It doesn't make sense, but often people and businesses are concerned about it being awkward for someone to report to a manager younger than them. Rather than educate and reassure they prefer to avoid this altogether by not hiring older people. For many, there is also a perception that for someone to not have climbed the corporate ladder by the time they reach their 40s is a signal of failure. With younger workers this signal doesn't exist.
On the management side (non-tech) I initially felt awkward managing people older than me too. After some time I figured out that it is not that hard to have a relationship where their experience and knowledge is a good part of it. Their expertise is valued and I often ask for input when making decisions. I learn a lot. But also, they don't mind getting instructions, feedback, and training from somebody 20 years younger. We all get how the roles fit together, and my job is both to make the final call on stuff, and serve the people I manage so they have what they need and know they are doing a good job. I used to feel bad saying "good job" to somebody 20 years older than me (like who am I to say it?). Again, though, I figured out how to give more specific feedback and thank people for how hard they work and the impact it makes.
This all took a while to get right because of my own hangups. I could see some people preferring to manage younger employees because the authority relationship is more "natural" but that's surface level bs at the end of the day I think.
This is a view that actually sometimes prevents older people from managing it in market. Because of how fast technology moves, much of your experience from 10+ years ago isn't very relevant today, so if you expect a higher salary because of it you will be disappointed. It's important to be realistic and accept that if you've been working since your early 20s, you accumulate experience that might result in a higher salary, but only until you reach your late 30s. At that point you just compete in a market with other experienced people and your value (based on experience) doesn't increase much. You can still increase your value to an employer by acquiring a skill that is in high demand, but you're not more qualified than someone less experienced who has that skill.
>much of your experience from 10+ years ago isn't very relevant today
>you're not more qualified than someone less experienced who has that skill.
I'd gently disagree with this. An extra decade or more of working and navigating the relationships of a workplace, and honing a sense of professional judgment and problem solving is worth something. An employee does far more than implement a specific skill. You need some of that extra stuff too.
"You need some of that extra stuff too". Indeed. but whether you have 10 years or 25 years of that extra stuff might not make more than a marginal contribution to how you're valued.
I think there are plenty of things to learn throughout a career. I don't see why technical growth should get capped after 20 years of experience.
I do believe career growth stalls out at a certain point, though. But I chalk that up to organizational culture, not something inherent to tech work itself. There aren't clearly defined career paths where one would start out making bigger and bigger technical decisions as they gained more experience. You do see that career trajectory in management tracks, as one would manage more people and bigger budgets.
sorry that's crap learning a new tech is not a problem for a competent developer having decades of experience means you have seen problems 20 years ago the experience of which is relevant eg I was doing map reduce in the 80's that experience would directly be applicable to day even though I was using Pl1/G then and would use Python or Java today
