Lewis Botcherby

 salary and employment survey shows encouraging increases, but in many areas, spectroscopists have simply gained back ground that had been lost in recent years.

	The results from this year represent two new records for the 

 salary survey. First, the average salary broke the $90,000 mark for the first time. Second, the average salary showed the single largest change we have ever recorded. At 7.6%, this year's rise in average salary represents an increase of $6411 compared to 2017 (Table I). Breaking the $90,000 barrier for the first time also represents a return to salaries not seen since 2013–2014. Is this a new horizon of a positive trend or a false dawn, a one-time blip? Time will tell.

	Breaking down the data reveals a more complicated picture, with gains and stagnation in all the usual places, with a few surprise decreases. As shown in Table II, the average male salary has leapt up by $9572, breaking the $100,000 barrier for the first time and eclipsing the previous highs set in 2013–14. The average female wage has seen an increase by a slightly more modest $6117, to $79,770. The already prominent gender pay gap (approximately 20%) did not get any smaller.

	Moving on to sector data, average salaries increased in academia by $6375 and returned to the $70,000+ bracket following two years at $67,000. The largest gain was found in the industrial sector, with an increase of $6531, eclipsing the previous highs from 2013–14 but falling short of breaking the $100,000 mark. Government salaries maintained parity with last year's result at $80,363.

	Breaking the average salaries down by education level reveals a startling reduction of 9.3% for those who have completed a PhD. However, the 2018 average for this group is still considerably higher than all other previous years, suggesting that individuals educated to that level have seen reasonably good wage growth so far this decade. As for those educated to the bachelor's and master's levels, the results are also positive. Increases in both categories come to 13.3% and 16.5%, respectively, compared to last year. The caveat to these uplifting results is that when compared to results from just a few years earlier, the gains don't amount to much; both results are lower than those seen in 2013. It is probable that this yearly variation in average salaries derives from the wide pay spectrum available for this group, with some earning salaries that rival those educated to a PhD level while others languish far behind.

	In terms of the next factor, age, the logic that experience demands higher wages continues, except for in the 60+ bracket where the last few years have seen historically unusual drops in average salary. This year's decrease is not as dramatic as that seen in 2016, when average salaries for those over 60 dropped below the $90,000 mark, but 2018 does show a drop below the $100,000 mark and even below the average salaries reported by respondents in the 50–60 age bracket. The reasons for this aren't clear. As for the younger age brackets, those below 40 recorded a 7.9% increase from last year and those in the 50–60 bracket experienced a small increase of 2.1%.

	There is an eerie consistency with which respondents to this survey cite their increasing workloads year after year. Once again, those who say their workloads have increased account for 63.5% of respondents, about the same as in 2017, 2016, and 2015. And on it goes. Only 4.2% of respondents said their workload had decreased and the remaining 32.3% indicated that their workloads had remained the same. As to the reasons for this reported increase, we expanded the options in this question this year to gain a more detailed explanation. For the first time, increased business is not the most cited reason (Figure 1), being trumped by added responsibility, which 67% of respondents selected. Staffing cuts, new equipment, and new regulations all feature prominently, at 36%, 30%, and 27% respectively. Other reasons for increased workloads included "changed position within the organization," which 16% of respondents selected, and the least frequently selected reasons included "going through a merger" at 5% and "took a new job" at 3%.

	Stress continues to be an issue (Figure 2). Just over half of respondents indicated an increase in stress compared to last year while only 6% indicated a reduction in their work-related stress (Figure 2). This increased stress appears to have had a knock-on effect on job satisfaction levels (Figure 3), with a prominent reduction in those highly satisfied with their work, now at only 19%, a 7% drop compared to last year. But it's not all doom and gloom; this reduction doesn't translate to a massive increase in those who are "somewhat dissatisfied" or "highly dissatisfied" with their work. Perhaps "a little bit peeved" would best describe it, with 55% indicating that they are just "satisfied" with their work.

	A major factor in job satisfaction is feeling that the work you do receives fair monetary recognition. In the previous year's survey, we found that well over half of respondents (65%) believed their work and time generated a fair wage; however, in this year's survey we recorded a 10% drop in that figure, to only 55%. This could go some way to explaining the drop in job satisfaction. Our findings also indicated that 13% of respondents take on extra work to beef up their income, which is consistent with last year's result (14%). Some of the roles taken on included lecturing roles, teaching, writing, tutoring, and consulting, as well as restaurant work and secret shopping.

