What IT Jobs(Non Management) pay 200k a year?

nestorh

TechGromit wrote: »

Sorry to ruin your dreams, but people need to be honest with themselves, just because they want it bad enough doesn't always mean they will get it. They can stay in school, get's A on every exam, work hard, make contacts with the right kind of people, etc. The simple fact is we are not all created equal, no matter what lies they tell you. Some are better at singing, acting, picking up girls, writing code, with social engineering. Yes, you can teach almost anyone but some will have a real talent and others will never be more than mediocre, no matter how hard they try.

What a bs post. No wonder you're still searching for the corner in a round room.

Yes, it is true that some are more talented in some areas from a beginning point, but you can become great in anything you want, not just "more than mediocre". The thing is nobody is willing to put the real effort into it and make all the sacrifices needed, and most just give up when things get somewhat difficult.

Sad to see this type of negativism being promoted on this board, which is mostly helpful and inspiring so other people can achieve their certs (dreams).

NuclearBeavis

nestorh wrote: »

What a bs post. No wonder you're still searching for the corner in a round room.

Yes, it is true that some are more talented in some areas from a beginning point, but you can become great in anything you want, not just "more than mediocre". The thing is nobody is willing to put the real effort into it and make all the sacrifices needed, and most just give up when things get somewhat difficult.

Sad to see this type of negativism being promoted on this board, which is mostly helpful and inspiring so other people can achieve their certs (dreams).

I don't think it's BS or negativism. Just reality. Yes, most anyone can improve at anything. But when measured against the crowd, your natural ability will play a part. It doesn't really matter how hard a 6'5 person works, they'll never be an olympic gymnast...the physics don't work when all your competition is 5'4. Did you know Lance Armstrong's heart can pump 30% more blood than the average heart?

Too many delusional inspirational movies have people thinking they can fly if they jump off a building with enough faith and determination.

Hard work plays a part, but just a part. When you try to make it your path to Valhalla, you've set yourself up for failure.

IronmanX

nestorh wrote: »

Yes, it is true that some are more talented in some areas from a beginning point, but you can become great in anything you want, not just "more than mediocre". The thing is nobody is willing to put the real effort into it and make all the sacrifices needed, and most just give up when things get somewhat difficult.

I agree.

Talent/Natural ability is a great head start, but that is all it is.
And I believe often the person without the head start ends up ahead due to having to work hard to get to where the other person started at.

Physical attributes i see got brought up, but even then for ever sport there is someone who does not fit the mold and shines.

NetworkNewb

NuclearBeavis wrote: »

I don't think it's BS or negativism. Just reality. Yes, most anyone can improve at anything. But when measured against the crowd, your natural ability will play a part. It doesn't really matter how hard a 6'5 person works, they'll never be an olympic gymnast...the physics don't work when all your competition is 5'4. Did you know Lance Armstrong's heart can pump 30% more blood than the average heart?

Too many delusional inspirational movies have people thinking they can fly if they jump off a building with enough faith and determination.

It is 100% negativism. So is this post. And I hate when people bring up the exceptions to almost everyone to why someone can't do something. We are just talking about someone becoming great at something. Not one of the best in the world...

Obviously there some people are going to be better than others at things as we aren't all created exactly the same. So we might not be able to become the best on the planet at things. But most people have the capability to be pretty dam good at most things.

I agree with nestorh's post.

NuclearBeavis

NetworkNewb wrote: »

It is 100% negativism. So is this post. And I hate when people bring up the exceptions to almost everyone to why someone can't do something. We are just talking about someone becoming great at something. Not one of the best in the world...

Obviously there some people are going to be better than others at things as we aren't all created exactly the same. So we might not be able to become the best on the planet at things. But most people have the capability to be pretty dam good at most things.

I agree with nestorh's post.

