[opportune]

I've noticed this too. There are only a few rational explanations

1. Senior devs aren't paid enough for the value they bring to the company (or conversely, junior devs are paid too much for that value)

2. Investing in junior devs gives a good enough ROI that it's worth overpaying them for a few years. That is, after e.g. three years, enough junior devs have stuck around that they've accumulated enough org-specific knowledge and general tech competency to justify their initially high salaries

3. Senior devs aren't actually that much more productive than junior devs, they just think they are. They also may be averse to doing productive-but-boring work that feels "beneath" them.

4. New devs are valued for more than just their direct contributions to the software project's code base. For example, they may be valued for their ability to bring fresh perspectives, or for their proximity to formal education and thus their tendency to be knowledgable of relatively cutting-edge tech. I think universities lag behind the vanguard trendsetters by at least 5 years, but there are certainly software companies that are stuck 20 or more years in the past

5. The job market for developers is irrational with respect to experience and reasoning about it is as worthwhile as reasoning about the true value of Bitcoin.

I think it's a mixture between 1 and 2, with a little bit of each other explanation too. Worth noting is that senior developers at the big tech companies (AmaGooFaceAppleSoft) get paid a lot more than senior devs at most other tech companies, but most of that compensation is in stock. Full monetary comp (not counting benefits and perks) for a fresh grad might be about $150k/year, but senior developers with >5 years experience are making closer to $250k/year or more

[EnderMB]

I think the gig economy has helped #1 considerably.

In the UK, at least, a lot of developers reach a point where their pay is limited to what a company is willing to pay them for a full-time role. When you get to this point, you have a choice: stick to the full-time market, or go into contracting. From a money and freedom perspective, it's almost a no-brainer. A competent senior developer might make £45-50k, whereas a contractor will earn considerably more if they find consistent work. If they're not lucky enough to find back-to-back contracts they get a lot of extra free time to build their skills even further, or to diversify their offering.

[varjag]

0. Junior devs are hired on current median salary trends, while senior coast from the ones they started with years before.

[marcosdumay]

I would bet heavily on 5. Not exactly on the hiring being irrational, but on companies doing crazy things that destroy the productivity of their senior people.

Just look at how many people are complaining here about open plan offices, agile time slots, heavyweight meetings, and inability to do what they do best.

[bbarn]

I think #2 is just dead wrong. The easiest way to change your status - whether that's income or losing your junior title - is to move jobs. I think the real reason we see so few junior devs now is they just aren't good for the companies paying them. Why invest in a junior developer when almost certainly they will (and should!) leave your company to get more money and different experiences.

[downrightmike]

reevaluate what they're being paid and promote them from junior to senior and pay them.

[rplnt]

I think it's 2. I don't see why senior dev salaries should go any higher. At that point it would be easier to open office overseas even for smaller shops.

[alien_at_work]

>I don't see why senior dev salaries should go any higher

Because they're vastly underpaid compared to the value they produce.

>At that point it would be easier to open office overseas even for smaller shops.

Which means you're getting junior devs, at best. The entire concept of outsourcing hangs on the idea that the people being outsourced to will behave exactly the opposite of those doing the outsourcing, i.e. not really caring about money. Well they do care: when they get senior they leave and go somewhere they can earn western money.

[mywittyname]

> Well they do care: when they get senior they leave and go somewhere they can earn western money.

It seems like the offshore contracting companies have a better grasp on how to maintain tech workers than the companies that hired them do. I've noticed my contracting counterparts get regular performance reviews, decent raises, and title changes actually open up doors for them.

I get my regular 2% a annual bump and any title change has no impact on my actual work.

[rplnt]

World doesn't work like that. You are not paid by the value you create, but by supply/demand for the position. The economics of the product only dictate whether something will be done or not.

And your second statement is not true. You simply get cheaper workforce in other countries. Even on senior levels.

[alien_at_work]

>You are not paid by the value you create, but by supply/demand for the position.

The labor market isn't the greatest place to talk about market forces. Companies do everything they legally (and illegally to an extent) can to ensure that it's not an efficient market. Further, companies have all the power in the relationship: most of us must have work but a company doesn't absolutely have to hire someone. I saw a 4-person startup on this site say they'd been looking for a "rockstar" for 2 years to expand their company. They were willing and able to wait 2 years for a highly skilled person willing to take a low enough salary. Not many people can wait 2 years to get a job.

To see what a real labor market would look like, you need to address the power balance. So I think sports teams are a better representation because they have unions to address this issue. And they do capture more of the value they produce (not all of it, obviously).

>And your second statement is not true. You simply get cheaper workforce in other countries. Even on senior levels.

Oh, I had assumed you meant the typical outsourcing locations. If you mean places like Europe, yes you can get good senior people for lower rates there. But it's a percentage lower, not X times lower, you can't get a truly senior level person on e.g. 7k/yr. I'm sure there's someone somewhere that has, but they'd have done better to buy a lottery ticket with that luck.

[opportune]

This is good comment, and I wish I had seen it when it was made. The labor market is strange; it actually must be messed up, for profitable ventures to pan out in the software development space (if developers were paid directly according to their contributions, capital would not invest in developer-oriented businesses).

The counterpoint is that you get what you pay for. If you wait 2 years for a rockstar to take a shit salary (and let's be real, someone numerate enough to be a rockstar won't take a bad deal) you also are pricing into your organization that it's not worth it to acquire a rockstar for anything less.