I think average salary does go down, but mainly because the "growth track" keeps getting narrower. Seriously, in their twenties just about anyone can keep gett

I think average salary does go down, but mainly because the "growth track" keeps getting narrower. Seriously, in their twenties just about anyone can keep getting healthy salary increases year after year. It's normal and expected at that stage. By 35, maybe half have been pushed off the fast track, either onto other non-technical tracks or onto a lower technical track. By 40 it's three quarters, and so on. At my age (51) it seems like 90-95% of my cohort have changed roles or been pushed to the fringes where pay stagnates or declines. Note that it's all based on perceived value, which is only partly based on actual value, which is only partly based on skill. I'm not trying to brag or put anyone down here. A lot of it has to do with what I said in another comment about specialization. Nobody wants to pay a thirty-year veteran's salary for a job where they don't already have deep expertise. People who can find jobs closely aligned with their skills and specialties often continue to do OK. People who can't - and it's usually more to do with shifts in the market than in them - get left out. The sad fact is that many older programmers' skills and instincts often do apply outside their area of obvious expertise. Recognizing code smells or knowing how to test code properly are valuable skills in any specialty. So is communication, or scheduling, or being able to recognize and mentor up-and-coming young developers. Most older programmers - not just the few lucky ones - are well able to justify their salaries but never get the chance. That's a "soft" kind of ageism, but it's ageism nonetheless.