I felt the same way up until a year ago.

I'm in my 40s, been developing for over 20 years professionally and was programming in assembly since the late 80s in middle school and felt the same way.

I kind of stumbled into a job as a lead. I was looking for a job, thought I was applying for just another senior developer job and I started asking my version of the Joel Test * to my now manager. I realized after a lot of questions about architecture, strategy, and mentoring that he was looking for someone to basically create a modern development shop. Luckily I knew enough to talk intelligently about it to make it through the interview without planning.

It's been a great but humbling experience. The great part is that I'm only working on green field projects and I don't have to deal with the technical decisions by others. I was able to mold the department in my own image - I'm always reading about best practices and asking advice from former coworkers.

The humbling part is that I realized two things, I'm good at teaching and working with the smart developers who had been there for awhile working on a legacy system that were just learning newer technologies, but I sucked at figuring out the types of people when I was hiring that were "smart and gets things done"

I was even worse when it comes to the project management side of things. Luckily, the developers who had been there for awhile were self managing and knew the business process inside and out.

Alan Kay said that people who are really serious about software should make their own hardware. I feel the same way about becoming an architect or team lead. If you really want to be a good developer, you should really be a team lead. As a team lead, you have more leverage than as an individual developer.

* https://myers.io/2017/04/04/the-joel-test-for-2017/

* * https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/10/25/the-guerrilla-guid...

Your only option is to always work for a company that builds products.

Consultancies are not an option: they depend on buying cheap man-hours and selling then for a profit. As you age, your monetary need will increase and consultancies won't be willing to pay you more... unless you become a manager.

Product-builders are less shy to pay better wages for two reasons: 1) They dilute their wage expenses into a lot of customers and 2) They assume you're a good hire both for them and the competition, so hiring you means getting some leverage against competitors.

   unless you become a manager.

Or a specialist with compelling skills.

All that does is raise the ceiling slightly. The number of specialists with compelling skills earning much more than typical ICs is dwarfed by the number of senior directors, VPs and C-suites earning as much or more as the specialist can.

Sure, but there is nothing wrong with that.

Most developers, say, do not have any career path that ends them up in the C-suite, so holding that up as a comparison isn't very useful.

If you finish out your career as a middle manager or a technical specialist, it looks much more similar. It's a path to consider for many people, but realize there are far fewer opportunities (and less lateral mobility).

Tip #1: be content with your current salary. Otherwise you'll have to do something outstanding, so that your higher ups will pay you more even though you're "just a developer".

FWIW many companies have parallel tracks for ICs and management. The upside for ICs is that you can become as senior as a VP with zero reports. The downside is that there is no comp bump just for managing people: it's only extra overhead so it becomes a labor of love at these companies. (You do it because you enjoy shepherding people's careers, not because it will get you a raise.) At some companies I've even seen PMs prevented from managing people until a super senior level in order to keep them focused on execution and the org structure flat (another byproduct of making management offer principally intrinsic rewards is that fewer people do it and those that do tend to be better at it).

Context: employment at both Facebook and Google

In most companies I have seen the technical track is incredibly hard to advance on. You have to be incredibly good to make the same money mediocre managers make.

Sure, but you get to have a lot more fun - so it works out.

Only if you can pull it off which in most companies is unlikely.

My point was, it is fair. If the position is more fun, it's not unreasonable that it doesn't pay as much as other paths.

That is separate from the issue of whether or not the path is available at your company, or for you personally.

I thought people are being paid for the value they provide. Being in a technical role is not just fun and games. There is a lot of responsibility and stress too. I would argue that good technical people provide more value than some middle manager so they should get paid accordingly.

But in general, they don’t. You have to be very, very good for your contributions as an IC to outweigh the value of a merely decent manager.

What I’m saying is they the pay tends to mostly reasonably represent value, in my experience. With a slight discount due to ICs often being bad negotiators (bit so are technical managers). As an individual, you have to consider what the job does for you, not just the other way around. If you want to increase your salary, absolutely you should be considering how you can change what you do to make a compelling argument that you are (or will) bringing more value.

Which isn’t to say that a great IC can’t bring a ton of value - it’s just that they are also rare.

What makes it harder is that typical IC ‘s lack both the visibility and experience to estimate value well (in the bottom line sense). So without infrastructure around it, you are at high risk of spending expensive time on the wrong things.

Seems both of us are saying the same thing: if you want to make more money you probably have better chances to accomplish this by going into management. Going the tech route is harder.

Yes, I think we are mostly on the same page. There are more routes to a bigger paycheck through management. But there are non-management routes for some. Also, very few people are motivated exclusively by salary.

I've heard there are a lot less senior ic roles, than are managing senior roles.

They're much more competitive to get into.

They also don't pay as well and aren't any more respected by senior management, generally, than the most recently intern-to-fulltime hire.

What is IC?

An Individual Contributor - someone with no direct reports.

Individual Contributor