Software Engineering Is a Dead-End Career, Says Bloomberg
An anonymous reader sends this quote from an opinion piece at Bloomberg:
"Many programmers find that their employability starts to decline at about age 35. Employers dismiss them as either lacking in up-to-date technical skills — such as the latest programming-language fad — or 'not suitable for entry level.' In other words, either underqualified or overqualified. That doesn’t leave much, does it? Statistics show that most software developers are out of the field by age 40. Employers have admitted this in unguarded moments. Craig Barrett, a former chief executive officer of Intel Corp., famously remarked that 'the half-life of an engineer, software or hardware, is only a few years,' while Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook has blurted out that young programmers are superior."
I did a Masters Chemical Engineer (didn't finish), and a bachelor in CS. In both older students and alumni warned that you should get out of tech jobs and move into management within 10 years after graduation.
The first time I heard that must have been in the 1992-1994 timeframe
Really explains a lot about Facebook as well, actually!
Unless you are one of the recognized leaders of your field, you become "obsolete" to your employer after about 15 years even if your skills are not. Why keep a stubborn old programmer on board, when you can replace them with a younger less stubborn programmer at lower pay.
It's important to have an alternative career path. For example, I went to college for Computer Science, but have always been interested in computer security.
I took the computer programming skills I learned and put them to use in the computer security field instead.
I don't write code anymore, and I'm ok with that. Instead, I figure out what security issues others created in their code, without even having the source code in front of me.
Unfortunately, at least when I went to college, they never taught secure coding techniques. I had to learn all about that on my own.
Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook has blurted out that young programmers are superior.
"Willing to put up with abuse" does not mean "superior", however much employers might like to conflate them.
As I approach the FP's end-of-career age, I find myself far, far more efficient than a decade ago, in not just my coding-for-coding's-sake work, but in my ability to address what the business wants out of my code. The beancounters don't care about skinnability, about what buzzword technologies went into the app, about how fast (beyond a very loose "fast enough") a program runs. They care if it answers their questions, and does so accurately.
Unfortunately, they can't easily see past how much I cost - Yes, at this point in my career, I make in the ballpark of twice as much as an entry level dev. And yes, I do provide that much more value to the company than I did fresh out of college (I'd even go so far as to say I provide far more than merely 2x the ROI, but will stay on the conservative side for now).
Important point to note about the FP... It talks about Intel and Facebook; TFA additionally mentions Microsoft - All companies that do tech for tech's sake, not as a means to satisfy a non-tech-related business need. Your time in Silicon Valley, your chance to strike gold in a startup, your 60 hour weeks and the glares for cutting out early when you need to attend Grandma's funeral, may all end by 40. But your career doesn't need to, as long as you've spent those first 15-20 years picking up the skills that matter outside the tech hubs.
Say what? I started programming in the mid '70's. There were already "software engineers" and "computer scientists" back then. Computers were around long before "personal computers" and needed programming.
The only way I get work as a programmer now is as an consultant. It is not because I haven't kept up with tech, languages and tools. Around 10 years old head hunters started telling me it would be easier to find work for for me if I rewrote my resume to hide my true age and years of experience.
The majority of my clients are through referrals, they've never seen me in person and have no idea how old I am.
Agreed.
I started software development at 22 and I'm turning 58 next month; I've spent a grand total of about 12 months out of work due to layoffs. I haven't been back to school since I got my master's in CS in '87; everything I've learned since has been on the job or on my own time. It's not that hard.
Frankly, it is more difficult to land a new position when competing with younger workers who are freshly trained in current technologies, and who don't have family obligations eroding their work days, but I still bring something to the table, most especially experience that helps prevent making old mistakes new again. At least twice in the last few years, my past experience with assembly helped me resolve issues that had my co-workers scratching their heads even after I explained it to them.
Current expertise: Objective-C (OS X and iOS), C++, and picking up Qt and Ruby. Java is getting a little rusty now. My skills and the language. ;-)
It does help that I love what I do.
Subject says it all.
Contact me if you want to see my resume.
Interviews have been coming at a steady rate so far, and in one shop I'd be one of the younger people if hired.
In Liberty, Rene
I think of software engineering as being a higher level funtion than computer programming. a code mokey might get hired as a computer programmer, but then grows into a software engineer...
In his book ("iWoz") - Woz tells a story where "when he was young" he was able to lock himself in a room for a week and come out with a completed project. As he aged he found that he lost that ability/motivation (and he could just pay someone to write the code)
regarding Zuckerberg's comment, that guy who used to run Microsoft (Bill Gates I think) basically said the same thing - i.e. young minds have better/more ideas (read "Breaking Windows" to see when Bill Gates hit that wall).
anyway, the human brain changes as we age - which may not be "fair" but ... ummm, what was I saying...
It ain't what they call you. It's what you answer to. http://mylyceum.us/
I'm almost 54. Going strong and doing what I love. My wife is 45 and also a software engineer. I had a project end about 9 months ago and had to find a position within 4 weeks. Lots of work, even for a guy my age (Southern California).
In a band? Use WheresTheGig for free.
That's why you work long enough to get experience, and skills (and hopefully contacts and some people skills along the way)....incorporate yourself, and go contracting.
In that field, experience is EVERYTHING...and you can make a very healthy bill rate.
It is amazing really...how often, how companies will grind their W2's (young ones) into the ground, for nothing, willingly lose them, but pay a major premium for a contractor to come in and do the same thing or fix things, etc.
It isn't just IT, work has changed. The days of getting a long term job for life, especially at ONE company are long, long, long gone.
You have to be adaptable, willing to risk, willing to move/travel to where the jobs are.
There are plenty of jobs out there paying plenty of money if you are good. You just have to be willing to do what it takes to get to them and have them.
People skills and connections will get you a LONG way....if you can back those up with extreme tech skills, you will go even further. It isn't too bad when you can work your bill rate up high enough to work 6-8mos a year, and be able to easily afford to take the rest of the year off....it can be done,and they're plenty of IT folks out there doing it.
You just have to drop out of that old mindset of what a job is...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I started at 30 during dot-com, am well into my 40's now and feel like my opportunities are only beginning. My salary is 4x what I made 10 years ago and I am seeing tsunamis of opportunity. This is a great industry, and a great industry to grow and to work in over the long haul. Don't let anybody tell you different. Put this FUD in your FUD-bucket with all the FUD that Bloomberg spews day after day.
That's what companies are for. Making money.
Here's a radical idea: why does all of that money have to be made for shareholders? Why can't some of it also be for the people doing the work?
Stick Men
Comment removed based on user account deletion