	Through birth, choice, or sheer happenstance, where you live has a profound impact on your career prospects and, in turn, your salary, as can be seen in Table III. Northeastern states have undergone a Lazarus-like resurrection following three successive years of decline. A 27.2% increase rockets the Northeast back to the top, with an average reported wage of $107,313, which is significantly higher than any other region. The second highest region, the Northwest, shows a 7.7% increase from 2017, bringing the average salary to $92,381. The Midwest lives up to its name, taking the middle position with an average salary of $88,940, a 10.9% increase from last year. Languishing at the bottom are the two southern regions, but they come from drastically different starting points. The Southwest suffered a second successive reduction to $84,132, down from $100,423 in 2016. The Southeast, on the other hand, has taken a 14.9% hit, down to $84,000; however, this figure is still considerably higher than results obtained in 2015 ($77,381) and 2016 ($74,051).

	When we look at the ongoing gender pay gap (Table IV), the minor glitch in the matrix last year, which showed women with bachelor's degrees earning more on average than men, turned out to be just that, a glitch. This year sees a return to the status quo, with men's salaries being higher on average across the board, regardless of education level, management position, or employer type. Perhaps the core reasons for this disparity are outside the scope of a simple salary survey, but the sheer consistency with which female salaries are, on average, lower can't be a coincidence. There is some burden unshared, some bias unchecked, some accumulation of factors causing this difference, and if we are to reach our egalitarian potential, more needs to be done.

	Continuing on from last year's questions about discrimination, this year our survey focused on sexual harassment in the workplace, following the slew of high profile cases of abuse coming to light in recent months. Respondents were asked a series of questions with the aim of gaining an impartial assessment of the current landscape with regard to the percentage who have experienced harassment, the ease of reporting incidents, and the current state of company and institutional policy on the matter.

	As shown in Figure 5, 45% of women and 13% of men indicated they have experienced some form of harassment in the workplace. Figure 6 shows, however, that only 17% of women suffering harassment lodged a complaint. Table V highlights the reasons for this inaction on the part of women experiencing harassment, with similar results obtained from male respondents. The top reasons, across both genders, for not lodging a complaint were career concerns and feeling there was no one to report it to who would or could take action. These answers fall in line with what has been seen in other workplaces, where most victims of harassment did not report it until recently, when the floodgates opened and more victims felt they would now be believed.

	For those aware of others having experienced harassment in their scientific careers (Figure 7), the vast majority (78%) indicated they believed they were not in position to speak up or act (Figure 8). This could be a sign that these people knew that the organizational culture would not protect the harassed. It is also something for companies and institutions to consider when attempting to improve reporting systems.

	Finally, delving into the current state of organizations' response to this problem, our survey found that only 65% carry out mandatory sexual harassment prevention training (Figure 9). In spite of this, 68% of respondents feel clear about what might be considered sexual harassment or sexually inappropriate behavior in a professional setting (Figure 12). Of the rest, 28% feel reasonably clear, but some situations feel ambiguous to them; another 2% feel "pretty unclear" of where the boundaries lie; and a further 3% feel totally unclear. That leaves a fairly large chunk of the working population with questions that require frank discussion. It is perhaps no wonder that these uncertainties and tensions have erupted into the public forum when even highly educated individuals, like our readers, aren't clear on the boundaries.

	Furthermore, while there is a broadening awareness that harassment is a problem, organizations still have some way to go with regard to putting in place methods of reporting and dealing with incidents. Only 51% of our respondents believe their organizations have methods to report concerns confidentially that are well known to employees (Figure 10). A further 24% indicated the methods were there but the knowledge of their existence was not, while 16% weren't sure and 8% said their organizations had no established method for reporting incidents. Finally, we asked whether organizations were making inroads toward change (Figure 11). While 62% indicated that good systems are in place to prevent and report harassment, 23% believe change is needed but their organization isn't currently doing anything. Another 7% said their organizations have instituted new policies and procedures, and 8% said their organizations are currently reviewing policies and procedures.