I still disagree that it's negative. My post did say most anyone can improve at anything. By all means, work and improve.

cbdudek

I started my career with the end goal of being in management. I moved up from a helpdesk tech all the way up to a Director of IT. I really do enjoy the management side of things, but the politics were a bit painful. I wanted to do something a bit more technical. I am now a Presales Engineer and am loving the change. You make a very solid salary with commission and I don't have the headaches of managing my own team or infrastructure.

The same pain point exists though. Through my career, I made a point to show the value that IT brings to an organization. I can show a cost benefit analysis and show IT as an enabler instead of a cost center. The problem is that many organizations don't see it this way, so I spend my time in sales showing the value that IT brings and why they should invest in our product. That is a painful conversation to have constantly, but I know many IT leaders fail at communicating that value and senior leadership just don't see that value.

In order to succeed at sales, you have to be very extroverted. That is something that is also lacking in technology professionals these days. If you have the right personality though, you can be successful in this field.

Iristheangel

It's true that everyone isn't going to grow up and be an astronaut but if you tell yourself you can't do it or you aren't one of those people that can learn, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. While I believe in being realistic, you have to take into account that it's human nature to want to quit when stuff gets hard and it seems easier in the moment to tell yourself that maybe you just can't learn/do XYZ than to put your all into it and potentially succeed. Yes, there's a balance to seek obviously but starting your journey by telling yourself that maybe you just aren't one of those people who can do it or aren't special enough seems like you're setting yourself up for an excuse to quit before you even try.

Iristheangel

cbdudek wrote: »

In order to succeed at sales, you have to be very extroverted. That is something that is also lacking in technology professionals these days. If you have the right personality though, you can be successful in this field.

Or you adapt. Per this former introvert

IronmanX

"Hello, my name is Isaac and I am 9 years old. My teacher asked my class to think of a challenge and how to overcome it. I put down that my challenge was to become an astronaut and I would overcome this by working really hard and being accepted into a NASA space programme. My teacher wasn't happy with this. She said we were supposed to pick something realistic. But you were once a 9-year-old boy. My question is – when the people around you were telling you it was impossible and during the time it felt like they were right – how did you stay motivated and never give up on your dream to become an astronaut? You're my hero, Tim Peake."

"Isaac, somehow I think already you're the kind of person who knows not to listen when people tell you that you can't do something. No one has the right to tell anybody that they can't do something. You've got to focus on your dreams, and you've got to stay positive, and you've got to stay motivated. Your dreams might want to change along the route – for me, I wanted to be a pilot and in those early days of being a pilot, I never thought I would make it all the way to being an astronaut in my thirties – but I did. And that's from somebody who left school – I didn't go to university. I did three A-levels and joined the army. I think the key is to just have self-confidence in your own abilities, and in what you can do. And it sounds like you've got that in spades, so well done, Isaac."

NuclearBeavis

The problem with blind encouragement is it's irresponsible and sometimes damaging. Not only that, it's often hypocritical.

If your friend comes up to you and says he's going to go for the CCIE, you'd probably say, "Of course! Do it! You can do anything you put your mind to!"

Now, let's say you're a venture capitalist, and the same friend comes up to you and says he's going to start a business and he'd like to borrow $100,000. Are you going to say, "Sure! Here's a check! I believe in you buddy! I watched The Pursuit of Happyness and I believe no one should tell you that you can't do something. Not even me."?

More than likely, you won't be so blind about encouragement when your money is on the line. You'll ask for a business plan. You'll go through a mental inventory of the character traits and qualities that friend has. You're going to decide in your mind whether or not the person has what it takes to not lose your money. And why? Because now you're risking something of yours.

Blind encouragement is, at its best, carelessly selfish, simply because you feel you have nothing of your own to lose by saying a few words. Also, you'll probably look like a great positive person to other people. But if we really care about someone, encouragement will never be blind. We'll help them look at all the facts, make a plan of action, we'll help them determine if they're willing to sacrifice what it takes to effectively execute that plan. And if we come to the conclusion that there's something wrong, we'll tell them so they can correct it or pick another goal.

