Earnings Ceiling for Tech Professionals over 40

>"resumes illegally screened for age"

I'm happy this is a thing in the US and wish Europe would copy this since in some Western European countries like Austria, having your birthday and photograph on your resume is mandatory making discrimination a piece of cake.

People expect their salary to go up for a number of reasons, but the major factors are inflation and cost-of-living. If your salary is not going up by at least a certain percent a year, you are likely stagnating or losing income.

Another reason people expect their salary to go up is because it is a basic expectation that has existed for decades, and one upon which the supposed fairness of the current market is predicated. The idea is that you start young, earn little, work your way up, and earn more. Life is _much_ more expensive the older you get.

> your value is not worth more than someone with less experience.

I don't think such a general statement (even its direct inverse) can be true or even particularly useful. At a certain point you're playing the odds. We're dealing with X, what's the chance that someone has seen X before or can see a connection to something else? In those situations, 20 years of varied experience can be a lot more valuable than 10 years of varied experience, especially if the 20 includes areas or approaches that have been forgotten/ignored for most of the last 10. (You'd be surprised how often the ebb and flow of tech fashion produces such results.) Note that I said can. Whether that actually happens depends on the exact technology, what experts you already have, team size/cohesion, etc. "Is not" without qualification expresses a more absolute and certain opinion than is warranted.

Don't confuse the current shitshow that is VC flippable social software garbage with actual competence.

I worked with people at IBM and DEC at the point probably just at the peak of their heyday when the average experience was about 15 years.

Oh ... my ... God.

I have never had that kind of interaction again. Being able to just call up and talk to the folks who designed FPU algorithms, x86 emulators that smoked (I think the FX!32 guys knew more about x86 than AMD), BDD analyzers that actually matched circuitry to descriptions (NP-hard problems--solved every day), debugged CPU failures by having 3 old guys light up cigars, put their feet up and think real hard ... I can go on and on.

Yes, those big, sclerotic companies had lots of deadwood. But, there was a 25% that was amazing.

About once every couple of years now I bump into someone genuinely as good. It's really rare now.

> A developer with 10 years of varied experience can usually do just as well as someone with 20 years of experience

As a developer with 20 years experience ... I'm a lot better at what I do than I was ten years ago. Better at seeing how it relates to the business I'm working with, more productive in ways that are not just LoC.

I'd be OK if I can sustain my current income... but I'd still like to take the step to being more of a consultant. I'm dancing on the edges of it now, between contractor and consultant.

"I also believe that the idea of the 10x developer while not a myth, is so rare it’s not worth trying to find for most companies"

The problem with the 10x myth is that it assumes a single dimension of productivity, and that no-one is ever negative so there's some sort of sensible, positive "minimum" to talk about.

Senior developer leads a team of three other medium-experience developer, and completes the project in six months. Junior developer leads a team of 5 other even more junior developers, after six months they've got nearly nothing, so we pull in another 4 semi-skilled developers and 2 contractors who are drowned under the mess and don't know what to do, and six months later, the project is cancelled entirely.

How many times better is the senior developer?

There's nothing even remotely skewed about those numbers, either. Both are totally realistic. And yes, senior engineer can fail, and junior engineer could succeed. (Although the range of projects where a junior can succeed and a senior can fail assuming adequate initial knowledgebase for both is fairly narrow; generally if you find one, you've probably got a strawmanned "senior" engineer who isn't actually senior but just a collection of stereotypes in your head.)

If you're still offended:

A generally senior software engineer who knows nothing about the domain and his team of three develop furiously for a year and eventually deliver the first iteration of what was asked for, with another year to go on the project to finish it. A generally software junior engineer who is deeply familiar with the problem domain listens to the customer's problem and after a day's thought realizes what they really need is a very different, but also much simpler, solution, which they deliver in two weeks by themselves. How many more times valuable is the latter?

(I've actually advised someone like that in the construction industry. They were switching into a programming career in their 40s. I said, look, there's no realistic chance you're going to outprogram me in a really academic, isolated sense of the term. But you've got contacts, the ability to pass the shit test with other people in your industry which I and/or generic software engineer have no chance of, and a deep understanding of the problem domain. Don't worry about trying to outprogram a 20-years-experienced software engineer, take advantage of the facts that you know what your customers really need, and... you're there! and I (standing in for generic software engineers) am not! Life's about playing what you're dealt, but people are generally dealt more cards than they realize, I think. Not necessarily better cards, but they have more cards than they think.)