	This year cemented the gains seen in 2016–2017, with wages finally looking like they will significantly eclipse the salaries in the earliest parts of the decade. The hope is that future salary surveys will find the average salary regularly breaking into the $90,000 bracket and finally put to bed the demons of the 2007–2008 financial crisis that sent shockwaves through the world economy.

	This year, workloads increased, stress levels rose, and job satisfaction dropped, while the Northeastern states reclaimed their throne atop the US region salary table. Once again, our results showed that young spectroscopists planning for the future should consider continuing their education and completing a PhD to maximize their earning potential. But for many, a bachelor's degree and a lot of hard work can still land one not far from the top end of the earnings spectrum.

	The harassment landscape looks bleak at the moment, with many organizations needing to do more and large swaths of uncertainty remaining for many. Some frank discussions are likely to come in the next 12 months, if our results are anything to go by.

Articles

Our annual spectroscopy salary and employment survey shows encouraging increases, but in many areas, spectroscopists have simply gained back ground that had been lost in recent years.

2018 Salary Survey: Back to the Baseline

s annual reader survey on salary, workload, job satisfaction, 

and the job market in general. This year’s salary survey shows that the average salary has increased slightly. Is this a sign that things are going in the right direction?

	It’s alive! Following the previous two years’ slump, our results from this year’s survey indicate that the average salary for spectroscopists across the entire market has increased by 2.7% (Table I). The 2017 average of $84,718 is still lower, however, than average salaries seen in 2013 and 2014, which were in the region of $88,000 and the highest results attained this decade. Yet compared to the previous decade, spectroscopists’ salaries have, in general, increased. Whether they have kept up with increases in costs of living and inflation is another matter.

	If we delve into the data more closely, we can see where the gains have originated. Breaking down the data by gender, sector, education, and age (Table II), male averages have increased from last year by 4% to $90,781, whereas the female average is almost identical to last year. The data for specific sectors suggest the salary gains were primarily because of increases in salaries for those working in industry (up 2.7%) and government (up 3.4%) with those in academia witnessing virtually no change from 2016. Education level appears to be the biggest differentiator; those with a PhD saw a significant increase from last year (26%) and those with a master’s degree showed a good increase as well (5.0%). Salaries for those whose highest level of education is a bachelor’s degree continue to show weakness, with another minor decrease in 2017 continuing a downward trend, dropping significantly from an average of $81,777 in 2013 to $67,361 in 2017 (–17.6%). This trend could be indicative of a surfeit of graduates with master’s degrees or doctorates limiting job opportunities for those with less education, or perhaps could be related to increasing levels of automation as companies seek ways to cut costs.

	Results based on age have returned to the status quo, with last year’s unusual salary clustering for workers over 40 giving way to a steadied increase for older spectroscopists. Salaries for those younger than 40 returned to an average of $65,849 following a 2016 slip. The reverse happened in the age group of 40–50: Following an increase in 2016 to $88,621, the average salary for this group fell to $83,237 (–6.1%), about the level of the 2013–2015 average. We see good news for spectroscopists above the age of 50, who have shown a dramatic recovery following 2016, with averages above the $100,000 mark after languishing just beneath the $90,000 barrier last year. A look back to results from 2013–2015 suggests that the 2016 drop in the over 40 age ranges in 2016 was just a blip.

	This year’s data for salaries by job role (Table III) make for interesting reading, with the fourth year of data in this area starting to flesh out the picture of how much spectroscopists can expect to be paid for specific types of jobs. Following last year’s drop, analysts suffered a further reduction to $48,312, joining staff scientists/researchers/research fellows (–19.8%) and laboratory directors/managers (–19.6%) as 2017’s biggest losers. As for this year’s winners, full professors had a return to the $100,000 plus category, a 31.5% increase on 2016’s dismal result. Chemists/spectroscopists showed an increase of 24.5%, as did research assistants/associates, who returned to having an average salary above $50,000, an increase of 7.4% over 2016. Other groups showed increases, including process chemists (up 31.8% to $76,429), process engineers (up 25.9%), and technical directors (up 22.3%), but these numbers result from the small sample sizes and thus may not be representative.

