How can I increase my hourly pay as a software developer?
Short term: ask for a raise or look for a new job that pays more. Longer term: "It's a tough thing to do.  You should look for a salaried position.  Your freelance skills will be much better received, if you've worked for a couple of companies doing programming full time.  Nothing beats working at it all day long for a few years. If you're set on being freelance, write some utility that will be popular, and submit it to Freshmeat.net.  Now that's asking a lot.  Those on the Web looking for programmers will most likely want you to work for 'sweat equity'.  That is, a share in the company for you labour.  In other words ""FREE"".  I've done my share of those, and if you're just getting into this, you should steer away from them.  You may hit the jackpot, but you won't sleep for the next few years ;-)" You are paid hourly? I would have expected most IT people to be on salary Depends what your boss is like, he might be easy going and just give a raise if you ask for it. Failing that, do some self improvements, learn something new, take a course, maybe take some PHP certifications or even java certifications? Then at least you can say you're trying to move up In regards to pay, have a look on monster or some US job sites, at jobs similar to what you do and with the similar requirements, that should give you an idea of what you should be on. If all else fails, find a new job, that is always a good way of  moving up Hope this helps "Start by going to Salary.com and figuring out what the range is for your location (could be quite wide).  Then also look at job postings in your area and see if any of them mention remuneration (gov't jobs tend to do this).  If possible go and ask other people in your field what they think the expected range of salary should be. Take all that data and create a range for your position.  Then try and place yourself in that range based on your experience and skill set.  Be honest. Compare that with your own pay.  If your figures indicate you should be making significantly more, schedule a meeting with your boss (or wait for a yearly review if it's relatively soon) and lay out your findings.  They can say: Be ready for curve balls like benefits, work environment and other ""intangibles"". If they say no and you still think your compensation is unfair, it's time to polish up your CV.  The easiest way to get a job is to already have one." Most full time developer jobs in the US are paid on a salary basis rather than hourly unless you are a contractor. Also, the pay varies widely by region in the US with the West and East coast typically paying the most, but also having the highest cost of living. A site I really like for getting salary data by region and keyword for technical jobs is indeed.com. Here is a link to a chart on that site comparing salary trends for PHP and Joomla.
Yeah, I mean, what it really comes down to is the fact that life isn't fair.  I would think that if your company is squeezed enough that it's paying a lot more for new employees who do what you do already, then if you go to your boss and ask for a raise, he's not going to say no. It's way easier (and cheaper) to keep an employee, particularly a good one, than to find someone new. Just a thought. Like a lot of people have said you get what you put in. If you want a 9-5 you can have that but the pay reflects it. I took a job just over a year ago, the money was good but the hours were tough. My longest shift was 27 hours, it formed part of a 64 hour Friday morning to Monday morning weekend.  But the long hours and the dedication I showed meant that I could turn down a 34% pay rise 6 months in and negotiate for 43%. That project finished, I'm down to a 45 hour week and I've still got the pay. You just have to work out if it'll get better down the line or if it won't how long you can handle it .. No  If I can make a job offer for $7 per hour and people apply.. Why would I ever pay more? I'm not forcing people to apply. They want the job. If $7 an hour is good enough for the workers who apply, then it's good enough for me. Why pay more when I can pay less? I'll need to hire people soon for packing and shipping and you bet I'll be paying the state minimum wage because I know I'll have people applying to work. I don't count bonuses because they fluctuate from 5% to 200% which depends, up to 50%, on how the company does as a whole, not just how well you perform. Can't count on something like that. The guys I see working 70+ hours are the ones that end up with the big bonuses and great jobs without having to go to a top program after work.   Anyway, best of luck to you in your career. It seems like you know what you need to do. Yes. I have personally signed such contracts (fixed budget software development) and lost money every single time. And yes, it is quite possible for you to get paid under minimum wage if you take too long. Scope creep is the primary culprit for these kinds of contracts, so make sure you put together iron-clad explanations of what is and is not covered by the contract (and pad the asking price for good measure). "This is really the best thing you can do for any salary job in the interview process. It makes negotiating salaries SO much easier and you have a baseline to tell if they're trying to short you or what they thought of your interview.  