The only experience I have working in the West (of Mississippi rvr) was a summer internship for the Forest Service in Utah. So count me out as having the real world seasoning necessary to form an experienced opinion. I'd wager, however, that it would have something to do with the work in the west being funded by well-heeled oil/natural gas/energy firms.

what's your take?

Haven't worked in the East, but have in the West, and it was funded by.... yep, natural gas.  And I wonder if cost of living is higher in the West?

One theory could be that the nature of field work out west is significantly different than the east and you need more skilled/educated field techs.  In many western states, you don't curate artifacts and those in the field document everything and conduct a rudimentary artifact analysis, while leaving artifacts in place.  This means everyone on the project must have at least a basic knowledge of historics, lithics and ceramics.  While in the east, there's more of a "bag it and move on" kind of attitude.

Then again, I haven't worked out west in over a decade and back then I didn't recall any pay differential.

I haven't worked out west but I have noticed the higher pay in the job postings. I don't think I would agree with the western archaeologist needing to be "... more skilled/educated...). Being able to analyze and diagnose artifacts as you encounter them is not something most people learned proficiently in school, instead it is something that is learned in the field or from working in labs. Being able to identify artifacts comes from experience and more so experience in a specific region. I may not know western prehistoric pottery typologies but I do have a handle on those in the southeast. Now if I went out west to lets say New Mexico and worked out there for an extended period of time I would also learn those types as well. 

Personally, I think it the difference in pay comes down to several factor; 1) Gas companies, 2) Higher cost of living in some areas, 3) a higher concentration of field techs in the east over the west due to general population densities. 4) The ruggedness of the terrain in the west versus in the east. 

I tend to lean more towards #3. I truly believe that companies know they don't have to pay as high of a wage for field techs in the east due to our high numbers and competition for the few jobs that exist. While there is a lot of work out west and fewer techs to fill them. Due to this many companies consider techs in the east as disposable and know that there are another 100 waiting in line for that position.

But I am just basing this on my personal observations. Would really like to hear from those who work out west!

Most crew chief/field supervisor positions that are advertised are asking for a someone with a graduate degree that can meet permitting requirements for various governmental agencies (think of how much federal land is in the western U.S. vs. the eastern U.S.).  I think that alone could drive up wages.

That's a good point about the requirements for field supervisor and crew chief positions vary between states and dependent upon lead agencies.  It seems to be increasingly common to have somebody on site (or each field crew) who meets SOI standards vs having an experienced field supervisor under the (albeit distant) direction of a PI.  For very large projects, with multiple lead agencies, who often defer to other agencies, it's often just simpler to err on the side of caution vs. trying to determine if a stream crossing is under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps vs. SHPO.  You'll never run into issues with a staff who is too qualified.

Being able to analyze and diagnose artifacts as you encounter them is not something most people learned proficiently in school, instead it is something that is learned in the field or from working in labs.

I think it depends.  Most archaeologists have a specialty (location, period, and artifact) that they picked up as an undergrad and especially in grad school.  Based on my experience, it's exceedingly difficult to pick up actual analytical experience while in the field.

Maybe it's changed but it's been my experience that the nature of field work is drastically different between the east and the west.  In the east, we've always relied upon field techs who give artifacts a quick look over, bag them and then mark their best guess on the bags -- often, this means "lithics (n=50)" or "misc historics (n-15)".  People had to know how to identify artifacts and not necessarily analyze them.

On projects out west (it's been awhile for me, so it may have changed), it was expected that each crew member could do a basic historic and prehistoric analysis in the field because no artifacts were brought back.  There's a big difference between writing your best guess on an artifact bag and then sending it to the lab for actual analysis and conducting an analysis in the field and leaving artifacts in situ.  In my case, it was a bit of a culture shock when I worked on my first project in Wyoming.

"what's your take?"

Cuz they suck.

The world is sorrowful my friend. 

I've worked in the West for many years now.  While I do agree that there is a certain amount of in field analysis that has to be done, that is something that is project specific.  Usually, on federal lands, we do not collect, so then in field analysis has to be done.  However, on non-federal lands collecting is allowed and the artifacts are analyzed in the lab. 

That being said, I do not believe that is the reason for the pay rate differences between the East and the West.  In my own experience I think Classarch has hit the nail on the head with the difference in population densities and the number of archs competing for jobs.  Out where I work we have to pay more just to get people willing to make the trip out here because there are not enough archs here for the available jobs (at least in the region where I work).  Who would want to travel 1500 to 2000 miles to get out here where I live and work for 11 bucks an hour??  Cost of living out here has little to do with it in most of the West (though that may not be true along the West Coast).

Energy development projects have driven the demand for CRM out here for the past several years.  In my region, there are only so many archs living here to hire.  And when you have several companies out here hiring for CRM projects, you have to put the call out for archs from all over the country just to fill the project positions.  Just as an example, the current project I am working on has 8 arch field techs and of those, 5 are from the East (OH and PA) and that is fairly typical of almost all of our projects.  I think we had 3 applicants from my state and of those 1 gal was only available for a few days and we hired the other 2:  1 for a full time position in the office and 1 who worked a 10 day session and then had to leave for other obligations, but will return later in the season.  We still need more people and my guess is most of those who apply will be Easterners, and most who get hired will be from the East.

I would agree with Classarch that the terrain out here is a bit more rugged but I don't think that has anything to do with the differences in pay rates.  It's all about the numbers, or lack of numbers of archs out here and to get people you have to offer things like higher pay rates, no receipts per diem, single occupancy motel rooms, and housing on the days off.

Anyway, that's my personal experience on the matter at hand.

Scott

I think Jennifer hit on the core of the issue - it comes down to who is paying the bill.  In the West, the preponderance of federal land means a lot of fed agency involvement - and in those cases there are certain minimum standard wages that must apply.  We have our share of 106(federal) work in the east as well, but most of it is more related to permits on private property rather than work on Federal land or by Fed agnecies directly - and in those cases the minimum fed rates do not apply - leaving much greater potential for wages to be related to the whims of competition more typical of private market forces.  Companies often have to find ways to reduce their bids to get work - and while the same applies in the west - without the minimum fed rates as a bottom - wages take a bigger hit.