	How we perceive workloads can vary, but most spectroscopists seem to feel overworked, according to our survey. Almost 64% of respondents indicated that their workloads increased this year, compared to 28% who said their workload stayed the same and almost 8% who said their workload decreased. Those figures are remarkably similar to those from 2016, as are the reasons (Figure 1): Increased business is again the most common cause of increased workloads, with new equipment and staffing cuts closely behind. Interestingly, for three consecutive years, fewer and fewer people have cited “new regulations” as a cause of workload increases.

	Despite increased workloads, we are happy to report a higher percentage of spectroscopists reporting a reduction in stress levels (Figure 2), with 9% of respondents reporting that their stress levels had decreased over the past year. Unfortunately, this group is still in the minority, and the remaining respondents were split down the middle, with half claiming their stress levels had either stayed the same or increased over the past year.

	Workloads and stress aside, spectroscopists are overall a satisfied bunch, as an overwhelming 76% (Figure 3) indicated they are either satisfied and highly satisfied with their jobs-a 2% increase from 2016. High job satisfaction, combined with 64% of respondents saying that they receive fair monetary recognition (Figure 4), results in 71% of respondents planning to stay in their jobs for the near future. The reasons for staying vary quite considerably, but by far the two most important factors are convenient job location, which 61% of respondents highlighted as a reason for staying, and good colleagues, which 63% of respondents picked out. The lack of potential jobs in the geographic area was another popular cause for job stasis, with 43% of respondents citing it as a reason for staying put. Having a good manager was selected by 28%. Yet there is room for improvement: One area in which managers could improve is in nonmonetary recognition of their employees, with 45.5% of respondents indicating that they believe they do not receive fair recognition for the work they do (Figure 4).

	Alternatively, those seeking to leave their current employment (28.8%) highlighted a higher salary as the biggest motivator (57%), followed closely by a general dissatisfaction with their employer (48%) and looking for a new challenge (45%). The full set of reasons for seeking a new job appears in Table IV.

	Germanely Positioned Spectroscopists (GPS)

	Location matters. It affects everything from cost of living to standard of living, to comfort and emotional wellbeing. But in a modern economy, location also dramatically affects your earning potential, as this year’s survey confirms (Table V).

	For the third consecutive year, the Northeast has suffered a decrease in average salary (–13.3%), going from the highest-paid region to the second lowest, with only the Midwest having a lower average salary ($80,195) despite a 0.8% increase. From a high of last year, the Southwest has seen a minor dip down to $90,569 (–9.8%) but is still showing good figures, considering that the region had previously been subjected to several years of decreases. The biggest change came in the Southeast, which had a 33.3% increase in average salary, making it this year’s highest paid region. Last but not least, the Northwest maintained a steady increase (1.5%) landing it right in the middle of all the regions.

	When it comes to salary, women have historically gotten the short end of the stick (Table VI). They consistently earn less regardless of education level, employer type, and whether they are in a management position or not. This year’s survey continues that trend but perhaps hints at impending parity-though not in the way most would have hoped. For the first time in this survey’s history, women with a bachelor’s degree have out-earned their male counterparts, with an average salary of $68,507 compared to $66,473 for men in that group-a difference of 3.1%. But it is how we got to that point that is alarming. The data in Table VI suggest that rather than wages of women being brought up to the same level as men, men’s wages have been brought down to the same level as those of women.

	Women with PhDs broke the $100,000 average salary mark for the first time, but salaries for those with PhDs were unusually high across the board this year, with male PhD salaries 29% higher than the data from 2016. The data set is no smaller than in previous years, but these big jumps make us cautious about coming to significant conclusions about changes in this portion of the market.

	While our survey has long analyzed the gender gap in terms of salary, this year our survey took a deeper look at whether our respondents have experienced various forms of discrimination in their work.

	The first issue our survey tackled was sexism, and 62.8% of women surveyed and 13.5% of men surveyed indicated they had experienced sexism in some form. Given the opportunity to expand on this, many comments followed patterns: women not being taken seriously or having their opinions dismissed, being talked over or down to at meetings, men taking credit for their ideas or work, women being held to a higher standard, assumptions both internally and by clients that women are not or do not belong in technical roles, demeaning comments, perceived inferiority in knowledge, consistent lack of promotion of women, men being paid more than women, and women being excluded from the boy’s clubs (intentionally and unintentionally). 

