>
the software engineer depreciates only slightly more slowly than the machine he or she toils behindThe author takes a debilitating credibility hit with this statement. A computer can be worthless after 5 years. So an engineer is what, worthless after 6 years?
He also chases this experience paradox too far. When I (and believe it or not more than a few others) hire someone or negotiate pay I assign zero value to years of experience.
If being a seasoned veteran has any value, I want to discover it in relevant interviews through conversation, problem solving, wisdom, etc. I could make a mistake and not see it but I'm not paying more because of a number.
Same with a recent graduate, there's quite a bit of variation in maturity, communication skills (yes a fine weapon for an engineer to wield), and ability. Some 22 year olds having been coding since they were 12 years old. If all this seems to manifest value during the process, why would I possibly not pay this person more the than the standard "new graduate" scale and risk losing them to a competitor?
I realize not all will think this way and yes, some of the things written do happen but the tone is too alarmist. It's just something that can be unfair and a challenge but it's not insurmountable. It's not like being black in Alabama in 1950.
One thing older engineers should do is the same thing younger ones should. Don't just naively learn tech that's interesting. "Interesting" is important because it can grant effortless motivation and passion. But at least research and sort rigorously the salary differences for 20 different things along with variables like generalist vs specialist company size etc.
Then choose whatever the heck you want, because you've made a conscious decision about your preference to balance interest vs money and choose to make 75k or 250k a year in a state that doesn't have to be on a coastline.
You can even try to put a less enlightened interviewer at ease by being honest. You could tell them you can't be demotivated even if you did take a salary cut, because you don't build your identity on that because it's not about me. It's about how much market value I can deliver via tangible and measurable results. It's about whether I can actually help the company reach goals faster, add productivity and help the company be more successful. And if can convince you such objective things are likely after our interview, I believe they should be the most decisive criteria for your decision.
Here's some random 81 year guy. probably all washed up no doubt. Would you be willing to give him a shot to help you out on some algorithms? For some reason I just feel after speaking with him it wouldn't seem like much of a risk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Knuth