If average salaries are 80-100k why does everyone keep getting 40-60k offers?

127 points by solarmist ↗ HN
Are people's salaries really as high the numbers people are throwing around here? Around 80-100k for an average salary? My experience has been quite different. Is this just in big tech centers like SF, Seattle and NYC? Mainly consultant salaries? The people I know graduating with masters degrees from regional universities are getting 60k offers with undergrads getting 40-50k offers.

A little background for myself:

I've had a couple jobs. First was a student sys admin at U of MN computer science dept at about $10/hour (I think). Then in the Army where I made around $30k by the time I got out.

My next job in the industry was a relatively small company in the Portland area and there I made about $47k when I left and all new grads/entry level people were being offered $40k, no exceptions. The people there that had 5-10 years of experience were only making in the $65k range. And the senior developer/general manager was only making about $100k.

When I was offered the job I asked for $55k which I thought was really pushing it for only having some experience developing stuff in the army and in my classes.

So, what gives? What's with the Buick sized disconnect between my experiences and what I hear being discussed here on HN? Is there really a 40k difference in salaries just based on location?

All in all I consider myself a very good programmer (Honestly I'd guess in the top 80% of programmers, I haven't met one that's better than myself, but I don't consider myself nearly as experienced as a lot of the people here) that's passionate about coding and I've been doing it since I was in middle school, so I really want to be able to value myself accurately, but something just feels off about it. Looking at everything going on I'm thinking of leaving grad school if I can get offers like this?

Am I just marketing myself wrong? Any feedback would be appreciated.

You can check me out at github.com/solarmist or http://www.linkedin.com/pub/joshua-olson/5/521/88b.

144 comments

[ 6.9 ms ] story [ 264 ms ] thread
Short answer: yes, it's location.

Slightly longer answer: It almost always pays to go to the center of your field. You get paid less at a relatively small company in Portland because they get paid less. Firms in Silicon Valley focus on eliminating whole industries; when they succeed at that, they capture basically all the value that the incumbents in that industry had. That gives them large quantities of cash, and since there are so many other companies in the region competing for the same talent pool, a lot of that cash goes to employees.

BTW, $80-100K/year is quite low in Silicon Valley. That might be a starting salary at Microsoft for someone fresh out of school.

Although the other side of the coin is that Silicon Valley has much higher living costs. Does this make a big difference? Do people in Silicon Valley have significantly higher qualities of life, or is there an argument for staying away from the expensive hubs?
(comment deleted)
It makes a difference, but the added living costs rarely eat up all the additional salary you make. You have to figure them into your financial calculations, but you'll usually end up ahead in terms of the net amount of money you can bank in a given amount of time.
Concur. I moved to Sunnyvale from Cincinnati, OH. My salary in 2005 (prior to taking a pay cut when co-founding a startup) was $67k. My current salary is $120k. While the cost of living is higher, my net after all is said and done (savings, stock, retirement, etc) is significantly higher.
But then when you move away, you were legitimately making more at your last job.

Live in Midwest: Job 1: Make 65,000. Job 2: Make 70,000.

Live in the Valley: Job 1: Make 120,000. Move to Midwest. Job 2: Probably keep making 120,000.

I moved from Silicon Valley to Indiana, and went from making over 70k to making 40k. I will tell you that the standard of living is not THAT much higher in silicon valley than the middle-of-nowhere, midwest, where I live now. It is not $35-40k a year more expensive by any stretch of the imagination, all lifestyle considerations (quality of apartment, vehicle, etc.) being equal.

It is not a dollar-for-dollar match when you move to Silicon Valley. The pay disparity between living in SV and not living in SV is disproportionate to the cost of living. (In no way do I intend that to sound negative.)

I grew up on the East Coast, but I love Silicon Valley. Not necessarily as much as I loved NYC, but they're very different.

Silicon Valley has really, really nice weather, almost to the point of monotony. It rained something like 3 times last summer, and the rest of the time it was 75-85 degrees without being too humid. There's a lot of asian cuisine available, and some of the best restaurants (of many varieties) in the world to the North in Napa. Nature is extremely accessible, and some of the best skiing in the US is a relatively short drive (the Rockies are much, much better than the Appalachians). It's a day-tripper's heaven.