Granted you should be adjusting for experience on a case-by-case basis but I've pointed to this in interviews when salary came up and (politely) said ""&lt;here's&gt; the average, I have a lot of experience in the field so I think &lt;this&gt; is an appropriately adjusted amount."" None of my counter offers have been lower than the average." "With your knowledge/experience, you should easily be able to find work through one of the freelance developer sites out there.  It would let you work flexibly on your own schedule, and you can decide what types of work you're willing to do at rates you choose to work for. You could always come up with your own ideas for a commercial website of some kind that could help generate some degree of passive income that won't interfere with your full-time work.  That's only limited by your imagination and creativity. The third alternative is to find a ""real"" job (I chuckle at that one!) like most people do. I hope this helps. Good luck!" "Hey, I hope I didnt come off as harsh on you.  I'm not sure how much I can help, but Id be glad to give you tips on getting you name in the door with the big companies, and other career-y advice.  If you haven't already though, please read this article on [negotiating from the perspective of an engineer](http://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-negotiation/).  I don't think anyone truly enjoys negotiating, but with experience it becomes much easier and more natural.  See yourself as an asset - because you obviously are if they are offering their money to you!  And in reading your post - let me say this.  Never see your company as your friend.  Yeah, you might be friends with your boss and coworkers, you all might be in a softball league and hangout, but when it comes to the hours of 9-5, to someone somewhere in your chain of command you are a line item that costs them X amount of money and makes them X amount.  Don't forget that, and don't let yourself have ""feelings"" towards the company.  If the company isn't smart enough to hire a backup, even after you have advised them to do so, that is their doing and any repercussions are for them to take.  I'm not saying be unflexible, but if you ever, ***ever***, start to think about making or not making a major decision (such as not leaving a company) that is bad for your bottom line in exchange for helping out the company or due to ""feeling"" in some way towards the company, stop, forget your feelings, and do what logic alone tells you to do.  You and your company are not friends.  If the company can find someone cheaper to do your job, they will do so with no feelings towards you.  And the being solo part -- yeah, thats not a good way to go early in your career.  I've made it my objective to surround myself with people smarter than me who are willing to guide me, even at the cost of current financial gains, simply because as a young professional learning from others is one of the top priorities for me now.  Running solo - being shoved to a corner to do your work alone - is a huge no-no IMO." "Your employer appears to be stealing from you. I know, Canada -- but I'm assuming you have the distinct pleasure of getting paid in local currency. I know it's easier said than done, but if you can code decently in something like Ruby, just look online for local hackathons and Startup Weekend events.  Every single on I have attended, one or more professional speakers ends their presentation with ""and we're hiring developers"". Even if that doesn't happen, you'll get some great opportunities for networking and you will have a rudimentary public project to share with potential leads.  Plus they are fun." "I worked for a company a few years back that insisted all of us were ""non-supervised exempt technical workers,"" and they wanted 45 hours out of each person.  No matter to them that that was a 12.5% cut in hourly pay.  Unfortunately, they did no research and didn't bother to actually apply for any exemptions.  One of the analysts got sick of it, found another job, then turned over his timecards to the labor department.  Said company had to write him a check for $10k, as well as write smaller checks for every other person working there." "I am not sure if I would get any benefit besides the hourly payment as   an intern. What are the benefits I can expect while working for this   company (or any other software company) Probably none. Changes from company to company but usually only full-time employees are entitled for benefits. For example, could I ask them to reimburse my bus fare or fuel costs   in addition to the hourly pay? You can always ask:-) If it's not in the offer - better ask now, you'll get paid what is written in the offer you accepted. Highly unlikely though. What kind of an ""employee"" is an intern? (Read about exempt and   non-exempt employee, but that's all very confusing) As intern you're non-exempt. As a professional (i.e.: Not part of internship) you would be exempt. Since this is the second time, since my interview, that I have   requested, and been offered a higher rate, should I continue to ask   them for a value near a $35/hr rate Have you asked them for $35? Or just for more? Anyway, I don't think that if they raised the offer from $17 to $21.75 that there's a chance for you to get $35 from them." The hours you list are all over the place.  