[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).