As for downsides, Houses tend to be smaller, and even those are absurdly expensive. Rents in the better parts are just a cut below low-end NYC rents. The atmosphere could be described as "Irrational Exuberance" or more commonly as an echo chamber, which can be great encouragement if you're trying to do something crazy, but it can also severely weaken your BS filter if you're not careful. Silicon Valley itself is better-than-average suburban sprawl, but it's still suburban sprawl. The public transit system is lackluster compared to NYC, but it is an option, at least. Access to a car is generally necessary (ZipCar might work, though).

There are a bunch of other upsides and downsides, but those are the impressions off the top of my head from having lived there a bit less than a year. Overall, I really like it.

It is about 15 hours to the Rockies. Did you mean the Sierra Nevada mountains?
Sorry, you're right, I was lumping the two together. Convenient and cheap flights to the Rockies, though. :-)
Or get the best of both worlds and telecommute. My last two jobs have had higher salaries than average in my city because the jobs were based on the coasts.
Firms in Silicon Valley focus on eliminating whole industries; when they succeed at that, they capture basically all the value that the incumbents in that industry had.

I'm genuinely curious:

What whole industries have been eliminated? Also what value do you refer to? Are you saying that all profit that used to go to industry X now goes to a silicon valley company?

craigslist and newspapers

amazon and local booksellers or borders

netflix and blockbuster

google and {altavista, yahoo (on their way), excite, ask, infoseek, inktomi}

oracle and a long list of competitors

Palm and paper planners Apple and low to mid level print shops Apple and CDs Netflix and DVD/Bluray (in progress...) Amazon Kindle and paper books

This would be a fun list to really spend some time on

You can find a nice table of disruptive tech in the new intro to the revised edition of Innovator's Dilemma.
"Commoditized" is probably a better word than "eliminated", but the point is that a large percentage of people who used to do something one way now do it another. For example:

Independent bookstores. Catalog retailers. Much of general retail. Antique & collectible shops. Classified ads. Yellow pages. Newspapers & magazines. Books. The music cartel. Travel agents. Realtors and education are probably next.

And yes, all (or most) of the profit that used to go to those industries now goes to Amazon/EBay/Craigslist/Google/Apple/Kayak etc.

I wouldn't say they capture all the value, they return a huge chunk of it to customers, often through lower prices. But, I agree that shrinking a $20B market to a $2B market where you control $1B in revenues at much lower costs allows you to pay employees well.
I really doubt 80-100k is an average salary... maybe an average starting salary outside of the valley. I had such offers for places outside of the valley as an undergrad (before I had graduated).
Im going to guess you are 27-29.

Before I say why I say this, can you please reply with your age? I want to test a theory which I will reveal in full if you dont mind answering..

I've seen the same for starting salaries in Seattle, over the last four years (graduated in Dec. 06). This is for big companies like Microsoft and Amazon and for some startups depending upon their stage. Anyone 26 and under would see the same.

EDIT: typo

I'm 24. And to back up what wikyd is saying, this was from one of the large Seattle area companies. Current offers remain in the same range from what I hear.
(comment deleted)
Since I STILL seem to be low balling the figure what WOULD be an average salary in the valley? For someone just out of grad school?
90-105k

Read this before doing every interview:

Game Theory, Salary Negotiation, and Programmers http://stevehanov.ca/blog/index.php?id=67

This is gold, I wish I read this before my last interview!

    When the company is the first to give a number, you always get the job, and you have a 50% chance of getting a high salary.
No... Let's say you're going to the store to get milk. Either milk will be on sale or milk will not be on sale. We've covered the universe with our proposition. Nevertheless, the presence of two options is irrelevant to their respective probabilities. Assigning a uniform prior to the options is downright absurd.

I believe what he means to say is this:

    No employer is going to lower their offer because you've asked for more.
Average salaries in SF are 100k. 50-70k is a relatively normal starting salary in "2nd tier" cities like Austin or Atlanta.

