If the current IT job market can be described in a single word that word would have to be "dissatisfaction" - as seen in both the recent Network World salary survey and the more than 600 comments responding to it on our site and around the Web.

In the survey of 1,789 IT professionals, all areas of compensation ranked low in satisfaction. This included base salary, benefits package, stock options, bonuses and annual raises.

Readers had a lot to say about the sources of their dissatisfaction. Here's a sampling.

The hours are brutal

Anonymous explains: "If I take the average work week around here of 80 hours + add in my on call time and 'hey can you do this late at night from home' time my $85K a year salary works out to a little over $12 an hour. Now Starbucks around here pays $11.50 so I've got them beat!"

picturescrazy writes: "How much per hour is that? That's the real question. Who would be happy with $80k a year when you have to put in 70-hour weeks? Or be on call constantly?"

MusicMakeMyHeadPound responds to picturecrazy: "That's one of the most important considerations in IT. I'm comfortable with the amount of money I make - it's enough to pay the bills and loans. The amount of time the job can suck up is obscene though. So when I was putting in 70 - 80-hour weeks while staying up for days at a time troubleshooting crises I laid down an ultimatum: 'Either you adjust my salary to get the dollars per hour right or I stop working after the fortieth hour. Good luck finding someone else who knows my application at 2 a.m.' I said I'd prefer to work with management to relieve the overtime I put in. Since then I've gotten a 4% raise and I rarely work more than 43 hours a week. It's nice :)"

Do you agree that IT workers are not fairly compensated for long hours? Share your opinion here.

Management creates an unhappy environment

Mat writes: "I see this more as an indication of wide-spread management failure in the industry than of money per se. Ironically, (unreasonably) high wage demands typically have more to do with the non-tangible compensation that a job offers than the actual amount of money employees make. That is, when people are happy with their job, when they enjoy the social contacts, when they get to work in a nice environment and, above all, when they have a sense of purpose, then they make reasonable wage demands. When the job sucks, they spend eight hours a day thinking 'I don't get paid enough for this sh--.' In that case, no wage will be high enough. … That is something that our much derided PHBs learn to do in their MBA programs." [Note: Pointy Haired Bosses, a term derived from the Dilbert cartoon]

Jellomizer replies to Mat: "Overall I would agree the modern MBA program puts a lot of emphasis on business ethics and focuses on the intangibles because the accountants can deal with the tangibles. Sometimes [policies] force them to be more stupid, like firing 10% of all under-performing employees every year to make sure they only have the top ones available. Seems to force a lot of stupidity in management because they have to show costs savings even though they are IT and normally the more money they have the better the cost savings is for rest of the corporation. But the MBA program and the managers are normally not the problem, unless they have some sort of power-trip ego. Most conflicts with managers and employees happen because the manager has to deal with more issues at once, many conflicting."

Maxo-Texas replies to Jellomizer: " … unless you pay top dollar, you can't have instability and retain the cream of the crop. So the business has a choice of keeping everyone and saving 20-30% on salaries or being ruthless and being faced with equally ruthless behavior by its employees. And when the good people leave you are 'stuck' with the worst. You cannot afford to fire anyone when the two sub performers are the only two people left."

Do you agree that poor working conditions created by managers that don't understand how IT should be run is causing rampant dissatisfaction with IT salaries? Share your opinion here.

Outsourcing is the culprit

Harshmanrob writes: "Part of the biggest problem was what I call the 'salary correction' in 2003/4 when outsourcing was getting IT workers canned left and right. A lot went to contracting and the rest went part to full-time at reduced salaries. This was the plan. Notice how there are no more $100,000/year system administrators anymore like there were in the '90s. In 2002, my annual salary was $110,000. Today it is $74,000 and I have had to move four times to keep up. I had started in Houston, now I am in Cleveland. Inflation has killed the value of my money and 'benefits' are a joke as well a high deductible PPO and a sorry 401K/severance package savings plan. … all I do is keep ahead of the outsourcers now."

Gabrieltss writes: "I live in the North Midwest area and am doing ok at about $85K/year. Would I like to make more? Heck yes, who wouldn't? But when your company is working on outsourcing everything to India because they can pay them $27/hr versus $58/hr it gets tough to push for more $$ and a higher raise. …We in IT just really have to be careful because if we get too greedy corporations will (and are) outsourcing our jobs overseas. Heck look at how much manufacturing and call center work has been shipped overseas for cheaper labor. They will keep doing the same with us if we are not careful."