Sure, we might be wrong. We might accidentally discourage someone who has what it takes to make it, even though they look like a long shot. But those rare people listen to their own inner voices anyways. It's more important we actually take the time to think things through rationally before telling someone with a history of 10ft jumps that he/she can clear the 20ft wide ravine.

Iristheangel

So you would be encouraging of someone getting a CCIE but not $200K as that is what the thread is about? Granted, there are a lot of factors in getting both but both are realistic with the right amount of work. I agree with Cyberguy in his original reply that it might be slightly less thrilling than watching paint peel if you're just chasing after money and blind recommendations on career paths without factoring your passion into it, but that's not to say you can't still make $200K or even make $200K on doing something you love.

Now if the OP was asking for a job that was low stress, WFH 100% of the time, and making $200K without any effort, it would be a bit harder and maybe unrealistic for IT but that's not the case here. Let's go back to the original post instead of chasing elephants here on how much we should encourage people:
Can you make $200K in IT? Sure. There's a lot of paths and sometimes it might depend on geography and the right job but entirely attainable.

NetworkNewb

NuclearBeavis wrote: »

Sure, we might be wrong. We might accidentally discourage someone who has what it takes to make it, even though they look like a long shot. But those rare people listen to their own inner voices anyways. It's more important we actually take the time to think things through rationally before telling someone with a history of 10ft jumps that he/she can clear the 20ft wide ravine.

I feel like you just keep assuming the worst of people and not thinking they are actually putting in the work... You are giving "blind" negativity towards people. Which I feel is ALOT worse. Not even giving someone a chance before they even started. All you keep doing is reiterating that people shouldn't try to strive for something because they most likely will fail and settle for the idea they can just be average. There is a place where I want to put a lot of these comments...

NuclearBeavis

NetworkNewb wrote: »

I feel like you just keep assuming the worst of people and not thinking they are actually putting in the work... You are giving "blind" negativity towards people. Which I feel is ALOT worse. Not even giving someone a chance before they even started. All you keep doing is reiterating that people shouldn't try to strive for something because they most likely will fail and settle for the idea they can just be average. There is a place where I want to put a lot of these comments...

Never said any of that. Not even close. In fact, I'm utterly confused at how you interpreted anything I said in that way. But I think Iris is right...I pulled this thread off topic, and for no good reason it seems. So my apologies.

NetworkNewb

I could quote parts from you're last few comments but really I don't care to.... I'll just agree to disagree.

UnixGuy

Getting a CCIE shouldn't be compared to olympic gymnastics...the former is a matter of putting hours of work and some years of experience while the other is subject to genetic limitations and 100 other factors out of your hands


Lets take the 200K illusive number out of the equation, the initial replies to the post are solid:

Higher paying jobs in IT exist, specially when you are a specialist of some sort or a good presales or in senior management or executive. You don't need special genetic makeup for that!

CharlestonGuy2020

Senior DoD Contractors with on average are closer to the $100k a year mark stateside. The only way you're going to clear $200k a year as a DoD contractor is if your a 1099 (paying 50% in taxes) or if you're not doing technical work, but instead managing programs and managing project managers. Need justification, just search on Indeed.com for "clearance" and a senior level certification such as CCIE or CISSP and leave the location blank.

CharlestonGuy2020

Sorry for the multi post....

What you're looking for are positions that have a base salary of around $100K + $100K in bonus money. Apple is a great example of this where their base for engineering positions at their HQ in California for $120K along with a $80K in bonus cash. Not bad, but then you have to factor in the cost of living there. You would actually come out better making $120k as your total compensation living in say Phoenix or Atlanta than you would living there due to the high cost of living.

However you can leave the tech side of things, and turn into a sales engineer or a manager and get that same kind of take home salary + bonus structure but I wouldn't consider this "IT" work by any stretch of the imagination.

shimasensei

I agree that location is an important factor, even if you're WFH. Being in or near the metro area where your market is located is a big advantage.