It's a ridiculous term which I suppose is supposed to make people feel less guilty about having extremely comfortable, high paying, and overall relatively easy jobs, when they know that millions of others are struggling in jobs they hate, are drastically underpaid, or can't even find jobs.
A common version of this is to complain about a lack of vacation time (even though you have 4 weeks, plus holidays, plus sick time, plus sometimes getting to work from home), as if struggling menial workers barely making above minimum wage are spending half the year in the Bahamas. [Note: this paragraph is written from a US perspective.]
"Golden handcuffs" is a similar term. It's not that there is no validity to these notions or that the phenomenon of golden handcuffs doesn't actually occur, because it most certainly does. It's just that, in their typical usage that I see, these terms are used to invent an abstract struggle that upper middle class people are supposedly facing in order to assuage guilt over their own fortune.
I thought golden handcuffs were typically referring to vesting options in a company.
I know I have friends that don't want to resign themselves to a life of programming/software engineering/whatever you want to call it because they see a ceiling to their compensation, or career path. Theres only so many numbers they can tack on to your title before it becomes meaningless.
I go back and forth on this. There's always a ceiling. For a doctor, banker, corporate lawyer, or salesperson, the ceiling is some multiple higher. But are they better jobs? An MD would require many years of study first, a law degree would burn $100k of your net worth and likely leave you underemployed, you're probably not cut out for sales, and so on.
You really only escape the ceiling going into business for yourself. And there probably has never been a time where it's easier to go into business than the last decade, because of the relatively low cost and high reward of developing software. Maybe that's why programmers are often restless, because the path to wealth seems close at hand (even when it's much harder than it seems, and requires many more skills than just programming).
Exactly. How is this different from any other profession? Developers can be so myopic. The narcissism in our industry really drives me up the wall. The only other industry that is this way, that I've seen, is the entertainment industry. The denizens of which also seem to suffer from this idea that they are totally unique and none of the plebeian hordes can possibly relate to what they go through.
I don't think it's the developers being myopic. For the most part, it's management that views development as a young person's game and encourages people to move out of the technical track and into the management track. If companies viewed programming as a long term career, they would put the pay scales in place to treat it as such. It's only a "trap" in the respect that in many (not all) places your pay maxes out as a programmer faster than it does as a manager. I don't think it's most developer's choice for it to be that way.
I thought this was a problem of managers for the longest time, but recently I read an argument once that convinced me of the opposite.
Tu quoque: the "my boss doesn't understand" problem in companies basically comes from people working for people with lower IQ than them. It's not a skillset gap, it's a pattern-recognition gap.
In the military, the best soldiers become officers, and the best officers become generals—even though these are all different skill-sets—because it's more important to have a good general than to have a good soldier, and so if you could, theoretically, do both tasks well, then the military's comparative advantage in allocating your brainpower is to make you a general.
In tech, we see a "career track" of engineers that attempts to be a meritocracy, with the engineering leads and fellows being the guys who have been there the longest—but that's more like the NCO track of the military, valuing experience for the job they're doing, but not the raw brainpower and tenacity to do jobs well generally. Management, meanwhile, is not-at-all a meritocracy; managers hire from outside based on credentialism, and engineers are "pushed into" management based on credence from fellow devs (the same thing you get from being a battle-tested NCO), rather than being "pulled in" by an actual need.
What military? Most have different requirements for soldiering and officering that don't allow track switching. In modern ones, it's level of schooling, while in older ones it might be nobility of blood. You'd have an extremely hard time even making the argument that going from officer to general is meritocratic in the U.S. right now.
Seems to fit Maslow's hierarchy of needs pretty well. Being a programmer mostly provides for the physiological needs (food and shelter), but it doesn't necessarily offer much else. It's natural and healthy that people also strive for financial security, belonging, esteem, and self-actualization.
I get your point and agree with it. I've said it many times myself. But people don't think in terms of mastering a craft and spending a productive life practicing it. In the modern world if you're not on a trajectory toward the 1% you're losing. In that sense most engineering fields are "traps" because if you stay an engineer you aren't going any further up the ladder. I'm a craftsperson, and I still practice the craft of building software systems professionally, every day, even though I've been doing it for twenty years. That's one thing that hasn't changed. Another thing that hasn't really changed in twenty years is my salary. I understand and accept that, but if you don't know that will be a consequence of being essentially in a trade then I can understand how you might come to feel stuck.
Legacy. Empire. Providing for your children's children. Giving your loved ones the kind of life they've never even considered possible. Seeing the smile on your mother's face when you get to tell her she can stop working, that you've taken care of her and your father, and your brothers and sisters.
The 1% are living in a way that will last longer than they will, on a scale that the rest of us won't achieve in our lifetimes. That's okay, certainly, but to pretend like there's no reason to work towards the 1% is silly.
Maybe you are thinking of the 0.01%. The 1% income threshold in the U.S. is about $380K. That's wealthy but it's not empire-building. Most senior software engineers are probably in the top 5% of income earners in the U.S. already, they could easily be in the top 1% with a high earning spouse.
> The 1% income threshold in the U.S. is about $380K.
It's $521,411 per household[0] (the household bit is probably where we're getting confused).
$500k, $400k, either way, the goal is as I've stated; once you've taken care of yourself, you start wanting to take care of others. There is always motivation to make more, until everyone is provided for, and even when you've provided for everyone you care about, providing for the general wellbeing of humanity becomes a priority (Gates, Buffet, et al).
'My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
One possible explanation for that is that there are two kind of people, some who believe that everybody is working towards the same goal and some who believe that everybody should decide what their own individual goals are. The former group settle on money and social status as those universal goals, because they are reasonably common and can often (though not always) be exchanged for what you really want. The latter don't believe in telling other people what their personal goals are, because if they are different for every person, what's the point?
Under this model, 100% of the public discourse would be devoted towards achieving money and status. That does not mean that everybody (or even a majority of people) pursue those goals, only that people who do talk about it a whole lot more than people who don't.
I imagine any career path you specialize in can be considered a trap. The more time you invest in, the more it feels like you have to stick with that path so that time doesn't get wasted.
My friend who was a plumber recognized this. He also realised that plumbing is not something that you want to be trapped in. As you age it get's harder and harder to be constantly crouching down and contorting yourself into those hard to reach areas. So he jumped ship and is retraining as an architect.
Programming doesn't have that limitation. Barring the odd bit of RSI there is nothing to stop you coding until the day you drop.
A common version of this is to complain about a lack of vacation time (even though you have 4 weeks, plus holidays, plus sick time, plus sometimes getting to work from home), as if struggling menial workers barely making above minimum wage are spending half the year in the Bahamas. [Note: this paragraph is written from a US perspective.]
"Golden handcuffs" is a similar term. It's not that there is no validity to these notions or that the phenomenon of golden handcuffs doesn't actually occur, because it most certainly does. It's just that, in their typical usage that I see, these terms are used to invent an abstract struggle that upper middle class people are supposedly facing in order to assuage guilt over their own fortune.