[davidgay]

> However, because of how corporations work, once you've demonstrated proficiency at "junior level work" you move up to the next big challenge. Yes, that sounds pejorative, but coding is not hard compared to the next levels of competency: programming is junior level, software architecture is senior level, product roadmap is staff level, corporate direction is above that.

This viewpoint, that those jobs are harder, is just self-justification (either to themselves or to everyone else) for people higher up that list of their higher pay than those below.

I don't believe those skills are actually harder (nor easier, just different), or that you have to be good, e.g., at programming to be good at corporate direction.

What is, IMO, true, is that those skills do have larger impact (or at least, significantly more obvious impact), which is at least a reasonable justification for higher pay.

But don't pretend that being good at software architecture, corporate direction, etc, means that you're actually smarter than that person who's "just" a programmer.

[swelz]

I don't think they are implying that people on more junior levels are not at smart. I believe they are attempting to explain that as you go up higher people tend to be less competent due to a lack of experience and proper training tools.

[barberousse]

> I believe they are attempting to explain that as you go up higher people tend to be less competent due to a lack of experience and proper training tools.

He's not saying higher-ups are less competent, he's saying winging it is inevitable and necessary at the C-level _because_ it is impossible to already have experience and proper training tools for the decisions one has to make.