But look at housing costs, etc. You'll find depending on what you want (big house/short commute/etc) SF may not be the right place.

Hi Michael -- That's too broad a statement to make and it's not factually based on anything. Way too many variables, which is why the only real thing we can say is that location plays a huge role. In SF location drives higher salaries due to both cost of living AND huge demand.
> That's too broad a statement to make and it's not factually based on anything.

It's based on a WSJ article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870343950457611...

I've seen this number several other places as well, varing from 96k to 104.

I live in Atlanta. I get articles from Georgia Tech about the tech job scene here as well as averages for different majors, etc. If you really really really want me to find an email from Tech, and stick it on the web I will.

I get Austin numbers talking to people I know there...

I have housing market comparisons for all three cities and Vancouver due to talking to friends in all three areas.

Firstly location.

Secondly just out of school should get significantly below average salaries. You don't realize it until you've been out in the working world for a bit. But people learn a lot in their first few years of being in the real world.

Thirdly I wonder whether your figures are accurate. My experience is that people's impressions of other people's salaries are often out of sync with reality. In part because companies push people who make more to never let on that they do, so that other people don't push to make more money. (I've had the experience at multiple jobs of being told directly that letting people know my salary is a fireable offense.)

The salaries I mentioned at my old companies and classmates are relatively accurate, I got to see paperwork at my old company and my classmates were pretty excited about their offers.
My understanding is that making you not disclose your salary is unenforceable. They can get mad at you, but they don't actually have recourse.
In an "at will" state you can be fired at any time for no reason.

I doubt that enforcement would be a problem if they wished to enforce it.

They'd have to prove you disclosed it. As has been discussed here recently, there are plenty of ways to do that among colleagues while maintaining plausible denial.
If it's at-will, they can fire you for whatever reason (or no reason). I don't think they have to prove anything, except that you signed an at-will employment agreement.
Sure, but if the word on the street was that Company X fired somebody for something as petty as disclosing salary, which again is not enforceable in most States in the US, then I'd love to see them be able to hire effectively in this market.
(comment deleted)
According to this [1] cost of living calculator if you're making $55k in Portland you'd need $72k in San Jose - to maintain the same standard of living. A 30% increase in cost of living. So, anything more than that you'd actually be earning more in relative terms.

[1] http://www.bestplaces.net/col/?salary=55000&city1=541590...

The companies you're targeting value the programming work being done / needed at $x/year. If you feel like that is too low, I suggest targeting companies that value your skills at a higher rate.

Also, tech companies or companies started by or run by tech people may pay at a higher rate because they know the value of the skills and want to attract and invest in top quality employees.

Voluntary response bias. The higher earners are more willing to advertise what they make.

Also, I've heard that companies prefer to pay what a job (they think) is worth, regardless of location. Just something I've heard.

Companies pay whatever makes sense to pay from a business sense of view. If there is supply of software developers working for 65k/yr, and they don't know how to get 50% more value out of a 100k/yr developer (either because they're unable to figure out, or not interested, or because their business hinges on something else and doesn't scale with better software), then it does not make any sense for them to pay more.

And of course, they will think that whatever they pay is whatever it is worth, because they have no other indicator of fair prices.

Bay Area salaries are really that high. However, the standards for hiring are much higher out here. Interviewers out here can really smell your actual ability; BS that would work to get you a job on the East Coast doesn't fly out here.

So the salaries are higher, but the standards for hiring are also that much higher. If you are that good at programming, come to the Bay Area and you'll find a job. There are always people hiring...

http://www.indeed.com/salary?q1=software+engineer&l1=San...

There's a huge race for talent right now. You've got a peculiar background compared to most startup hires, but if you've got the chops to make it thru an interview, I imagine you'd get snatched up in the Valley (or Seattle) for $100-110k, easy. In the Valley, probably more.

I know a great company in Seattle that'd give you a $12k signing bonus, give ME $12k for referring you, and give you an iPad just for making it to the interview process.

Disclaimer: No idea if you can ship software, how broad your skills are (web dev front end to backend? Sysadmin chops? iOS?), etc.

