of that profession in a society.

Doctors, Lawyers and to some extent even Chartered Accountants. don't need employment to use their skills alone. So its a wrong comparison!

Money is a very different parameter, top IAS, who are designated to do play very key roles in the country also may earn less than any 32 year old IT pro.

But if these people with traditional professional degrees were working in an organization as an employee, they face same risks as IT Pros, maybe not today, but when their industry is in stress. For any lawyers, CAs and part of doctor population too, their skill-set acquired during employment may not be useful in personal practice, hence the same risk of employment stress. Only difference is, the number of traditional professionals are limited (by educational design) compared to IT Pros.

[adithya.kp]

You may not see a lot of unemployed people in late 40's. But if they were to search for a job (Say due to a layoff, being managed out, or voluntarily ) , it would be very hard. That says it all. Things are fine as long as one continues in the current job ( And the product makes money) . The fact is that, almost everyone is easily replaceable. ( A lot of people think the company cant live without them.). Without an employer, one is worthless.

While I agree that one should keep upgrading the skills, that may not help in the job market. Today, anyone can learn stuff easily. Freelancing is not practical in IT field. ( Unless you have some niche skills. But thats a very small market)
This is why IT is such a bad profession.

Originally Posted by m8002?

"Average" IT guy being unemployed by 45 is a first. Do you have any data to prove that or do you know many 45+ people in your circle out of jobs? Being in IT for 20+ years, I havent come across people getting kicked out once they turn 45. Of course, if they don't upgrade their skills to match the market and industry, they can be unemployed at any age. But I am sure that can happen in any line of work - medicine, CA, law or whatever.

Regarding the corporate structure, whats stopping an IT guy to not freelance and keep all the big bucks to himself?

[condor]

Originally Posted by adithya.kp

This is why IT is such a bad profession.

Every field has some amount of people being replaceable.

IT is not a bad profession, but has changed over the years. Many IT folks have been snug where they were, thinking it will continue for ever. But the amount of changes that have happened recently have caught many by surprise.

Btw, we have discussed the plight of folks who are 40+ (esp in the IT industry)

[Gansan]

^^ It has happened in many other industries too due to introduction of new software instead of the old. It happened even in the company I was working for. When they adopted SAP for all functions by replacing different in house software for different functions some years ago, the very manner the company functioned changed and many people who were 50+ became surplus, especially in Finance and Accounts functions all over the country.

But to their credit they did not send anyone out, other than a few exceptions. First they reduced the retirement age to 58 from 60. Then they allowed the surplus people to continue till they attained superannuation, shifting some people to other functions and some to other locations wherever necessary. As and when anyone retired, there was no replacement. Remaining people in the departments had to take up the slack.

The value of that gesture was immeasurable for such people who were at the fag end of their service, and who's children were still studying; or daughters about to get married shortly.

[AirbusCapt]

Originally Posted by am1m

While agreeing with this as an overall concept, and certainly more of our students should be encouraged to pursue fields that they are interested in and have an aptitude for; is this practical with a population like ours?

Can we all become astronauts, entrepreneurs, cricketers, fighter pilots...? So I really see nothing wrong with mass employment. Obviously the business model works, even with a majority of people who don't have a "passion" for IT. That's why despite bitching and moaning so much about "unemployable grads with unreasonable demands", the IT companies still go after freshers in the thousands.

Nothing wrong with just doing a job professionally and going home to your real life later. Works for most of us. Over the years, the sector(s) offering mass employment will change and people will gravitate towards that. That's the way it's always been, hasn't it?

It is practical actually. What a country requires is a productive population, not a rich population. If we are a nation with millionares we would need to import bangladeshis and pakistanis to do everything for us from running the trains to picking up garbage. Look at the UAE and their extreme dependance on a expat workforce.

The IT boom is a easy boon for successive governments because of the industry's capacity to absorb a large number of fresh talent. However a country can only develop when its core sectors develop, not the service sector because one core industry job spawns multiple jobs downstream in the anciallary sectors and leads to a significant growth in gdp.

Yes our well established IT companies have provided a boost to our states gdp but the large number of mom and pop bodyshoppers are of no value to us as a nation. They are mainly operated by a US NRI who pays no taxes here, the candidates pay no taxes here , may be a trickle down effect through forex repatriation if any.

[am1m]

Originally Posted by AirbusCapt

However a country can only develop when its core sectors develop, not the service sector because one core industry job spawns multiple jobs downstream in the anciallary sectors and leads to a significant growth in gdp.

Agreed. Though the service sector, has created downstream jobs too. But either way, main point makes sense, core sectors need development too.

But I don't see it as a zero-sum game, why can't both happen?

Originally Posted by AirbusCapt

They are mainly operated by a US NRI who pays no taxes here, the candidates pay no taxes here , may be a trickle down effect through forex repatriation if any.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Aren't most of the the bigger IT firms that employ most of the IT professionals registered here, and don't they and their employees pay the majority of their taxes here? Or are you saying that the body shopping firms outnumber the TCSs and Infys in terms of employment?

[Samurai]

Fake work exists because of lazy management. I agree.

https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/.../101638893.cms

[DigitalOne]

Couple of depressing news

Infosys defers pay hikes for employees

Source

India’s second-largest IT services company Infosys has deferred the salary hikes that it typically rolls out from April for its employees below the senior management level, Moneycontrol has learnt. This comes as another indicator of the stress companies are under in the current macroeconomic climate as they see projects that are ramped down or cancelled.

TCS delays onboarding of lateral hires amid project delays and budget cuts

Source

According to Money Control, TCS has postponed the onboarding of lateral hires by three months due to delays in project commencement, budget constraints, and the general impact of adverse economic conditions. The report mentions that the delay in onboarding is affecting recruits with 1.8 to up to 15 years of experience and most of them are from cities including Bengaluru, Pune, Kochi, Delhi NCR, Bhubaneswar, and Indore.