Ask HN: Is it wrong not wanting career progression beyond senior?

Try contracting, then people won't care about your career progression.

My take might be a controversial take overall. Also note that I'm speaking as an American, in the "land of the free", which actually does apply in this case, I think:

First, if it's OK with you, then it's not wrong. Ignore the things society/advertisers tell you: "You need a boat! You need a nice car! You need a pool!" Do you want a boat? Do you want a nice car? Do you want a pool? You actually have complete control over these optional financial burdens.

OK, so if you've taken a step back and established what you actually want, (and this may change throughout your life), then you can set some goals around how to achieve that. People may judge you (fuck em, imo). You will get asked questions about what you do for a living all the time (probably), and maybe the status of a more prestigious role is important to you. It's all up to you (possibly with some input from loved ones if you value their opinions).

Personally, I'm kind of a minimalist. I have pretty much all the stuff that I want already. I actively fight against acquiring more stuff. If I had enough capital for my family to live off 10% per year, I would quit my job today, and offer my services for free to causes that I actually care about. Come to think of it, I guess that's one of my goals.

Once you plateau in your career, after a bit you realize this is it for the duration and you may want to do something radical/crazy - the famous mid-life crisis. After some wild and crazy times you may come back to earth and return to your tech career if you can reconnect to the current tech stack and then plodding on to retirement may seem like a blessing.

I agree that there is nothing wrong with choosing to stay away from senior positions, and in fact there are many benefits to what you're doing. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the "Gervais Principle", but it's a fun theory to think about related to this. I'm sure HN has brought it up before, but it's relevant here. https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...

The idea is that the mid-level "clueless" are the ones who choose to climb a corporate hierarchy, while the non-senior "losers" (not social losers, but the people who struck bad financial bargains) are able to give up capitalist striving for a stable life. As a "loser" you can move between different jobs more easily, stay happy, and avoid politics and unnecessary responsibility. Here's an excerpt from that article that resonates with me:

"The Losers like to feel good about their lives. They are the happiness seekers, rather than will-to-power players, and enter and exit reactively, in response to the meta-Darwinian trends in the economy. But they have no more loyalty to the firm than the Sociopaths. They do have a loyalty to individual people, and a commitment to finding fulfillment through work when they can, and coasting when they cannot."

I actually find the "loser" to be the most interesting and useful person at most companies.

Anyway, that's my two cents.