Who's the company?
SEOmoz. Great company, great team, amazing growth, great founder.
That offer has been on the table awhile. I suspect they're desperate for top talent. I don't mean this in a bad way, but I highly doubt an impromptu conversation in this particular topic will be a winner.
(comment deleted)
Heh, my wife really wants us to move to seattle. I am more of a sysadmin but can get applications built with python.
Anecdote - one of my friends (who is a good, but not mindblowing developer) is drawing a 180k$ in San Fransisco for (essentially) maintaining a CRUD insurance app in Rails. He is being wooed by a social gaming (yeah I know!) company who is offering him 200k. So I'd think 100k would be low in San Fran. Just as a contrast, 100k is a toprange salary for a really good developer in Bangalore. By and large only managers make that kind of money hereabouts.

My friend says that he isn't able to get people to join his present company even at those rates and the only people attending interviews are clueless Indian developers who are waiting for their Green Cards[1] but hardly know how to create a table in MySQL. The good people who do join soon leave for better companies or startups.

[1] I am Indian myself fwiw. I am not saying all Indian devs are clueless, just that those applying at my friend's company are.

$200k base salary in the Bay Area is Engineering Manager level - VP at a well-funded startup, or Sr Director at a larger company. Not sure what your friend is doing.

$75-$100k represents 0-5 year engineer in the vast majority of cases. Most mid-career folks earn between $130-$160k.

n.b. There are definitely exceptions. Difficult and specific hires will generally command market rate + 50%.

What does "mid career" mean?
Putting my cynical hat on: 25.
I'd put mid-career as late-twenties to late-thirties, depending on the person.
"$200k base salary in the Bay Area is Engineering Manager level - VP at a well-funded startup, or Sr Director at a larger company. Not sure what your friend is doing."

First I think it is 180k gross salary, not really "base". Second, as I said, all I know is that he is working on some kind of CRUD Rails Insurance App that makes its company millions of dollars. He is just a competent Rails dev. No genius of any kind or any extraordinary skills like, say Linus Torvalds. Maybe he is being paid a premium because he is the only capable dev in the company. Maybe he just got lucky. He has a dozen years or so of experience. I really don't know any details hence the "anecdote" prefix.

If it helps, I knew middle managers at Intuit were drawing well above 200k US$ at nowhere near "Senior Director" level. My immediate boss in India was drawing around that much. And his boss about 300k. Another "dotted line"/ matrix org( heh!) immediate superior was getting >250k as well. This guy was a "Chief Architect" and not manager at all. (well in Intuit all these positions are very political and not really about tech at all, still) And he had a 3-4 layers above him before he reached the boardroom players at Intuit. I don't consider GlassDoor to be authoritative but here is a report for a position (plain jane "architect") that would be one level below my "Chief Architect" boss.

http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Intuit-Software-Architect-Mo...

Seems to bear out my thesis that these kind of salaries aren't all that rare. To repeat, I am not saying GlassDoor estimates are accurate, just that in this case, it bears out my personal experience.

Another anecdote: My title at Intuit (India) had an additional (and empty) "Senior Program Manager" tacked onto "Architect" and I was getting > 100k in India. (In Intuit, when I was there, Indian salaries were roughly half US salaries for the same position.) They still find it very hard to hire senior technical people. Go figure.

My personal hypothesis on such things is that salaries follow perceived (vs actual) value add. I had nothing to do at Intuit except attend endless meetings about meetings and write the occasional email. I quit in 6 months.(It helped that I really didn't need the money and I could make an equivalent amount but actually working for it (which I am doing now touch wood)). My former division at Intuit has delivered nothing (except PowerPoint) in the last couple of years but everyone who is still there keeps drawing their salaries. Some even got raises.

So, yes. Intuit is a cash flush/high paying company, but I still wouldn't really blink at someone getting 200 k in San Fransisco, without being anything like a VP, but hey I don't live there. What do I know? I am glad to concede to people "on the ground".

