I don't want to rag on this article but heck if I can figure out what the point is.
This is very easy. If you know stuff that few other people know, you can make more money. Once everybody figures out that's where the money is, the money isn't there any more.
Companies will only pay to train you after they have figured out they need something -- and with most companies this is about six months or more after they actually needed it. So they are in a bind and have to hire talent immediately. Folks who come in knowing what the company wants pick up the extra bucks.
The trick here is that you cannot rely on your company to train you. You have to figure out where the market is going, all on your little lonesome, and then do whatever you can to master the tech -- including writing programs for local charities if that's what it takes to get real-world experience -- before the market gets there. This is called investing in your future. It's the tech equivalent of going to night school.
I've been playing this game for a long time, and I've been the young buck making the big bucks (although I've never been the older complainer guy). After I worked my way through code monkey, architect, lead, and pm roles, I ended up training and watching software teams. So I've literally either participated in or worked with folks helping and evaluating hundreds of teams.
Best teams? If I had to generalize, I'd pick the old guys who keep picking up new tech. They know the business, they've been around long enough to play nice with others, and -- if they've stayed current this long -- genuinely are having a fun time with what they do. Plus they tend not to get stressed out by too much. Second best? A mixed team with mostly young guys with lots of current tech and a couple older guys to provide that gray-beard kind of balance.
But that's just a generalization, and like all generalizations it's very limited in its application. Each team is completely different. That's what makes this biz so much fun. Just like my generalizing, I think companies get too caught up in buzzwords. Smart guys with good attitudes can do a lot. I wouldn't go ape-shit with concern simply because buzz word X wasn't in somebody's job experience (or vice-versa) If you know you have to learn X for this next project and you're sitting around waiting on somebody else to come and teach it to you? That's just a little bit too passive for my tastes.
I hate to sound like such a hard-ass (well maybe not really) but this is a very simple business that hasn't changed much in several decades. The pace might have changed, sure, and the tech is all new, but the mechanics of being a good project member, what makes a good project, and how people get paid and such are all the same as they were in 1980 or something. Not much mystery to kick around here in this narrow area of "why Joe makes 30% more than Fred"
This is very easy. If you know stuff that few other people know, you can make more money. Once everybody figures out that's where the money is, the money isn't there any more.
Companies will only pay to train you after they have figured out they need something -- and with most companies this is about six months or more after they actually needed it. So they are in a bind and have to hire talent immediately. Folks who come in knowing what the company wants pick up the extra bucks.
The trick here is that you cannot rely on your company to train you. You have to figure out where the market is going, all on your little lonesome, and then do whatever you can to master the tech -- including writing programs for local charities if that's what it takes to get real-world experience -- before the market gets there. This is called investing in your future. It's the tech equivalent of going to night school.
I've been playing this game for a long time, and I've been the young buck making the big bucks (although I've never been the older complainer guy). After I worked my way through code monkey, architect, lead, and pm roles, I ended up training and watching software teams. So I've literally either participated in or worked with folks helping and evaluating hundreds of teams.
Best teams? If I had to generalize, I'd pick the old guys who keep picking up new tech. They know the business, they've been around long enough to play nice with others, and -- if they've stayed current this long -- genuinely are having a fun time with what they do. Plus they tend not to get stressed out by too much. Second best? A mixed team with mostly young guys with lots of current tech and a couple older guys to provide that gray-beard kind of balance.
But that's just a generalization, and like all generalizations it's very limited in its application. Each team is completely different. That's what makes this biz so much fun. Just like my generalizing, I think companies get too caught up in buzzwords. Smart guys with good attitudes can do a lot. I wouldn't go ape-shit with concern simply because buzz word X wasn't in somebody's job experience (or vice-versa) If you know you have to learn X for this next project and you're sitting around waiting on somebody else to come and teach it to you? That's just a little bit too passive for my tastes.
I hate to sound like such a hard-ass (well maybe not really) but this is a very simple business that hasn't changed much in several decades. The pace might have changed, sure, and the tech is all new, but the mechanics of being a good project member, what makes a good project, and how people get paid and such are all the same as they were in 1980 or something. Not much mystery to kick around here in this narrow area of "why Joe makes 30% more than Fred"