I tend to agree there isn't a such thing as an engineer who is 10x more productive than another, in the sense that they will do the same thing as that other engineer, just 10 times faster. The key comes from doing things differently, most of the time.

There's other differences as well, such as being aware of the pitfalls. I recently got myself put in charge of a billing system, and as a senior engineer, I at least have the good sense to be suitably terrified, for instance. "Move fast and break things" has its place, but "careful, paranoid engineering" does too. Almost by definition, your really junior employees don't really know how to do the latter. (They'll often be able to cargo cult it, which can be a start, but they won't really understand it.)

I think the number of years in your post is off a bit. In San Francisco, you become a senior engineer within 2 years, and after 5 years you're either expected to go into management, or retire to southeast Asia with your IPO money.

That's not an unreasonable view, but there's a big problem with how people measure the value of experience. The value of a younger programmer's work is relatively easy to measure. Not quite lines of code, but something reasonably close to it. As one's focus shifts - e.g. organizing, mentoring others, guiding technology choices, flagging code that works now but will break next year - those results become harder to measure. Just because it's harder to measure doesn't mean it's less, but that's a common kind of error. Under-valuing the contributions typical of older workers vs. those typical of younger workers is still ageism, but of a less conscious sort. As with most kinds of discrimination, people don't usually discriminate in a direct way. They do it with their assumptions, priorities, and assignment of value which just happen to produce disparate (but "rational") outcomes.

Note: I'm not saying that older workers (I'm 54) deserve everything they get. There definitely are and have always been some older laurel-sitters whose friends pay them more than they should, and I was acutely aware of that when I myself was younger. I'm just saying "but they don't give proportional value" is often less true than people think.

I would believe it if that would apply to other positions. Why is it the case for us but not regular businessmen, lawyers, etc?

Companies in general love people with obligations (kids, high mortgage etc.) because they're much more afraid of being fired, and thus are more obedient.

True, but it should be easy to control for this right? Check the progression in other skilled fields and cross reference into tech.

I would amend this to say that time spent in a career represents a commodity that one can invest in oneself, and different folks invest that commodity in different ways and to different extents.

Some folks coast and fall into the category of "1 year of experience, 10 times in a row." Someone else gets more out of 2 years of working than the coasters get out of 10. In the worst case, you have a coaster who thinks they're actually in the second category.

A simple number for years of experience is very hard to interpret as a result. Take someone in the second category and give them 10 years of experience and you get someone amazing at their craft. But you have to be able to reliably discern this in the interviewing process.

And even if they are, transition into management is much harder. In my experience in the UK, in London at small to medium companies, I've never seen a promotion to management and only once seen promotion to senior developer. Developers are not seen as management material - and breaking out of the that perception is incredibly difficult.

I have to disagree with this assertion. While my information is anecdotal I can attest to its veracity (I am 45 years old).

Over the last two months I have been arguing in a professional manner for my company to move towards .Net Core and React (away from older Framework code and Angular 1.x) Arguably neither of these technologies is super new, but they seem to be new enough that I've been getting push back over various concerns (often over learning something new). I have to say, on the whole most of the push back is from younger developers, many of whom are in their mid-thirties.

My point being that I don't believe that age is necessarily the deciding factor. In my experience most developers tend to lose some of their interest in the field at some point in their career and other do not. Everyone seems to hit that point at a different age, some of them quite young and others quite old.

I'm definitely risk averse but not averse to new technologies. ;-)

Your statement is literally ageism.

Alternative reading: folks in Silicon Valley who've gotten used to FANG-level compensation have inadvertently developed a very skewed view of what average salaries in their industry are, because FANG compensation has climbed dramatically in the last decade. Anecdotally, $120–130K was a reasonable mid-level engineering salary in the valley in 2009 (I had more than a few friends at that level, which I admittedly hadn't reached myself); if that wage had increased more in line with inflation, we'd expect it to be $145-160K in 2019 -- and that $120K would have been hard to match for tech talent in most other parts of the country a decade ago. (Not impossible, just not easy.) The soaring valuations of tech companies, especially in the Bay Area, led to a loop of equally soaring costs of living and frenzied talent competition which just hasn't been reflected in most other places in the country.

It does seem strange that they wouldn't see a single offer over $150K, but I wouldn't at all be surprised if the median level was considerably lower.

What percent of people are employed by the large tech companies, and what percent are employed in the rest of the world?

Those numbers are already pretty outrageous outside the US.

Googling "Senior Developer Salary" you'll see 120K +- 10K on average.

Are you seeing over $150k anywhere other than SF?

In context, I read that as "At no age is the mean pay more than $149k" which is much more believable.