I have a friend who is a mechanical engineer. He is 24 years old, 2 years out of school, and working his first engineering job. He said that he has the option to sit behind a desk and work a straight 40he week or go out into the field and work long hours away from home. If he stays behind the desk, he makes 80k. If he goes to the field he can make around 200k. He does a mix of both and brings home around 130k. He made this sound fairly normal and said the electrical engineers should make comparable pay but wasn't sure. Is his pay normal for a mechanical engineer? Do mechanical engineers make more than electrical engineers?. He graduated from baylor, which is a good school, could that be the reason he makes so much?

Generally, ME and EE typically make about the same rate. However, it can vary depending on the exact specialty one is woking in. An expert in fluid dynamics may make more than a guy designing mechanical enclosers for products. An expert on very unique types of systems, where there are few world experts, can also make a lot of money. It also depends on where one lives. Some areas seem to provide a little higher pay scale - for example 80K in location X, versus 70K in location Y. That's all within the same ballpark.

I haven't monitored the comparison recently, so there could also be a short term trend. But, over the long haul, these things average out. I could look it up, but I expect you have already done that, as I'm writing this.

Clearly, the field work must either be hazzardous, very stressful, or requiring very specialized expertise (maybe even all of the above) to more than double one's salary. Field work can mean so many different things. Is he stuck on an oil rig for 3 mounths at a time? Or, is he traveling continually? If you tell us what it entailes, perhaps more can be said.

I used to work with a EE, who had very moderate ability, that worked for a company that put him out in the field for long stays. That is, he would work 3 months in the Arctic, and then 4 months in Texas, and so on and so on for year after year. He was single and young, so it was no big deal for him. But he put away a lot of money. His salary was high because of the stress of living like that, plus they paid for his room and board, and all expenses whereever he was.

 

I could look it up, but I expect you have already done that, as I'm writing this.

The research that I did months ago before making the concrete decision to quit work and go to school, led me to believe that I could make 70K out of the gate and 100K within 5 years. That's why I said what I said. Now I'm hearing from actual engineers that that's most likely a pie in the sky dream, so I don't know how much faith I can put in the things I read. The things I read said that mechanical engineers make very slightly less than electrical engineers.

EDIT: I just looked it up again and it's the same I read months ago.
http://www1.salary.com/Electrical-Engineer-I-Salary.html - 0-2 years experience median income = 61K
http://www1.salary.com/Electrical-Engineer-IV-salary.html - 6-8 years experience median income = 100K

 

Do mechanical engineers make more than electrical engineers?. He graduated from baylor, which is a good school, could that be the reason he makes so much?

That's a tough one. As with many fields, both electrical and mechanical engineering cover a huge spread of job descriptions, some much more challenging than others, some much more specialized than others, some much more of a niche than others. So you have to be really careful (and it's hard) not to read too much into one person's experience. It's always been my understanding that EE is among the highest paid of the engineering specialties, but that the are lots of examples of subfields that pay considerably less that many subfields of other types of engineering. Coming from an energy-related school, I was always quite well aware that petroleum, chemical, and geophysics engineering was pretty much at the top of the heap.

Here is a useful (but certainly far from telling everything) site. It gives the median salary for various engineering positions. But it gives no hint regarding the starting salaries or the variability in salaries. As a rough guess, I would use these numbers as indicative of what someone that is mid-career (say 20 years experience) might expect to make.

Electrical and Electronics Engineer: $87,180 (technician: $56,040)
Mechanical Engineer: $78,160 (technician: $50,110)

The only category on the list that exceeds $100k is Petroleum engineers at $114k, but Computer Hardware, Aerospace, and Nuclear engineers all come close in the $98k - $100k range.

Graduating from a good school that has a good reputation can definitely help land a better paying job early on. But once you are a few years out of school, where you got your degree is usually a pretty minor factor. Certainly having graduated from MIT or something like that has an effect that lingers much longer, but even then most people are going to look at your work history much more closely than your educational history.

 

The research that I did months ago before making the concrete decision to quit work and go to school, led me to believe that I could make 70K out of the gate and 100K within 5 years. That's why I said what I said. Now I'm hearing from actual engineers that that's most likely a pie in the sky dream, so I don't know how much faith I can put in the things I read. The things I read said that mechanical engineers make very slightly less than electrical engineers.

EDIT: I just looked it up again and it's the same I read months ago.
0-2 years experience median income = 61K
6-8 years experience median income = 100K

Perhaps "pie in the sky dream" is a bit of an overstatement. I never like to underestimate people's talent, nor their luck. Opportunity is always out there for the taking, and opportunity is always in you for the making.

