[mdorazio]

Honest question: is this actually ageism or is it business cost-benefit analysis in action? You could argue that the benefit to the company of experience for a tech worker is only worth a maximum of X dollars. After that point, the company is better off hiring younger, cheaper employees with lower expectations than it is continuing to give raises, benefits, etc. to older workers.

I would expect a salary plateau to be a natural result of the above + supply and demand in the market. Maybe that’s what the term ageism has come to mean (not its original definition)?

[notacoward]

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.

[pcurve]

I agree with you about the difference in the type of value older workers can bring to the table. Their roles can have a more cross-functional and broader impact. I don't think anyone would discount its value. (I'm in my 40s)

But another way to view this is through the lens of supply and demand. If there are over-supply of the roles that can only be filled by older workforce, then the pay will reflect that.

[notacoward]

> If there are over-supply of the roles that can only be filled by older workforce

That's a pretty crucial question. Certainly at my age there really are fewer people. How true is that at 40? How unique is that "experience premium"? It seems impossible to evaluate the reality or prevalence of ageism without concrete answers (which I don't know either).

[axlee]

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

[Grustaf]

In almost all industries you start out doing low level technical stuff and then over time transition to working with people. An analyst at a management consultancy, a bank or a hedge fund spends his time looking at balance sheets or excel, whereas partners go to meetings and dinners with clients.

In a word, you make more money by transitioning from hard skills to soft, and since most developers are unwilling or unable to do this their salaries will plateau.

But compared to the financial industry, and probably law, developers can count themselves lucky. Those industries work on an “up or out” principle, sticking around for 20 years as an analyst simply isn’t an option, no matter how good you are.

[mdorazio]

Think you nailed it here. For example, in the consulting world you can pretty easily calculate the dollar value of employees at different levels based on the rates you can charge for them, the hours they bill, the new revenue they bring, and their compensation. That calculation tends to put a pretty hard limit on salaries for people not willing/able to make the transition to highly billable SME or partner-type business development/practice management.

In more traditional corporate roles, the compensation path is tied pretty heavily to growth in managerial skills and subject matter expertise in ways that don't always have parallels with software development. Even there, though, I've started seeing similar "ageism" as the article points out come into effect. Clients I've worked at have started coming to the realization that younger and more tech-savvy workers can often get to, say, 75% of the value of a 20-year employee for half the price in compensation.

[noirbot]

I would argue the same thing does happen in other positions - salespeople usually cap out at some point or go into management (Though it can be a little odd since they have a commission portion usually. If you're really good, there's not really a cap, but functionally...). Surgeons and lawyers generally cap out unless they end up especially prestigious, but it's high enough that it mostly doesn't matter.

[whatshisface]

Professional athletes?

[noirbot]

It's a bit different, since there actually is a fall-off with age in sports. A 45 year old basketball player is almost definitely more injured and less capable than a 20-year old. In most sports, you get better for the first 5-10 years being a pro and then it's all downhill from there.

Though, like tech, your trajectory at that point is usually management, analysis, or teaching.