Is it 40 hours/week or 65-80?  You best clarify it during your interviews.   My only tip is familiarize yourself with:   http://gipsstandards.org/   They may not use it, but at least know what the industry standard is. "You have to be firm. Refuse to work excessive overtime. This is why I switched to consulting. 16 hour days suck, but if you're billing for 16 hours, it makes it more bearable.   I've recently switched to the ""I only care about money"" mode of thinking, and switched to hourly pay after being salaried for almost 10 years. And it's not that it's the only thing that matters, but a lot of the rest of this stuff falls into place. It really simplifies things. You don't work for free. Your time is seen as a commodity. You are given goals and targets. You're not dragged into unnecessary meetings. Your opinion is respected. If you have to work saturday, you're sure as hell billing for it. If I take off at 2pm because I want to watch a hockey game, I just stop billing at 2 and there isn't this ""I'm not getting my money's worth!"" feeling from the manager." "What makes a ""standard"" raise depends on how well the economy is doing, how well your particular industry is doing, and how well your employer is doing. All these things change constantly, so anyone who says, ""a good raise is 5%"" or whatever number is being simplistic. Even if true when he said it, it won't necessarily be true next year, or this year in a different industry, etc. The thing to do is to look for salary surveys that are reasonably current and applicable. If today, in your industry, the average annual raise is 3% -- again, just making up a number -- then that's what you should think of as ""standard"". If you want a number, okay: In general, as a first-draft number, I look for a raise that's 2% or so above the current inflation rate. Yes, of course I'd LIKE to get a 20% raise every year, but that's not going to happen in real life. On the other hand if a company gives me raises that don't keep pace with inflation, than barring special circumstances I'm going to be looking for another job. But there are all sorts of special circumstances. If the economy is in a depression and unemployment in my field is 50%, I'll probably figure I'm lucky to have a job at all and not be too worried about raises. If the economy is booming and all my friends are getting 10% and 20% raises, then I'll want that too. As others have said, in the United States at least, the best way to get a pay raise is to change jobs. I think most American companies are absolutely stupid about this. They don't want to give current employees big raises, so they let them quit, and then hire replacements at a much higher salary than they were paying the guy they just drove to quit. And the replacement doesn't know the company and may have a lot to learn before he is fully productive. And then they congratulate themselves that they kept raises this year to only 3% -- even though total salaries paid went up by 10% because the new hires demanded higher salaries. They actively punish employees for staying with the company. (Reminds me of an article I read in a business magazine by an executive of a cell phone company. He bemoaned the fact that in the cell phone industry it is very hard to keep customers: they are constantly switching to other vendors. And I thought, Duh, maybe it's because you offer big discounts for the first year or two, and after that you jack your prices up through the roof. You actively punish your customers for staying with you more than 2 years, and then you wonder why customers leave after 2 years.) Oh, if you do change jobs: Absolutely do not buy a line of ""we'll start you off with this lower salary but don't worry because you'll get a big raise in a year"". When you're looking for a job, it's very easy to turn down a poor offer. Once you have taken a job, leaving to get another job is a big decision and a lot of work. So you have way more bargaining power on starting salary than on raises. And the company knows it and is trying to take advantage of it. Also consider not just percentage increase but what you're making now versus what other people with similar experience are making. If people comparable to you are making $50k and you're making $30k, you're more likely to get a big raise than if you're already making $80k. If the company says, ""We just don't have the budget to give you a raise"", the key question is, ""Is that true?"" If the company is tottering on the edge of bankruptcy and trying to cut costs everywhere, then even if they know you're a good and productive employee, they may really just not have the money to give you a good raise. But if business is booming, this could just be an excuse. It might be an excuse for ""we're trying to bleed employees