I speak as a guy at the end of the technical track, on my second consecutive job of "look, you make as much as we'll pay just-a-programmer, even an architect, here."
Many managers are now convinced things are better. I never talk to anybody high-up on that track who thinks so. Of course, most companies don't have anybody high up on a technical career ladder, but are convinced it's going to be fixed any year here.
Fundamentally, as long as it's even 20% easier to get promoted as a manager, people are going to intentionally pick that track. In practice, it's usually 2x-5x easier to get promoted as a manager.
I don't think that's fixable. At some point, executives have to decide who to promote. Executives, like the rest of us, prefer people who have skills like theirs - I bias in favor of programming skills for the same reason.
But executive bias toward their own skills mean people managers get promoted.
I've never worked at Google. But I know a lot of Googlers. I don't think I'm wrong. Also, there's another comment from a Googler disagreeing with you in response to this very comment.
It's not a Google-specific problem. But it's a big one.
Sorry but this line is almost always complete BS. Anyone that I know who has heard this line, gone out and gotten a (much better) offer somewhere else, and the original company instantly matched. Like, without even having to consult anyone, their manager said they'd match. You can't trust this line.
It seems that the ability to have an impact while writing code is quite limited in the industry, and the way to expand it is to take on leadership and management roles, even if you aren't technically moving onto the management ladder.
A lot of people whom I see in this category are people who fall more under the "engineer" banner than the "developer" banner - they tend to look for hard problems to solve, and are still happy solving logistical and financial problems.
I don't think it has changed all that much. How many engineers that report to you are near your age or older than you?
This is really interesting and relieving. Have you been able to see this happen in other companies?
I think this is one thing that has changed dramatically (and for the better) in the last ~10 years.
I started as a developer in the 90s. The only way to advance was to go into management. I was pretty conflicted, as I was promoted from developer to manager. Quit, went to be a developer at a new job, and got prompted to manager again. Quit again & later was promoted to manager again. Did it a forth time & then have been in management ever since.
I really loved coding, but coming from lower income family, was terrified of poverty and thus very motivated to climb whatever ladder someone put in front of me.
I'm an engineering manager today at Google and really happy to see there's now a world where engineers can excel without having to be a manager.
Over the years, I've had a lot of good career talks with people about if they wanted to do people management (or at least try it).
A little bit of a tangent, but it's interesting the myriad of ways those conversations go. Sometimes people who would be clearly great at it, don't want to try it for less-than-good reasons. (E.g., not feeling worthy, would the team respect them having been a peer).
Sometimes people who would be terrible at it, really want it for bad reasons as well. (E.g, manager = power (ha!), manager is the only way to advance or be respected (not true!).)
Of course, they sometimes want/don't want for very good reasons too. (E.g., "I like helping people grow" or "I would have to talk to people and I hate that", respectively.)