Still, look at this data, and you really have to question it. The time range you show is 6 years, and the pay increase is $39K. I'd love to have a job that gives yearly raises at that rate. That's about a 9% per year constant increase in pay. That just seems very high in this poor economy.

I can find other data that shows PhD level people not making $100K after 6 years of experience. The numbers given on the internet just seem to be all over the map. Also, articles seem to be very biased. I ran across one article spouting how good it is for engineers now with only 2% unemployment rate and $80K starting salary for entry level. Then other articles are more in line with your $61K number.

 

I work in a software environment for a large aerospace company and have tons of experience in this area since I started in 1983.. I've only worked for one commercial software company from 1999 to 2002 and it was an experience and can, I believe, shed some light on the salaried vs hourly debate -- at least for some companies -- but not all.. The CEO of that s/w company in the popular Orange County CA area had some interesting opinions on how to get things done.. When we had a big s/w release deadline coming up, our smallish group of about 15 people (s/w engineers, QA/testers,etc) would put in the long hours for months on end -- to ensure that we met the deadline.. That meant that many people were working 6-7 days per week for months and each day was at least 12 hours and some including one of my co-workers was working 16-18 for days on end.. It got old REAL fast! I longed for a vacation but wasn't able to.. People needed to take breaks in the middle of the day to visit the dentist and whatnot but were denied -- even though they had put in about an 80 hour week.. Oh yeah.. Since we were all salaried, we got NO overtime -- we were paid for 40 hours/week only -- even if we worked 80+! The result? Years later, I pinged a friend that is still at the company and he's told me that EVERYONE left -- except him (he's in the QA area), to go to other companies where employees are treated better.. Just before I left, I heard the CEO telling the employees that the cost of having vacations was too high and if he could do away with all vacations, he would! Yikes!

Exit Stage Right!

 

some people are such idiots, when they are put in power (CEO or similar) they are incompetent and dangerous.

 

I believe that if leadership in an organization just adopts one core guiding principle, that they will do fine: Take care of your employees, and they will take care of the company. Virtually everything that leadership does can be cast in that framework. Faced with any decision that has to be made, the decision making process should always start and end with the question of what is in the best interests of the employees (balancing both near-term and long-term). That's not saying that doing this is easy or clear cut or that very hard decisions aren't going to have to sometimes be made, but that's true no matter what your decision making process is.

 

I was an analog circuit designer/writer/speaker for most of my 40 year career. I was always at the top of the salary curve for my class, or I changed employers to adjust the compensation. I started at $9000/year and ended up at $140,000/year. The money is there, getting it depends on a few things: how good you are, the visability you get, what you produce, and the extras you give. Generally, it is up to you. Choosing to stay at one location, locating in a vacation area, locating in a low cost area, etc. will lower salary if you let it.

 

I started at $9000/year and ended up at $140,000/year.

at the point you left off @ 140K, were you in a management position? What were you doing?

 

After all the overtime hours that I've worked over the years (and never got paid for any of it), I would say to you to go for the hourly rate. I assume that they are offering you this option for a good reason...but their reasoning eludes me, frankly, unless its just a ploy to keep track of your hours in the company. And if you have to go out in the field to work on something, do they expect you to keep track of your hours? One of my bosses said that putting in extra hours (without pay) showed your dedication to the job, however another of my fishing buddies (who was a VP of a large corporation) said to never do a corporation a favor unless you were directly compensated for it. I think that the last statement has more truth to it than the former one. Remember a bird in hand is worth two in the bush.

Cheers, everything has limitations...and I hate limitations.

 

I was an individual contributer doing writing, design, and giving seminars. I retired 7 years ago. Unique talents like the ability to write clearly, have vision, and present in front of customers/convention audiences increases the pay, but most of my peers were making well over $100K. A good deal of the engineering work, except in defense, has gone offshore; this coupled with the poor economy decreases demand for US engineers. Compounding this is the resident aliens who suck up US jobs at low pay. Now, US engineers get to scramble for the crumbs. When I warned about this in the Analog Angle column in EDN very few US engineers were willing to do something about it. Someday I might document the history of electronics in the US, and if I do you will be amazed to see what our government and big business destroyed.

 

When you go hourly you are looked at as a tech and the outlook for advancement is very limited.

 

Compounding this is the resident aliens who suck up US jobs at low pay.

How do we find them?

