This is basically me.

I was in restaurant management in the late '90s, and knew it well, but loved computers and had been teaching myself programming for a while.

My last restaurant job was for a small franchisee, and I moved into IT and support for them after a couple of years (while also doing catering, covering vacations for managers, doing graphics on vehicles and banners, pretty much whatever needed to be done).

In 2001 I went to work for the company that sold us our POS Systems. Originally I did installation, training, and support, but started coding pretty quickly, and after a few years became lead.

I now own all of that software / IP, and my own company.

I've spent my entire career as a professor advocating that students should pick a minor, certificate, or double major if they're capable.

My rationale is remarkably similar I think. Literally ever field, hobby, and area of study involve some form of technology. Many of those disciplines lack the sophistication of the tooling and that we have in more programming related fields, which makes people with an additional specialized skill set extremely valuable.

Hell, look around at fintech, bioinformatics, computational arts, etc. We have emerging Fields all the time that are essentially computer science combined with another field.

Yep, the real money you make when being able to combine 2 different skills, because the amount of people having studied exactly this combination will always be a very small group. Coding and a learned trade is one of the rarer combinations - most coders (in my experience) acquire management or business skills to climb the corporate ladder.

Think there is a much higher immediate risk for new developers trying to get going in the market. So much management right now is pretty comfortable that new programmers with zero real world experience offers nothing the GenAI can't do under the supervision of a senior developer.

Problem is historically new developers weren't trusted to make any decisions if more senior employees were aware of such scenarios, so a new developer was pretty much verbatim implement guidance from more senior teams just deal with obvious rote tedium associated with getting it to code. Also the senior dev will have to fix all your screw ups when you inevitably botch it a few times. Awfully similar to the role GenAI can do now. So has to be some cultural shift to figure out how onboarding new generation developers looks.

Note I could be wrong about the middle paragraph, it's what the larger organization thinks, but I kind of got going by being 'senior' for lack of a company having options and moved from there. Similarly, I've never had success onboarding a junior that wouldn't take independent ownership. I'd get too frustrated at lack of growth and having to correct the same mistakes and be painfully specific, much like I do with GenAI. A new college hire that had his own vision and ability to take vague guidance and implement his vision, that I could work with, but it has happened once in a great while.