PS : I also have friends, who are really good developers working on very cutting edge projects in Google (Mountain View) who don't make anything near 250 k. They are very fulfilled by their work and don't seem to care. So it seems to be all over the place. But there certainly are very normal devs getting >200k in SV. (and of course many more at WallStreet companies but that is probably a separate discussion).

180k package makes a lot more sense. 140k base + 20% bonus target + 10k stock is what a lot of senior developers make.

In my experience "chief architects" do tend to get paid a lot, regardless of direct reports.

By the way - this discussion is very confusing since most people in this thread are talking about base salary, yet you seem to consistently talk about entire package.

Anyone got any thoughts on how to convert these figures to an equivalent for London in the UK?

It'd be great to compare for those of us based in the UK.

Incidentally I also noticed a comment here that mentioned that everyone is hiring, presumably in the Valley, and suggested you brush up your resume and go to networking events and look for a better offer. If you do decide to dust off your resume then you may be interested in my new startup http://www.mightycv.com/. You can sign up for the beta with this code: 22MARCH2011. It's a resume builder aimed at developers/hackers and integrates with HN, StackOverflow and Github. It imports from LinkedIn too. Here's my MightyCV by way of an example: http://robeastham.mightycv.com .

as a contrast, 100k is a toprange salary for a really good developer in Bangalore.

Isn't USD100k a ridiculously large salary in Bangalore for any job that has 'Developer' in the title. I'm actually completely blown that a person at a software company in Bangalore could be making that much.

No it is not ridiculously large. It is large, hence the word "top range". There are people making that kind of money but yeah some of them don't have "developer" in their titles and are probably called "Architects"[0] or similar[1]. We are talking of really good people who, for whatever reason (often family etc) do not want to work in the USA etc.

Salaries in Bangalore are heavily dependent on "years of experience". The way the HR folks calculate expected salary is something like 2-2.5 lakhs Indian rupees(about 4-5k US $ depending on the exchange rate) * number of years of experience. So with about 12 years of experience[1] you should be getting about 48-60k$ if you are still coding and are at least somewhat good at your job. This is the average* though and falls precipitously as you move towards the bodyshopping end of the bell curve. (You can still make this kind of money as a manager though, even at the most cheapskate bodyshopper)

The really good folks get better salaries than that. The interesting thing about Bangalore is that the range of salaries is wide. You have barely literate "coding bodies" (who the "outsourcers" encounter) drawing puny salaries and also very senior devs who can pick and choose where and what they work on and get close to US salaries(and often have spent a few years in the USA before heading home for good).

So yes 100k is high but not ridiculously so, (If by "ridiculous" you mean someone getting such a salary is some kind of absolute rarity, and an object of wonder when spotted). Otoh I've never heard of any kind of dev/tech person getting say 200k $ or more, though I know people in the US who do. (they are pretty rare too)

"I'm actually completely blown that a person at a software company in Bangalore could be making that much."

You really should talk to some senior devs in Google's (say) Bangalore office ;-). Twenty years from when outsourcing took off,things have changed, even in Bangalore although that change is still unevenly distributed. Not every dev in India is grubbing for the crumbs from the outsourcer's table any more.

That said, this is just my viewpoint based on what I see. Consume with appropriate dosages of salt. Even better talk to some world class Indian devs who chose to stay on in or come back to India and find out for yourself.

[0] Of course some "architects" are just people who got old and never got promoted, just is in the USA.

[1] Title Inflation is a real problem due to differing social expectations etc which is a subject that would take pages to explain.

[2]there is heavy pressure to move into management (see [1]) and it is only the really committed devs who stay coding for 10 years +. Which makes their supply all that much rarer for when you really need them.

Interesting. I have been living in Chennai for some time and had no idea salaries in Bangalore could get that high for people choosing to stay on development and not move into management. So I guess what you're saying is since it's a less popular career track, companies that want that kind of experience pay well to get it
"companies that want that kind of experience pay well to get it" is a very concise way to put it. Yes that was exactly what I was trying to say. I guess I am also saying that if you are really good (which is rare by definition) you'll find (these days) that there are more companies (than there used to be) who are looking.
As a dev at msft in Hyderabad, I know that salaries around 100k (gross, not base) are quite possible for senior devs with over a decade of experience. However, we need some perspective here. There are 2.5 million people working in the IT-BPO industry in India. Of those a mere 100k work in product companies (domestic or MNC captives). My rough estimate is that about 1-2k of this 100k are developers making 100k USD. Outside of product companies (2.5 million - 100k), in the IT service companies, about one in every 300-400 guys makes $100k - and that guy is almost always a senior management guy.

