What Companies Get Wrong About Veteran Software Engineers

Last week, my friend and fellow MVP David McCarter (a.k.a. DotNetDave) published an article that every tech leader should read: “The Untapped Power of Veteran Engineers: Why Companies Are Overlooking Their Most Valuable Assets – Part 1.” And he didn’t hold back.

Drawing on his decades of experience, Dave made the case for why software engineers with 25+ years in the industry aren’t just relevant—they’re essential. These are the people who’ve seen it all, solved it all, and have the instincts and scars to prove it. They’re the ones who can walk into a room, hear a few sentences about a bug, and already have three ideas where the problem might be. They architect systems to last, not just to “work for now.” And they mentor younger developers in a way that no video tutorial or ChatGPT prompt ever could.

Dave put it plainly: companies aren’t just underutilizing these engineers—they’re actively ignoring them, often based on outdated biases about age, flexibility, or cost. He even quotes Monty Python and the Holy Grail: “I’m not dead yet!” It’s funny, but painfully accurate. The industry is so fixated on what’s new that it often misses what’s proven.

So let’s break this down—because the issue isn’t just philosophical. It’s financial. Strategic. Practical.

Most companies think they’re making a smart financial move by hiring junior or mid-level engineers over veterans. On paper, it seems like a no-brainer. Why pay $250,000 for a senior developer when you can get two—or even three—mid-levels for that price? But that logic falls apart quickly when you look at what actually happens on the ground. Veterans are not a cost problem. They’re a missed opportunity.

Let’s take a common scenario: a project that takes 6 months for a veteran to deliver. That same project might take 12 months with three mid-level engineers. Not only is the veteran faster, they’ll likely introduce fewer bugs, make smarter architectural decisions, and require less hand-holding. They’ll anticipate issues before they surface and design systems that won’t need to be re-architected when the business inevitably pivots.

So the veteran costs $125,000 for that six-month stretch. The three mid-levels? They come in around $180,000 combined. Already, the “expensive” hire looks like a bargain—and that’s before you factor in delays, bugs, technical debt, and the lost revenue from slower time-to-market. That’s before considering the opportunity cost of features that could have launched sooner or the engineering hours wasted on avoidable problems.

I’ve even put together a visual to drive this home, based on real-world team dynamics I’ve seen again and again:

But despite all this, companies often default to younger, cheaper hires. Why? Part of it is perception. There’s this enduring myth that younger developers are more adaptable, more innovative, more eager to prove themselves. Meanwhile, veterans are seen as rigid, set in their ways, or counting down the days to retirement.

It’s nonsense. The best veteran engineers are constantly learning—they just have a better filter for hype. They’ve seen technologies come and go. They know when to adopt something new and when to wait it out. That’s not stagnation. That’s discernment.

And let’s be honest—every company talks a big game about mentorship and team growth, but who’s actually doing the mentoring? It’s not the developer with two years under their belt and a thousand Stack Overflow tabs open. It’s the person who’s solved problems at scale, across tech waves, industries, and team structures.

This isn’t just theory. I’ve watched experienced engineers save projects from failure simply because they could spot a flawed pattern in a design doc, redirect a junior engineer on the right architectural decision, or avoid a costly error because they knew how to approach a vendor integration based on what worked (or failed) a decade ago. These aren’t hypothetical edge cases. They happen all the time, but they rarely show up on a cost analysis spreadsheet.

The truth is, we’re asking the wrong questions. Instead of “How much do they cost?” we should be asking, “What do we lose when they’re not here?” The industry talks a lot about cost efficiency, but seems to ignore the long-term costs of rework, rewrites, tech debt, and missed deadlines. That’s where the real money leaks out.

The misconceptions run deep, and they’re damaging. There’s the idea that veteran engineers don’t want to code anymore. That they’re behind on the latest trends. That they can’t keep up. But the reality is far more nuanced. Many of them love to code and are deeply engaged with new tools and practices—they just don’t chase fads. They prioritize stability and sustainability, which, if you’re running a business, is exactly what you should want.

I’ve laid out the most common misperceptions I hear all the time, and the realities that experienced hiring managers know to be true:

When you hire a veteran, you’re not just buying experience. You’re buying efficiency. Clarity. Stability. You’re getting someone who won’t panic under pressure, who knows how to navigate complex team dynamics, and who can translate between technical and business conversations without losing the plot.

And no—this doesn’t mean junior or mid-level devs aren’t valuable. They are. They bring fresh perspective, energy, and a hunger to learn. But when they’re the majority of your team, and they don’t have veterans to guide them, the learning curve is slower and the risk of missteps is higher. The best teams are built like good sports rosters: a mix of rising talent and seasoned pros who’ve been through the playoffs.

In short, experience isn’t expensive. Ignorance is.

If you’re in a hiring role, or if you’re building a team, think carefully about who you’re overlooking. That “overpriced” candidate might be the difference between shipping next quarter and circling the drain a year from now.

I’m looking forward to Dave’s follow-up article—Part 2 of this series—where he’ll explore why companies continue to miss the mark when it comes to veteran engineers. Something tells me he’s got more truth bombs to drop, and I’ll be reading with interest.

Because the real question isn’t, “Can we afford a veteran engineer?” It’s, “Can we afford not to have one?”