[humanrebar]

> ...there is also a perception that for someone to not have climbed the corporate ladder by the time they reach their 40s is a signal of failure...

How is this not age discrimination? Or do people make the case that age discrimination makes business sense?

[intellectronica]

This is not age discrimination, it is a description of one of the causes for age discrimination.

Of course it doesn't make business sense, and it's arguably immoral, but biases exist and the only defense against them is to be aware of them.

[eric_h]

Age discrimination can also be salary discrimination. People with more experience rightfully require more in salary.

[humanrebar]

If employers make it clear what they are willing to pay (like in every other industry), people not willing to work for that will turn down the job.

I don't see a lot of "well, we have can offer you $X and let you prove yourself or see if something bigger opens up".

[intellectronica]

This is a view that actually sometimes prevents older people from managing it in market. Because of how fast technology moves, much of your experience from 10+ years ago isn't very relevant today, so if you expect a higher salary because of it you will be disappointed. It's important to be realistic and accept that if you've been working since your early 20s, you accumulate experience that might result in a higher salary, but only until you reach your late 30s. At that point you just compete in a market with other experienced people and your value (based on experience) doesn't increase much. You can still increase your value to an employer by acquiring a skill that is in high demand, but you're not more qualified than someone less experienced who has that skill.

[oddlyaromatic]

>much of your experience from 10+ years ago isn't very relevant today

>you're not more qualified than someone less experienced who has that skill.

I'd gently disagree with this. An extra decade or more of working and navigating the relationships of a workplace, and honing a sense of professional judgment and problem solving is worth something. An employee does far more than implement a specific skill. You need some of that extra stuff too.

[intellectronica]

"You need some of that extra stuff too". Indeed. but whether you have 10 years or 25 years of that extra stuff might not make more than a marginal contribution to how you're valued.

[oddlyaromatic]

Looks like I missed that point in your original post. Seems about right. I think I was led astray by your last sentence about the skills.

[humanrebar]

I think there are plenty of things to learn throughout a career. I don't see why technical growth should get capped after 20 years of experience.

I do believe career growth stalls out at a certain point, though. But I chalk that up to organizational culture, not something inherent to tech work itself. There aren't clearly defined career paths where one would start out making bigger and bigger technical decisions as they gained more experience. You do see that career trajectory in management tracks, as one would manage more people and bigger budgets.

[walshemj]

sorry that's crap learning a new tech is not a problem for a competent developer having decades of experience means you have seen problems 20 years ago the experience of which is relevant eg I was doing map reduce in the 80's that experience would directly be applicable to day even though I was using Pl1/G then and would use Python or Java today

[jpindar]

>People with more experience rightfully require more in salary.

In your opinion. Why prejudge what you think they might require?