Also, while a few make $100k, $50k is common for people with over a decade of good experience - but do remember that there are relatively very few folks (<5-10% of the industry) in India with over a decade of experience.

(comment deleted)
If you're the best programmer you know, then you're probably not in a competitive enough market to drive prices up for programmers.

In a place like Silicon Valley, it's impossible to not meet somebody that's better than you.

Either that, or I'm seriously underestimating your programming ability!

Lol, I'm probably just a decent sized fish in a small pond, but I do keep growing, so I've been looking to find myself a bigger pond.
I made the move to Silicon Valley about four years ago. It was one of the best choices I've made in my life. I wish I would have made the move a long time ago.

If you only make around 60k now, don't expect to get a 100% raise once you move over to a tech hub, unless you are an amazing negotiator. Shoot for 85-90 (plus some stocks). Don't waste time at a company that doesn't have a lot of growth potential. Work harder and output more than the rest of your team does. Stay visible, make sure they know the value of your contributions. A few 10% raises/promotions later and you could be up to 120k+ in no time.

I think part of it is Portland -- Anecdotal, but I know a large number of people in the area who are relatively good at dev and used to work for HP or another local company and are now unemployed or underemployed and have a house that's severely underwater.

A few Seattle companies I know of have hired portland telecommuters because they've had trouble finding good talent up here. I have no idea how much that is happening outside of my experience.

Depends on location + company/role. Other comments point out location is important and I agree. But almost as important is what kind of company you are at--salary at a tech company where you are creating and building new products is different from salary at a cable company where you are maintaining products someone else built. As an engineer, your job is to find ways to improve the business, work your ass off to implement them, and then build the tools so that less skilled people can manage your creations. Keep creating value in this manner and you'll see your salary skyrocket. Though if you are at a company where they would rather have you sit on your ass doing nothing than being a go-getter (as I learned the hard way), get off your ass and look for a better job.
These "salary" threads of the past week have been a bit depressing to me. Like you, most of the salaries discussed in these threads make me feel like I've been and am still underpaid.

And this one is no other. And I live in the Bay Area… my internship was nowhere the $8k mentioned at some point for Google and my first salary was pretty far from the $100k that are floating around here once again.

That being said, I actually checked salaries of H1b (I was one too) at my current and previous companies and mine looked decent in comparison. So, I'm not sure if it's matter of me picking the wrong/cheap companies (and being bad at negotiating, but I know that) or that there is some selection bias going on.

Salaries in the Bay Area remind me of sushi restaurants in Tokyo. The vast majority are in a fairly normal band that we can all relate to. Then there are the upper echelon which make a very sudden and alarming jump in price. Much like how Chowhound focuses on the creme de la creme and its commensurate pricing, HN focuses on the top 1-5% of tech jobs.
Everybody is hiring. Brush up your resume, go to networking events, and start handing out business cards. You'll have an idea of your fair market value if you're checking the market to see what your time is worth.
I would honestly say you are being short changed if you get 55K. Back in the day (some 10+ years ago), I got 55K with 2 years experience in the midwest.

Today, I hear from friends who still live out there that not much has changed, but I would be looking at 70K in salary with 2 years experience.

If you can, hold out for better opportunities and please, please, please, don't sell yourself short. A 15K would not make a difference to these companies. It will make a difference to you. I went to silicon valley from mid-west with a 30K jump in salary back in the day. I shared an apartment in the bay area and living costs didn't matter that much. The money did.