white so the CEO can get another million dollar bonus this year"". Or it might be a euphemism for ""you're really not a very useful employee and we're seriously thinking of firing you, no way we're going to give you a raise for the little bit of work you do when you bother to show up"". My final word: Be realistic. What matters isn't what you want or think you need, but what you are worth to the company, and what other people with similar skills are willing to work for. If you are doing work that brings in $20k per year for the company, there is no way they are going to pay you more than $20k for very long. You can go on and on about how expensive it is these days to pay the mortgage and pay medical bills and feed your 10 children and support your cocaine addiction, but none of that is relevant to what you are worth to the company. Likewise if there are millions of people out there who would love to have your job for $20k, if you demand a lot more than that they're going to fire you and hire one of them. Conversely, if you're bringing in $100k a year for the company, they'll be willing to pay you a substantial percentage of that." "Somehow I just stumbled onto this thread...  &gt; You essentially robbed the person holding the debt (since you promised to pay it off).   Depends on leverage, with fractional reserve lending.  Banks are permitted to loan out 30x their actual assets, or more.  If I have $1 but can loan out $30, and anything more than $1 gets paid back, I haven't lost any money.  In addition, I can write off the amount defaulted, *and the government will pay me back* for certain types of loans.  With student loans, since they are almost impossible to discharge, gov't will pursue the borrower for years and decades, and ultimately collect more interest.  Here is an article on it:  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704723104576061953842079760.html  &gt; According to Kantrowitz, the government stands to earn $2,010.44 more in interest from a $10,000 loan that defaulted than if it had been paid in full over a 20-year term, and $6,522.00 more than if it had been paid back in 10 years. Alan Collinge, founder of borrowers' rights advocacy Student Loan Justice, said the high recovery rates provide a ""perverted incentive"" for the government to allow loans to go into default. Kantrowitz estimates the recovery rate would need to fall to below 50% in order for default prevention efforts to become more lucrative than defaults themselves.   Not to mention:  http://studentloanjustice.org/defaults-making-money.html  &gt; So essentially, the Department is given a choice:  Either do nothing and get nothing, or outlay cash with the knowledge that this outlay will realize a 22 percent return, ultimately (minus the governments cost of money and collection costs).  From this perspective, it is clear that based solely on financial motivations, and without specific detailed knowledge of the loan (i.e. borrower characteristics, etc.), the chooser would clearly favor the default scenario,  for not only the  return, but perhaps the potential savings in subsidy payment as well,     And don't forget the penalties accruing to the person defaulting; they will probably have to move out of the country in order to escape collection.  And let's factor in the huge ROI the lender sees by creating an indentured servant class.  Plus, the gov't will issue as much currency as it wants, to make *itself* whole.  And how much of a loss IS the loss, when the whole of the loan amount went right back into the local economy, paying professors, janitors, landlords, grocery stores, etc.?  And don't forget all THOSE taxes (income and sale) that the gov't collects.  Government will collect ~30%-50% of the loan immediately as income and sales tax, plus a portion of it every time the money changes hands (I pay income tax, then use some of my after-tax money to pay you for a product or service, and you still have to pay tax on that money, and so on).  So it's more complicated than having ""robbed the person holding the debt"".  Banks at 30x leverage don't lose money as long as they get back 1/30th of the total amount lent out, including interest, fees, and penalties, before considering write-offs and government repayment.  In fact, the point of over-leverage is so you CAN make loans that have risk attached.  If you could only lend what you actually had, you would have to stay away from anything risky because it would be too easy to lose money.  Having virtual $ to bet means you can serve market segments that have higher risk.  This makes MORE money for the banks, that's why they do it.  They are already playing with funny money, so they don't lose any even if you default and move to another country.  And the money you ""spent"" has also made its way back to them in various amounts, such as your professor's mortgage payments, auto loan, etc.  Your taking on debt already helped the bank get its OTHER loans repaid.  So, roughly speaking, if you took out $90,000 and $3,000 of that made its way back to the bank through various means, they haven't lost any money, because it only cost them $3,000 actual dollars in the first place."