Speaking as someone whose age starts with a 5, I don't expect/agree older people should earn more based on being older. If they earn more by bringing more value to the company, that's welcome and fair on both sides, but if you're 53 and you don't bring more value in than someone who is 35, you shouldn't expect to take more home either.

As a fiftysomething, I agree entirely. As near as I can see, very few people get paid more based on simple longevity. They get paid more because their increased experienced and larger skillset provides more value to the company.

I agree, with the caveat that many employers don’t see it that way. They will think you are too expensive for the value you can provide, without even giving you an offer. It is just expected that the 53 year old has more ability than the 35 year old, making it hard for career changers or late bloomers.

This is an example of ageism. I'm pushing 50, let's see how I stack up:

> cost more in salary

If the salaries that show up in HN posts are true, this is a no.

> cost more in health care

My only health care needs in the past 30 years have been a couple of dental cleanings per year.

> have been known to push back [...] and to not get swept up in current fads.

Ok, you've got me on this one. I do keep up with new languages, libraries, etc. I've also lived through enough hype cycles to separate the good stuff from the fluff.

> My only health care needs in the past 30 years have been a couple of dental cleanings per year.

I hate to be disagreeable but that might be an example of past observations not necessarily predicting future ones.

> cost more in health care My only health care needs in the past 30 years have been a couple of dental cleanings per year.

The answer here, I feel, is to slowly phase recipients to medicare to offset some of the costs.

Even better if medicare were for all; or outright remove the private sector and the employer from paying for our health insurance.

Good lord, what kind of brutal hellscape do you work at that ages people out at 30?

If you're an experienced professional competing for the same jobs as fresh graduates, something has gone awfully wrong with your career. At some point you gotta start bringing more to the table than pure grind.

perhaps the gradual ageism begins at 30, but look around and try to see how many >40yr engineers are around you. Every year there is a dice roll to remove folks, and an extremely low intake of new "older" folks. (ie, 5% of 40yr old engineers might leave per year, and only 1% of 40yr old engineers are entering as their first year due to starting a new career)

Typically the older you get, and the more knowledgable you become, you step into different positions that tend to pay more (PM, Leadership). The more experienced individuals are just more beneficial in those roles, rather than strictly coding.

Except expecting everyone to want to go toward managerial roles is a nasty (and very common) antipattern.

Having to work with toxic people or completely give up an interpersonal leadership role as a condition of being a staff engineer is another.

I'm in a weird spot career wise because I turned down 3 management roles to oversee multiple teams and now have to signal my non-interest in stepping out of team leadership and into a staff engineering role.

I just really like managing ICs in the day to day and everything that would make me good at those other roles is incidental to me liking managing ICs.