ETA: summary…
Author describes how agentic coding tools have disincentivized the developer training and mentorship pipeline that the software industry has implicitly relied on to produce seasoned developers, predicting that once the shortage is fully realized it could take years to reverse.
The solution proposed is for managers and senior developers to get ahead of this shortage by foregoing the immediate yet shortlived productivity maximization offered by the agent-multiplied-senior structure in favor of longterm sustainability by deliberately facilitating experience fan-out to juniors.
The methodology proposed is based on a successful nuclear engineering apprenticeship program carried out on active service naval submarines.
Perhaps the specifics of your example are different. Your quality of life still going to work everyday is better than your friends who retired comfortably 20 years early? If not these specifics, what were the ones you and your friends had in front of you?
Not the one in the thread, but I’ve seen two excellent pros shitcanned on day 87 of their 90-day probation, and not for 10x but only double my salary. I suspect the bloodthirsty shitcannery would be even worse with 10x, and my mere 1x uninterrupted salary is lookin’ pretty good today as the latest one talks about being employed 3 months in 3 years and what that means for their mortgage.
In short, you ask us to assume it really is 10x and that we’d not get fired for a year. This is not guaranteed in dot-com.
So either you and your friends were at dickish employers anyway and there was no other risk to go for the more money, or the thesis made here by @[email protected] isn’t actually correct and “How do you keep people? Same as always: treat them well, pay them fairly, don’t be a dick. It’s quite easy actually” isn’t so universal or easy as they were treated well and paid fairly but still left.
Your situation supports the point I’m making. There is a number most of us would jump for regardless of how good the current employer is. That number is likely different for all of us as it would be derived from a risk calculation.
I’d caution against survivorship bias here for long term planning. The nature of IT work is cyclical: boom and bust. In my IT career I’m already on my third pass of major boom/bust cycles. What we’re going through right now is actually a more narrower version that those in past. Part of succeeding is learning the cycle and knowing how to navigate it. This also means banking the excesses properly during the boom cycles in preparation for the inevitable bust instead of letting lifestyle inflation occur. I’ve had friends that took the much better paying job, lasted years and earned the big money, but then blew it all instead of banking it, then struggled to find work when the boom/bust cycled again.
I’ll also be the first to admit that a huge part of success is simply luck manifesting in several timely forms (right place, right time, right economy) for each of us. Its possible to make all the right choices and still lose simply because the choices available to you were all crap. Or better stated by Captain Picard:
The OP article we’re replying to here is very topical on the soon-to-be rise in the compensation to senior talent. I agree with the author that in the months/years ahead a senior person like yourself will very much in demand when the erosion of the juniors is in full effect and the need for skilled seniors still exists. Will you sit on the sidelines while your peers cash in closer to my hypothetical or will your one-time-sample of first hand observation guide you to take the conservative approach and stay put at your current employer?
There’s no wrong answer here, but even if you choose to stay put, would you concede that many of your peers would jump to the new employer for much more money?