[ChuckMcM]

It is not a dumb question, it is a question everyone in their 20's should be thinking about. Not surprisingly though, it doesn't have a "right" answer as there are different answers for different people.

In my personal experience being 'bored' is a huge red flag for me. When I'm bored I don't do my best work, and I don't engage strongly with the team. Thus someone managing me would get the impression that I'm not very capable.

So instead of an answer I'd suggest an algorithm to use to guide you in your career choices. It goes something like this:

Ask yourself, what parts of this job give me satisfaction?

There are different ways to measure that, perhaps the easiest is to look at the past few projects you have worked on and write down what was your favorite and least favorite part of that project.

Understand that "writing software" is a skill or a trade that you apply to different problems. A woodworker that applies their skill to building houses might see themselves as a home builder, or one who applies their skills to making kitchen cabinets as cabinet maker.

Some people find pleasure in the finding of algorithms and efficiency, some like to dive into how software is created (tools), and still others enjoy specific domains such as databases, or accounting, or operating systems.

So step 1 of the algorithm is to find the parts of your job that bring you joy. It will also help you find the things you dislike the most about writing software.

Step 2 then is to invest time in mitigating the things you don't like about writing software and to start focusing on companies or roles that are more focused on the things you love about writing software.

When I joined Intel out of college I had a co-worker who had started the same time I did who was a software engineer. They found they really liked writing accounting software (they wrote their own money manager for CP/M) they left Intel and went to work for a company called PeachTree that did accounting software and loved it. Another co-worker at Sun who started out writing software but found they really enjoyed the planning and project management aspects rather than the coding aspects, so they went into project management instead. Both examples of people examining what they liked about their job or skill and then investing in doing more of that.

To your point 1) ... you mention the 'strictly 40 hours', and that is possible in any job, you just have to stick to it. Others may chide you for it, or be jealous, but it's a life choice that you get to make. Managers who don't respect it are not worth working for.

And "earning potential lowers as you age" this is only true if you don't grow your skillset with age. You can also find yourself in a unique skillset that grows in value with age. So basically it isn't a given. That said, its always a smart move to live well within your means and bank the excess for later.

[non-entity]

> Step 2 then is to invest time in mitigating the things you don't like about writing software and to start focusing on companies or roles that are more focused on the things you love about writing software.

Unfortunately, in my case, those roles are reserved for people much smarter and credentialed than myself.

[ChuckMcM]

Obviously I don't know anything about your specific situation so humor me if I'm being dense okay?

How exactly are the roles "reserved" ? Do you live somewhere that has more of a patronage mode of filling roles or one where it's more merit based?

For example, one of the engineers I knew at NetApp came to work in the US from Mumbai because they could not advance as a software engineer without a degree from one of the "ITS" schools (they went to a second tier school). In the US that wasn't a problem, in India it was. Their solution was to change countries (as hard as that is).

If that is not the case, are you constrained in some way from upgrading your credentials to the ones you need?

I have also observed that smaller companies are more focused on who can do the job rather than their credentials. Sometimes moving to a company that needs your skills more than they care to look good on paper might be worth looking into.

[non-entity]

Eh, part of it is just that "the things I love about writing software" just aren't very important or in demand in a business setting. There certainly are positions I think I would enjoy, but they are fewer in number most of the positions prefer people with graduate degrees (I know not to put too much trust in job listings, but some domains do tend to be more strict on that sort of requirements, whether it be a culture thing or otherwise) and I never went to school at all.

> If that is not the case, are you constrained in some way from upgrading your credentials to the ones you need?

Money, and to a lesser extent time. I can't be considered a resident of the state I reside in "for tuition purposes" at least for a couple years, so there's no in-state tuition for me. On top of that I make enough money not to qualify for any aid, but not enough to fork out nearly six figures in a reasonable time. I could maybe pull out private loans, but for just an undergrad degree, it honestly doesn't feel worth it.

> I have also observed that smaller companies are more focused on who can do the job rather than their credentials. Sometimes moving to a company that needs your skills more than they care to look good on paper might be worth looking into.

Yeah, I'm not fully given up quite yet, hell several years back, I didn't think I would ever get a software development positions period, but I managed to get in.