[senttoschool]

I find this take fascinating. I've been both a PM and a software engineer. I find the role of a PM significantly harder than a dev. It's easier to deal with computers because they're logical. But as a PM, not only do you have to convince executives, which is a skill, you also have to work in details with the developers. Both groups could not be any more different as one group wants summaries but the other wants you to spell out every detail imaginable. On top of that, you have to learn how to talk to customers and dissect insights from what they tell you.

>I unfortunately have never worked in a company where product managers are actually accomplishing their job descriptions due to the fact that most simply do not code and do not understand engineering in depth and hence can’t concrete/feasible action on where to take the product.

When I was a PM, I always found that the best developers were the ones who understood that PMs aren't suppose to understand the little technical details. It's the job of the developers to explain the tradeoffs in whatever code framework you choose, IE. Next.js or Gastby.js or whatever. A PM should not be coding nor do they need in depth engineering. It's your job to explain it.

The caveat is to the above is that you're building a highly technical product, so the PM should be technical enough to do his/her job well.

A lot of devs think that the only thing that goes into a product is the code. This is just not true. Sometimes coding is the easiest part. Coming up with what to build, and convincing the company to stand behind it, is often the hardest part.