There's a dichotomy in software development between the developers who represent single points of failure in an organization and the increasing number of "replaceable" developers i.e. developers versed only in popular frameworks or who hold introductory/recent-grad levels of domain knowledge with no desire to go further.
I think right now were in a "golden age" where the latter group still holds power and can command decent salary. I'm convinced this will start to change in 2-3 years and a lot of people who came in for that golden age are going to face a shocking reality that they aren't as privileged as they thought they were.
With the fall of the second group software companies will have much more leverage across the board and we'll see darker and darker patterns prosper.
This exists in all industries. It is called experience.
Developers convincing themselves that they're single points of failure is arrogance, IMO. 99.9% of the time if you leave then someone can step right up and take your place. Oh sure there will be costs, lost productivity, maybe an outage, but the world keeps turning. So go ahead and take that vacation.
The OP here mentions that they can just go to another shop and get work if they do not like their current shop. That's fine, but the employers can do the same too. They can fire you and get another person as well. Granted, right now, the employee holds a lot more power in the market, but that will ebb over time, and it may even switch.
I don't know, on the one hand I agree that S.P.O.F. in the technical sense doesn't translate to the HR sense such that there will always be someone who can come in and learn everything needed to handle the job.
On the other hand its like a mediocre army doing a great job because of a great general. That general leaves/dies and the army falls apart or is reduced to a fraction of its former self.
Especially at smaller orgs with constrained resources, they may replace their technical lead but if the replacement flounders, and the replacement's replacement flounders, the whole org becomes FUBAR. In this sense that original technical lead becomes ipso-facto irreplaceable (IMO).
I think you're right. And we've had a "golden age" end twice already: first in the 1980s, which was double-whammied when they cracked-down on contractor labor practices, and again after the dot-com burst. Both times left a lot of carnage and a lot of bitter people who swore off the industry.
And both resulted in a labor shortage a few years later.
I suppose an argument could be made that unionization would increase the output of the technology sector by virtue of preserving the labor pool, along with all the expertise and domain that would normally evaporate, during down-cycles.
Also, lots of people seem to be equating unionizing to having some sort of fixed wage. In reality, it comes down to how the union decides to structure its contracts -- several unions simply dictate a minimum rate/wage, and leave room for negotiation. It's why SAG offers people minimum day and weekly rates and SAG movie star can negotiate a multi-million dollar contract.
I think right now were in a "golden age" where the latter group still holds power and can command decent salary. I'm convinced this will start to change in 2-3 years and a lot of people who came in for that golden age are going to face a shocking reality that they aren't as privileged as they thought they were.
With the fall of the second group software companies will have much more leverage across the board and we'll see darker and darker patterns prosper.