	One subject that we singled out was the effect of raising children on careers. For one respondent, this was a challenge. “I strongly feel that I cannot give the same to a job that my male counterparts can. I have children and their day affects mine-and not just sick days and pick up times,” she said. “I find I am distracted thinking about how to get in soccer practice, or how to get a healthy meal on the table.” Her solution was to cut back to 30 hours, which her employer allowed. Many respondents indicated their workplaces are trying to address these concerns for parents-both women and men. The scheme has worked for our respondent, even if sometimes she has to finish work late at night while the kids sleep. But there are still issues. “I still feel that I am looked down on for not working full time and the men all concluded that my career is not important to me, which is not true.” This is an example of the challenges faced by millions worldwide-women and men. 

	The next issue we tackled was racism, and 10.8% of respondents indicated they had experienced racism in some form. Specific concerns described varied, and included concerns such as a general lack of respect, lack of promotion, casual racist slurs, gross generalizations, and the outright admission of prejudices by coworkers. Society rightly judges those who believe in racial superiority very harshly and as our survey indicates while in the minority, these beliefs persist even in our own profession. 

	Ageism consistently comes up when spectroscopists are asked about changing jobs. Older spectroscopists worry about being overlooked in favor of someone younger who has more years ahead and lower salary demands. Younger scientists fear having their ideas dismissed and their abilities demeaned. Ageism was the second most common form of discrimination identified, with 25.6% of respondents indicating they had experienced it in some form. Of those respondents who experienced ageism, 22.8% believed it had affected their career greatly, 36.8% believed it had affected their career somewhat, and 38.6% believed it had not affected their career. A few comments we received about ageism appear in the box on page 38.

	We also asked about discrimination based on disabilities, and 4% of respondents indicated they had experienced this type of discrimination. Responses highlighted the difficulties faced by those who are physically disabled (temporarily or permanently) when elevators are not available, but also touched on hidden disabilities. Partial deafness and weakening caused by age-related problems can affect people greatly around the workplace; color blindness in men was also mentioned, which in a laboratory setting it may require forethought. With color blindness affecting 1 in 12 men and 1 in 200 women, it is one of the few issues of discrimination that primarily affects males.

	Overall, increases in salary this year reversed a two-year slump in wage growth, with some positive indications that there is stability across the market. But with wages not significantly increasing at all this decade, spectroscopists are likely to feel the pinch from increasing living costs. Once again, our results indicated that stopping one’s education at a bachelor’s level is a risky proposition for future earning potential, as experience continues to correlate with higher salaries. 

	Stress and workloads are on the rise, but not to the same extent as previous years, and job satisfaction remains high. In the US, the Northeast suffered its third year of successive salary decreases, while the Southeast continued to expand.

	The discrimination section of this year’s survey offered a snapshot of the problems still faced by spectroscopists in the workplace, offering a reminder that there is still a long way to go in many areas.

Analysis of Spectroscopy’s annual reader survey on salary, workload, job satisfaction, and the job market in general. The latest Spectroscopy salary survey shows that the average salary has increased slightly but is this a cause for celebration or is stagnation still rampant?

2017 Salary Survey: The Right Direction?

 salary survey shows that the average salary has dropped slightly, despite increasing workloads. But has this drop impacted job satisfaction?

	Some years ago, spectroscopists’ salaries were on the rise. As the latest 

 salary survey shows, however, average salaries have dropped, the gender gap is standing its ground, and academia and government institutions are continuing to feel the squeeze of funding reductions. Only industry seems to feel some lessening of the burden of the global economic turmoil of recent years.

	Of course, statistics mean nothing to the individual; what really matters is how you are doing. But the 

 salary survey can help you gauge your position in an ever-changing market. How do your salary and working conditions compare to those of your peers? Read on to find out.

	This year, our survey results show another reduction in the average salary for spectroscopists across the entire market. Still reeling from last year’s major reduction of -6.2% (Table I), the market has continued its downward pressure, with wages dropping a further notch (-0.9%).

