Here is the ginourmous confounding issue the presentation in the article: > Why would any company pay a computer programmer with out-of-date skills a salary of

Here is the ginourmous confounding issue the presentation in the article: > Why would any company pay a computer programmer with out-of-date skills a salary of say $150,000, when it can hire a fresh graduate — who has no skills — for around $60,000? (my emphasis) So how do you untangle the ageism issue from the skills issue? This article doesn't, but for the broader question you kinda have to. How do you control for skills when finding out about ageism? I'm pretty sure there's ageism in tech. This makes me a little scared. It's this exogenous thing that I can't control. I'm pretty sure skills-decay is at least as common as ageism. Skills have market prices. They change. This reminds me of a (PG?) essay that said essentially, if you're gonna call yourself a developer, don't call yourself an [X] developer, because you are not the language [X]. I suspect it's all the [X] developers out there who are seeing the most "ageism" But they what do I know, I'm in my 20s. [edit: typos]