In addition software engineering suffers from the worst ageism of any career which basically means that around mid to late 30s one starts to run into issues. Now contrast that with many other careers where one’s value invariably increases as one gains experience.
Given that, my general advice is even if you start with software engineering, transition out to other roles very quickly unless you’re in the top 1%, can be a founder or truly love software engineering.
The downside to this attrition is that software engineering (or development if you'd prefer to avoid a charged term) really does need experienced people who understand the long term impact of design, technical debt, what to pursue and what to abandon, mentor and develop new talent, and so forth.
Don’t recall if they were in the Bay Area or not, but I know someone out in California who is a nurse and wants out because the shear amount of hours they make you work. I suppose many Bay Area engineers may work a lot of extra hours as well, but my understanding was that nursing pay looks much less appealing when you’re working double the standard work week.
> How are "wages" defined by the OEWS survey?
> The following are excluded from the collection of OEWS wage data:
> Non-production bonuses
> Stock bonuses
> Year-end bonuses
Note that according to the BLS link you provided, overtime is also excluded. My company stock has never been worth a dime - I worked for Sun Microsystems before it crashed, and later for a startup that went kaput. This is all a combination of timing, luck, choices, the ability (or lack thereof) to pick a winner. Clearly variable pay is worth a lot at google, facebook, and many early startups, but my story is absolutely not unusual - and on the other side of the coin, I can assure you that nurses do get a tremendous amount of value out of overtime. Furthermore, overtime pay is predictable: you work more hours, you get 1.5-2x more money. But this pay is also excluded from the comparison I made above.
Without these considerations, the data is of limited value. FWIW, I have always been a little suspicious of how low the software engineer pay is on these surveys.
Overall, though, I think that in spite of the noise, the general principle does hold, that pay and benefits are good enough in other fields available that there's no reason to be puzzled about the low to medium interest level in being a developer in Silicon Valley, that this all explained as rational behavior in labor markets among hard working, academically inclined people.
I suspect "software engineer" encompasses people getting 400k at a FAANG and people earning 60k at an outsourcing consultancy or small product shop in a low cost-of-living area.
I'd be surprised if the spread for a RN is as broad.
The median salary for a nurse anesthetist in San Francisco is around $250k a year (and $285k a year in Akron OH)[1] - keep in mind, that's the median, not the top 10th or 25th percentile. Meanwhile, The median salary for a registered nurse nationally is $73k a year, and the 25%ile is $63k a year[2]
[1] https://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/nurse-anesthetist...
[2] https://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/registered-nurse/...
Also - remember (per the discussion above) that the 400k software engineer pay you mentioned almost certainly includes stock (which is not included in these numbers), but the pay for nurses doesn't include overtime. Try using the Transparent California calculator to see some of the higher end total compensation for nurses.
https://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/search/?q=nurse&y...
Software Engineers: ~145k Registered Nurses: ~140k
(note these are for SF and San Jose, not overall - the source for all this is at US News Best jobs which relies on labor dept data: https://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs).
I've left a version of this comment a bunch of times on HN over the years, but I'll add the usual provisos - I don't object to nurses making lots of money, or more than software engineers for that matter, but I will point out that SEs overall really aren't remarkably well paid compared to other educated professionals. And while SEs at the top make well above the median, so do many nurses in specialties that require a MS or higher.
I'm just not convinced that women would be well served by leaving nursing, law, finance, or medicine to go into tech. I don't mean this in a work-life balance "do you really want this" way. I mean, if women want to build substantial independent wealth, power, and influence, they may be well served by avoiding tech careers (or, if they work in tech, avoiding SE roles). Honestly, this is pretty much the same advice I'd give men. I'm hesitant to discourage anyone from tech or SE roles, since clearly people do have great careers in them, and it's the right choice for some people. What I resist is the notion that people should be choosing it more often than they do, when in fact, I think the low to medium level of interest in SE careers is probably the product outcome of smart people weighing the demands and rewards of a career relative to their personal professional and life interests.
I consider it very rational that US citizens with choice generally choose not to become developers in the valley in the numbers that Silicon Valley execs think they should. It's not a huge coincidence that the people who staff these positions disproportionately work on visas that limit their range of free choice in career path.