Total nitpick, but by saying that you are "in the top 80% of programmers" do you really mean you consider yourself in the top 20%? Because if you are in the top 80, there could definitely be a reason why you are drawing such a low salary :)
You got me. I hope I'm in better than the top 80%, but I'm doubting myself now that I wrote that... :P
You did it again! How could anyone be better than the top x%? ;)
I think you mean you're 80th percentile (better than the bottom 80%, or 80% below you and 20% above you).
Wow... Note to self. Don't write posts after midnight...
No one has said anything about the language or platform?

Please don't make this an argument about what language is better, blah blah blah, but the language you specialize in makes a difference -- at least in terms of salary.

From my limited experience, Ruby/Rails pays significantly more than PHP or .NET . I hear Java pays even more... Just sayin...

Edit: This is why I love these salary threads. We could have just potentially changed the OP's life (for the better I hope), even if to most people its just an annoying topic that keeps coming up on HN.

$80-100k understates the salaries in Silicon Valley. $100k isn't even a recent college grad salary, it's usually closer to $110k + $40k in other compensation == $150k right out of college. A few years of experience pushes you well over the $200k mark. Heck, interns even get paid $8k/month which is almost $100k/year.

Seriously, brush up your resume and apply to the major firms.

By the way, I should note that cost of living and taxes are much higher here. Standard rent is >$2k (which is nothing compared to some parts of NYC, I guess...)

Interesting - I'm only a year and a half out of college, and I don't think any of my undergrad CS friends were making a $110k salary right after graduation (more in the 60-90 range).

I've always used a rule of thumb that rent is $1k/month/bedroom around Palo Alto, a bit less in Mountain View / Sunnyvale / Redwood City, and a bit more in SF. >$2k/month/bedroom sounds extraordinarily high - where were you seeing that?

He's BSing you. Like 90% of the comments on HN.
60-90k is what I'd expect to see from something outside the San Fran area as a college grad. I don't have personal experience with starting salaries there, but I would expect them to be much higher due to a higher cost of living.
From the Stanford CS department for 2009-2010, regarding CS/EE undergrads, size = 140 students:

> Salary offers ranged from $65,000 to $95,000. The average salary offer was $79,333. The median salary offer was $ 80,000.

Granted (heh), this doesn't include stock options.

I think you're quoting the salaries from the big firms who are only looking to hire the best people, and even then that might be a starting MS/Ph.D salary for a specific role (e.g., machine learning) as opposed to general dev. I can see the Googles, Amazons, Apples and Facebooks of the world paying that for newly-graduated grad students, but that's hardly the norm.
The average salary is pretty accurate, what I think you may fail to realize is that the industry will pay a premium for experience. I've been coding professionally for 10 years. 80-100k is normal for that much experience in Vancouver, I'm sure it's even more in SF/NYC
Putting aside location for a moment, its because averages are averages. Just because a number is in the middle means that's what most people earn. Suppose the top 10% make 200k and the bottom 60% make 50k. That is not an even distribution curve, yet if you do an average its higher than 50k because its offset by the top 10%.
There are companies in Portland that are hiring at larger salaries than what you're seeing. You just have to shop around. I would suggest getting in to the local tech scene there (user groups, etc). There's also all of the conferences that go on. Also, don't be afraid to look for remote work.
Ok so your very first job (out of the Army) was paying you 47K? Is that correct? So beyond that single company, do you have any other criteria for the title of your post "why does everyone else keep gettin' 40-60k offers?" I expect that if you change companies and create value your salary will increase.
There are many, many variables. Too many to consider.

If you really want to know how you stack up with devs in SV, come out here for a hackathon or SF Startup Weekend.

Decide for yourself who's smarter and ask them what they think is a fair offer for your skills. If you've figured out they're smart, they will probably already have an idea.

Simple. You keep getting emails from recruiters advertising $50k/year Senior Developer positions for the same reason that you get 200 resumes from completely unqualified people for every position you advertise.

Good positions fill quickly, just like good developers find jobs quickly. What's left is bad developers and bad jobs.

So what you're seeing is not hundreds of employers who don't know what the market rate is. It's dozens of employers who refuse to believe the market rate is where it is, and therefore continue advertising for the same position over and over. There will always be that $50k Senior Dev position available in Hillsboro because they're never going to fill it.