We generally had 2 to 5 engineers that were on H1B visas (in a company that, at that time, had about a dozen employees). Each time, we went that route only after being unable to find any U.S. engineer that was worth hiring. Each time getting approval for an H1B involved a lot of paperwork and costs and we had to pay them at least the going rate, as dictated by the government, for engineers and that information had to be conspicuously posted for all employees to see. Then, each year, we had to show that we were actively trying to find a U.S. engineer to fill the position and the requirement was that we were supposed to replace the H1B visa holder if we found a U.S. engineer that met the minimum acceptable requirements for the position, regardless of how much better the current H1B employee might be.

 

When you go hourly you are looked at as a tech and the outlook for advancement is very limited.

When they're paying me my hourly charge-out rate, I figure they've bought the right to think of me as a tech as much is they like.

 

Since we were all salaried, we got NO overtime -- we were paid for 40 hours/week only -- even if we worked 80+!

Did your paystub reflect you worked only 40 hours? I doubt it. You were a salaried employee.

I was a salaried employee for 22 years. Whatever pay raises I got took an Act of Congress ...

Of course it was my choice. Of course I've been retired now for almost 20 years.

I also have worked as an hourly against a commission, but I only do that to keep my one brain cell active.

I haven't worked hourly, true hourly, since high school.

Only you know your worth. The rest is negotiation. Of course you see that every night on some street corners, people negotiating their worth for their services.

 

When they're paying me my hourly charge-out rate, I figure they've bought the right to think of me as a tech as much is they like.

That will never happen until you become a one man shop. Your chargeout rate includes your wages, all the people you use directly and indirectly (IT, administrative, etc) as part of doing business, and the owners salary & return on investment monies.

 

That will never happen until you become a one man shop. Your chargeout rate includes your wages, all the people you use directly and indirectly (IT, administrative, etc) as part of doing business, and the owners salary & return on investment monies.

Right now, I'm a one-man shop.

But that's about to change.

If I could get my employer to contract with me and just pay me what they would have paid in direct benefits (wages, employer portion of FICA, insurance, retirement, and VHS), I would be ecstatic, because I can then make tax-leveraged decision on how to implement all of those things and increase my disposable income noticeably.

I did get the last employer that was gong to hire me directly to go that route, I won't get the next one to. For the one that did, it made a lot of sense because they weren't providing any benefits and no VHS. They simply paid their employees, who they contracted out to various job sites, enough for the employee to pay for all of those things themselves. So they weren't providing any of the things that would result in their employees being statutory employees. So I talked them into simply subcontracting to me and they just got their normal cut. At 12.4%, I thought their cut was pretty steep, since ALL they did was invoice the customer, pay me the balance after their cut, and process a 1099 at the end of the year. Having said that, one very valuable service they provided was that when I submitted my hours to them, they paid me that same day, even though it generally took them a month to get paid by the government. The same thing with travel reimbursements, where the turnaround was more like two months. For the last couple of years, I have held the contract directly and so get to keep that 12.4% and the paperwork is extremely light. My wife established a business to provide that service, for which I pay, and she manages other contracts on a fee-for-service basis, which has been working out to about 0.25% of the contract value (or about 2% of what the prior company was charging).

 

...generally took them a month to get paid by the government

IF that's the federal governement, then I'm glad they decreased the time to get the vendors paid. It was six weeks minimum back in the 80s/90s, as specified in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR).

I'm glad your working relatioinship with that employer was good enough for subcontracting and I hope you took the full tax advantage of being a small business owner.

I wish you the very best in your future endeavors. Subcontracting to the wife eh ... there are some real implications if your not on time with her payments

 

I might be subcontracting with my current employer after I leave in 3 weeks. The old 3rd party field service company that he used to call in weekly before I came to work here, charged no less than 600$ for every visit, but usually >1000$. I've told my boss that after I leave, anytime he picks up the phone to call them, just to call me first and I'll come out and I can probably do the job for much less. He seemed receptive to the idea but didn't exactly say "sure thing! done deal!"
Could he maybe be reluctant because I'm not an official business, registered with the BBB , with an accounting dept. and such? Is there anything I need to do to make myself more of "business" instead of just "some random dude with a cell phone and a mulimeter", that might seal the deal?

 

All it takes for you to do it "register" your DBA (Doing Business As) at the county courthouse for something like 15 bucks. Then I would recommend, if your not going to have employees, use a program like Quickbooks Simple Start (free). If you decide to have employees, get your federal Employer ID and upgrade to quickbooks.

Then you can "invoice" the former employer. Before you decide that your "cheaper" than the other person, think about all your expenses.

I would recommend you to view all you can about small business topics at the SBA website and attend a small business semiar in your area.

It will be a big step for you. The rewards are as high as you want them.