	Not all segments and groups took a hit, however (Table II). For example, industry salaries experienced an average increase of 4.2% to $89,488. This level still lags behind industry averages from 2013 and 2014, which were in the mid $90,000s. However, it may represent a slow recovery from the sharp decline in 2015 (-8.9%). In comparison, government salaries continue their downward trend with yet another decrease. Four years of decreases make for depressing reading and as the plight of research funding in the United States continues, the situation is not expected to improve any time soon (1).

	Education level and age once again are interesting factors. An evident trend is the year-on-year reductions for those who chose to stop their scientific education at the bachelor’s level, with average salaries for this group falling significantly from an average of $81,777 in 2013 to $68,167 in 2016 (-16.6%). If we put that into the context of inflation and real monetary value terms, it is a sizable reduction of disposable income felt by a large number of spectroscopists. Inconsistencies in data gathering make trends in master’s-educated spectroscopists difficult to assert, but it is unlikely they’re faring much better than bachelor’s-educated individuals. Average salaries for those with PhDs have increased compared to last year’s uncharacteristic slip below the $100,000 mark and point to stability in wages for those with that level of education.

	In previous years, age has shown the trend you would expect: The older you are, the more experience you have gained, and the more you earn. However, 2016 sees a clustering of salary averages for those 40 and older. Reductions in salaries for those 60 and older have brought them in line with the 50–60 bracket, which has also seen a minor reduction in average salaries. On the other hand, the 40–50 bracket sees a definite increase, which may be a case of investing in the present by paying more for the work of experienced scientists in the 40–50 age bracket who need little to no instruction but still have many years of service ahead of them, as opposed to investing in the more distant future of the under 40 group, who may require more training. The latter group suffered a reduction in average wages this year following three years of stability.

	But what do average job salaries for specific roles (Table III) tell us about the current market? As expected from the market-wide figures, there are a lot of reductions in average salaries for specific roles this year, with only a few seeing increases. Laboratory directors and managers, CEOs and presidents, and process chemists have all seen increases, but the small data sets of these groups suggest that any overlying trend should perhaps be taken with grain of scepticism. Assistant professors are showing a salary increase (8.8%), but full professors show the second largest reduction, with a 17.4% reduction in average salary. This may well reflect the trend at universities to avoid replacing full professors who retire, which manifests itself as a reduction in wages for that job role. The largest salary reduction was suffered by research assistants and associates, who experienced a 20.2% drop.

The Stress, the Strain, and the Reasons for Staying

	Once again, our survey reports that spectroscopists are working more, with the majority of respondents (66%) claiming to have experienced workload increases over the past year, compared to 30% who said workloads remained the same, and <5% saying they declined. Increased workloads are a consistent theme of our salary surveys, but with year-on-year cries of increased workloads, it is very likely that this says more about the status quo of businesses and institutions employing spectroscopists than it does about the state of individuals’ workloads. After all, if these were cumulative increases, many would have buckled from stress and exhaustion.

	One piece of good news is that the biggest reason for increased workloads is increased business, though staffing cuts are still a factor (Figure 1).

					Figure 1: Reasons for respondents’ increased workload over the previous two years.

					Figure 2: Respondents’ stress level compared to last year.

	As would be expected, increased workloads come with higher levels of stress, with around half of respondents indicating their stress levels had increased. Despite increased workloads and increasing levels of stress, however, an overwhelming percentage of respondents-almost 74%-are satisfied with their jobs (Figure 3).

					Figure 3: Percentage of respondents satisfied with their careers.

	This satisfaction, in spite of increased workloads and stress, means that the vast majority (71.8%) have no plans to look for a new job within the coming year. The most popular reasons for staying put are the convenience of a work location (36.4%) and good colleagues (31.8%). A few are staying put because they fear that age discrimination will prevent them from getting hired for a new job, so they are remaining at their current jobs until retirement.

	Those looking for new employment (28.2%) stated their desire for changes stemmed from seeking a higher salary (61.8%) and a new challenge (58.8%) as primary drivers. The full set of reasons for seeking a new job appears in Table IV.

	Last year’s salary survey highlighted the regional variations that spectroscopists face in the United States. This obviously isn’t unique to spectroscopy, but it should be a factor in potential job hunters’ minds. A big geographic move may be risky or beneficial, as can be seen in Table V. And of course, variations in the cost of living must be considered too.

