> Tube drivers are well paid and yes that does impact the levels of sympathy available to them.

£55k isn't that well paid for people who have to live in or near London. Not if you consider it the kind of job where you should be able to afford luxuries like a family, a car, a mortgage, saving for retirement etc. It probably does sound like a lot to people who live outside London and / or aren't considering those things.

> £55k isn't that well paid for people who have to live in or near London

It's more than the typical software engineer can expect to make in London.

Source: Glassdoor, Indeed, talking to colleagues who live in London, and my own memories from my last job search.

Personally I would say a tube driver is just as entitled to a decent life as an average software developer but I realize this may be the wrong audience for that argument.

Depends on what you mean by 'entitled'?

In an ideal world we'd all have ponies, but in reality there's still scarcity so we have to ration resources one way or another. (And then whatever rationing system we use interacts with human incentives and lots of other systems.)

> Depends on what you mean by 'entitled'?

I'm not sure it does. I can't think of a reasonable definition whereby I consider an average software developer to be more entitled to a decent life than a tube driver.

The definition that has one 'entitled' to whatever one can get in a voluntary exchange of goods and services?

OTOH, they have worse health prospects than most software engineers and they mostly have contractual requirements to live within x miles of the depot they're based out of.

Serious consideration is being given to driverless cars so why not similarly upgrade all trains for situations far less demanding than public roads?

The new tube stock is designed for it to be retrofitted, but replacing all of the signalling equipment is expensive (and likely to require some closures, both of segments of the line being upgraded and of the whole line).

The subsurface lines have interworking with normal mainline services, in some places sharing platforms with them, which makes fitting platform-edge doors very difficult if not impossible.

It's rolling in slowly. Many London lines are automated. Trains in Singapore are all automated and rarely ever have drivers. London will get to that point after they replace the existing train stock.

Driverless cars can't match the volume of trains:

http://penguindreams.org/blog/self-driving-cars-will-not-sol...

What's currently happening in London is the sub-surface lines are GoA 1 (i.e., "a train system with signals") and are moving to GoA 2 (i.e., "the train drives itself from station to station unless the driver intervenes").

The new deep-level stock (i.e., New Tube for London) is specified to be able to be retrofitted with GoA 4 equipment (i.e., "there are no staff on the train, driver, attendant, or otherwise"), but will start out as GoA 2 (Victoria, Central, Northern, and Jubilee lines are already fitted and run as such with their existing stock).

And why should a software engineer in a comfy desk job be entitled to a higher wage then a tube worker?

All the software engineers in London could quit tomorrow, and life would largely go on. All the tube workers could quit tomorrow, and the city would quickly grind to a halt.

Possibly because becoming a software engineer often takes years of schooling, requires a level of aptitude that puts it out of reach for many people, and then requires continuous additional effort to keep up with the field. If this sort of thing is not compensated for more highly than low skill jobs, much fewer people would do it. Of course this argument breaks down if being a tube driver takes as much intelligence, motivation, and education as a software engineer. I don't have experience in that field. But it does seem to me that if you hired a team of software engineers for a few years you could develop a system that would not require tube drivers to exist at all. Then the city wouldn't have to worry about grinding to a halt if anyone quits.

But basically having higher wages for jobs that are harder to fill, or are more important to have highly qualified people in them, seems to be a system that works pretty well. Paying everyone the same wage seems to be a system that has largely failed anywhere it has been tried.

Yea, if you are working as an engineer for less than 55k in London (i.e. the most expensive city in Europe) you are doing something wrong.

Sounds like the software devs should strike too. You're very underpaid in London, which is very expensive.

You'd be very junior to make less than 55k GBP as a software developer in London. (Like less than three years working experience or so.)

This really isn't true and I really wish this myth would stop. Sure, if you go into the financial sector or find a startup where they don't know their arse from their elbow about software workers, you can dupe them into giving you more money. But 55k in London is a good wage for a software developer and you're definitely not looking at that if you're mid-level and working for a regular company.

Source: I've lived and worked (and continue to do so) as a software developer, technical lead and CTO in London and have been in several different sectors.

Oh, 55k GBP is a nice salary by absolute standards, but not for software developers in London.

Yes, you can see people working for so little. But why leave money on the table?

> Sure, if you go into the financial sector or find a startup where they don't know their arse from their elbow about software workers, you can dupe them into giving you more money.

Yes, obviously. Why wouldn't you? If some sectors have more money than sense, that's an opportunity--not a problem.

(I can see that there are reasons to take a lower salary in return for a job you really like; but then you don't get to complain about low pay.)

Source: I've lived and worked in Cambridge (Cambridgeshire), Singapore, Sydney, London in various roles. Mostly in big tech and finance.

And, yes, if you look at Glassdoor you can find the numbers you cited. In my experience Glassdoor seems to be systematically lower than the numbers I get from my own experience and asking friends and coworkers.

(But I might just be living the charmed life that people live who have enough sense to negotiate salaries on job offers?)

Care to explain how 55k GBP (60k EUR) can be a good wage, when the average new grad software developer in Germany makes like 50k EUR? And the cost of living is what, half or less than what it is in London?

Less taxes in the UK means higher take home from the 55k than you would have in germany. And you have to factor in that the 55 figure is probably from a time where GBP to EUR was still 1.4:1. Consider that 55k GBP might have been ~4.5k EUR/mo take home not too long ago vs ~2.5k EUR/mo take home from 50k EUR in germany. Still shitty, but not as shitty as it seems now.

EDIT: Also, using current exchange rates, the cost of living in one of the larger cities (Berlin, Munich, etc) in germany isnt that much lower compared to London anymore.

Also, benefits include:

- Final salary pension (5% contribution)

- Free travel on TfL network for employee and one family member (could be worth something like £130/mo x 2)

- Free parking at tube stations for 1 partner/family member (£5/day)

- 29+ days holiday + bank holidays

- Retail discounts

The person I know who works for TfL certainly doesn't complain.