Less pay and new technology/skills or older technology/skills and higher rate?

[edison]

Working on my one line macro has kept me gainfully occupied for 18+ years. Why would I change?

That sounds like a quote that could have come straight from Simon Dolan at SJD back in the old days!

[ladymuck]

Working on my one line macro has kept me gainfully occupied for 18+ years. Why would I change?

[PCTNN]

Just a question, if you would choose to earn more money doing something which is deemed old and not relevant or would you prefer new tech/skills and less pay?

I normally go for new tech/skills and less pay, hence why I am usually always skint!

As with everything, it depends.

If the difference is not huge (say 500 per day VS 600 per day) and my warchest is in good shape, then I'd pick the new tech.

If the difference is much bigger (say 400 per day VS 600 per day) and my warchest needs replenished, then I'd pick money any day of the week.

[TheDude]

My first role in Financial Services was Ada on Open VMS.

It paid OK but I really should have picked up Java in my spare time. Early Java rates were great.

[edison]

In answer to my own thread, I have worked in banking were the tech was seriously old (VB6/ASP), 25yr old in fact. However the rate was good.

Unfortunately what it means is that once I finished, the world had moved on and I was struggling to land a contract as I didn't have the latest skills.

In this case, I had to take a less paid role in order to gain further skills which has now promoted me back up to a decent rate.

Think I will avoid the older tech from now on as it just ends up costing me more in the long run.

As part of developing skills, it's good to think of having a variety which can give options for different roles and even sectors. Only working in one sector with such old technology was always going to expose you to risks of being left behind and/or limiting contract options.

As Hobnob says, merely going for the next big thing like NFTs could expose you to choosing a technology where the demand may not materialise, hence again why having a few different skills can help.

[SchumiStars]

In answer to my own thread, I have worked in banking were the tech was seriously old (VB6/ASP), 25yr old in fact. However the rate was good.

Unfortunately what it means is that once I finished, the world had moved on and I was struggling to land a contract as I didn't have the latest skills.

In this case, I had to take a less paid role in order to gain further skills which has now promoted me back up to a decent rate.

Think I will avoid the older tech from now on as it just ends up costing me more in the long run.

[hobnob]

As others said, this depends. Partly on how much money is involved, and partly on what the skills are. I've found that a lot of recruitment agents will fixate on whatever came most recently on your CV, regardless of previous roles, so if you did one contract with COBOL then you'll get pigeon-holed as that (unless you're very vague about it).

I think there's also a difference between "new to me" (e.g. if I've worked with Azure and AWS but not with Google Cloud) vs "new to the world". If you take a low rate to be an early adopter of NFTs, and then the whole technology gets discredited, you'll lose out twice.

[sadkingbilly]

or an MVS(now Z/OS) systems engineer

[cojak]

Or you could be an old fart and cutting edge all at the same time!

Fortran 2023

[edison]

I take what's on offer, I'm not fussy, so long as the rates OK or if I need the money. Worked for the same client 4 years in the last 5, just finished 3 years straight but management cut the budget. I'm just waiting for finances to be in place, then I'm going back. Very old tech, with nobody looking after the systems, so it's down to me to fix (TA/BA), there's only 3 people in the UK that have worked on this system in the last 7 years. Money for old rope and all WFH.

Edit - also depends on role, age, etc. I'm just counting down to retirement, so dull but long contracts is fine by me.

What anonymouse says - it will probably depend on what stage of life you are at and how important maximising short term income is against longer term income/growth.

I'm not a techie but have usually prioritised improving skills over rate to a degree during 10 years of contracting. However there have been periods where I've found the market challenging and it was a case of beggars can't be choosers.

I did more or less the same role in my first four contracts but have become much more of a generalist in the last 5-6 years, partly as a result of doing senior leadership roles. Now I am a bit of a jack of all trades and usually flog my wares to the highest bidder!

I work with two mentoring organisations and have mentored many people in the industry with development guidance. I normally suggest that people keep learning and improving their skills and not just technical ones either.

[jmo21]

Getting exposure to new technologies is always my preferred option, but not if it means taking a role at £200 a day.

[anonymouse]

I take what's on offer, I'm not fussy, so long as the rates OK or if I need the money. Worked for the same client 4 years in the last 5, just finished 3 years straight but management cut the budget. I'm just waiting for finances to be in place, then I'm going back. Very old tech, with nobody looking after the systems, so it's down to me to fix (TA/BA), there's only 3 people in the UK that have worked on this system in the last 7 years. Money for old rope and all WFH.

Edit - also depends on role, age, etc. I'm just counting down to retirement, so dull but long contracts is fine by me.

[SchumiStars]

Just a question, if you would choose to earn more money doing something which is deemed old and not relevant or would you prefer new tech/skills and less pay?

I normally go for new tech/skills and less pay, hence why I am usually always skint!