Management error #1: "Move up the ladder into management, architecture, or design"

As long as management insist on perceiving themselves as superior to other people, and assuming that technical competence somehow implies management competence, there will always be a drain on the good technical guys. The reward and recognition structure strongly encourages them to change discipline. However, can anyone cite me a single source that justifies this position? I'm not sure that any company I've worked for, of any size, really got more value from its middle managers than from the senior technical people it keeps trying to turn into middle managers.

The assumption that architecture/design is more important than front-line coding is also dubious. A good architect/designer is worth their weight in gold on a large project (just like a good manager), and to be sure you probably need a fair bit of experience to be any good at all in that sort of role. But that just means the low end of the scale for that role is higher, it doesn't mean the high end of the scale for front-line coding jobs has to be lower. All the evidence I've ever seen still says an expensive, high-end front-line coder is disproportionately productive compared to a cheap, lower-end worker. You can have the best project management and the best design in the world, but if all the guys implementing it are chumps, your project is still going to suck.

Management error #2: "Even though you may be highly experienced and wise, employers aren’t willing or able to pay an experienced worker twice or thrice what an entry-level worker earns."

That's because they're dumb... Maybe because they got too many technical people to do their management instead of people who are actually knowledgeable about and good at management? Project costs scale disproportionately with team size/structure. Developer productivity scales disproportionately with experience. How is it that so many companies can't do the basic arithemtic required to see the implications?

Management error #3: "This means keeping up-to-date with the latest trends in computing, programming techniques, and languages, and adapting to change."

This is not an error in itself. On the contrary, IME most older developers who are genuinely interested in their field do keep up (and find it far easier to do so than their younger and less experienced colleagues, since the tech industry doesn't innovate nearly as fast as the PR guys would like to pretend: older guys have seen a lot of it before, and can quickly identify genuinely new things worthy of further exploration and put them in context).

However, the error is in drawing this sort of conclusion based on the statement above: "To be writing code for a living when you’re 50, you will need to be a rock-star developer and be able to out-code the new kids on the block."

Almost everyone who is keen enough to still be coding by that age will out-code the new kid with his trendy tools and methodologies in his sleep.

BTW, I'm not an "old guy" in programming terms, and there's no bitterness here. I'm just a guy who watches this sort of debate from the sidelines, wondering how so many supposedly smart management people can be so utterly, obviously, incredibily dumb for so long, and still not get it in 2010.