	After two years of being in the top salary position (in 2014 and 2015), the Northeast has dropped to second place, behind the Southwest. Last year, the Northeast was able to hold on to its number one spot in spite of a 2.6% reduction in average salaries, but wages in this region dropped another 6.0% this year. That two-year consecutive dip for the Northeast occurred concurrently with a sizeable increase in average salary for the Southwest this year. The 21.7% increase for salaries in the Southwest represents a dramatic turn of fortunes; that region had previously seen several years of decreases.

	The Northwest remains in third position despite a 6.9% increase in average salary (to $84,500), a slight slowdown from last year’s 8% rise but still another very good year for that region. The Southeast suffered its second consecutive fall with a 4.3% reduction to $74,051 (down from $77,381 in 2015). The Midwest saw a welcome increase, with average salaries up 3.0% to $79,536.

	Only 14% of respondents were from locations outside of the United States, primarily in Europe (Denmark, France, Germany, Spain, and the UK), but also from Australia, New Zealand, China, India, Japan, Ecuador, Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The average salary of European respondents was $57,435, but the data sets for other continents weren’t sufficient to reveal trends. Disparities between U.S. and European salaries result from factors such as cost of living and the variations in how health care and other core services are provided.

	Women continue to be paid significantly less than their male counterparts. To a certain extent the data from just one year isn’t the most important element to look at here. Women are consistently paid less regardless of employer type, education level, and whether or not they are management. The only anomaly showed up last year among master’s level spectroscopists: In 2015, male respondents in this group indicated an average salary of $80,471 compared to $81,468 in female respondents. A difference of 1.2% in one category in one year, however, doesn’t challenge the overall trend, which is clear and certainly doesn’t require in-depth analysis.

	The smallest pay gap between the sexes can be seen in industry, where the average salary for men is $93,120 and for women $82,193, a difference of 12%. This compares favorably to academia, where the pay gap difference stands at 29%, and government, where the difference is 20%.

	As for education level, the gap is smallest at the top, with women with PhDs earning an average of $98,236 compared to $103,051 for men. This 5% difference compares favorably with differences for those with a bachelor’s (14%) or master’s (14%) degree.

	So for ambitious female spectroscopists who are looking for the sectors that are ironing out the pay gap the fastest, completing a PhD and finding a role in industry would likely result in the highest chance of getting closer to equal pay. This is an unfortunate reality of the current working world.

	Despite the overall salary decreases, increased stress, and the uncertain employment markets, when we asked spectroscopists if they would recommend their career path to a recent graduate, 59% answered “yes.” Schadenfreude perhaps? Or is spectroscopy a satisfying career path as many indicated earlier (Figure 3)? Interestingly, 33% of respondents answered “maybe” showing at least some concern for the younger generation’s well being. About 8% said flat out they would not recommend their career to others.

	Despite such ambivalence about recommending the spectroscopy career path, respondents’ words of advice contain a lot of wisdom. The common tropes of “work hard” and “love what you do” aside, a selection of the best responses, as well as the best advice for young spectroscopists in particular, appear in the sidebars.

	This year’s salary survey is a mixed bag. A small decrease in average salary overall hides some minor positives in the employment market including areas of the United States that have seen wage increases after many years of decline (the Southwest). Workload and stress continue to be considered too high, but job satisfaction remains relatively high. And the gender gap stands its ground, defiant in the face of social will.

	The coming year will be an interesting one, particularly with major elections in the United States. Things could be a lot worse but they could also be a lot better. But one thing is for sure: Spectroscopists will persevere.

		A. Jahnke, “Who Picks up the Tab for Science,” (Boston University Research, Boston, Massachusetts, 2015). Available at: http://www.bu.edu/research/articles/funding-for-scientific-research/, (date accessed: 07/01/16).

 based in Ellesmere Port, UK. Direct correspondence to: 

Analysis of Spectroscopy’s annual reader survey on salary, workload, and job satisfaction. The latest Spectroscopy salary survey shows that the average salary has dropped slightly, despite increasing workloads. But has this drop impacted job satisfaction? 

Lewis Botcherby

Articles

2018 Salary Survey: Back to the Baseline

2017 Salary Survey: The Right Direction?

2016 Salary Survey: Continuing the Squeeze